Talk:Israeli settler violence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Maeve Connoly

Before reverting, take a second to consider that, without controversy, that source is just fucking incorrect. Consider the description of the purported source from the author's own web-site:

In The Place of Artists’ Cinema, Maeve Connolly identifies a recurrent concern with site, space and cinema architecture in film and video works by artists, extending from the late 1960s to the present day. Focusing on developments over the past decade, Connolly provides in-depth readings of selected recent works by twenty-four different artists including Carlos Amorales, Gerard Byrne, Jeremy Deller, Stan Douglas, Tacita Dean, Pierre Huyghe, Aernout Mik, Tobias Putrih and Anne Tallentire, ranging from multi-screen projections to site-specific installations and feature-length films.

It's obviously not on point. Next, give ten seconds of thought to the pages displayed on Google Books; in particular, the very first few. It's obvious to anyone with a grasp of basic English and basic critical thinking skills that the source I just removed could not have been correct, and that Google's information is in error.

Finally, I'm currently holding a physical copy of Maeve's book in my hands, and it doesn't contain that photograph, or anything even remotely resembling sourcing for that image's caption. So there.

BAM! 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note that inappropriate citations to living authors runs afoul of WP:BLP; as such, removing this source from the article is exempt from 1RR restrictions. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are holding the book. Good. Turn to page 108 and quote here the rest of the sentence that starts "Stunning in their...", then turn to page 109, look closely at photo of the same graffiti in this article, and quote the caption next to Figure 10. I am looking at it right now. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked into this, there is a PDF available of the book, the IP is correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Post the link. No, they aren't right. I am looking at the book right now. I can post the scanned pages. I have already put them on google docs. Let the IP answer the 2 questions first. They are very simple if they have the book in their hands. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, here is the link[1] to the PDF of the book. p108 has only a photo od some woman, 109 has no photos at all, nor does Hebron even appear in the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And here is the version on google books page 108, the graffiti is on page 109, and if you can't see those the google docs links are pages 108 and 109. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the scans, the material is where Sean says it is (shocker). nableezy - 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to have to tell you this but those scans are not reliable. However the PDF of the book is, and those pics are not on the given pages. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not; but the Google Books version is certainly reliable, and has a photo of this graffiti[2], explicitly ascribing this to settlers. Therefore, it would appear that the PDF (where is this posted?) is itself inaccurate.RolandR (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a picture wherein I am HOLDING THIS BOOK. Surely if the physical version and the Google Books version are not in agreement, the physical version is correct, right? (Also, RolandR, you forgot to sign that.) Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What does that photo prove? All it shows is a mirror image of the book's cover; that certainly does not disprove the Google Books version. RolandR (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That photo doesn't prove anything except that I've got a physical copy of the book I'm referencing. Now then, when I post pictures of pages 108 and 109, and they look nothing like the Google Books version, will you be convinced? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily; you could have a different edition. The Google Books page is quite clear, and I see no way in which this could have been manipulated, so I consider it reliable. If there appears to be a discrepancy, then this should be discussed at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the reliability of the source; I'm challenging whether the source actually says what the citation claims the source says. RS/N isn't appropriate. Are you saying that Google Books must be infallible? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I consider Google Books to be reliable. If you disagree with its reliability for the edit and citation, then this is clearly a matter for RSN. RolandR (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Google Books isn't a source, any more than "the library" is a source. Much like libraries, Google Books contains sources. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(od) Because pages 108 and 109 aren't number in Maeve's real book, I've created a photo-essay where I'm flipping the pages from 106 to 109, demonstrating that the content displayed on Google Books is inaccurate. Here's part one: File:Maeve's Book Page Flipping Pt 1.jpg. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's part two! File:Maeve's Book Page Flipping Pt 2.jpg. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Part three: File:Maeve's Book Page Flipping Pt 3.jpg. The citation is clearly incorrect. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you have a different edition. nableezy - 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Marvelous. If one looks at Google books scan cover page, it is appears to be Streets of Crocodiles - Photography, Media, and Postsocialist landscape in Poland. Hardly Maeve Connoly. Here is the book's Amazon link. Interestingly the book does talk about Łódź at page 107, but page 108 jumps mid-sentence to Hebron. It appears from layout, style and content that pages 108 & 109 are from unidentified source, and not from Streets of Crocodiles. page 110 is back in postsocialist landscape of Poland. So someone totally screwed up in Google books project. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Odder and odder: if you look at the WorldCat entry for Streets of Crocodiles, it displays the cover of The Place of Artists Cinema.[3] So there seems to be some confusion between the books, which is not of Google's making. RolandR (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there does appear to be something odd going on at google books, at least in terms of the "about this book" parent record for the pages, but the information of interest to us from a WP:V compliance perspective, appears to have been published in Streets of Crocodiles (pp 95-109), from the essay "New Europe: Eyes Wide Shut" by Katarzyna Marciniak in the final section "Coda: Landscapes of hate". The essay was also published in Social Identities, Volume 12, Number 5, September 2006 , pp. 615-633(19)link (doi). I don't think the statement "It appears from layout, style and content that pages 108 & 109 are from unidentified source, and not from Streets of Crocodiles." is consistent with the evidence. As you can see from the text on page 109 it refers back to Figure 2 in the same essay by saying "'Gas the Arabs' in the West Bank (Figure 10), evoking 'Jews to Gas' in Lodz (Figure 2)". And there is certainly no "jump mid-sentence to Hebron", sentences continue consistently from page to page and there isn't a change in layout. In fact, bar a few pages, I can see Marciniak's entire essay/chapter. Try the following google uk link for the beginning of the essay[4]. The citation issues can be resolved but the disruptive trolling IP and their socks is not going to be part of that process. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Im restoring this with the ingentaconnect link. Thanks Sean. nableezy - 22:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a fucking moment here, Sean says above he has this book and the IP is wrong. But the IP was right and Sean was obviously dishonest. In fact Sean says he had the book in front of him, I now have the PDF of said book, and it says fuck all of the sort for which it was being cited. Does this not fall under the sanctions within this topic area? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Sean says above he has this book"...no, I didn't, the IP said that. I said "I am looking at it right now." I was, in google books. "Sean was obviously dishonest" is a very stupid thing to say. If there is one person in the topic area you can rely on for 100% honesty it is me. It is a matter of principal and I donate much of my time ensuring that dishonest editors have their editing privileges removed because dishonesty ruins everything here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that what you guys are seeing are multiple versions of the work. It isn't so unusual. Actually it is common. Zero^talk 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's about different editions. I think it's more likely that it's just google books messing up the parent record of the scanned pages. What I see is page 108, the graffiti is on page 109 (google docs links page 108 and 109). The parent record/about this book info says it's The Place of Artists' Cinema: Space, Site and Screen by Maeve Connolly but it's clear from the first page and last page of the scans that it is actually Streets of Crocodiles. Same publisher, Intellect Ltd it seems. Something has gone wrong at google but it makes no difference to the WP:V compliance issue. As long as the citation reflects the correct book rather than the incorrect parent record's details it's fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Im going to the library sometime this weekend to look at Streets of Crocodiles, if it contains the material gbooks does I will be adding that source, unless somebody else beats me to it. Thanks again Sean. nableezy - 15:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The closest library to me that has the book is a couple of hours away. I wont be able to do this for a while, so if somebody else can verify that the book Streets of crocodiles : photography, media, and postsocialist landscapes in Poland includes the contested material that would be appreciated. nableezy - 20:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can search the book on Amazon "Gas the arabs" is on p109. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So you accept that the source contains the material? Ill wait for a yes before restoring it with the correct citation. nableezy - 20:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm, yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

done. nableezy - 16:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Title

Since the lead acknowledges that most West Bank settlers are "law abiding" and "non-violent" and that the violence is perpetrated by fringe extremists, surely, a more neutral article title would be Israeli settler extremist violence, which accurately describes this phenomena? Ankh.Morpork 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"law abiding" is a quote of an Israeli military commander, it is not something that has been acknowledged in the Wiki voice. In any case "settler violence" is the common name. This is the term used in countless RS e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify:

A) Which term do you think more accurately describes this phenomena?

B) If most sources referred to this as Settler violence, whether you would support such a name change? Ankh.Morpork 10:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A)I think "Israeli Settler Violence" is the most accurate term to describe the phenomena.

B)"Israeli Settler Violence" is supported by multiple RS. E.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by".

A) Do you have any RS to support your proposed title?

B) Do you have any RS to support your assertion that the current title is non-neutral, or is it just your own personal (unsupported) opinion as an editor? (Personally I find it hard to accept that it is not neutral when it is used by multiple RS across the political spectrum, and is used by Israeli, Palestinian, Arab and Western sources.) Dlv999 (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. Were most sources to refer to this as Settler violence, would you would support such a name change? And please explain why you consider Israeli Settler Violence more accurate than Israeli settler extremist violence Ankh.Morpork 12:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

'NEW IDEA' If the opposing Palestinian article is called "Palestinian Political Violence" than in the name of balance, perhaps we should change this article to "Israeli Settler Political Violence"SimplesC (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 18:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please elaborate SimplesC (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that isnt what the sources call it, no that isnt "balancing" (the article youre looking for is Zionist political violence), and no this violence isnt even primarily political. So no, this title wont be changed to political violence. That enough of an elaboration? nableezy - 20:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Because of the subject of the article, its content wil be negative by nature. You can only neutralize it by approving the violence! Only specific parts should be challenged, not the article as a whole.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians quadruple, says UN". update?

This source provides an update. Anyone who wants to update the wikipedia article? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-settler-attacks-on-palestinians-quadruple-says-un-9062456.html Chewing tinfoil (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Drop (according to...)

I have changed the sentence to "While settlements are illegal according to international law, most West Bank settlers are law abiding citizens (according to a Israeli Defense Minister)".

I believe this addition make the attribution to IDM (or prior, senior officer) unnecessary. Like most people elsewhere, most settlers aren't rapist or murderers and the first part make it NPOV as it clears that it doesn't cover int'l law. Ashtul (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

scrap that. I've introduced a new source from RS that state it as fact thus attribution is unnecessary. Ashtul (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to this topic

It is proposed to rename Jewish insurgency in Palestine → Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

Please discuss it on Jewish insurgency in Palestine talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Wehrbauer

I added

• Wehrbauer

to the "See Also" section. It was vaporized within seconds.

Does anyone think that this and related concepts are relevant, as an ironically analogous situation in important respects? There are definite parallels, so I think it deserves to be there, but I suspect there might be some controversy over this.

In full disclosure— the way I see it, the Nazis are authoritarian and hateful, the Jews are awesome (where would we be without Einstein and Mister Spock?), and the Israeli government is thoroughly authoritarian, and possibly also corrupted by it's own power. Climate in control and peace on Earth, y'all... before it gets rid of us. Kaecyy (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Christian graffiti

The sources does not identify who was responsible for this - why does it belong in this article? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Price tagging is done in support of settlers...whether done BY settlers or by an "activist" it is still relevant as it is done in their name in with their support. The reference is accurate and stands.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The graffiti was not identified as a price tagging operation...and you are not allowed to edit here. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research

Editors may not add their personal commentary , using articles from sources that describe how terrorists' homes are demolished, to lament the fact that the same tactic is not used against violent settlers. That is WP:OR, and is not allowed. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the majority here find the fact that Jewish terrorists' homes are not targeted is in fact indicative of a tacit collusion with the IDF and Israeli government. Therefore it is relevant. You don't get to make any arbitrary proclamations here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What the majority here find is not really relevant. This encyclopedia is created by referring to material published by reliable sources, that directly address the article's topic. I get to remove any material not backed up by such sources. Them's the rules: WP:V : "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed " When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the majority opinion is relevant as articles are built on consensus. You can of course choose to edit unilaterally, but as you have seen your edits will be undone and you will be called-out/disciplined accordingly. Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not synonymous with majority, and consensus is built on top of Wikipedia policy. I've quoted the policy to you. Per teh recent ARbCom ruling ([23]), you need to leave this topic area now. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

you need to relax, take a deep breath and remember you have absolutely no authority here whatsoever. Telling someone to leave simply because you disagree is a sign of unbalanced behavior and is not at all what Wikipedia is intended for. Once again, you do not get to make any unilateral decisions.Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not me telling you to leave, it is ArbCom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition . Proceed at your own risk. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Two sources that YOU deleted in this edit, namely this one and this one, make that point explicitly. The first one has it even in the url. So why did your edit summary claim "none of the sources connect these issues"? Zero^talk 07:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are three sources deleted in that edit. The first one does not mention settler violence - yet you reinserted it - why did you do so? The second one, which is the only one that makes the connection, is an opinion piece. It cant be used to state facts , unattributed, as you just did - yet another violation of wikipedia policy. You can;t seem to edit in a NPOV manner that complies with policy in this topic area, and should leave it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So you don't even deny your deception. And you continue to misrepresent the third source. If you can't see past the paywall, you should say so. If you can, you should read what is there:

And what about the fact that house demolitions, much like many others punitive measures, are reserved solely for the families of Palestinian terrorists? The homes of the Israeli terrorists who burned the Palestinian boy Mohammed Abu Khdeir remain intact. The houses of the Palestinian terrorists who killed the three Jewish boys in West Bank a month earlier, however, do not. The houses of Jewish terrorists, from the Jewish Underground onwards, were not touched either. In those cases, it was deemed cruel to punish innocent family members for a crime they didn’t commit. The thing is, selective justice is not justice - it’s vengeance. [24]

As for your silly attempt at comeback, the first source is attached to the text "it has become a standard operating procedure in Israel to bulldoze the homes of terrorists and their families" which it supports perfectly well. Zero^talk 06:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Di I accuse you of "deception" when you re-entered a source that doesn't tie settler violence to home demolition? Do I accuse you of dishonest editing when you agin claim, above, that, it is appropriate to add this source, despite knowing full well it is WP:SYNTH which is not allowed? Learn to edit in a collaborative manner, if you can, and overcome you one-sideeness, if you can. If youcan't t , please leave this topic area. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

None of this matches the facts. Zero^talk 07:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It matches the facts perfectly. You have just restored a link (the Jpost one) which does not mention settler violence at all, nor makes the comparison between their treatment and the home demolition of terrorists. This is a misuse of sources, called WP:SYNTH, When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think someone should start listing these revert warriors' edits and their false edit summaries, in tagteam suppression of legitimate sources, for AE examination. It's getting far too obvious, what is going on.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is past ridiculous. Zero^talk 06:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I take it neither of you have any objections to your buddy User:RolandR blind reverting to re-introduce a duplicate sentence into the article? You don't care one whit about article quality , so long as the "right POV" is prevalent. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

'your buddy'. Sigh. Just one more slip of the pen redolent of an old banned editor.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nidhidani: hey...this guy is seriously crossing the line again. He is deliberately reverting/undoing all edits that he doesn't like and putting baseless reasons why. If you want to bring a resource in to get him taken care of I will definitely support it.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason I am undoing your edits was explained to you - you are not allowed to edit her, per this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The prohibition is for "all anonymous IP editors and accounts with less 500 edits and 30 days tenure" not "500 edits OR 30 days tenure". Both the criteria of less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure needs to be met for the prohibition to apply, as that editor has been active since 13 November 2013, this prohibition doesn't apply to them. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, as has been explained to you by an administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATanbircdq&type=revision&diff=692561061&oldid=692560812 . Please undo your edit. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should they undue their edit? They have not broken 1RR by this revert.--TMCk (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

because they made it using a false rationale? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I would assume they also agreed at least in part with the edit when reverting you.--TMCk (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They didn't address any of the points I raised when I explained why I deleted those items. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean the point in your edit summary "you are not allowed to edit here"?--TMCk (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

no, the points made in the edit summaries, and in the section below - that none of the sources used actually support the material - the attacks were not by settlers, and no sources has the "increase since 2012 " remark. As it stands, User:Tanbircdq has twice re- inserted edits made by an editor not allowed to edit here, used two false edit summaries to justify them and has taken ownership of edits that violates the WP:NOR policy without participating in the discussion When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith as you just did is not a good step (forward).--TMCk (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything, just describing what was done.When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits and I am of the opinion that they're valid from the sources provided with the exception of one section which I can see is still in discussion below. I think that regardless of an editor being barred from an article or not, to continually revert an editors good-faith edits wholesale over content dispute by using the prohibition as a pretext is misusing this prohibition, unless the edits themselves are actually disruptive (which they don't appear to be), as you also did here on Israeli settlement which RolandR reverted back. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your last revert, done just before you posted the above, brings the article to essentially the same state it was in after my reverts, so you seem to agree with me , and not with the user who is not allowed to edit here. As you note, there is still one item that is under debate- you could perhaps post your position in it, below. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

References needed

WP:V is quite clear: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.". Don;t send me off to read some unspecified reference out of 5 references somewhere else in the article - provide the specific reference you think supports the material that has been challenged, next to the tag I provided. That is policy. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement that there have been attacks on churches inside the state of Israel is supported by five references, which were added by the original editor at the time that this statement was included in the article. Of these five, four explicitly mention attacks in Israel; I have not been able to access the fifth. It is neither necessary, nor desirable, to add a reference to every word in a paragraph when the clear references support more than one sentence. Your continued edit-warring to remove any suggestion of the clearly attested attacks within the Green Line is becoming vexatious. RolandR (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a statement that attributes these attacks to the rise of right wing governments. Please provide a reference that directly supports that statement. BtW, this article is about settler violence not about attacks within Israel. perhaps your difficulty in sourcing the statement lies in your misreading of this article's topic.When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is the problem with drive-by tagging; you did not point out what part of the text you were challenging, so I naturally assumed you were referring to the assertion where you placed the tag. Nevertheless, at least two of the sources cited explicitly attribute these attacks to the rise of the right within Israel. I can't be bothered to check the others, since it is obvious that you are not interested in the evidence, even when it is put before you in black and white. RolandR (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's a problem with the blind deletionism you practice as part of your WP:HOUNDING of me. I placed the {{cn}} tag right next to the statement I wanted refeenced - all you had to do was, you know, read what i tagged rather than blindly reverting. Now that we have got that cleared - please source the specific statement with a specific reference. , minding the article's subject - violence by settlers. This is policy ,and you are required to follow it. If you can't be bothered to check, this statement will be removed. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israeli settler violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204104500/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_report_2014_11_22_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_report_2014_11_22_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead doesn't need repeat lines

User [25] keeps reverting to a version of the article with the lead as such:

The second line of the lead reads: "Although the majority of settlers do not engage in violence,[3] there has been a rise in violent acts by extremists against Palestinians, non-Jews, Israel Police, and IDF troops in the early twenty-first century.[4]"

The last line of the lead reads: "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent but some within the Israeli government acknowledge a growing problem with extremists.[13]"

The two lines clearly convey the same message, but the first is more precisely written with more sources.

Alexandre8 did not justify his multiple revisions except with a bad faith attack on my revision reasoning. His edits are disruptive, and he has disruptively edited other pages in this fashion as well.

--Shadybabs (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)