Talk:Modi'in Illit/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Country: Israel"

How does one remove the "Israel" tag from the municipality bar? Not even Israel considers this settlement to be inside its borders.--Dailycare (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of trying to do that, why not focus on stopping inserting unsourced POV into the article. I have reverted you again. To answer your question though, you simply don't. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, why don't you read the Wikipedia policy on POV, and while you're at it look up "unsourced" as well. Since neither POV nor unsourced are true concerning the sentence in question, what's your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailycare (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV is very simple. If you write something that represents only one point of view, it's POV. The assertion that settlements are illegal in international law is the Palestinian/left-wing position, therefore POV.
2. Your statements are still unsourced. The first source, the UN resolution, does not equal international law (not legally binding), and even if it was, it was written over 10 years before Modi'in Illit was founded. Moreover, the UN is not a NPOV body and not a reliable secondary source (please read WP:RS). The second source is an Advisory Opinion, not a court ruling, and also it doesn't say any of the things you claim it says. It's actually talking about the construction of settlements especially in border areas in the 70s, not referring to Modi'in Illit anywhere. Moreover ICJ is also not a reliable secondary source for facts. The other sources are simply fringe unreliable sources. Please introduce reliable sources.
3. Finally, the statement of legality in the lead is not relevant when talking about settlements in general. There are dozens of settlements, of which Modi'in Illit is one. If you find a reliable source specific to Modi'in Illit, feel free to post it.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The illegality of the settlements is overwhelmingly accepted. See for example this recent BBC article: "All settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8169857.stm and also Israeli_settlement#The_international_consensus_on_the_legality_of_Israeli_settlements. Therefore denying the illegality, or not mentioning the illegality, is POV. Claiming that the UN or ICJ would be unreliable sources doesn't help your case, and similarly the advisory nature of the ICJ ruling (or debatable Ch. VI nature of a UNSC resolution) doesn't affect the pertinence of the legal analysis contained therein.

Summa summarum, we have sourcing for the fact that all the settlements are illegal (as background), and we have sourcing also stating that Modi'in Illit in particular is illegal. There are other claims in the article with much less sourcing, why not challenge them? --Dailycare (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DC, please bring reliable references specifically mentioning how Modiin Illit is illegal, not some general claim or fleeting mention. For the general discussion, WP is using the Israel settlement page which Modiin Illit is labelled and linked to. --Shuki (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I added yet another source to the sentence in question. Maybe now we should turn our attention to the claim in the sidebar that this settlement would be in Israel? Since this is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary proof. So far I don't see that. --Dailycare (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source which confirmed the city status change. As for the Country 'Israel' issue, you should take this to Israel settlement where it might get more attention. The locality is undoubtedly Israeli, and under full Israeli sovereignty. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shuki, thank you very much for rewording the POV claim. What remains is to move it out of the lead section, where it doesn't belong because it does not summarize any part of the article. I suggest renaming the "terrorist attack" section to a general I–P section which would include details about the beef that B'Tselem has with Shamni's decision. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's undoubtedly in Israel, then you should have no problems finding good sources to back that up. By the way, you incorrectly re-worded the statement, since the appeal and illegality of the settlement itself are quite separate issues. I agree with Ynhockey that the appeal probably doesn't belong in the lead section. I'll re-insert the statement on illegality with slightly revised sources. --Dailycare (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dailycare, please stop adding things against consensus. You have not addressed any of the concerns raised above about your sources and what they do and should say. Please do this before re-inserting the controversial statements. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Which part of your concerns did I not, in your opinion, address in my comment timestamped 14:48, 30 July 2009? The comment is not controversial or POV, sources are (at least now) there, and there are many things about the settlements that occur on each settlement page, for example the "in Israel" issue. --Dailycare (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First, that none of your sources discuss Modi'in Illit, and the only reasonably credible one (ICJ) is from long before the settlement was even founded.

Second, that the legal status of settlements in general is irrelevant to this article.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the B'tselem document, NY Times article, Guardian article and Canadian document all describe Modi'in Illit in particular as illegal, and the ICJ ruling is from 2004, which is after the founding of the settlement. Secondly, the legal status of this particular settlement is very relevant to this particular page. --Dailycare (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again you are misinterpreting sources, or using unreliable ones. B'Tselem's opinion should not be stated as fact, and the NY Times article clearly states that "opponents" question the legality of the settlement. The only source that actually claims what you do is The Guardian, which is one source out of many and contradicts the NY Times article, which strongly reinforces that notion that such information does not belong in the lead. If you want to include such information, make a new section and include all viewpoints (see WP:NPOV). The lead section isn't a platform for B'Tselem's opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can show here, that all the sources and the sentence I wrote are in agreement:

Sentence in question: "is considered to be illegal". Meeting this wording doesn't require that everyone considers it illegal, however if this wasn't the consensus view saying only so would be undue weight.

B'Tselem: "The settlements that Israel established in the West Bank are illegal because they breach the Fourth Geneva Convention (...) The vast majority of jurists in Israel and abroad hold the opinion that the Fourth Geneva Convention (...) prohibits the establishment of settlements. (...) It is important to note that the breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention in building the settlements is an ongoing breach. (...) one of the primary potential effects of the change in status of Modi'in Illit to a municipality is that its population will increase; for this reason, changing the status is illegal."

NYT: "opponents say the settlements violate international law" The "opponents" are obviously the "vast majority of jurists" Since NYT is a US publication and specifically NYT, one expects them to word their article in a slightly more "blue-white" way.

Guardian: "(...) Jewish settlements, including the vast, ultra-Orthodox settlement of Modiin Illit, even though all settlements on occupied land are illegal". The Canadian document has similar language.

As can be seen, all the sources support the text "is considered to be illegal". If we find reliable sources specifically stating that Modi'in Illit is not illegal, then we can of course add a short mention of them, taking into account the balance between "vast majority" and those other views. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. The word "considered to be" does mean that it is fairly universally accepted, especially in this context. Moreover, your take on the NYTimes article is not relevant. What it says is that opponents say that the settlement is illegal. B'Tselem is of course irrelevant because it's not a reliable source, although you can qualify its opinion if you wish. Again, only The Guardian supports your statement, and this is not good enough to state it as fact if even the NYTimes contradicts it. I already started a section on the legal dispute, so feel free to add to it, according to Wikipedia policies. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact "fairly universally accepted" is exactly what the sources say ("vast majority", "overwhelming view"). My comment on NYT is as relevant as your take on B'Tselem, and again NYT does not contradict Guardian: if something is illegal, then people opposing it will call it illegal. Here is a further source (BBC) which states it's standard line "The settlements are illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this", and the source mentions Modi'in Illit as one of the illegal settlements in question: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6669545.stm. In fact any one of the 5 sources alone would be sufficient to support the sentence in question, although you could have an argument concerning the editorial level of the Canadian document. If you have sources on legal disputes, you can discuss them in the section you've created, I agree that the municipality-status issue looks like a legal dispute however it's quite distinct from the legal status of the settlement in itself. --Dailycare (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you have no further comments, so I'm adding the wording to the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are mere boilerplate text. 'We all know' that all settlements are illegal, right? I would like you to find us a specific proof that Modiin Illit (or other settlements) is illegally built on someone else's land. Claims about stolen land might be legitimate if referenced to RS, but please stop with the general claims. If you have an issue on this, please take it up at Israel settlement. --Shuki (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in boilerplate text, if it accurately describes the subject of the article. The text in question is a short, descriptive, multiply attested statement that completes the lead section. That we all know the settlements are illegal only underscores how non-controversial the statement is. In fact that is now the best-supported statement in the article, so I'd be OK if we remove everything else and leave in just "Modi'in Illit is an illegal Israeli settlement built in the occupied West Bank". --Dailycare (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither you nor Tiamut have addressed the simple point that the New York Times contradicts some of your other sources, and clearly states that only opponents consider settlements illegal. Moreover, you have not addressed the fact that some of your sources were created before Modi'in Illit existed. Please address these concerns first. Finally, please address the synthesis that you're making—none of the sources you provided actually state that Modi'in Illit is illegal, except the one The Guardian source you provided earlier. I hope you will stop engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and address these points. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the text to basically address all of the points I raised at least 3 times and no one else addressed. Please don't re-add irrelevant sources without discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The NYT article does not say that only opponents call the settlement illegal. I'll slightly modify the wording, hopefully this unnecessarily protracted discussion is now over. --Dailycare (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

DC, thank you for letting us know your true intentions. At this rate, sooner than I expected, it'll be obvious which user you are sockpuppetting. --Shuki (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like another user beat me to the task of modifying the language broadly along the lines I was intending to. Shuki, frankly you've slightly lost me there, if you have something important to say you'll have to phrase it using simpler language. --Dailycare (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I missed some edit that again wrote something that contradicted the source. Make no mistake: there is no consensus, and likely won't be, to include something that directly contradicts the source provided. It clearly says that opponents make this claim, which is as NPOV as it gets. Also stop adding "like other settlements", which are irrelevant here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DC, The last two edits are problematic. Taking some claim from Btselem and adding it to a sentence previously attributed to the NYT and Guardian is misleading. Each claim should have it's own reference. --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Shuki, exactly how is it misleading, in other words: which incorrect conclusion does it infer? I'm OK also with keeping the "vast majority" and dropping "opponents" since that's neutral. "Opponents" alone is misleading, since it fails to convey that illegality is the consensus view. --Dailycare (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dailycare, Wikipedia works by reporting what secondary sources say, and not reporting editors' own conclusions. What you are doing is WP:SYNTH; you are taking one source (Guardian) that says that Modi'in Illit is illegal, and another saying that opponents say it's illegal (NYTimes), and merging them to say that Modi'in Illit is illegal. In fact, from these two sources we can learn the opposite—The Guardian contradicts NYTimes, but NYTimes does not contradict The Guardian. In other words, saying "Opponents say that ..." contradicts neither source, while stating this opinion as fact does contradict NYTimes, which specifically says that only opponents claim that the settlement is illegal. Please stop inserting your own conclusions into sources to come out with a highly POV version. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Side note: I have informed another editor, who involved herself in the dispute perhaps involuntarily (on Ma'ale Adumim) of this discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making 5 points there: 1) I'm synthesizing, 2) I'm entering "Modi'in Illit is illegal" in the text, 3) Guardian and NYT aren't in agreement, 4) NYT states that only opponents call the settlements illegal,and finally 5) the text proposed is POV. I'll go through these in order:

1) This doesn't relate to what the text says. Consider this: "Opponents consider X illegal. The vast majority of experts are opponents". This has the same meaning as "Opponents, which comprise the vast majority, consider X illegal". No new meaning or inference is created when combining the two sentences, thus it is not WP:SYNTH.

2) I'm not entering "is illegal", but "is considered to be illegal". See my comment timestamped 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

3) I've addressed this point in my comments timestamped 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC) and 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

4) I've addressed this point in my comment timestamped 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

5) Entering what the vast majority of jurists say is inherently not POV, it's neutral and honest.

Having said all that, I'm open to your suggestions on how to convey that illegality is the majority view. --Dailycare (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are under some false impression that every source considers Modi'in Illit illegal. So far you have only provided one, which is The Guardian, not exactly the beacon of neutrality. All other sources you provided which supposedly say this are boilerplate, do not mention Modi'in Illit, and are irrelevant. I will respond to all of your points:

1. Who said that any expert, let alone "the majority", said that Modi'in Illit was illegal? Do you have a source?
2. "is illegal" and "is considered to be illegal" is the same thing. I'd appreciate learning the difference, but in your previous comment you simply said something that was blatantly false.
3. Your argument in that comment makes no sense, I am sorry to say. You are basically saying that if something is illegal, then it makes sense for a publication like the NYTimes to say that only opponents say it's illegal. This has to do not with the content dispute, but actually reading comprehension. Obviously the New York Times does say that only opponents say that it's illegal, otherwise it wouldn't use the word opponents.
4. See point #3.
5. Who is the "vast majority of jurists"? So far you have provided zero sources to indicate that even one jurist considers Modi'in Illit illegal. The boilerplate sources that were written before the city was even founded are, again, irrelevant to this article and any other individual settlement article for that matter. You might wish to look at this, which already has all the information on the overall legality of settlements.

The problem with your arguments is that you're making the argument with the basic assumption (i.e. point of view) that all settlements are illegal (judging by all your posts above), and arguing as if this is a given fact. This is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV, which I invite you to review. We do not make assumptions that aren't clear from the sources provided. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

0) As you've seen, I've provided 5 sources, not only one. Sources aren't "irrelevant" just because they denounce war crimes.

1) For example the B'Tselem document says "vast majority", is relevant and mentions specifically Modi'in Illit.

2) "Is illegal" is categorical. "Is considered to be illegal" isn't, since it leaves open who considers, and if the view is correct or no. Which comment are you referring to by "blatantly false"?

3&4) This is indeed about reading comprehension. NYT states that opponents say it's illegal. This leaves open that at least some supporters may also consider it illegal, but not say it aloud. To meet "considered to be illegal" it's in fact sufficient that opponents consider it illegal. NYT is a pro-Israel publication, so they want to convey any criticism softly.

5) See 1): B'Tselem states that the vast majority of jurists is of the opinion that all settlements are illegal, and the B'Tselem document then makes the connection that Modi'in Illit is one of these settlements.

Again, I'm inviting you to provide a suggestion on how to include an indication of the majority view. One way would be to say simply that "Modi'in illit is a settlement in the occupied West Bank. The vast majority of jurists considers such settlements to be illegal", although this is clumsier than the wording I last entered. --Dailycare (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dailycare, as a new editor, you may not be familiar with our policy on reliable sources. B'Tselem is not a reliable source. The New York Times is. Nobody cares if some people believe that a certain publication is "pro-Israel". I can point to you thousands of people who believe that both The Guardian and BBC are anti-Israel. That's irrelevant. You may also wish to review a very important guideline called Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, which includes "considered to be". It should be stated specifically who considers this, and the New York Times did—opponents. Please drop your personal assumptions and soapboxing about the legality of settlements, and concentrate on procuring reliable sources that support your assertions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For the third time, I invite you to give a suggestion on how to include an indication of the majority view. You didn't give me your opinion on this wording: "Modi'in illit is a settlement in the occupied West Bank. The vast majority of jurists considers such settlements to be illegal". B'Tselem is a respected NGO along the lines of Amnesty or HRW, in other words RS. As another point, we have 5 sources of which you concentrate on the one which paints the settlement in the least negative light, which is an indication of bias. We should include in the article what the balance of opinion is, not solely the most extreme view. "Opponents call it illegal" (NYT) is as well sourced as "the settlement is illegal" (Guardian). What I'm proposing is from the middle, i.e. neutral along the B'Tselem doc: the vast majority of jurists considers the settlement illegal. --Dailycare (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that B'Tselem is an RS is completely misunderstanding WP:RS, which I encourage you to read. I also encourage you, for the upteenth time, to provide even a single reliable source saying that the majority view is that Modi'in Illit (not "settlements") is illegal under international law. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-read WP:RS just now, and it states that sources must be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." B'Tselem is a respected (like the "R" in "RS") human-rights organization specializing in the Occupied Territories, and is already used as a source in several Wikipedia articles.

As a sidenote, we're now having this discussion on the basis that the source would have to say that Modi'in Illit is considered to be illegal (which is OK, since that's what the sources say). However for example the text I've now twice asked your opinion on doesn't need that sourcing, since it makes two statements: Modi'in Illit is in the WB, and settlements in the WB are considered (by the vast majority/"overwhelming view") to be illegal. I'm sure you agree with me that both of these statements have ample support and juxtaposing them is not WP:SYNTH since no new conclusion or inference is made.

As a second sidenote, you failed to address my point on choosing the incorrect one of five sources.

Summing up, I'm OK with any of the following wordings: "is illegal", "is considered to be illegal", "is considered by the international community to be illegal", "is considered by the vast majority of jurists to be illegal", "opponents, comprising the vast majority of jurists, consider it to be illegal" and "Modi'in illit is a settlement in the occupied West Bank. The vast majority of jurists considers such settlements to be illegal". (The "international community" version is sourced from Peace Now, http://peacenow.org/entries/archive6313) --Dailycare (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

B'Tselem is not a reliable source in any way. It's a primary self-published source, and its work was never taken as fact by any reliable third-party secondary source. Even The Guardian qualifies B'Tselem's opinions as those of B'Tselem. It is also not an expert on the subject—expertise has a very clear academic definition, and I didn't see B'Tselem get academic credentials for its work.

About your other point: it is indeed WP:SYNTH. You are basically merging separate claims: that all settlements are illegal (not even a clear RS for this, the closest that comes is ICJ, which offered and advisory opinion which you provided) and that Modi'in Illit is a settlement, therefore Modi'in Illit is illegal. There are several flaws in that. Basically the political and legal situation changes constantly, and is very different between 1980, 1994 and 2009. Moreover, the legality of settlements has a lot to do with what land they were built on (state land or private land), so they must be examined on a case by case basis. Boilerplate assumptions are not only against WP:SYNTH, but also against WP:NPOV. It's called poisoning the well.

Anyway, this argument is pointless unless you provide new materials which support your point of view. I have already gone out of my way to make a compromise, by including the "Legality dispute" section, which, given the questionable sources currently used, shouldn't even be there. On the other hand, all of your proposals are clear policy violations. I'm also thinking about actually improving this article, and fully expect you to try to do the same. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This argument is indeed pointless, but only because Ynhockey seems to find a reason to sidestep what the sources actually say. It is not SYNTH to say that "Modi'in Illit is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank" and that "West Bank settlements are generally considered to be illegal". Both these statements are true. Juxtaposing them against one another is how we write articles.

Anyway, this article also discusses the problem of illegal construction in Moddin Illit specifically with regard to Israeli domestic laws. Daily Care, you might find it to be of some use in improving the article. Good luck. Tiamut^talk 12:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

B'Tselem is not non-respectable on the say-so of Ynhockey, and Guardian as a good newspaper attributes its sources and would do the same when using Amnesty International. Concerning the legal situation (4th Geneva Convention), it is not unclear at all, has not changed at all since 1967, and does not depend on what kind of land settlements are built on (that's only relevant for Israel's own laws, although by proper construction also the 4GC is Israeli law). As this addresses the "flaws" he brings up, I'll modify the article along the lines I and Tiamut suggested once I get back to my desk. This article appears to have other issues as well, which I'll also work on to improve. --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: I guess you don't write articles in the same way I do. But you make false assumptions just like Dailycare about the legality of settlements. About the article you provided: interesting. Do you have a link to the original? We can't use APJP as a source in the article, and the article isn't even theirs. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I don't think I need to link to the original since the information can be verified by perusing the Haaretz archives. Sources cited do not nhave to exist in virtual form to be acceptable.

I don't think I've made any false assumptions. My view tends to correlate with that of most of the international community that the settlements are illegal. (Though I'm not for their dismantlement by the way. I just think they should stop being apartheid zones and be open to settlement by Palestinians too.) Tiamut^talk 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to making the edit we've been discussing, it's worded closely after the BBC source and I've included an UNGA vote to quantify just how widely the opinion of illegality is held. I stress once more that I'm not making assumptions but using sources: "widely accepted", "overwhelming view" and "171-6" are from the cited docs and they're pretty clear to a mind willing to understand. Cheers and good night, --Dailycare (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dailycare! I again ask to please refrain changing the article (except non-controversial improvements) without attaining consensus here first. Same goes for the related Ma'ale Adumim article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored that it's regarded as illegal. [1] This issue shouldn't be re-fought on every talk page. It was decided years ago that WP must reflect the preponderance of reliable sources that certain parts of the area are "occupied," not "disputed," and that the settlements are widely regarded as illegal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, any such "consensus" is fiction. It simply doesn't exist. This dispute has not been resolved, and this is why case-by-case analysis is needed.

However, that's beside the point. You have not addressed the more important part: How is the addition to the lead section relevant to Modi'in Illit specifically, and why does it take up half the lead section? Surely the notion that all settlements are legal/illegal is not the most important fact about Modi'in Illit? For example, how is the notion that Nokdim is illegal relevant to Modi'in Illit? My previous compromise was to add part of a sentence about legality, summarizing the Legality dispute section. Why did you feel it was right to expand it? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This page can't represent the POV of pro-settlement Israelis as though it's just one POV among others. It's a minority POV, arguably a tiny-minority POV, not even shared by everyone in Israel, much less outside it. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia is (a) that the settlements (all of them) are widely regarded as illegal, and (b) that this is the only thing about them that the international community regards as important, namely that they shouldn't exist. So clearly, per WP:LEAD, it is a notable controversy and therefore belongs in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Slim Virgin for saying what needed to be said, more succintly and less emotively than I could. Tiamut^talk 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should there be boilerplate text about the legal status of Israeli settlements in each individual settlement's lead section? If yes, how much weight should it get? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. Note: I've now mentioned it at IPCOLL and at WP:Syria - the principle applies to settlements in the Golan too. Someone else has already added WP:Palestine. --Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ynhockey

A number of editors have been calling for the inclusion of massive boilerplate text in each individual settlement's lead section, saying something like "all settlements are considered to be illegal under international law, therefore [this settlement] is illegal". There are a number of issues with this:

• Undue weight discussion the overall legality of settlements, which belongs in the article Israeli settlement, in the lead section of individual settlement articles.
• It is poisoning the well—before the reader is introduced to the Legality dispute section below, which talks about the dispute about the specific settlement in more detail, they are told that "the settlement is illegal".
• Adding to the above point, the issue is disputed, and it is far from a given fact that either each specific settlement is illegal, or all settlements are illegal. The New York Times says that "opponents say that settlements violate international law". Surely such a reputable publication would have no problem calling them illegal if this was the universally-accepted point of view? In other words, the notion of illegality is recognized as a specific point of view, therefore giving only this POV in the lead is a violation of the neutral point of view policy.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Ynhockey. Such templates swamp articles. Moreover, many major legal scholars disagree with the assertion that settlements in territory acquired in defensive wars are necessarily illegal, disagree both in general and with regard to the West Bank.Historicist (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• What template is being discussed here? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. Anyone who wants to know the debate over the settlements in general can simply click on the wikilink. Using this boilerplate is problematic per WP:WEASEL. Why is it necessary to add it to each settlement? according to this rationale, we could also add a disclaimer to each battle in the Iraq war, for example, saying that many people think it is an unjust war. -- Nudve (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

I can only second Slimvirgin's comment from the discussion above: "The only thing that matters for Wikipedia is (a) that the settlements (all of them) are widely regarded as illegal, and (b) that this is the only thing about them that the international community regards as important, namely that they shouldn't exist." Since there's a consensus of 171-6 of the world's countries (according to UN GA vote in 2008) that each and every settlement is illegal, that's a vast majority view that deserves a mention (one short sentence suffices) in the lead sections of the settlement articles. --Dailycare (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GHcool

I'm somewhat on the fence about this. I don't mind a discussion of the legality of a specific settlement in the lead of that settlement's article, but I would not approve of a copy-and-paste "disclaimer" before every settlement. I think the way the situation is handled in the lead of this article is appropriate in length and content. --GHcool (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My main problem is precisely those copy-and-paste disclaimers (see point #2 in statement). How would you suggest we address this problem on articles about other settlements? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this sort of thing needs to be decided on a case by case basis. --GHcool (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I for my part don't feel we need to copy-paste standard text to each settlement page, but leave it to editors to add short comments that suit each article best if they feel like it. There may be good settlement-specific sources that can be used for certain articles, and wording in those can be followed in those cases. What I'm against is that adding a statement on legality would lead to an edit war on each settlement page. --Dailycare (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While neither I nor any single editor or group of editors has the power to avert an edit war, what you propose is entirely reasonable. --GHcool (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RfC It is quite evidently a key fact about this and every other settlement that the vast majority of the states in the world regard them as illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention and other international law. This should be mentioned in the lead (and therefore in the text too). Nitpicking about whether a specific settlement has been mentioned in a UN motion or similar is just that, nitpicking. Whether exactly the same text is used in each article is a minor issue. If a particular place has been mentioned in calls for settlement freezes could be mentioned in its article, but that should not weaken the general message in that or other articles on settlements.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Carolmooredc

Obviously illegality of a settlement is notable and highly relevant to any article and belongs in the lead. assuming there is at least one WP:RS on that. (And that goes for anywhere on the planet.) I haven't seen the "cut and paste" but obviously it should be appropriate to the settlement and how many WP:RS have noted the illegality and how many problems have been caused by that fact. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shuki

Adding the boilerplate text to all Israel settlement articles is misleading, ignorant generalizing and guilt by association. The seemingly innocuous yet 'widely viewed' and cleverly used derogatory blanket term 'Israeli settlement' is placed in the lead sentence, and often in the past and occasionally even these days to replace legitimate size-descriptive terms like village, town, city. Now, an attempt to add two sentences about 'illegal' status is now intended to similarly add 'more context'. 'Illegal' is frequently thrown around with mere general context (passing mention in news articles) and no specific law quoted. Certainly, and in reality, local Jordanian/Israeli property law is much more relevant on the ground, though that is never quoted. Modi'in Illit and the vast majority of settlements are not violating the law and in fact recognized, given assistance, by the Israeli government, and legitimacy upheld by its national supreme court, a well respected and prestigious institution. If a claim of alledged illegal activity is to be attached to an article, any article in WP, one would expect that the specific target should be mentioned and why, not just in an offhand manner. The blanket claim that all Israeli settlement on the West Bank is illegal is simply another way to say that Jewish settlement is illegal on the West Bank and I think that that dispute should not be extended to more articles except the main 'Israeli settlement' one, thereby avoiding extensive subtle WP:COATRACK. Without specific information to show a violation of the law by the specific Jewish locality, WP would be deluding its users. The issue should be decided on a case by case basis with complete and not offhand RS. --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Far from the coatracking being by your oppenents it is by you and others who wish to conceal the fact that this and dozens of other settlements have repeatedly been declared illegal by the security council and by other international institutions such as the International Court, a conference of the High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Conventions etc. The repeated assertion that the self-interested expressions of opinion of the primary law-breaking parties, namely the Israeli State and its institutions, should be given priority is a blatant violation of WP:COATRACK. "Settlement" is the term used in formal declarations such as those of the UNSC and removing this internationally-recognised terminology is driven by a view that is far removed from the international consensus which NPOV requires as to follow. And "widely viewed" is an entirely accurate reflection of the international consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's suggesting any removing of the settlement term? The fact that many opponents see it as derogatory actually increases its prestige. With regard to Geneva conventions, I'll comment below shortly. With regard to 'international consensus', be careful when accepting blanket 'everyone' opinions that might violate NPOV. --Shuki (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Shuki, Peter specifically wrote "widely accepted", not "everyone". --Dailycare (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have been a bit bold (not being fully aware of the discussion here) and concentrated the whole legality controversy into its own section (I also added the Israeli position which for some reason has not been mentioned despite appearing quite clearly in the sources). I think it will help everyone if this endless debate will be concentrated in one section and not spread all over the article. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RfC: I'll just repeat here the comment I posted above. This page can't represent the POV of pro-settlement Israelis as though it's just one POV among others. It's a minority POV, arguably a tiny-minority POV, not even shared by everyone in Israel, much less outside it. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia is (a) that the settlements (all of them) are widely regarded as illegal, and (b) that this is the only thing about them that the international community regards as important, namely that they shouldn't exist. So clearly it is a notable controversy, and these must be listed in the lead, per WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I just added the Israeli POV to the lead. Please notice that all sources bring the Israeli POV whenever they mention the legality issues. If the sources that this article is based upon (such as the BBC) mention it so should we. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• reply to rfc agree with slimv - being a settlement is pretty much what makes them notable and this and every other settlement article should have a section dedicated to legality and a mention of same in the lead. untwirl(talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Joe407

I'd like to share a few points:

1. A city/town/region/settlement/thinly populated hillside should only have a Wikipedia article if it is notable. Just as being part of the extended Kennedy clan does and should not give me more than a one line mention in the article "Extended Kennedy family members", the location of a town in a politically disputed area should not automatically grant it notability for a Wikipedia article. As such, if the case that untwirl exists (of a settlement with no notability other than it being in a disputed region) the article should be deleted and the place can be mention in an article about "Settlements in Palestinian-Israeli disputed territory".
2. As the legality of Israeli residences in Judea & Samaria is a large and hotly disputed topic, the dispute should and does have it's own Wikipedia article.
3. If a particular town or settlement has a notable dispute about its particular legality, it should be mentioned in the article under a section of "Legal dispute" (or some such name) with a "see also" to the main article about the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute.
4. Regarding a template or text in the article opener I feel it should not be there. The opener should briefly describe the topic and its notability. As I noted above, a settlement that only has an article due to it's location in a disputed region, should not have an article.
5. In all articles about cities/towns/settlements in disputed regions, a link to the article about the dispute should be under the "See also" section.

Joe407 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

History

There seem to be some people with knowledge of Modi'in Illit. Can anyone add some history to this page? I dont understand how this place was colonized, where all the palestinians went and what the effect was/is on the local polulation. Right now it seems very POV. NeoRetro (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no local Palestinian population, and it was not "colonized". The settlement was built on empty land (some private and some public) in the 1990s. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Who owned the land? When and how was it colonized, by whom and where did the money for construction come from? Does the wall surround the settlement? Does the settlement include any watersources? How does all of this affect the Palestinians in the surrounding area? Please, you sound very POV when you say it was not colonized and there was no Palestinian population. Do you have any non-POV sources? NeoRetro (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NeoRetro, I would appreciate it if you focused on the edits, not the editor. In the past week, I have been the only editor to contribute actual information to the article, and would definitely like to improve it. If you have the above information or sources, feel free to present them. I don't. However, the issue of land you are asking about is discussed in the article somewhat. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He's right. The article is confusing, especially with the legal issue mentioned at the end, but in a somewhat obtuse way. It would be good to know exactly what the impact of the building has been on the local population, if any, and exactly what the legal issues were. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could add more accurate information to the Jewish villages pages. There are a few resources in print. :::::SV, the issue is the specific land on which MI is built, we don't have to start talking general again. NeoRetro comes to the article with ignorant prejudice that settlements displaced Palestinians when we know that almost 100% of the time, settlements were/are built on barren land. That editor is actually projecting the standard Arab terminology in refering to Israeli localities (in present Israel) as 'illegal Zionist settlements'. Illegal as in displaced refugees and built on stolen land, while the terminology 'Zionist settlement' is reserved for the Jewish localities built in Judea and Samaria which were not built on stolen land, but just annoy them and their supporters who prefer segregation. --Shuki (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that some editors want to add the Israeli POV, and others want to add the Palestinian POV, when in fact what we should all we doing is writing about this in a disinterested way -- as though we are (very clever, well-informed, fast-learning) Martians who have recently landed, and who have been asked to write an article for the other Martians back home. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think my terminology is "arab", I'm not arab anyway so I dont see that point. I do feel my questions are sincere seeing that this article, and some other Jewish-settlement articles, seem to be from the Israeli-POV. I want to get some points clear. To the international community the settlements seem illegal, that is the way the media portrays them, as if they have a very negative influence on the local Palestinian population. I'm not trying to represent the Palestinian-POV. I do feel that we need to get my questions answerd though. NeoRetro (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, after the standard brief rough start on WP, you can check all the settlement articles I've started, which are many of them, and they are purposely bland, geographic locality articles. There is no POV, and usually standard where, when, who, how many, and some notbale things. NeoRetro, what POV are you claiming is on the settlement articles? --Shuki (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The illegality is (was) only mentioned near the end of the article, there is no history between the romans and the settlement (as if there was nothing in the area before the settlement), nothing is mentioned about the effect on local Palestinian populations while a terrorist attack is mentioned. What about terrorist attacks committed by settlers and/or soldiers on Palestinian farmers in the area? The wall is not mentioned, the connecting roads and checkpoints are not mentioned, etc.etc. This all combined makes this a POV article. NeoRetro (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, huh. I respect your demand that the articles be improved and I know that one of my intentions on WP is exactly this. If you have information to add to these articles, I invite you to share it with us. There are many articles to improve, and I can only suggest that you either do the work yourself, find someone else to do it, or if you wish to partner up with me, we can add more depth to these articles. As time goes by, you'll see that WP is a voluntary collaboration and you cannot expect others to provide the services you specifically demand. You will simply have to roll up the sleeves and spend many hours of editing like many of us, to make improvements. I suggest that you follow the path of the improvers and contributors and not just join the gang of removers. --Shuki (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a remover, I think! I contribute alot to the Dutch Wikipedia (with as many references as possible), so that is where most of my energy has been going. I'm sorry if I offended you and I know I need to go looking for the info myself but I am used to going on the talkpage first if the article seems either political dynamite or POV, thisone seemed both to me so thats why I showed my face here before going off editing and adding. You'll see me around in the next couple of months doing some stuff on this page I hope. NeoRetro (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

country (again)

As the discussion above never really focused on the country in the infobox, if somebody could explain why the infobox says that this settlement is in Israel that would be appreciated. This settlement is in the West Bank, a part of the occupied Palestinian territories, which is most certainly outside of Israel. nableezy - 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to fix it, but can't see how to change that parameter. Ynhockey, do you know how to? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The field is redundant and I have removed it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking that perhaps the infobox should have an if clause to allow for a default to Israel if no country is specified or to hide it if set to 0 or something like that. nableezy - 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yn, what's going on here is somewhat objectionable. The template said "Judea and Samaria," but when I tried to change that to West Bank, it wouldn't let me, because the parameters are centrally controlled somewhere. This settlement is part of the West Bank, which is the normal term for the area. You're editing this page and the infobox from an exclusively right-wing, pro-settlement, Israeli perspective, as though no other POV exists, when in fact that POV is arguably a tiny-minority one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The field you are talking about is the Israeli administrative district of the locality. There is not such district as "West Bank". It's called Judea and Samaria Area. For more information, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), clause #5. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the infobox presents this area as part of Israel, in its "Judea and Samaria" administrative district, as though the only perspective here is the Israeli one. That can't be allowed to stand. Either the infobox should go entirely, or a parameter should be added making clear the disputed status of the settlement, and the fact that it's in the West Bank i.e. not in what the rest of the world regards as Israel. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This was something I was thinking of as well before the discussion above concentrated on another issue. The box makes two clear factual errors: 1) The settlement is in Israel, and 2) "Judea and Samaria" (=the West Bank) is a "district" of Israel. There is a similar box on the Ma'ale Adumim article, and possibly elsewhere too. Correction: it no longer mentions Israel --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, I have already removed the country field (would appreciate you not re-adding it empty because you didn't do it right, and even if you had, it would introduce an empty line into over 100 articles). Therefore, the notion that the template says that it's in Israel is false. The template links to both Districts of Israel and Judea and Samaria Area, which have the clauses you are after. Let's keep the template as factual as possible—part of that is having the administrative district of each settlement (and regional council for the smaller ones). What additional info do you wish to include? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to add a parameter making clear that it's in the West Bank, per NPOV and V. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the infobox say that it's not in the West Bank? I already removed the line saying that it's in Israel. What would you call the field that would have a value of "West Bank"? It's not a country, a geographical region, or an administrative region. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Location=Palestinian territories (my preference would add the word "occupied") nableezy - 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The infobox also doesn't say it's not in Venus, but that doesn't make people think it might be.

I would like there to be a parameter that deals with legal status. It could simply be called "legal status," then people could add "a disputed settlement on the West Bank," or similar. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that an overwhelming majority of the articles that use this infobox are towns inside Israel proper. Introducing the parameter you are suggesting opens the door for ridiculous fringe theories. Also, why is Israel special that its cities and towns (like Tel Aviv) should say "Legal" in the infobox? Doesn't that sound just a bit prejudiced to you? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be a parameter that doesn't appear unless filled in. It would therefore only affect the illegal settlements. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant to the above discussion however. At first you wanted to have the text "West Bank" in the infobox, and now you want a field that the settlement is supposedly illegal? You're taking it too far. The discussion about the legality dispute is above (RfC), and so far it seems that most editors want the information in a short sentence in the lead. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How about just changing the js definition in the template to read "Judea and Samaria Area (West Bank)"? That should be agreeable as it retains the official name and makes it clear where it is located. I dont think legal status is needed in the infobox, it is needed in the article. The infobox cant possibly reflect the complexities of such a status in a few words, there is no point to including it there. Such topics should be in the article (including in the lead). nableezy - 22:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That could be done. I thought the JS description was already too long, but if this is what's needed to alleviate POV concerns. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As yn stated above, Judea and Samaria is the district name, adding WB to it is misleading.

There seems to be an attempt to delegitimize the normality of Jewish localities in that area in every possible section of the page. The way this discussion is leading, eventually, it will be necessary okay to describe each settler as violating the law in each instance. (i.e. Noam Arnon, the criminal settler violating the law, claimed that ...) Rhetorical question: why is so much effort going into labelling? Is it a genuine desire to avoid misleading readers or is there other motivation behind it, cuz improving WP it ain't. --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

J+S Area corresponds to the West Bank, how would it be misleading to tell people what the J+S Area is in commonly used terms? Since that was a supposedly rhetorical question I will leave it unanswered. nableezy - 23:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, what does legal status mean? Which law or constitution? Or is it simply an attempt to label 'illegal' on all Jewish settlement articles. I wonder how many Palestinian villages are 'illegal'? Do they have the proper permits from the Jordanian or Israeli 'occupying' forces? Were they built on stolen Palestinian land? If we are going to follow a convention/standard, this needs to be applied on all West Bank localities. --Shuki (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fourth Geneva Convention is a good starting point for the iollegality of the settlements. The UNSC, the Intenational Court and a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the convention have all agreed on this.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So you force me to go read the GCIV and all I could find (relevant to this real estate issue) is this: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Do you have any proof, I'll give you much leeway, even from non-RS, that any single person in Modiin Illit or any other settlement was forcefully transfered to the settlements? The GCIV mainly talks about the rights of individuals and does not say anything, correct me if I am wrong, about the prohibition of land purchase by anyone. The GCIV does not forbid Jews from buying land in that area. As for 'state lands' which many settlements are on, you should read more about how Mecelle applied, or still relevant in this area. And given that, if Modiin Illit is built on land purchased 'fair and square' from assumed Arab owners, then it is certainly not illegal. Each settlement should be dealt with on a case by case basis the same way the GCIV protects the rights of each individual, let alone the 30 000+ legal residents of MI. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the G4 doesn't say "forcefully transfer", just "transfer". This, and the few other "AIPAC" talking points on the G4 and settlements aren't worth mentioning here. The clarity of the interpretation of G4 is reflected in the recent vote in the UNGA: basically only Israel and Micronesia voted against the resolution denouncing every settlement as illegal, 171 nations voted for it. --Dailycare (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So you will need to find a RS showing how the Haredi residents of MI were transfered there by the occupying power. --Shuki (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Once more: the sources agree the clear majority view (some sources use "overwhelming view") is that each and every settlement is illegal. MI is such a settlement. It really is that simple. What you're now indulging in is WP:OR, which is fun but this isn't really the place for it. --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The legality of settlements based on the 4th Geneva Convention that you are proposing, without sources, is the OR you yourself are talking about. You have said a lot on the subject, but the sources you provided so far do not say the things you claim. Your insistence on changing related articles while the RfC is ongoing is also not helpful. Please make serious policy-based discussion here, if you have more to say on the issue. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, your memory is short. Here are two sources for you to look at, although both have already been mentioned: Resolution 63/97 declared the settlements illegal under G4 (passed 171-6) http://www.un.org/ga/63/resolutions.shtml and have a look, again, at also this BBC article ("It is widely accepted..."): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm --Dailycare (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the attempt to claim that they're not illegal that's OR. We don't base our edits on the Geneva Convention. We base them on what reliable sources say, including the UN. In this case, the settlements are so widely regarded as illegal that the other view has become a tiny-minority one, regarded as an extremist view, and not one that we ought to represent as if it's just another POV, except in articles devoted to it per NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

judea and samaria area

back to an issue that got lost up there somewhere, Yn, would you be amenable to changing the js definition in the template to read Judea and Samaria Area (West Bank)? nableezy - 01:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• disagree The JS Area is the name of the district as per Israeli bureaucracy and not POV. I assume that JS will always bother many people, but even if Israel called it 'Moon district', I would still disagree with the need to add a misleading extra label, especially in the sustained effort to delegitimize the use of the terms Judea and Samaria in any WP context. --Shuki (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

how is it misleading? (and this isnt set up like a !vote) nableezy - 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is misleading in the sense that it gives the impression that the name of the district is Judea and Samaria Area (West Bank) - which it is untrue. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason why there are 2 separate wikilinks in my proposed change. nableezy - 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is still misleading - if you don't actually click on the link(s), it gives the impression that the name of the district is Judea and Samaria Area (West Bank) - which it is untrue. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Except it doesnt give that impression, it gives a name that most will recognize instead of one that problematic. It also solves the issue of implying that it is in Israel, which it is not. nableezy - 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'name that most will recognize' is not the name of the district, and putting it there creates the impression this is the official name. This is misleading. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then explain why the documentation for the template itself defines "js" as "Judea and Samaria District (West Bank)" but just not the template? nableezy - 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is resistance for some reason to this I just added a region field to the municipality infobox and made that West Bank here. nableezy - 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This parallels the country discussion and a solution to one is likely to remove the issue with the other. There are four different levels of location that have this template.

1. Places the Israeli side of the post-48 green line that are well away from Jerusalem. Everyone apart from the anti-Zionist ultras (Iran?, Hammas?) regard these as unproblematically in Israel.
2. Places the Israeli side of the green line in or close to Jerusalem. Most organisations/people have the same view as 1. Some (the UK, the Vatican) feel that they either should have been part of the neutral Corpus separatum and have an undetermined status or feel that Jerusalem should be an international city.
3. Places conquered in 67 that are well away from Jerusalem. Everyone apart from the Zionist ultras regard these as Palestinian or Syrian. The Zionist ultras claim them as Israeli
4. Places conquered in 67 that are in or close to Jerusalem. Most have the same view on these as under 3, but some treat differently as per 2. Some more Israeli supporters will want these to remain Israeli than is the case for more outlying areas.

We need some way to differentiate in the template these categories of places as a plain description as Israeli does not distinguish between the relatively uncomplicated 1 and the more complex issues surrounding 2-4.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Being new to this corner of WP, I read though this whole talk page and a few others like it to gain some perspective. Might I suggest that these questions are not just about Modi'in Illit or any other little town but should be dealt with either on Judea and Samaria Area, West Bank or Israeli settlement? Joe407 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It has already been dealt with at all those places as well as at WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) and WP:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. We dont need to go through it again and nobody has had a problem with forcing the region to West Bank when the district is "Judea and Samaria Area". nableezy - 16:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is misleading. Some have a problem with that. I don't think anything needs to be forced and certainly, the exact same people would definitely oppose adding Judean or Samarian Mountains to the Palestinian locality articles. So NPOV is forced one way only. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources useful to making the article more reflective of POVs currently absent

• Palestinians want land seized by Modi'in Illit Returned
• Illegal construction approved in the Modi'in Illit settlement
• The price is right (on the economic incentives for Jews to settle in places like Modi'in Illit)
• Up against the wall (about the protests from Palestinian villagers affected by the wall being built to "protect" Modi'in Illit from them)
• Analysis: Settlement growth is not just baby talk (useful stats on migration, births, etc., in Modi'in Illit and other West Bank settlements]

For those interested in expanding the article, these may be useful. Tiamut^talk 02:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple more

• Land grabs and lawsuits. A Palestinian village sues two Montreal-based companies over the construction of a West Bank settlement
• In the West Bank, Suburb or Settlement? For Israelis, Homes; For Palestinians, a Wall

Sean.hoyland - talk 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Modi'in Illit in particular was reportedly built on land belonging to two Palestinian residents ???

User:SlimVirgin just added to the lead that:

"Modi'in Illit in particular was reportedly built on land belonging to two Palestinian residents, who petitioned Israel's High Court of Justice in April 2009, alleging that the city had knowingly allowed illegal construction to take place; the settlers say they bought the land, but there is no record of the purchase."

citing this source: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/73706/-palestinians-want-land-seized-by-modi-in-illit-returned.html

Maybe I missed something but the source says that:

"Two Palestinians who allegedly own a 20-dunam plot of land near the Jewish settlement of Modi'in Illit petitioned the High Court of Justice on Wednesday, charging that the city had built a park on their land even though the authorities knew the construction was illegal"

So was it the whole city (as can be understood from User:SlimVirgin's edits) or just a park as the source says?

Also, do all the editors here think that this belongs to the lead? Seems to me like the issue is a lot more complex than that. Best Tkalisky (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the paragraph has been removed. I have no problem that the issue will be mentioned in the article - but please do not distort the sources. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops... restored again. User:SlimVirgin, would you please clarify the issue above? Best. Tkalisky (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tkalisky, I'll clarify the writing. This whole issue is very confusing. If even the IDF says this place is in a state of lawlessness, and the international community regards it as illegal, I don't understand why we're writing about it as though it's just another city. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree that the whole issue is confusing. I think that because the issue is so controversial people (and journalists ...) tend to overreact. This just means we must study the sources carefully and understand the context and the details thoroughly. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin's addition to the lede

This latest addition is an overdetail that does not conform with WP:LEAD and on the same basis is WP:UNDUE- violative. Even, the pre-SV edit had met some of the same issues at this talk page, so per WP:CONSENSUS, there's no excuse for this WP:POV addition.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It conforms perfectly to WP:LEAD, which says that notable controversies must be noted in the lead. Which of the controversies in the lead do you feel is not notable? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, the lead section cannot have details that do not appear elsewhere in the article. I am moving your additions to the appropriate section. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can, of course it can, if the information is notable or interesting enough. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to how I write leads, or how I understand the lead section guideline:

Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations

According to your own words, the content you added is "significant information", therefore it shouldn't appear in the lead only. Keep in mind that, always, the lead section is a summary of the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That section of LEAD is disputed, but even ignoring it, there is a section on the legal situation, so why should it not be referenced in the lead? That even the IDF says this place exists in a state of lawlessness is highly significant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, it seems that whenever a guideline/policy says something you don't like, it's "disputed". I've seen you use this argument several times.

Where, for example? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the diffs right now, so please disregard this. However, my suggestion to open a policy RfC if you don't like the guideline's current wording still stands. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please open a policy RfC if you don't like the guideline. As for the actual argument, I remember you criticizing me for not explaining an edit at Exodus from Lydda and Ramla because the source didn't elaborate (that thing about Negba), so what am I supposed to think here?

I don't remember that. Please show me where. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See this. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you are referring to ("state of lawlessness") is completely meaningless on its own, and it would be interesting to read your reliably-sourced explanation.

Then why not try to find an explanation that you prefer? As it stood, it was fairly clear, I think. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not engage in OR. I am quite familiar with the subject matter, and the sentence is not clear at all to me, and can mean one or more of several things. I'd like to hear what I missed if it "was fairly clear". I still fair to see how it is/was clear.

Reading the source (which, by the way, you shouldn't expect the average reader to do), it is implied that the IDF representative is referring to a general problem of people taking the law into their own hands. This has nothing to do with illegal construction or indeed the legality of Modi'in Illit.

The article (the source) is about illegal construction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote of the IDF rep seems to be an off-hand reference to a general state of lawlessness. It is relevant because illegal construction is a very common crime in "lawless" areas of Israel (mostly religious and Arab areas), but the IDF rep is apparently talking about the general situation. Moreover, even if he is talking just about illegal construction, this is an internal dispute between the illegal builders and the municipality and is unrelated to legally-approved construction plans which are deemed illegal by certain people (the IDF does not consider settlements to be illegal, so an IDF rep wouldn't talk about "lawlessness" if he was referring to construction legal within Israeli law). In short, is it unclear what the IDF rep is talking about, and which part of the dispute it's related to. See also previous point. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the source doesn't elaborate, I suggest you apply the suggestion you gave me a while ago and research the subject further, or remove the sentence. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever do anything but blindly assert one POV? Ever? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. I have made some contributions to this article, and intend to make more. I wish you'd do the same, and stop your personal attacks against me and other editors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask about your contributions to this article, and it was only you the question was addressed to, not other editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that you know you are out of line with that question, but if it must be asked can you at least do it on Yn's user talk page and not here? nableezy - 00:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultra-Orthodox/Haredi

Shuki, we're supposed to use the most easily recognized term, per naming conventions. In fact, the Haredi article should be moved, but in the meantime, we should use the most common term here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While in this article either could be used, the main article should not be moved. Haredi Judaism is a stream of Judaism, defined by the fact that it is ultra-orthodox. It is not, however, the only ultra-orthodox stream of Judaism, just the most common one. From the main article:

Haredi or Chareidi[1] Judaism, often referred to by outsiders as Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (the term is considered pejorative by Haredi Jews, and is rarely used by them)[2][3][4] is the most theologically conservative form of Orthodox Judaism.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You always argue that we should stick to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which says, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize ... The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

"Ultra-Orthodox" is the English name most English-speaking sources use for "Haredi" Jews, including English-language stories out of Israel, and the most recognized one e.g. check google. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a strong advocate of WP:NC when other policies don't contradict it. In the case of the Haredi Judaism article, there is a contradiction with WP:NPOV, because the Haredim themselves view the term as pejorative. There's an entire section dedicated to this in the main article. As I said though, in this article (Modi'in Illit), I don't care, and it has to do with what sources in this article use. However, if you're seriously thinking about moving the Haredi Judaism article, I will strongly oppose in any WP:RM discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen you argue before that NC must bow to your interpretation of other policies. Can you give an example of where you have done that before? I ask this because I've seen you cite NC dozens of times to win disputes, but now that it doesn't suit you, you're saying it takes second place to something else. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to a dispute where I advocated WP:NC even though my proposal clearly violated other policies? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't turn the question around. I said I have never seen you argue before that NC should take a back seat and I requested an example, in case I'm wrong. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, my question still stands. Show me a place where I said that WP:NC trumped all other policies. In all the arguments where I referred you (or other editors) to WP:NC, no other policy strongly contradicted the renaming. If you feel I'm wrong, please provide an example. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Holocaust deniers, in your view of the policies, be called by the name of their choice, because they feel Holocaust denier is offensive to them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You must really hate the Haredim if you compare them to Holocaust deniers. The Haredim are a specific demographic group, like American Jews for example. I hope you re-read what you just wrote and strike out the appallingly offensive comparison. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I did not compare anyone to Holocaust deniers. The question again: "Should Holocaust deniers, in your view of the policies, be called by the name of their choice, because they feel Holocaust denier is offensive to them?" SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, if you have an issue of using Haredi, take it to WP:Judaism. Just because many ignorantly use the delegitimatizing 'ultra' tag does not mean that WP should erroneously lower its standards as well. If you are not familiar with this subject, please refrain from editing on it. I invite you instead to join WP:Judaism and improve that aspect of your WPing. --Shuki (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only is "Ultra-orthodox" a term that, as SV sasys, will be recognised by more readers but it is also used by people developing products for that segment of the commuity [2].

I really think the question is moot since 2004. AMong other things, the main page is Haredi Judaism. Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#ultra-Orthodox as a pejorative term No use in using it anymore as ignorance declines and awareness grows, similar to other terms like retarded and Moonies. --Shuki (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

--Shuki (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that 95% of Wikipedia readers have never heard the term "haredi", whereas ultra-orthodox is used globally. Haredi only produces 140.000 Google hits, ultra-orthodox 900.000 and "orthodox jewish" yields 500.000 --Dailycare (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is an Israeli newspaper, and it calls this an "ultra-Orthodox" community. [3] We ought to stick to what the source says. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, I think that the first people to ask is the Haredim themselves. Allow me to take a straw poll of editors with an interest in that area. If I don't answer soon, DC will assume there is a consensus. --Shuki (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not how WP works, Suki. We go by what the sources say, not by whether sufficient numbers of the interested parties want to change the source material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses ultra-Orthodox. [4] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin: By now, meaning at this stage of history, it is entirely moot what the Britannica or print newspapers alone say because it has now been overtaken by Wikipedia itself, drawing from the World Wide Web's billions of pages, as the world's largest and most reliable encyclopedia that draws on a far wider spectrum of WP:RS with WP:V such as books, journals, online sources and much more, that is coming out as we "speak" here now. In other words, you are citing from source that are fundamentally way behind the knowledge curve, especially with regards to their knowledge base of Orthodox and Haredi Jews, because whereas Britannica is a hard-copy old-fashioned archaic collection of not more than 80,000 or so stodgy articles, Wikipedia as an up-to-date digital Internet-based encyclopedia of more than 3,000,000 articles in English alone citing its own research, sources and citations, as in the Haredi Judaism (not called Ultra-Orthodox Judaism mind you) article, that clearly cites and provides ample sources that the correct current term is "Haredi" which has surpassed "Ultra-Orthodox" with the latter having become an offensive politically incorrect and divisive term (as you see here as you enter the "hornets nest" on this subject). But this is much the same way that "Red Indians" (in spite of being widely used and known to most people) is now a politically incorrect term for Native-Americans; or Negro is now regarded as an insult (regardless that it's a term widely used in many places and is known to all people) but rather it's correct and polite to say African-American for such people, and even though everyone knows what and who the Gypsy are, today that term is not used and the correct usage is Romani people (and "Romani" is not even an English word). Think also of the adjustments to please the new Chinese politically correct pronunciations when the commonly English-used names like Mao Tse Tung and Peking were changed to Mao Zedong and Beijing etc while everyone in the English-speaking world unquestionably followed what the Chinese wanted and not what Britannica or the New York Times had once called them. IZAK (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, usage changed before Peking to Beijing, from Pekin, and I've never heard anyone say Mao Zedong, regardless of how they might spell it, only Mao Tse Tung. Regardless tho, this discussion isn't about variants in transliteration, but rather the word used. The Yiddish pejorative for Blacks is a good example of how transliterating shvartzes, schwartzes, or whatever is irrelevant, to the question of whether "blacks" is actually a translation of the vile sentiment many people have when using the term. In this case, "ultra-orthodox" is a rather tame translation of some pretty reprehensible terms used in MIH by "black"haters for blackhatters. Tomer^talk 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Haredi or ultra-Orthodox

Outdent:I was asked to comment, probably because of some recent edits at Haredi. The current question is out of my normal editing realm and ethnic background. In this instance, the term Ultra-Orthodox appears most appropriate. This determination is based on the foreign-language provenance of the term Haredi and the more common and recognizable English-language term ‘Ultra-Orthodox’, which is what en.Wikipedia is supposed to use. Its usage in English-language mainstream Israeli RS media and other encyclopedias reinforces this, as SV has noted. Additionally, the term is appropriately descriptive, based on their outward appearance and self-choice. I do not consider it pejorative or de-legitimizing; seen from the outside it is simply descriptive.

The discussion above, however, does include two items, of which I am unfamiliar or question. The first is: If Haredi is not the only Ultra-Orthodox stream of Judaism, just the most common one, which others exist and have been termed as such? I am unfamiliar. Are these sufficiently notable and non-fringe? The second question is more important and global: If there are issues with using the alternative term Haredi, why should it be taken only to WP:Judaism? With all that is Wiki-holy, this seems an insufficiently AGF and open approach to the question; it seems stilted, somewhat nepotistic and nearly forum shopping. This is a question for the wider editorial community that is best answered more neutrally from a broader perspective. Nobody argues more than cousins do; the true consensus discussion should be broader to generate an enlightened decision, not a heated debate. While WP:Judaism has an important role to play, it is the wrong forum in which to play it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, "Ultra-Orthodox" is not only regarded as pejorative by Charedim and others to whom it is applied, but either intended as pejorative by those who use it, or used out of ignorance by those who don't know any better (and therefore probably should defer to others more knowledgeable). It is a very subjective term, and as such has no place in any encyclopedia, except perhaps in a discussion about strife between various levels of [un]observance in Judaism, or perhaps latent antisemitism in the news media. The only use the term has as a descriptor is "one who is more orthodox than [the speaker]", and it is only used among Jews, by those who don't dress primarily in black. (I'm reminded of the adage that everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower an idiot.) Tomer^talk 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that when editors refer to Israeli newspapers using the term "ultra-Orthodox" they mean the English-language translations that appear on the newspapers' web sites, rather than the newspapers themselves (except in the case of the Jerusalem Post). I've generally found the translations on the Haaretz web site to be inartful, especially when rendering idioms with which the translator is clearly unfamiliar. I don't think much reliance can be placed on them. In the Hebrew editions of the newspapers, the term is always "haredi".

The claim that more English-speakers recognise the term "ultra-Orthodox" than the term "haredi" fails for the same reason as the one that more English-speakers recognise the term "Moonie" than do "Unification Church". Yes, if you did a survey on an American street, you'd find more people who registered some reaction to "ultra-Orthodox" than to "haredi", but if you then asked the people who recognised the first term and not the second what it means, you'd find that they don't really know, or have a very strange idea, deliberately inculcated by the same journalists and propagandists who like to use the term "ultra-O".

I don't particularly like "haredi" either, since until fairly recently it just meant "Orthodox", but we need some term, and "haredi" has become the usual term among non-propagandists. It also helps that it's shorter. "Black hat" is more accurate, and instantly recognisable, but I'm not about to embark on a campaign to have it replace "haredi", let alone "ultra-O". -- Zsero (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Zsero: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While newspapers, especially Israeli ones are highly politicised and in Israel's case VERY biased and opposed to the people THEY call "ultra-orthodox" in whatver idiom so that Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the editorial policies of Israeli papers and reporters who often openly hate and despise the Haredi Jews and view them as "scum" and not as subjects to be treated with respect in their articles. If this is all new to anyone then please see the opening lines of the Haredi Judaism article: "Haredi or Chareidi[1] Judaism, often referred to by outsiders as Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (the term is considered pejorative by Haredi Jews, and is rarely used by them)[2: With Jewry in crisis, Reform are still pushing disunity agenda. WHY!?, Mandell I. Ganchrow, Jewish World Review, Sept. 10, 2001: "Isn't it time to declare 'ultra-Orthodox,' a pejorative term and discard it from our vocabulary?"][3: Stop Calling Me an 'Ultra-Orthodox Jew', Abbott Katz, The Jewish Forward, April 11, 2008: "Orthodox Jews seem to be seen as marking the spiritual baseline, while the 'ultras' are typed as a kind of fanatic insurgency, sparse but dangerous."][4: Stop Calling Us 'Ultra-Orthodox', Yaakov Menken, Cross-Currents, December 15, 2008: "To call them/us 'Charedim' or simply 'traditional Jews' is both accurate and acceptable — even 'Orthodox' implies something inaccurate, much less the 'ultra' pejorative."] is the most theologically conservative form of Orthodox Judaism. A follower of Haredi Judaism is called a Haredi (Haredim in the plural)." Just as Wikipedia has done, you need to update your style to one that will conform to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Consensus. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Haredi as the preferred term. It would be very harmful and extremely counter-productive to go down the wasteful road of wrongfully renaming "Haredi" as "Ultra-Orthodox" and shove the term "Ultra-Orthodox" down the throats of users because for over five years there has been near-iniversal and agreed-upon consensus that the most neutral WP:NPOV and by now widely used and recognized term of "Haredi", that is either a shortened form for a follower of Haredi Judaism (that includes Hasidic Judaism aka Hasidism), or the full name of name of Haredi Judaism since the word "Ultra" is only used by critics and enemies of Haredi Jews and it's never used by Haredi Jews to describe themselves as such. Similarly, someone who is very liberal never calls themselves "ultra"-liberal and those who are 100% secular or atheist would never dream of calling themselves as "ultra"-secular or "ultra"-atheists etc and would take great offense at being slapped with the "ultra" prefix attached to the description of their beliefs and values. For the earlier discussions about this please see: Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#ultra-Orthodox as a pejorative term; Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#Should this article be renamed Haredi Judaism?; Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#Haredi vs. Orthodox. In addition there was even a proposal to merge Haredi Judaism with Orthodox Judaism that was turned down, see Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1#Merger Proposal. Finally, there are 178,000 google hits for "Haredi" alone, in addition to 108,000 for "haredim'; 19,200 for "haredi women"; 58,500 for "Haredi Judaism" etc with only 5,740 hits for "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism" and with 100,000 hits for "Ultra Orthodox Jews' versus 215,000 hits for "Haredi Jews". So for all the above reasons it would be best not to waste everyone's time and re-open old debates that have long been settled to almost everyone's satisfaction, and that do NOT cause offense to the many Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic editors, readers and users for over five years on Wikipedia. Thank you so much. IZAK (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Haredi per WP:NPOV. Izak says it well. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've used "ultra-orthodox" myself in the past, since it is indeed the most well known term to the English speaking public. The Wikipedia community though, has, in view of the sensitivities of certain (not all) ultra-orthodox people, adopted the point of view that the use of the word "ultra-orthodox" should be avoided. Likewise, for example, they are afraid of calling terrorists "terrorists", and dictators "dictators". This is one of the things I hope they will free themselves of in some future, but at the moment that is the consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Debresser: You owe everyone an immediate apology for in any way implying and in the same breath claiming that the same process is at work when the term "Haredi" is proposed as a standardised term for encyclopedia-writing purposes yet simultaneously outragously compare use of the term "Haredi" to "terrorists" and "dictators" in flagrant and deliberate violation of WP:AGF; WP:NPA; WP:CIVIL. Just how many Haredi "terrorists" have been found anywhere and how many Haredim are "dictators" of any state or nation?? Can you name any, even one? Anyone is free to call other groups by any names they choose behind closed doors, and yes, in decades gone by there was a tolerance for the term "ultra-orthodox" but the times have long changed and you could have used cleverer, prettier and less odious examples to illustrate your point. In any case, it does not stop with calling Haredi Jews by any label you want when regular Jews of any kind are called by far worse, dangerous and demeaning names. It is sad that I have to point this out at all.IZAK (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe Debresser commented specifically about what he sees as the Wiki-community’s adopted point of view that the use of the word "ultra-orthodox" should be avoided, in view of the sensitivities of some ultra-orthodox people. He may feel this to be an overly timid and more “politically correct” terminology than an encyclopedia should be. I say this because his two other and unrelated examples fall squarely into this realm. If any apologies are necessary, it should be for your off-topic, hyperbolic straw man comment in reply. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • CasualObserver: Really now, a person uses the words "terrorists" and "dictators" to illustrate a point about "Haredim" and you think it's not worthy of a protest? Sorry but it's hard to let something like that go when he could have used better examples to make his point as I do above in response to SlimVirgin, that in spite of the fact that Red Indians and Negros are widely used English names and terms and were in classical sources and tomes for centuries, yet in today's up-to-date world one is obliged to be politically correct and use terms such as African Americans and Native Americans whether one likes it or not or agrees with it or not. Similarly when the Chinese decided that they would change names of long known and held English usages and, for example, refer to Mao Tse Tung as Mao Zedong instead and that Peking would now be called Beijing, then so it was and so it became and no one cared or sought refuge in what the Britannica or the New York Times had once said or would like to say, because hey, guess what, the Britannica and the New York Times obliged the Chinese and adjusted, and in this case too, these could have been the examples and it's really an open and shut case. No "strawmen" just the facts, reality and the truth. IZAK (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with IZAK. Debresser, that's a foul comparison. Using Haredi instead of Ultra-Orthodox is more akin to using Jew instead of kike, or Italian instead of dago. Or developmentally disabled as opposed to retard. -Lisa (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which is policy, we have to use the most common term used by English-language reliable sources. That is "ultra-Orthodox." That term is used by practically all English-language media, including:

• The Encyclopaedia Britannica [5]
• The New York Times [6]
• The Times of London [7]
• The Washington Post [8]
• The Sydney Morning Herald [9]
• The Guardian [10]
• Haaretz [11]
• Macleans magazine [12]
• Time magazine [13]
• BBC News [14]
• CNN [15]
• ABC News, Australia [16]
• Associated Press [17]
• Reuters [18]
• Scholarly books e.g. [19]
• Scholarly articles [20]

There's simply no question that "ultra-Orthodox" is the commonly used English-language term. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Americans can be so ignorant, but at least their terms for things are more accurate. Orthodox Jews rightly believe that their view should be call nothing else than Orthodox, they did not change, Zionist gave Orwell a run for his money as they reinvented the language to suite their purposes - the new version should be changed be called "Neo-Orthodox" NeoOrthodox is a newer version of traditional Orthodox.
just as NeoConservative is a newer version of traditional Conservatism
<http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1205-editorial>
I just shot Ari down here when he tried to dismiss True Torah Jews as being to few in number to mention <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carolmooredc> I could use some help with learning wiki - Ari this seems like a full time job for you, do you work for the government:)
and could someone please explain to me a valid reason why people do not use their real names when they edit Wiki?Chris Connolly 17:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Language evolves for a reason! at one point all English-Language books and Newspapers used NIGGER - which is also a prejoritive which I hope you agree, a class has the right to define the term by which they are calledChris Connolly 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry SlimVirgin for cutting your extensive list of places you saw your preferred term for a group you do not belong to but I needed the space and it was excessive. At one point 'gay' ment happy and homsexuals were referred to as Queers and Faggots- your argument using Wikipedia:Naming conventionsin this reguard is very week. Even despised people have the right to determine how they are referred to, and I hope that you would agree that language evolves and we should not use prejoritives.Chris Connolly 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Person to person SlimVirgin, why do people that edit wiki prefer not to use their real names? I have yet to hear a valid reason. Amazon Book Review has a method wherby everyone that writes a review has to prove who they are, I do not see a reason why Wiki is not more like Amazon - feel free to delete this ASAP as it is not part of the topic, the newbieChris Connolly 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Almost all of those are derivative of the same handful of sources; ultimately almost all of them derive from the English translators employed by the Haaretz web site. "Moonie" is more common than "Unification Church", and "Gypsy" is more common than "Romany"; for that matter, "ultra-conservative" or "far-right" is commonly used by the press to describe any prominent Republican. Should we adopt those usages too? -- Zsero (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC, the New York Times, the Times of London, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica do not take their material from Haaretz, or employ the same "translators." There is no translation issue here. The English term used by the best reliable sources for that religious group, including academics, is "ultra-Orthodox," and Wikipedia policy says we must adopt that term. We are here for the majority of our readers. If you want to change the policy, you'll have to argue that on the policy talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this actually needs to be argued somewhere else, namely at Talk:Haredi Judaism. There is no reason to not use the name of the article and if the name of that article is not in line with policies as SV appears to be arguing it needs to argued there. I say on this page we just use the name of the article, and if somebody does not know what that is they can just click the link. nableezy - 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. This article should follow Wikipedia's current usage, which is Haredi. There should be a centralized discussion of the question, but the Talk page of an article about an outpost in the West Bank isn't the right place. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: Very odd because the BBC and the New York Times take delight in offending not just Haredi Jews and Judaism but all forms of Orthodox Judaism, Zionism, and Israel with more negative reporting about that than anything good they may have to say. They are bad examples to cite as "evidence" because they are heavily prejudiced against Jews, Judaism and Haredi Judaism, seeking to paint them as looney "nut jobs" plain and simple, and would easily fail Wikipedia's own rules of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. To use a Holocaust metaphor, no one in their right mind would rely on or care what the Völkischer Beobachter or Der Stürmer or Der Angriff had to say about Jews, Judaism or any aspect of the how the Jews call themselves or their religious affiliations (which is what "Haredi" is all about). Or that newspapers and sources that are not known for their expertise on Jews or Judaism, if anything they have a great ignorance and antipathy towards them and they know nothing about religion in general and Judaism specifically say or call any matter in Judaism and Haredi Judaism in particular. And would this mean that every single Hebrew or Yiddish term is now on the chopping block and "must" be "anglicised" and "only" the English term be used? That should be fun as the race will start to rename and rid Wikipedia of terms like Torah, Tanakh, Yom Kippur, etc etc etc, see all the fun you can have renaming Hebrew terms just because the New York Times and the Britannica don't use them as much, at Category:Hebrew-language names with more at Category:Hebrew language and then have fun with Category:Yiddish words and phrases, lots more at Category:Yiddish and more like this with other languages. Therefore the attempt to change "Haredi" is totally absurd and bound to fail. Use the term, get over it, and get on with what the point is that you are trying to make in the article rather than getting hung up on long-established Wikipedia terminology. IZAK (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see this as a total non-issue. I am a Chareidi, and I've been using both the terms Ultra-Orthodox and Chareidi to describe myself and my community interchangeably in the past 10 years or so. I do not see anything bad or wrong in using either of the terms. Nahum (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Nahum: You happen to be a tolerant person, which is good, and many good people endure all sorts of stuff, but this is not just a matter of how immune one is to being labelled "ultra" anything. If as you say it is a a "total non-issue" to you at any rate, then that in itself is a good enough reason to retain the status quo and not create turmoil, so that the long-accepted term on Wikipdia remains "Haredi" because using "ultra orthodox" clearly does upset other editors and as has been conclusively proven that it is definitely a pejoravite term as far as many authors and WP:RS are concerned, as the Haredi Judaism initial paragraph makes abundantly clear. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Note: as pointed out above by nableezy, I think this discussion belongs on the Haredi Judaism talk page. I actually started a discussion about this a month ago. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear IZAK. CasualObserver'48 is right. That was just a comparison of analog Wikipedia policy in avoiding certain percepted pejorative descriptions. No excuse is in order, not could it be. After all, I am Hareidi myself. Furthermore, the right place to raise considerations of a personal matter, is on a person's talkpage, not on discussion pages. I hope this is enough of a reaction from my side. If not, my talkpage is all yours. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the residents of Modi'in Ilit whether they consider themselves Orthodox, chareidi, or ultra (=beyond) orthodox? I don't know when it became policy to start inserting the pejorative term "ultra-orthodox"all over the place. It is unhelpful to the majority of Wikipedia readers, who have no ide awhat it means, and need the link to Haredi Judaism to discover its meaning. Personally I find ther usage offensive, and I don't see that that makes me intolerant. --Redaktor (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

largest Israeli city

It might be a city of Israelis, but it is not an Israeli city as it is not in Israel. nableezy - 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talking about fringe opinions... Debresser (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I am bit confused. What is the fringe opinion here? That Modi'in Illit is not in Israel? nableezy - 00:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually being an Israeli city does not imply that it's in Israel. There was already a debate at this at Talk:List of Israeli cities, which is why the article carries that title. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It does imply it is in Israel. After Shuki again put Israeli city in the lead I changed it so the lead reads "it was given city status in 2008" but retaining settlement as its primary description. nableezy - 17:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If it became a city in March 2008, why was Haaretz writing about whether it should become a city in May 2008? [21] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

nableezy, we are supposed to improve the article and keep NPOV. Virtually every locality article on WP is first described as what it is; town, village, city, etc... Afterwards, other labels can be added. Since you will refuse to have us write 'city in Israel', you must permit a compromise Israeli city instead. In fact, the label you most prefer 'Israeli settlement' also implies 'in Israel' by your logic, right? Please make up your mind so that we can rename 'Israeli settlements' something else as well. --Shuki (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you know that the term Israeli settlement has a specific meaning. Part of the meaning is that it is outside of Israel (either in the West Bank or the Golan Heights or once upon a time in the Gaza Strip and Sinai). Every "Israeli" locality built in occupied land is almost universally called a settlement. BBC, BBC, Guardian, Guardian, Independent, Independent, Reuters, NY Times, Washington Post and let me know if you want me to keep going. Calling it an "Israeli city" as the primary descriptor takes a tiny minority view and uses that ahead of what the vast majority of sources call this settlement, which is a "settlement". I kept that it was given city status in the lead, but saying that it is an Israeli city before anything else is not right. nableezy - 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for getting Nableezy and Sean mixed up in the caption to my latest edits. It is, of course, Nableezy who supplied the refs describing it as a settlement.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

All of you are acting like the terms "city" and "settlement" are mutually exclusive. They are not, and the recent edit by Peter cohen is completely confusing things. There are four Israeli cities in the territories, and quite a few local councils. They also happen to be settlements. Neither of these facts is disputed. Get over it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why when 99% of the sources use the wording "Israeli settlement" to describe this settlement we should use something else as the primary descriptor? nableezy - 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey is correct. This has been discussed before. "Israeli" refers to the locality's national/administrative status; "settlement" refers to its legal/diplomatic status. "City" refers to its municipal/civic status. Its apples, oranges and persimmons. -- Nudve (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli" does not just refer to a locality's national/administrative status. It also refers to its location. And can you explain why when 99% of the sources use "Israeli settlement" exclusively we should be using something else as the primary descriptor? nableezy - 18:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli" does not necessarily mean it is in Israel, the way "British" is not necessarily in Britain (British colony is usually outside Britain). Many sources call it settlement because they are interested in the legal/diplomatic status. But as I said, the terms are not mutually exclusive. -- Nudve (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what Israeli is referring to. A British city is within Britain, when British is modifying colony there is no such issue as colony itself implies outside of the country. Same with settlement and city. When Israeli is modifying city it does necessarily mean within Israel, and settlement means outside of Israel. But my question is what should be the primary descriptor. The overwhelming majority of sources refer to this place as an "Israeli settlement" to the exclusion of calling it a city, much less an "Israeli city". Why should we use "city" as the primary descriptor? nableezy - 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Why can it not be both? To follow up the previous example, Australia was both a continent and a colony. I think continent should be the first ("primary") descriptor, because geographic status is more important than political status. This article currently says it is a settlement which became a city. I think it should be "a city and an Israeli settlement in the West Bank". Are the "overwhelming majority of sources" saying that it is "definitely not a city"? -- Nudve (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They dont say it is not a city, but they dont call it a city except in a small number of sources. As such I think the most common descriptor, "Israeli settlement", should be used first then use "and city" as using the language of a small minority ahead of what is the most common phrasing is not in keeping with NPOV, specifically due weight. I dont have a problem calling it a city, I have a problem calling it a city before calling it a settlement and with calling it an "Israeli city". nableezy - 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"City" is a political status - it was only recently awarded and there are plenty of "towns" in Britain that are far larger than this "city". The primary status is that this is a colony of Israelis within land conquered in '67 and "settlement" is how these are referred to. Here for example are two articles in the Financial Times [22], [23] referring to everything beyond the Green Line as settlements. And here we have the Jewish Chronicle specifically calling Modi'in Illit a settlement rather than a city [24]. And here The Guardian [25]. These two and [26] which fails to describe MI beyond it's being just within the West Bank are the only Newspapers which show up on the first two screens of a google for the place in the UK. Meanwhile searching the French google, you get [27] referring to it as a "colonie" and the first mainstream German newspaper article (from the regional Nordwest-Zeitung) thrown up refers [28] to MI as "Siedlung" albeit in a profile of a pair of activists from Oldenburg. "Settlement" does seem to be the default term in the internaitonal press.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is going in circles. Nobody denies that it is a settlement. If the "first descriptor is the problem, perhaps we could compromise on "an Israeli settlement and a city in the West Bank". The fact that it is small by international is irrelevant, since the criterion is local. Here is a recent Washington Post article on this issue. -- Nudve (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That is fine by me (in fact that is what it says now). nableezy - 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not. Please verify other locality articles in WP. The municipal status always leads. Afterwards, labels can be added. There is a continued attempt to delegitimze and dehumanize. 'Israeli settlement' is a general label that is applied to single dwellings in Arab heighbourhoods to cities and it is misleading to lead the article with the label. It is certainly not POV to call a city a city and quite peculiar the strong effort being made here by certain editors to make sure that city term is deprecated (if used at all). --Shuki (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

These are not just "localities", these are colonies built in occupied land which is far more important than the "municipal status" that the occupying power gives these colonies. nableezy - 21:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, your soapboxing is irrelevant to the article. Please stick to serious arguments. Why do you have an issue with stating the municipal status of settlements? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not soapboxing, I am writing down verifiable facts that are directly related to the article, though perhaps you would like to call out Shuki for soapboxing about a supposed effort to dehumanize? And I dont have an issue with stating the municipal status, I have an issue using that as the primary descriptor of places that the overwhelming majority of RSs disregard and instead use the standard description as an "Israeli settlement". If you had paid attention rather than rush to provide backup you would have seen above I have no problem with saying "Israeli settlement and city in the West Bank". If you had been paying attention you would have noticed I put that language into the article, not removing the city status just not using it ahead of what everybody calls these places. My arguments are serious, whereas the ones used to support the idea that these are "Israeli cities" (eg that Israeli city does not imply in Israel, sort of like how you first reacted to the idea of not having the infobox say the country was Israel) are specious. I already said I do not have a problem calling it a "city". I do have a problem calling it a city before calling it an Israeli settlement and I do have a problem calling it an "Israeli city". What about the current text do you take issue with? Are you really going to argue that it is NPOV to use the preferred language of a tiny minority ahead of what nearly all sources use? nableezy - 00:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was merely responding to your latest one-liner about "colonies" and such, not the general argument. As for the general argument, you're actually contradicting yourself. The previous text, "[Title] is a city and Israeli settlement", does not even say "Israeli city" as you imply. Your preferred version, on the other hand, does say that it's an Israeli city ("Israeli settlement and city" = "Israeli settlement and Israeli city"). I don't feel that strongly about it, but you should decide which you prefer and why, because you can't eat the cake and leave it full. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not dealing with a distributive property of adjectives. Israeli settlement and city != Israeli settlement and Israeli city. I prefer Israeli settlement and city as I have made clear above. But we can add an "a" before city so there is no confusion. But I think Tiamut's latest edit is perfect (Israeli settlement ... given city status in 2008.) nableezy - 03:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't support that version. Either it's a city or it isn't. "given status" implies that it is not really a city. I prefer Shuki's version but am willing to compromise on "settlement and city". -- Nudve (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont see that implication, I just see that it has not been a city for all that long. nableezy - 18:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem either. I would suggest this version of mine as a compromise but someone put the boot into it above.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

comment: i thought my change to ariel was a good solution, "The city of Ariel is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank."" full stop.

but shuki changed it to his preferred version. if your concern is having "city" first (which is minority pov by an israeli institution - see peter cohen's comment), my edit solved that as well, without getting into this weird "city and a settlement" awkward wording. whaddaya think? untwirl(talk) 19:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, every locality article on WP starts with xyz is a county, abc is a town, but Israeli settlements somehow don't deserve those bland titles and it seems that the emphasis must be first on the dehumanizing labels. First and foremost, a human locality is just that, a locality. The awkard and exceptional 'The city of xyz is a settlement' is an unnecessary compromise that exists nowhere else on WP. Look at WP:BLP which is similar. We certainly do not start articles, 'Dr. John Smith is a dentist and politician' and the Dr will not appear ahead of the article subject. One can only ask what is the motive to these editors to struggle so hard to make sure that city is deprecated. WHY? Because the attempt to deprecate the normalization of Israeli settlements is a systematic effort here. AGF certainly does not apply when certain editors are making sure that common consensus on WP does not apply to Israeli settlement articles. --Shuki (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, these are not just localities. Their being built on occupied territory, illegally in the eyes of most commentators, is much more important than their municipal status. You do not decide on your own what is NPOV and your continued insistence in trying to use the language of an extreme minority ahead of what nearly all sources do is what is in violation of NPOV. nableezy - 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

really? every locality? why, the first one i typed in (Austin) doesn't mention "city" until the third sentence. untwirl(talk) 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Nableezy, that is where you fail. You simply cannot completely separate your POV from the article editting. Indeed, these are definitely not just any localities, but first and foremost, they are human settlements, something you refuse to accept and strive to delegitmize and deny. The fact is that 30 000 plus people (Jews) residing together in an urban environment is a city. That is NPOV, and you can deny it all you want. Modi'in Illit is a fact, a city, with a mayor, many health clinics and doctors, supermarkets, a locality full of observant Jews and it might be built in disputed territory. --Shuki (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You think you are able to separate your POV from article editing? These are, first and foremost, Israeli settlements. The fact that it was built on occupied territory outside of the borders of Israel make it an Israeli settlement. Modi'in Illit is in fact an Israeli settlement, built on occupied, note not disputed, territory, something that you refuse to accept. That is NPOV and you can deny it all you want, but Wikipedia does not have to take your protestations seriously as they are not serious. nableezy - 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, once again - what is notable about austin, tx? mostly, the fact that it is the capital of the state. hence, that it the first fact about it mentioned in its article. they also mention where it is physically located before they mention that it is a city. your argument here is moot. i actually believe the city thing should go from the first sentence altogether with maybe a line about "israel officially gave it city status ..." further down. the edit i made to ariel and suggested here was as a compromise to you, which you obviously do not appreciate. untwirl(talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Shuki, respectfully you're trying to legitimize the settlement, which almost every country in the world considers to be a war crime. For the international community (the user base of Wikipedia), the answer to "what's Modi'in Illit?" is "It's one of the Israeli settlements", not "it's a city in X". Similarly, in international media the context Modi'in Illit is discussed is overwhelmingly as one of the settlements. --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, and thank you for actually trying to bring that up to expose this farce. I, and frankly no one, has to legitimize that Modiin Illit, Ariel, Maale Adumim or Beiter Illit are cities because they are cities. Please read that article, it is not my OR. And what are these questions you are asking? That sounds like OR to me, like Nableezy is using as well, certainly not WP policy. You know what, since you cannot see it otherwise, let's go to the extreme Category:Crimes against humanity that you would love to attach here. Just go through a random sample and you'll see that no article is similarly cluttered with accusations and labels like the pro-Palestinian camp strives to do on settlement articles. Even sentenced criminals behind bars are not described as criminals in the lead: Mr X is a plastic surgeon who murdered his wife, Ms Y was a bookkeeper who was convicted.... SO, it's not just POV that some editors are trying to insert here, it is simply poor editing. --Shuki (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy is using OR? You do realize that I posted a number of articles describing Modiin Illit specifically as a settlement? You do realize that nearly all the sources describe Modiin Illit as only a settlement right? It is not an accusation that Modiin Illit is an Israeli settlement, it is a simple fact. A fact that the sources give more importance to than it being designated a city by the occupying power. Can you explain why it being designated a city is more important than it being built on occupied land? nableezy - 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write "legitimize as a city", just "legitimize", and contrary to what you may be assuming I don't want to attach to this article, or any other, anything that isn't true. In fact I want to remove material that isn't true or is misleading. You're wrong about sentenced criminals though, have a look at Ted Bundy. --Dailycare (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DC, so you found one out of a few hundred that is written that way. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's try another one: Jeffrey Dahmer, there too in the very first sentence. Not that I think this kind of scanning is very fruitful, since I'm a bit lost as to what your point might be. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being referred to as a city first, so long as it really is one—I'm still concerned, as I said above, that we have a Haaretz article discussing whether it should be awarded city status, dated after the time it was supposedly awarded it—so long as we make clear very soon afterwards that it's an illegal settlement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do. It is first, before anything else (and this is based on how nearly all sources describe this place), an Israeli settlement. nableezy - 23:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Various of us have looked at how the place is decribed in the international press and "settlement" is the preferred terminology. Wer've provided links above. In my case I looked at the first newspapers I could find in UK, German and French Google and Settlement/colonie/Siedlung were the descriptions. (Most of the sources before these were leftist, moslem or Zionist sites which would reflect partisan positions. Others were Wikipedia or shadow sites.) WP:DUE makes it clear that we should prioritise the terminology in the majority of sources. Therefore "settlement" should come first. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

largest Israeli city - arbitrary break

SlimVirgin, this is the lead to the city article,

A city is a relatively large and permanent settlement, particularly a large urban settlement.[1][2] Although there is no agreement on technical definitions distinguishing a city from a town within general English language meanings, many cities have a particular administrative, legal, or historical status based on local law.

Peter Cohen, NPOV requires us not to mix apples and oranges. It is undeniable that the vast majority of the word sees the Jews living in that area as settlers as well as the Jewish localities as settlements (in contrast to the common settlement term used in every other geography article). I certainly do not deny that they vast majority of sources lump all Jewish localities into the generalized term 'settlement' and on one hand it is fine. (The Bible talks about settling the land of Israel, 'settler' is seen by some as a derogatory term, others see it as a medal of honour) On the other hand, this article is about a specific settlement. In this case, and the other 100+ settlements, it is misleading to give UNDUE to this general term. Instead the article is about a) the geographical locality, B) other issues. --Shuki (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You've just admitted that the world sees the term "settlement" as the normal term. I and others have provided cites from the international press demonstrating that MI and Ariel are customarilly referred to as settlements. And the JC is hardly anti-Zionist. Yet you persist in distorting the meaning of WP:DUE which makes clear that the weight should be given to how the majority of reliable sources regard these palces which is as illegal settlements. Kindly stop claiming NPOV when you are pushing your and the settlers minority point of view that a civic status given by a country that repeatedly demonstrates contempt for international law takes precedence over the language used by reliable sources such as the international media, the international court and the security council and other organs of the UN.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a game for you I see.

Certainly by now, I know you are specifically ignoring my argument and the article about city, it has nothing to do with my POV. I'm sorry that you are unable to rise above your bias and see that this is simply not the issue of what is legal or not, and we are not talking about that here. If your POV way of looking at WP was right, then the master article would be titled, 'illegal Israeli settlements'. But it isn't. Even if the world called Modiin Illit a colony, or Zionist settlement (as localities in Israel are called by many), this specific article itself would still be about the city where 30 000 Jews live. --Shuki (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Shuki, you are continually obfuscating the issue here by claiming that it is "NPOV" to say city before settlement. Why is that? How is it more "neutral" to use language that nearly nobody in the world uses to identify these places ahead of what nearly all reliable sources use? Just asserting one is neutral doesnt mean anything. nableezy - 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

the consensus here is obviously in favor of "israeli settlement." making negative assumptions about the motivations of other editors ("This is a game for you I see.") is not appropriate. at this point, shuki, you should seek WP:DR if you think the community as a whole might feel differently. untwirl(talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficulties

One of the difficulties I'm having is understanding what is meant by "illegal construction" when Haaretz writes about it, as in this article. From the point of view of the international community and most reliable sources, the entire West Bank belongs to the Palestinians. In that sense, Modi'in Illit is an illegal settlement. Additionally, however, it seems that parts of it are also regarded as illegal under Israeli law, because at least one neighborhood was built on land legally belonging to a Palestinian village. There was a claim that it had been sold to the settlers, but it seems to be impossible to prove that, at best, and possibly fraudulent. [29]

I'm wondering how we can accurately convey the two levels of illegality in a way that won't simply lead to the settlement's supporters reverting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem part is "without being reverted"... A simple way would be to say, for example, "All settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law, and most settlements are separately also illegal under Israeli law since they were built at least partly on privately-owned land". Sourcing e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/24/west-bank-settlements-israel : "All are colonies on land captured by Israel in 1967 and since occupied, and all are therefore in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention." and http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=191&docid=2024 : "Construction of settlements on private Palestinian land is illegal according to the [Israeli] Supreme Court ruling (...) The vast majority of settlement construction was done against the law of the land and the Supreme Court ruling and therefore unauthorized."--Dailycare (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nudve’s helpful ref, noted above, summarizes many of the issues and brings in many additional aspects that describe and add to these difficulties. Our topic is recent news and on-going. That can gererate more heat than light, but it does highlight Wiki’s existence in the real world narrative wars. The article also focuses on our discussion of this on-going local question from the real-world wider consensus of larger questions of international diplomacy, international law and human rights, and well, prospects for peace, or not. This discussion is a microcosm of a loud and vocal minority remonstrating against a decided majority in a much wider consensus, with very notable ‘admins’, administrative decisions and decision bureaucracies. It is best for Wikipedia that their editorial consensus appreciates that fact properly and sufficiently, while appropriately and neutrally acknowledging opposing beliefs and points of view. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Which RS determine the "point of view of the international community"? Nor is it up to WP to try to "prove" or "disprove" anything. Only to state the facts and the conflict involved, trying to understand that there are human beings on both sides. The Guardian has all sorts of bias issues with Israel, and DC's suggestion generalizes and says "most settlements". We should be doing our research on each individual community, if we have individual articles, not lumping every Israeli neighborhood as "most settlements" and "illegal" PeaceNow is a left-wing site that has always taken a particular stance and is not group of lawyers specializing in international law. Sure there is a "loud and vocal minority" but WP is not a democracy, but is based on other policies. The loud and vocal minority believes this is not settled law, that Israel has a claim to some of the area that the Palestinians believe they have a claim to, that neither Palestine nor Israel has settled borders, that Israel has honest self-defense and security issues, etc. The loud and vocal minority does not believe that every Israeli neighborhood in what the Palestinians have claimed as their own is "illegal," that the law is settled, that Israelis who build on Palestinian claimed land live in "settlements" and should be called "settlers" before anything else. The loud and vocal minority does not see Palestine as a state yet, only a region, nor does it necessarily see that Palestine is trying to live in peace with its neighbor(s) as per Resolution 242. There are plenty of areas of disagreement, and I would hope that because there are more people at WP and even in the media today who believe otherwise, that Wikipedians would not try to bulldoze their opinions into articles by virtue of greater numbers, but try to remain neutral and let time work out the issues instead of insisting on making facts out of a fluid situation. Nothing is writ in stone yet. Stellarkid (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion on content? --Dailycare (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I would like to see this --(in this particular case since Israel has apparently deemed this an Israeli city) "Modi'in Illit is an Israeli city in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) area, midway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It is often referred to as Kiryat Sefer (lit. "Book Town"), the name of its first neighborhood. It was established in 1994 by Haredi Jews. Modi'in Illit has also been termed an illegal Israeli settlement according to [.....] [insert reliable source here]- (see also:Israeli settlements) Stellarkid (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with that. To begin with we dont say "West Bank (Judea and Samaria)". And it has not been "termed" an "illegal Israeli settlement", it is an Israeli settlement that has been called illegal by a number of competent authorities. Modiin Illit, and other Israeli settlements, is most often described as an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. That should lead the article. That it has been designated a city should be included but it should not lead the article. And it would not even be called an "Israeli city" as it is not in Israel. nableezy - 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is the "we" that don't say "West Bank (Judea and Samaria)" area? It is after all considered an Israeli city by Israel, and is in the municipality or region that Israel refers to that way. It is common practice to clarify in parenthesis like that. That is why we have an article on Judea and Samaria as well. You are taking it as given that this is a "settlement," yet Israel has apparently deemed this her city. In my version, the settlement issue remains in the lede, only it is referenced. What evidence or legal decision do you reference to claim that this town of 38,000 souls is not even in Israel? Stellarkid (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"We" is "Wikipedia" and why is WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) which was created as a result of WP:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. And the "legal decision" of it not being "in Israel"? You serious? Even Israel does not claim that Modiin Illit is in Israel. It has never annexed the area and the entire world recognizes that it is in the occupied West Bank, which is not in Israel. And in the current version the "city" is in the lead, just not placed before the most common description. nableezy - 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a source given for the apparent fact that Israel has deemed it a city, however. We don't need to go into detail about Haredi Jews when we have wikilinks for that. ditto for "Israeli settlements". Judea and Samaria should be added to West Bank since Israel is claiming this as her city. The main body of the article should cover the city truthfully including any controversy over the land and ownership, as long as we have RS to document it. The way it sounds now is terrible (IMHO) ("is a illegal Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox Jewish) Israeli settlement in the West Bank,") and I am not sure it is even a fact, since we have no RS that calls it such, nor is there any legal document that calls it illegal afaik. In a town of 89 synagogues and 38,000 people are they all "ultra-orthodox"? As written now itis clearly a case of putting politics and opinions first and human beings (and verifiable facts) second. Stellarkid (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It says it is in the "Judea and Samaria Area" the name of the administrative district. But we do not say a place is in Judea and Samaria. And we do have sources calling it illegal, you must not have looked. this is a BBC piece discussing Modiin Illit and number of other settlements with the line The settlements are illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this. In fact nearly every BBC article about an Israeli settlement contains that line. nableezy - 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That BBC author cannot make the statement that the settlements are illegal under international law, since he is not an international lawyer. He is mistaken. The WP article on Israeli settlements covers this and points out that "it is considered by the EU" to be in violation of international law based on the Geneva Conventions. Various arguments have been put forth to this effect but nothing has been adjudicated. As such, it cannot be said to be illegal until and unless it is so determined by a court of international law. And even if it were adjudicated as such, there is no guarantee that Israel would honor such a decision by pulling its citizens out and leaving the territory to the Palestinians as it did in Gaza. Other countries have got territory by conquest and annexation in the past, and kept it by sheer force of arms. Either way, the issue regarding POV in WP is on emphasis, and the town is a Jewish town with 38,000 humans, 80 synagogues, and some 50 schools. The question of whether or not it is an "illegal settlement" is covered in the lede in my version and the reader can go to the article itself on Israeli settlements to read more about the various towns' status. More can be covered in the body of the article. By way of comparison, in the U.S. there is a fairly large group called La Raza and its supporters which claims large portions of the American southwest belongs to Mexico, according to international law. However, when we write articles about California or Arizona, we don't make a big issue out of that fact ,if we cover it at all. Perhaps that is because other nations have not weighed in on it. Maybe we don't want to make such a comparison, but again, the issue is that these towns deserve an entry that is based on something other than its status as "illegal." Stellarkid (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. We rely on secondary sources, the BBC is a high quality source and if they print such a thing as a fact then we can accept it as a fact. And this is not just about the Palestinians saying this as the analogy that you provide implies. The entire world accepts this point. It is a super-majority view that Israeli settlements are in violation of international law. But if you really want something from an international court I point you to the advisory opinion passed by the International Court of Justice on the building of the West Bank wall.

The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited. (p 183)
The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law. (p 184)

nableezy - 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

titles

Is there a reason why honorific titles would be used for Rabbis but not Priests or Sheikhs? Is there something about using the title for Rabbis that doesnt apply to Muslim and Christian clergy? nableezy - 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You know what you are claiming is entirely absurd. According to your interpretation, no titles are allowed in any article. And your claim of Sheikh not appearing is utterly baseless and a lie; there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that include (rightfully) the title given to certain religious Moslem figures, and clearly you are picking on this article. Please prove your NPOV by cleaning up these articles as well. This is just a sample, some of which you have edited.

• • al-Bireh
  • Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi
  • Ayman al-Zawahiri
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir
  • Jund Ansar Allah
  • Mahmoudiya Mosque
  • Palestinian political violence
  • Nablus
  • Nizar Rayan
  • Yasser Arafat

--Shuki (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What you are claiming is nonsense. If those articles violate the manual of style fix them. I have consistently removed such honorifics from Islam related articles, including here which happened during Ramadan while I was fasting, so for you to say I am "picking on this article" is just one more in the recent malicious lies you have written about me. nableezy - 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And the titles are allowed in articles, when discussing the actual use of the title. But using the title is not allowed. nableezy - 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And just to prove how retarded that rant of yours was, one of the articles linked, Nizar Rayan has this edit. Would you care to strike out your accusations? nableezy - 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the big deal with that one edit? You did the right thing; titles don't lead the first mention of names in BLP articles. --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The big deal is that you are accusing me of only removing such titles here, in an obvious accusation of antisemitism being behind my edit here (just as you have in the past said I was dehumanizing Jews for using the most common description of this place first) when one of the articles you linked to disproves that very point. That is the big deal. Would you care to strike out your accusations? Or will you, as you have everywhere else, leave them be even though they are bogus? nableezy - 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to discussion pertinent to this article. Thank you. Tomer^talk 07:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On titles, this article on the swastika talks about Bishop Sheen, this one refers to Mother Teresa, and this one refers to Sister Ruth: "Before entering the religious life as a Dominican nun, Sister Ruth was a litigator with Manhattan law firm..." This one makes a number of references to Rabbi Kushner. So apparently it is quite common to use the religious respectful title for (at least) Christian and Jewish leaders. I don't know the first thing about Sheiks and Imams and such though. Also if you are just calling someone "a rabbi" or "a Catholic priest," for example, you do not capitalize it. Stellarkid (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

POV editing

Some people are continuing to POV-edit this page, removing sourced information, even stating "there is no source" while the information is backed up by a live video source where you can see it happen. Others are lying about the substance of the source in order to remove it, etc. This will not be tolerated. Referenced information will be returned to the page and lies about the substance will be corrected. NeoRetro (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions to ensure that you are aware on the sanctions in place. Your language was pretty confrontational which won't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? You can change my language but you cant change the facts. I wont mind someone having another opinion or posting a diffrent referenced view, but I wont tollerate (neigther should you or any Wikipedia participant) that decently referenced information is deleted, changed or denied. Its there, go look at the source and you will see. You cant just delete it and say "its not referenced" or "its not true". Sorry but thats just not enough reason to delete something. Maybe you should say to the ones that keep deleting referenced information to read those rules. Right now you are just making threats. If you are a just Wikipedian, you should give me some response, not threaten my with punishment. NeoRetro (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...because you are obliged to abide by the sanctions like everyone else. Being right or wrong about an edit doesn't change that. It's not a threat, it's a request. I haven't commented on the content you added. Others can and have done that. I'm just asking you to be less confrontational in your talk page postings because a confrontational approach is counterproductive, that's all. You don't need to fire tear gas canisters at the messenger. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits introduced a non-neutral POV. The status of the lands is a matter of dispute - as described in the section about the conflict. You can't just state, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, that the lands were confiscated. The bit about the reporter is not only non-notable, but is not supported by the source - all we know is that a tear gas canister was fired near where she was. Millmoss (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true. The al-Jazeera report specifically says that village was built on Palestinian land and that the barrier was built on Palestinian land. Both the video and the Haaretz report say that the reporter was attacked by Israeli forces. Everything in the sentence is supported by the sources. nableezy - 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly say that al-Jazeera claims this to be the case, but we can't state it as if it is the truth, especially when the article elsewhere states a different position - that this was state land. I also don't see how an incident of a reporter being attacked in Bil'in is relevant enough to warrant a paragraph in the history of Modi'in Illit. Is YouTube a source that can be used in this article?Millmoss (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is a RS, they do not "claim" they "report". Besides that, it is not in dispute that the land the barrier was built on in this area is in the oPt confiscated by the Israeli government. Youtube is not the source, al-Jazeera is. nableezy - 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

But we have other sources that say otherwise - that the land was in fact state land, no? And I believe you are incorrect with regards to the source - it is clearly a clip posted on YouTube. Would you mind answering the question I asked with regards to relevance? Millmoss (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources that I know of saying the section of the barrier in this area was built on state land. And you are apparently unfamiliar with al-Jazeera English. They post clips to youtube themselves. The clip comes from an al-Jazeera newscast. I am not opposed from moving the sentence from the history section to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict section. nableezy - 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this an unreliable source, I am also not sure how it is relevant to Modi'in Illit on what land the barrier around Na'alin was built. I'd appreciate an explanation. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How is al-Jazeera an unreliable source? And you can see the relevance if you look at the al-Jazeera video. nableezy - 21:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the the YouTube issue- I agree we can use it, in appropriate places, if it is an "offical" clip form the station, uploaded by them to YouTube.

You actually bring up a different issue, which I had meant to address - this article is about Modiin Illit. It is not about the barrier, or about Bili'in. There are no sources that I know of saying the section of the barrier in this area is in Modiin Illit, so what is the relevance of this incident, which is focused on the protests against the barrier doing in this article? Modiin is not even mentioned in one of the sources (the Haartz article), and is mentioned once, in passing, in the al-Jazeera report. Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the article about the barrier?

That aside, there are at least 3 positions with regards to the lands of Kiryat Sefer (part of Modi'in llit): one extreme position is that of the villagers, who assert it is their land, which was "stolen". The other extreme is the position of the Israeli government, which states this was state land, which does not belong to the villagers. Somewhere in the middle is B'Tselem, which while acknowledging that the land is state land, claims that the legal process by which these lands became sate land was faulty, and is an improper application of the 1858 Ottoman Land Law. We can't ignore these competing claims, or present just one of them as the "truth".

Same goes for the statement "was attacked by Israeli soldiers". All we have is a video clip the shows a gas canister landing near the reporter, while she is on air. We can say that a gas cansiter landed near a reporter while she was on air, and that she believed it to be an attack on her, but we can't state that as fact. Millmoss (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Haaretz source specifically says, while also including the video, "IDF filmed aiming tear gas at Al-Jazeera reporter in West Bank" as the headline and says "when Israeli troops began firing tear gas at the protesters and then directly at her.". As to why it is relevant: from the al-Jazeera report the protesters are there to "make the point that this is their land that has been stolen to build this wall and their land, which has also been stolen, to build the illegal Jewish settlement of Modiin Illit which is just beyond the wall." nableezy - 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Haaretz article does not mention Modiin illit, the subject of this article, even once. The video mentions it once, in passing, but is clearly not about Modiin illit, nor does it say it was filmed in or even near modiin illit. Could you explain why this is relevant, but a sledgehammer attack on resident of Moddin illit, by an arab worker is not relevant? Also, why is that section not showing up in the article? Millmoss (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the reporter getting attacked with tear gas canisters is just a single issue that does not need to be here. However, what should be here is, as the al-Jazeera video reports, that there are weekly protests against "the illegal Jewish settlement of Modi'in Illit" and that those protests have become "a symbol of Palestinian anger against Israel's illegal encroachment of Palestinian land" and that they are often subject to having tear-gas used against them. nableezy - 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll rewrite this paragraph accordingly. Millmoss (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

<= Regarding the relationship between the barrier and Modi'in Illit in this area. The relationship is direct. It's an integral part of the security features of Modi'in Illit so I think it is relevant for this article. It was built to separate the Modi'in bloc settlements Mattityahu, Modi'in Illit and Hashmona'im from the Palestinian villages of Bil'in and others. According to the Supreme Court of Israel "It is intended to protect the residents of Modi'in Illit, and the residents of the Modi'in bloc and the city of Modi'in which are adjacent to it".[30]. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)...Can I also add that describing the Israeli and Palestinian positions on land ownership as 2 equally valid competing 'extremes' is rather misleading and inconsistent with NPOV. It's like saying that the positions of the Discovery Institute and the National Academy of Sciences are 2 equally valid competing extreme position on evolution. We need to make sure that undue weight is not given to minority views or else we won't be complying with mandatory policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The first part of your comment is interesting, and thank you for providing the source. I believe there should be a separate section (either as part of the legal status, or another one entirely) about the relationship of Modi'in Illit with Bil'in and the security barrier. However, there should be sources discussing this relationship directly (such as the one you provided) and not YouTube videos from al-Jazeera English which barely touch the subject.

The second part of the comment, however, could not be further from the truth, and there could not be a more inappropriate comparison. If anything, the Israeli position is more credible as Israel has an independent court system which does not serve the government and has often ruled against it (the source you provided is relevant here). Land ownership in Israel is done through formal documents and can always be verified. The government ministries are also mostly independent and several ministries deal with different aspects of land ownership. On the other hand, the PA doesn't have such an apparatus, and many if not most Palestinian land claims cannot be verified. Wikipedia should not favor either side's claims, and there is a court to decide in each case which side's claim is more credible. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of these statements. As regards the first one, I have rewritten the passage in question using the source Sean provided, and removing the YouTube video. Millmoss (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence on the protests needs a source and al-Jazeera is a reliable source. nableezy - 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Bil'in protest is a well-known weekly protest. It might be relevant here, and it might not, but the al-Jazeera video says nothing about the general trends of the protest, and from what I can tell (I watched it 3 times since it was released), does not support the statement "These protests often involve rock throwing by the Palestinians, and the firing of tear gas and rubber-coated bullets by Israeli security forces.", as it covers only one specific protest. The statement does appear true and fairly worded, and yes it needs a source—one that actually supports it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The al-Jazeera video does in fact say something in general about the protests, that they have become "a symbol of Palestinian anger against Israel's illegal encroachment of Palestinian land". I'll look for another source for "often". nableezy - 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Area C

Saying "Area C" is Israeli is simply put a lie. a part of the West Bank known as area C, a designation from the era of the Oslo Accords which means Israel has full military and administrative control, the interim agreements divided the West Bank into three zones: Areas A, B, and C. ... As of July 1998 . . . Area C, the remaining 72% of the West Bank, was under Israeli military occuption. ... By October 2000 . . .the remaining 59% (Area C) remained under Israeli military occupation., another source explaining this. Israel retains military control of Area C under the interim agreements, they are not magically not part of the occupied Palestinian territories. This idea that because Modi'in Illit is in Area C that it becomes not in the Palestinian territories is laughable. nableezy - 23:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Laughable? I think it is 'laughable' your picking a 3rr edit war after you have been through this before with others. I suggest you rv your last misleading OR edit, unless you can find a source saying that Modiin Illit is on Palestinian soil. I'm sure you know that 3rr for you and others on I-P articles does not need to mean the standard 4 reverts that it does for everyone else. --Shuki (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am at 3 reverts, exactly where you are at, assuming you are not the IP editor who instigated this. The source cited clearly supports what the sentences say: Modi'in Illit is an Israeli settlement in the " "occupied West Bank" and that it and the other settlements are illegal. nableezy - 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I like how you avoid the main point I was specifically removing. There is nothing about 'Palestinian Territories' in the BBC source. --Shuki (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The West Bank is part of the Palestinian territories. If I were to say that Halsted is a street in Chicago I would also be saying that it is a street in Illinois and a street in the United States. I would not have to say Halsted is a street in the United States. And I like how you avoid mentioning you also removed "Israeli-occupied territories" when that was inserted instead when the source clearly does mention one of those territories as "occupied". nableezy - 23:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)