Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli settlement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:59, 23 January 2024 editDMH223344 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,987 edits →Discussion on Gaza settlements: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:20, 29 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,793 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 13) (bot 
(30 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} {{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=180|archive_units=days|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template --> <!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
{{ARBPIA}} {{ARBPIA}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Israel|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=high|attention=yes}} {{WikiProject Palestine|importance=high|attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Syria|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Egypt|class=B|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Egypt|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} {{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Cities|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Cities}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 45: Line 45:
There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small>


== colonies as an alt name == == ICJ ==


The findings of the ICJ should be treated factually and not on a POV and attribution basis. I.e. I am in favor of the settlements being simply called illegal in the opening sentence, as described by every major RS. ] (]) 09:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Israeli colonies" is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory. And it is simply untrue that it is only used by Palestinian sources (eg ), and when exactly did we disregard sources by ethnicity? Are Jewish Israeli sources banned here or did I miss a memo? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)</small>


:The only question about the use of colonies as a descriptor is the frequency, is it frequently, widely, often, sometimes, rarely used? My instinct is sometimes (perhaps more so academically due to it being a synonym), let's see if we can firm that up. ] (]) 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC) :Given that now have an authoritative statement of the law on this matter, it should be straightforward to find RS reporting of same without caveats, it really doesn't matter any more whether "Israel disputes this" other than as historical background, imo this boilerplate should be removed from articles. There was a consensus about it somewhere but I forget where, perhaps it needs revisiting now. ] (]) 09:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed; it should be Israel's arguments were refuted, rather than the classical and boring "Israel disputes this", which to me always sounded like writing on ]: "The earth is round, but flat earthers dispute this." ] (]) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:*{{cite book | last=Abu-Laban | first=Yasmine | last2=Bakan | first2=Abigail B. | title=Israel, Palestine and the Politics of Race: Exploring Identity and Power in a Global Context | publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing | year=2019 | isbn=978-1-83860-879-8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Meq-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT243 |quote=The ongoing occupation has been heavily shaped by the issues of land confiscation and the building of Israeli Jewish settlements (or what Palestinians often refer to less euphemistically as "colonies").}}<p>That it is often referred to as colonies by one of the involved parties is sufficient for inclusion as a significant alternative title. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::OK, existing consensus ] (thanks to {{Re|Sean.hoyland}} for the link).
:::It would seem that the situation has changed, even before the ICJ opinion, the US accepts (once again, post Trump) that the settlements are illegal so together with the opinion, that seems sufficient to reopen the question with a view to removing the "Israel disputes this" part and possibly rewording the rest. ] (]) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024 ==
See our French Misplaced Pages article ''']'''. That is the common name in French. ] (]) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

:I’m not sure if that matters a lot but Polish ] uses term “colonies" ( kolonie, kolonii etc. in Polish) while referring to ]. -->, including liberal dayly ] --> quote --> ''Najbardziej jednak palestyńskie oczy kłują położone nieopodal izraelskie '''kolonie''''' = ''However, it is the Israeli '''colonies''' located nearby that prick the Palestinian eyes the most.'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
All names in other Misplaced Pages is pretty much irrelevant we english wikipedia. The term colony in English language is rarely used toward Israeli settlements as we don't use Israeli POV like "communities in Judea and Samaria" the usage of such term is clear violation of NPOV --] (]) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
: When you say 'in English language' (meaning, I guess, 'in English sources) you probably meant to state 'in English-language newspapers'. In English-language academic sources, many written by Israeli scholars, the term 'colony' as in 'colonial-settler' (state) is quite common, in keeping with the fact that historically Zionism conceived of itself as a colonial project (] etc.etc.etc). The word 'settlement' is an Israeli/US euphemism born of the necessity to camouflage or underplay the fact that the old ideology is still kicking (out Palestinians) for lebensraum. Other languages are not subject to the same pressures as are English mainstream sources, esp.in countries which are still mindful of their own colonial past. Euphemization is not 'neutral'.] (]) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
::Please clarify when you say "lebensraum" what do you mean? ] (]) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I mean what ] meant by the term when he applied it to Zionism. ] (]) 16:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Doesn't make it clear you sent me disambiguation page ] (]) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
:The claim that the term "colony" is rarely used is bogus and based on nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. We have provided numerous sources both using the term, in English, and defining it. Likewise, the claim that including a significant POV "is clear violation of NPOV" fails the most basic reading of NPOV. Finally, we do not use "colony" in our narrative voice, we say that it is a significant alternative name. Take a look at ] and see very prominently displayed that Israel refers to it as Judea and Samaria, making that just the latest in completely bogus arguments that fail even the most trivial examination. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)</small>

The article for the West Bank says Israel administers it as "the Judea and Samaria area". It does not say "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", as here settlements and colonies are put forward as equivalent names. The analogous description would be to note that the settlements are considered by persons/organizations XYZ to be colonies.

Regarding how rarely it is used, this has an objective answer. See . Use of "settlement" is ~73x more common than "colony" -- i.e. if one of the two is used, there's a ~99% chance it's "settlement".

For contrast, is only used ~12x more than "Judea and Samaria", and if one of the two is used, the probability that it will be "West Bank" is only 93%. By your logic then, it would be reasonable to rewrite the article for the West Bank to read, "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria". ] (]) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

:Colony is anyway a synonym. When we write ] or ], the idea of colony is implicit eg {{cite book |chapter=Post Colonial Colony: time, space and bodies in Palestine/Israel |title=The Persistence of the Palestinian Question |isbn=9780203965351 |publisher=Routledge|date=2006 |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780203965351-9/post-colonial-colony-time-space-bodies-palestine-israel-joseph-massad |last1=Massad |first1=Joseph}} (notice this example does not say "Israeli colony" as used in your Ngram and nor do two of the 4 cites given in the lead, it is a very specific usage, I would think colony used in the Israel Palestine context in general is more common) That there exist some Arab settlers is exceptional but you have asked below for that to be covered and it has been done. ] covers usage of ''Judea and Samaria'' so that argument is not relevant here. ] (]) 10:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, colony may be used without "Israeli" when context is clear, but the same is true for "settlement". I see no reason to suggest that the ratio of unqualified "colony" to unqualified "settlement" in context is any different from the ratio of "Israeli colony" to "Israeli settlement". I've provided evidence that "settlement" is by far the more common term; you "would think" that it is not, based on no additional evidence.

In ], it is clear that it is one paradigm of multiple/many, not some sort of general truth. Use of "Israeli colony" as equivalent to "Israeli settlement" in this article unduly elevates the status of this one paradigm. And insofar as this paradigm is primarily associated with a particular partisan/activist camp, it seems a violation of NPOV to be taking it as given. Similarly, in ], it is clear that Israel being settler-colonial is the viewpoint of some academics and activists; it does not claim to be objective truth.

Whether the words are synonyms is irrelevant. (I disagree that they are, but even if they were.) Presumably you wouldn't use that argument to change ] to read "Ash Wednesday, or Ash Hump Day", even though the words are synonymous. The name of the holiday is "Ash Wednesday", so that's how it's referred to on Misplaced Pages. For a better-in-some-ways-worse-in-others example, ] is not referred to as Itô's theorem, even though a lemma is a type of theorem. That's just not what it's called. Or the guy's name -- it would be just as accurate, if not moreso, to call him Itō, using the standard Japanese romanization scheme of today, but we use Itô instead, because that's what he used and what the literature uses.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "two of the 4 cities given in the lead".

Finally, the naming conventions for West Bank seem to support my point, not yours. Usage of unqualified "Judea and Samaria" is rightfully considered a violation of NPOV, as it's only used to refer to the West Bank by partisans. Similarly, the settlements are referred to as colonies only by partisans on the other side. Therefore the end result should be the same, that articles should not be using "Israeli colonies" without qualification to refer to the settlements, as this article does. ] (]) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

:*cites. I have nothing more to add to the discussion above.
:] (]) 17:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:"Israeli" is not the only adjective: and are also extant prefixing terms. ] (]) 18:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I'm not sure what you mean by "cites". If you're asking for citations, I've given Ngrams, which is a more relevant data point than any number of examples of one usage or another -- data not being the plural of anecdote, as the saying goes.

Iskandar, thank you for the comment. In 2019, 6.0% of all references to any of the six bigrams in question used "colony" in, while the other 94% used "settlement". Notably, "Israeli colony" makes up only 0.3% of the total, the least common bigram of all six.

That said, I think it's a mistake to include "Jewish", since it's impossible to differentiate in the data between Jewish settlements/colonies in Palestine and those elsewhere; e.g. or ] (while neither of those include the particular bigram in question, it's reasonable to think it might turn up in those discussions). As far as I can tell, there seem to be fewer references to Jewish settlements that aren't in reference to Israel (even though I can imagine they might come up in work on history), but to be conservative, I'll exclude those too. Then, . Here, "Israeli settlements" is by far the most common, making up 95.9% of the total. Both "colony" bigrams make up 1.6%, and just "Israeli colony", which in this thread has been put forward as a commonly-used NPOV synonym for "Israeli settlements", makes up only 0.6% of the total.

Even , which is much more common in partisan usage relative to NPOV speakers, "settlement" is used a large majority of the time, 72% to 28%.

Any way you slice this data, it is much more common to refer to them as settlements than colonies, and the phrase "Israeli colonies" specifically is one of the least common ways to refer to the settlements.

Even the UNRWA, viewed by many to be a party biased towards the Palestinian narrative of the conflict, doesn't refer to the as except, apparently, in a single document, once. HRW also . The AP, Reuters, BBC, &c. use "settlements", not "colonies". Happy to provide citations for any of those.

Even the UN as a whole, which ], seems to use "settlements" much more often than "colonies" (in English). I can't share the search link, but using their , I get 500(+?) hits for "Israeli settlements" (full-text search, English, "find this phrase") and only 33 for "Israeli colonies" (in the same box with the same settings). That's, at most, 6.2%. For a similar heuristic, see ], where there are no usages of colony/colonial/colonize/&c. outside of quotes/references, and no uses of "colony" or "colonies" at all. Contrast the 204 uses of "settlement(s)" in the same article.

So, all in all, I find no evidence in favor of the claim that "Israeli colonies" is a commonly-used synonym for "Israeli settlements". Even if I accept the argument that it's non-partisan when it ''is'' used (which I don't, but it's very difficult to quantify that, at least on mobile and/or in my free time), I see no justification for it to be used as a synonym in the article. With all that plus the NPOV concerns, I maintain it should be struck. ] (]) 00:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just reread, I see what you meant by "cites". ] (]) 00:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:Id just as soon remove "Israeli" and just say also known as colonies. They are commonly referred to as colonies by itself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)</small>

Not from what is perceived to be a NPOV in the English language, as I have shown. ] (]) 02:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:That isnt what ALTNAMEs are based on, see ]. We are supposed to include all significant POVs, and the POV of the Palestinians that these are colonies is significant. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)</small>
::Then the lede of ] should read "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", in order to include all significant POVs. Instead, it has been (rightly) decided that that was not NPOV, and so it was moved to a later sentence describing that some refer to is as such and such. We're going in circles here. ] (]) 07:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::WB has nothing to do with this discussion, that circle can be closed. ] (]) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I bring it up as useful precedent. The cases are similar, so it seems reasonable to adopt the same conclusion -- especially because those guidelines were developed as a result of ]. ] (]) 08:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::It isn't a precedent. ] (]) 08:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::You have made no argument in favor of that claim, instead simply asserting that
::::::* "] covers usage of ''Judea and Samaria'' so that argument is not relevant here",
::::::* "WB has nothing to do with this discussion", and
::::::* "It isn't a precedent."
::::::It is a case where one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refers to something one way, and the other another. It went to arbitration, where it was decided to use the most common term, and to restrict usage of the partisan term "Judea and Samaria" to specific uses. Here, we have another case where one side of the conflict refers to something one way, and the other another. It seems common-sense to adopt the same remedy -- i.e. use the most common term, and restrict usage of the partisan term to specific uses. ] (]) 08:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I don't need to make an argument, ] is the argument. ] (]) 08:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Then you're saying nothing. I don't understand what you're trying to say, so it is pointless for you to keep bringing the same point up if you refuse to clarify what you mean by it. ] (]) 08:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't need to clarify ] and I still have no idea why you are bringing it up. ] (]) 08:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I have detailed exactly why I am bringing it up, multiple times. You have made no argument as to why you claim it is incorrect to do so. ] (]) 08:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Because I don't need to, WB has nothing to do with Israeli colonies. ] (]) 08:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, re Selfstudier's point above about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead"), sure, but we're specifically talking about what the name of these things is -- it doesn't matter what they actually are or what they are considered to be, only what they're called. Maybe "Israeli colonies" is more accurate, but if they aren't referred to by that name, then the article shouldn't claim the contrary. ] (]) 02:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Another data point: versus on Google Scholar (2.5%). ] (]) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

:The exact weighting is rather besides the point. Both terms exist and have scholarly usage. ] (]) 06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::Then why should we include "Israeli colonies" and exclude "Jewish settlements", "Jewish colonies", "Zionist settlements", and "Zionist colonies", all of which are used more frequently than "Israeli colonies"? Also, I wouldn't consider ~500 papers to be much in the way of "scholarly usage". ] (]) 07:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, that is missing the point. Of course it is not as commonly used as Israeli settlement, which is why the article is titled Israeli settlement. If it were as commonly used than we would be arguing that the title be changed. ALTNAMEs is about including significant alternate names, not about supposedly neutral ones. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)</small>
:{{tq|about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead")}} that's not what I said, I said that 2 of the 4 cites use "colony" alone although it is clear from the context that they are referring to Israeli settlements. One says "Jewish settlements (colonies)" and the other that they are known (less euphemistically) to Palestinians as colonies. Settler colonialism in an Israeli/Palestinian context is a separate but related point . Taken together, I think this results in Israeli colonies (or just colonies) constituting a valid alternative name and I do not support that being removed from the intro. ] (]) 07:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::I disagree. "Jewish settlements (colonies)" is not the same thing as "Jewish colonies". You could ''describe'' me as "Peaux (John's son)", but that does not mean that "Peaux Johnson" is a valid alternate ''name'' for me -- no one calls me that, because it isn't my name. A descriptor is not the same as a name. You have given plenty of evidence that there is scholarship that considers the settlements to be colonies, the Zionist project to be a settler-colonial one, &c. We already knew that. What is under dispute is whether "Israeli colony" is a commonly-used ''name'' for the Israeli settlements. On this point you have provided no evidence, and I have provided plenty against. Of course, the fact that they are considered as such should be mentioned in the article, but not as an alternate name. ] (]) 07:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::I suggest we wait and see what other editors might want to say, at the moment you have not consensus for your view. ] (]) 07:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Are there going to be any other editors? It seems to just be the four of us who care about this. ] (]) 08:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::It's a well watched article, people may chip in. If they do not, one might assume they are content with the status quo. ] (]) 08:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::If you lived in a society where that was still the naming convention, then yes, you absolutely would be 'Peaux Johnson', just like how if you were in Russia you would be Peaux Ivanovich. But more importantly, you seems to be getting confused between proper names and descriptions. Here, everything is descriptive, i.e.: both "Jewish settlements" and "Jewish colonies" in your example. Neither of these terms are proper names; both are in the same category of descriptive phrase. ] (]) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::And if this were French Misplaced Pages, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, as they would be uncontroversially referred to as colonies. But we're on English Misplaced Pages, and I don't live in a society that uses patronymics. Regarding "names" versus descriptions, I see nothing in ] that suggests this is the case: "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." This seems to fit none of those cases, nor does it seems similar. In ]: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." As I have shown in this discussion, this alternate name is not widely used in English sources. It continues, "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint ''for'' or ''against'' a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue"; the use of "Israeli colonies" clearly suggests a particular viewpoint. It takes the view that they are colonies as given, rather than as a subject of debate (in violation of ]). Hence my proposed remedy of describing the claim as in ] rather than putting it forward as NPOV, which it is not. ] (]) 08:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::But it is widely used, objectively, i.e.: in hundreds of scholarly sources. So yes: {{tq|"If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used '''even though some may regard it as biased'''."}} You said it yourself. The text you are quoting points out that just because a term may be 'biased', or in your opinion POV, does not rule against it. NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources. ] (]) 08:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::Hundreds is not "widely" when the sample space is tens of thousands. There are 28 million Christians in India -- by any measure, a lot -- and yet it would be wholly inaccurate to refer to India as a largely Christian country, just because there are a lot of them. They are a very small proportion of the population.
::::::You are using "objectively" and "subjectively" incorrectly. Both absolute and proportional metrics are ] measures. Neither are ].
::::::So yes, if "Israeli colonies" were the most common name for the settlements, even if some believed it to be biased or partisan, then that policy says we should use it. But it isn't widely used, so the "even though" clause is irrelevant. ] (]) 08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Of course you may edit as you see fit but I would be interested to know why it is that you have such an interest in this issue? About a fifth of your total 94 edits are now here. (btw, canvassing other editors as you did is not the done thing.) ] (]) 08:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I don't. It just appears that way because this is the first issue I've had with an article that I haven't been able to fix myself, so I had to step into the talk page to join what is now clearly, let's say, a ''spirited'' discussion.
::::::::And yeah, I wasn't sure about that. It felt like there were only the same few voices here, so I wasn't sure if anyone else would see this (as I mentioned earlier). What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion? I see ], but I don't know in what situations exactly those are used. ] (]) 09:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion?}} As I said, given that this is a well watched page (378 page watchers), it is reasonable to assume they are not that interested or at any rate, not interested enough to want to participate.
:::::::::You could post to ] but tbh, I think your time might be better spent racking up the necessary 500 edits that would allow you to participate constructively in this topic area. ] (]) 09:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I'm afraid you are simply juggling dubious analogies and shifting goalposts at this point. No one is claiming it is the most common name, not have they done. It is an alternative name, this is all. ] (]) 08:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You're right, I wrote incorrectly. I'll restate.
::::::::Yes, if "Israeli colonies" were ''a'' common name for the settlements, even if some believed it to be biased or partisan, then that policy suggests we should use it. But it isn't widely used, so the "even though" clause is irrelevant.
::::::::Regarding your comment that "NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources": I have no problem noting that such and such people/organizations/movements/whatever believe that the settlement project should be considered a colonial one, or that the settlements should be called colonies, or however you want to put it. That is an accurate reflection of reality. Using "Israeli colonies" as an alternate name is not. ] (]) 09:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:@]: You very much did not participate in this discussion, let alone achieve any consensus for - what exactly do you think you are up to? You need to look (at talk) before you leap, and an outcome here was not concluded. ] (]) 15:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::Risible edit, though I modified it to just also known as colonies per the cited sources. The sources are clear they are almost exclusively Jewish, and the pretending that oh Israel is a state of all its citizens and all of them can live in the villages of Judea and Samaria is just that. So is the change on recognition of the Golan on being Syrian territory. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)</small>

== August 2023 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|Israeli settlement|answered=yes}} place ] at top. ] (]) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 09:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

== The Israeli settlements map should be updated ==

under the 37th governments of Israel there has been a dramatic increase in settlements and legalization of outposts https://peacenow.org.il/en/%D9%8Dsettlements-map-2023 ] (]) 15:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2023 ==


{{Edit extended-protected|Israeli settlement|answered=yes}} {{Edit extended-protected|Israeli settlement|answered=yes}}
I suggest that the latest 2023 west bank access restrictions map from OCHA be added. Link provided below:
An article was recently published with significant new arguments relevant to this topic. I suggest changing the following sentence: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." to read "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow and others have disputed the illegality of authorized settlements."
https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 ] (]) 18:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The reference that I have labeled is to the following article:
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> It's a good map, but unfortunately it's . <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israeli-settlements-are-not-illegal ] (]) 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|CanonNi}} https://commons.wikimedia.org/Template:PD-UN-map ] (]) 10:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:Decline. An opinion piece in Tablet (such a neutral source) is presenting new arguments? There are no new arguments, just endlessly recycled old arguments (by Kontorovich, among others). ] (]) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 20:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|Israeli settlement|answered=yes}}
Change (update) the 2020 OCHA West Bank settlements map (the first image visible on the page) to the 2023 version.

It is available here:
https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 ] (]) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to ]. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 08:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

==Boilerplate "illegal" comment on every settlement article in Misplaced Pages==
After reviewing some recent ], I noticed that in the lede with regards to the international community's views on settlements and Israel's stance. Certainly this topic should be covered in this article, but it seems a bit heavy handed to stamp it on every individual settlement article. <b>] ]</b> 19:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
:That came as a result of ]. As far as heavy handed, its often the most noteworthy thing about any of these settlements, and sources such as the BBC have a policy of including such a statement every time a settlement is even mentioned. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)</small>
: To support Nab on this, it is only one sentence and without this convention many articles on settlements would have a much larger section on the illegality. The illegality is a notable feature of ''every'' settlement so to have some mention in every such article is reasonable. Our convention actually reduces the total. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2023 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Israeli settlement|answered=yes}}
Include navigable link to https://en.wikipedia.org/International_community on uses of "International Community." It currently reads as an arbitrary and poorly defined designation. ] (]) 11:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Done.] (]) 12:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|Israeli settlement|answered=yes}}
Ben Gvir is a resident of a community located in Judea and Samaria. ] (]) 15:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:True, I think. Need a source, do you have one? ] (]) 15:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 19:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
::We have sources for it on his own page. However, I am unclear as to why this is being brought up on this page or what article edit is being suggested. We do not seem to have a list of settlement residents here. --] (]) 20:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Depends on what the source says, if it is as well linked to Israeli settlements ( a reasonable possibility) then that might be a good thing to have in the article. ] (]) 23:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Why, though? We do not appear to mention ‘’anyone’’ else? What is the justification for this exception or the notability for inclusion above anyone else? —] (]) 01:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::When I see a source, I'll let you know. ] (]) 11:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Let me know what, though? If we already do not have a practice in this article of listing residents, why start now? I’m feeling an attempt at POV pushing… —] (]) 15:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I refer you to my previous comment. This is a discussion about nothing at present. ] (]) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

== Discussion on Gaza settlements ==


== create page: ] ==
My understanding is that the settlements in Gaza had a huge effect on the economy for the years that they were there. It's probably worth while to have a section dedicated to the now removed settlements. Any issue with putting taht under "History" with the subsection title "Gaza Strip settlements"? ] (]) 19:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


# unofficial
:Please be more specific and mention possible sources. "Had a huge effect on the economy" is too vague, and context matters as well (how is "economy" measured here?). ] (]) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
# official
::I have added a section under 'history' ] (]) 16:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 02:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:20, 29 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli settlement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEgypt Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconCities
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Ulpana lawsuits) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors


Haaretz article: "Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie."

Haaretz - Yotam Berger - Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie, 28 July 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZScarpia (talk • contribs)

Security isn't a "pretext"

Under 4.2 Settlement Policy, the article reads "The government abrogated the prohibition from purchasing occupied land by Israelis; the "Drobles Plan", a plan for large-scale settlement in the West Bank meant to prevent a Palestinian state under the pretext of security became the framework for its policy."

The dictionary definition of pretext is something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse.

The provided citation doesn't support the copy in the wiki article. The document doesn't say that security was a pretext. The document says security is one of several reasons to develop the settlements. The cited article reads, "The following are the principles which guided the plan: 1. Settlement throughout the entire Land of Israel is for security and by right, A strip of settlements at strategic sites enhances both internal and external security alike, as well as making concrete and realizing our right to Eretz Israel..."

So the article isn't even denying that it assumes that the Israelis have some sort of biblical or historical right to Israel, BUT it also argues that the settlements would improve security.

There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.105.157 (talk)

ICJ

The findings of the ICJ should be treated factually and not on a POV and attribution basis. I.e. I am in favor of the settlements being simply called illegal in the opening sentence, as described by every major RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that now have an authoritative statement of the law on this matter, it should be straightforward to find RS reporting of same without caveats, it really doesn't matter any more whether "Israel disputes this" other than as historical background, imo this boilerplate should be removed from articles. There was a consensus about it somewhere but I forget where, perhaps it needs revisiting now. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed; it should be Israel's arguments were refuted, rather than the classical and boring "Israel disputes this", which to me always sounded like writing on Earth: "The earth is round, but flat earthers dispute this." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, existing consensus Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements (thanks to @Sean.hoyland: for the link).
It would seem that the situation has changed, even before the ICJ opinion, the US accepts (once again, post Trump) that the settlements are illegal so together with the opinion, that seems sufficient to reopen the question with a view to removing the "Israel disputes this" part and possibly rewording the rest. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest that the latest 2023 west bank access restrictions map from OCHA be added. Link provided below: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 TheTrackRecord (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It's a good map, but unfortunately it's copyrighted. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@CanonNi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/Template:PD-UN-map Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

create page: Israelification of land

  1. unofficial
  2. official

2A02:2149:8B02:4F00:51D1:3E49:2755:6F87 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: