Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 21 June 2010

RfC question

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Should the primary description of the localities Israel has built in the territories occupied in 1967 be "Israeli settlement" or "town" or "village" or some other description? Nableezy 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

The overwhelming majority of high quality sources consistently use the terminology "Israeli settlement" before, and often to the exclusion of, any other description. There is no reason that Misplaced Pages should place terminology used by a fringe sized minority ahead of internationally used phrases. International organizations such as the UN and each if its agencies, the ICRC, and the EU almost without exception call these places Israeli settlements almost exclusively. Human rights organizations such as AI, HRW, and B'tselem almost without exception call these places Israeli settlements almost exclusively. News organizations such as BBC, Reuters, AFP, and AP all call these places Israeli settlements almost exclusively. Even Israeli news organizations such as Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post often call these places settlements, though on occasion they do use "city" or "town", the JPost more so than Haaretz. There is no compelling reason why what the super-majority of sources call these places should be placed after the municipal status given by the occupying power.

(This added after 16 endorsements) To be clear, I am not advocating to remove "town", "city" or whatever, the status given by Israel should be included. But it should not be given greater weight over the international standard in describing these places. Shuki below argues that lead sentence should read "X is a town and an Israeli settlement", my argument is that the lead sentence should place greater weight on the term used by the overwhelming majority of sources, as in "X is an Israeli settlement and a town". nableezy - 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. nableezy - 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
2. "settlements" is what they are called by all countries and international organs, so "settlements" are npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3. --RolandR (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
4. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
5.     ←   ZScarpia   00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
6. --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
7. -- Kim van der Linde 01:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
8. --harlan (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
9. I endorse this proposal with the reservation printed below. --GHcool (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
10. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
11. --FormerIP (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
12. -- Unomi (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
13. I believe this is the standard terminology. Avoiding "settlement" would probably be indicative of POV pushing. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
14. Tiamut 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
15. Misarxist (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
16. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
17. Ian Pitchford (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
18. During the extended debate on this subject I have looked at not only English language sources but also French ones, where "colonie" was the term I found used and German where "Siedlung" was used.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
19. This is the standard term that WP:RS use and we should be consistent in using it as well. --Dailycare (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
20. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GHcool

I agree with Nableezy's argument above, but I would like to make it clear that Jewish areas/neighborhoods of East Jerusalem is not to be lumped together with the Jewish-Israeli populated areas in the heart of the West Bank. Jewish parts of East Jerusalem are not "Israeli settlements" nor are they regarded as such by non-ideologically driven reliable sources.

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. --GHcool (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm fine with this, we already had a centralized discussion on the "ring neighborhoods" and while I am not a fan of the outcome I am not looking to change it. nableezy - 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

1. --Whichever side of the Israeli imposed "municipal border" theyt fall, Israeli settlements in the territories occupied in 1967 are illegal under international law. RolandR (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
2. All Israeli settlements east of 1967 borders are Israeli settlements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Per RolandR. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Attempts to unilaterally alter the legal status or demographics of the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 have no legitimacy. harlan (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
5. I don't think there can be much doubt as to what constitutes a "settlement" in this context. --FormerIP (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Unomi (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
7. The definition of a settlement is clear and it includes those in East Jerusalem. Tiamut 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
8. East Jerusalem has exactly the same legal status as the rest of the illegal settlements. Misarxist (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
9. We have to be guided by international law; not WP:FRINGE. Ian Pitchford (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
10. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
11. What decides whether they're settlements is the 1967 line, not Israel's declarations. --Dailycare (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Shuki

Is RfC a vote? I don't think that RfC is the right place for this issue at all, and the nominator hasn't really presented any options other than his, so he's only looking to back up his POV, not actually get comments. The scope of this vote is not clear, is it going to include every mention of Jewish localities, the lead of the articles, etc... The title chosen for the RfC automatically conveys the nominators POV, so what else is there to comment on here? --Shuki (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion, write down your counter proposal and see how many people agree with it. -- Kim van der Linde 19:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:PRACTICAL subsection at Misplaced Pages:Consensus says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others. harlan (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Shuki

Description of geographical locations on WP should be NPOV. Populated places (Israeli, Palestinian, and Syrian) in the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the abandoned villages in the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula should be first described based on their size / municipal status in the leads of their separate articles. Additionally, in other articles, the political and general 'settlement' term can be used but not exclusively, and other relevant size (community, neighborhood, village, town, city, etc…) labels are legitimate.

The dispute is not about whether these localities are or are not 'settlements' or if that term can be used in the article or the lead for that matter even given the awkward syntax. The issue is what does Misplaced Pages use to describe a populated place and what is the essence of that populated place; whether to describe a locality by its municipal size and status or to use a generic political label, even one that might also be seen as a pejorative. Using the word 'settlement' as a primary descriptor generalizes different sized locations which include localities ranging in size from rural camps with a few people to urbanized cities with over 30 000 residents. The main use of the political term is POV and the deprecation of the municipal size, infers that the locality is primarily a disputed political location, and not a normal place where families live, work, study, shop, and play. The use of the municipal status as the lead term is NPOV and the most widely accepted standard for geographical locations in the WP encyclopedia and should not be changed uniquely here either.

Exs: X is a city and Israeli settlement... Y is a village and Israeli settlement...

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. Shuki (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Stellarkid (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Well and excellently worded. It is clear you have put a lot of thought into this proposal. Stellarkid (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
3. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Cptnono - Is the purpose of the original RfC to eliminate any mention of "city" or "town" even though the inhabited places are also "settlements"? Why is that necessary? What does the legality have to do with if a place is a "city" or not? Is it an attempt to make disclaimers whenever possible that there is a dispute? That seems hardly necessary.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Follow up: Nableezy mentioned that it was which description comes first. I think that is silly (more the bickering over it and not the proposal). I would go with whatever description fits the notability of the place. If it is a thriving city with some schools and sports teams and everything else that comes with higher population it is probably more notable for that then being a settlement. If it is a tiny place that made headlines for settler violence then I could see settlement being first.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Pantherskin (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC) obviously we should avoid political terms and opt for a neutral and factual description, and the use of the municipal status for a locale is in line with the commonly accepted standard in Misplaced Pages and reliable sources.
6. --Gilisa (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC) UN decisions and votes not always reflect the opinion of many countries and sources. While UN decision may tell that the Golan heights are actually part of Syria, it may not reflect the opinion of many notable sources and countries. Let UN decisions a side. What more that there is a dispute over where is the line for what is a settlement and what isn't.
7. ----Hmbr (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
8. According to WP:NPOV Misplaced Pages articles should not take sides in political disputes. A municipal status of a location (for example - city, neighborhood) is a neutral term, whith neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. The word "settlement" is POV since it implies that a certain locality is illegal, and thus it disparages its subject and "takes sides". In case of international dispute regarding the status of a certain location, both sides of the dispute should be mentioned, per WP:LEAD. After presenting both arguments, Misplaced Pages should use a neutral terms from that point on (city/neighborhood etc.) Marokwitz (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
9. An international paper may feel the news point of interest to the public is the point of dispute -- as this is often the subject of the article, a dispute between Jews and Arabs on disputed territory (Hamas, btw, prompts to launch rockets from "disputed" into "undisputed" territory). However, Wiki is an encyclopaedic project and the interest of the reader is encyclopaedic. i.e. a descriptive for a town/village/city/outpost should lead the information. Not that I'm comparing, but similar MOS on Wiki is given to many !terrorists who are described first with their positional role before information about their more dubious activity is inserted and they are not referred to nearly exclusively as terrorists/similar even if this is a substantial viewpoint (example: Mohamed Atta "was an Egyptian student"). I also fully agree with Cptnono's statement. Jaakobou 14:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
10. Using the general word "settlement" in the lead, besides from its political implications - however widespread that term may be used, does not define the nature of the settlement thorouhly enough. It is generally the size of a locale, normally described using the words city, town or village, which takes precedence on place name articles. Chesdovi (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, so do you have a problem with both, for example: "Israeli settlement and town" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

1. The proposal to use the municipal status as primary designator is not a neutral point-of-view. The municipal status is the status given by Israeli authorities. What this proposal actually says is that the Isreali point-of-view should be given precedence. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Harlan

According to WP:YESPOV "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." In 1998 the International Law Commission (ILC) said that the range of human rights violated by population transfer and the implantation of settlers place this phenomenon in the category of systematic or mass violations of human rights. The Commission declared that these practices constitute criminal acts and crimes against humanity.

The Security Council, the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention have determined that Israel's settlements in the occupied Arab territories are illegal. That is a significant published viewpoint on the topic which may be included per WP:NPOV. harlan (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. nableezy - 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC), but this is not what the RFC is actually about, we arent talking about legality but about naming conventions.

Editors opposing this proposal

1. I agree that the status of the location according to the international bodies the SHOULD be noted, however since this is disputed by Israel, this viewpoint must be attributed to the international bodies and not to the "view of Misplaced Pages". According to WP:NPOV Misplaced Pages should not take a stance on which of the viewpoints is correct, rather present both sides of the argument. After presenting both arguments, Misplaced Pages should use a neutral terms from that point on (city/neighborhood etc.). Marokwitz (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
2. International law does not determine naming conventions of an online encyclopedia. Again, the argument is not that the word "settlement" is to be avoided, it is that the political aspect comes after the the description of the municipality and is accompanied by a valid RS. Stellarkid (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is a final status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have formally agreed to resolve its status during negotiations, not through Misplaced Pages. During the Camp David and Taba talks both sides accepted that Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states. When Israel extended its municipal ordinances to the Golan Heights, the United States barely managed to head-off UN sanctions by obtaining a written guarantee from Israel that the status of that territory could only be settled through negotiations. harlan (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen

WP:NPOV does not state that an opinion that may seem disparaging should not be expressed or that neutral language must necessarilly be used. Rather it states that due weight should be given to varying points of view that appear in reliable sources. Whether or not people find the term "settlement" disparaging, it is the one used in the majority of reliable sources intermationally and therefore should be given primacy in Misplaced Pages, not only per NPOV but also per WP:NOTCENSORED.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. nableezy - 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
2. I agree with this comment completely (and in fact the RFC question above is formulated in these terms) since what decides not only the terminology used but also the weight given to various viewpoints are the relative frequencies that the terms and viewpoints are expressed in WP:RS. Thus we should IMO plainly call them "Israeli settlements". --Dailycare (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
3. GHcool (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
4. As author of commen --Peter cohen (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Quite obviously correct. harlan (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
6. I agree with this statement of the obvious. RolandR (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
7. I agree with above, "settlement" is npov and following due weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Good explanation of Misplaced Pages policies. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
9. -- Kim van der Linde 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
10. Agree w/ Cohen's reading of policy. NickCT (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
11. NPOV does not mean taking the official stance of the Israeli government. Nor does it mean "making wikipedia as uncontroversial as possible. The fact is that these places are defined in reliable sources by their political status; a definition that wikipedia should reflect. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

1. We do not take sides in political arguments. Whether we agree or not, the Israeli official stance is that Gilo and Katzrin are not settlements. This is not WP:FRINGE, it is a official position of a state comprising millions of people. The terminology used in the Gilo article is OK since it does not take sides: Gilo (Hebrew: גילֹה‎) is a large residential district on the southwestern outskirts of Jerusalem. The United Nations and the European Union consider it an illegal settlement, while Israel considers it a neighborhood within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. This is accurate, not censored, and neutral. Marokwitz (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
2. WP:NPOV is certainly being abused here. The disputed aspect of these localities is not being questioned, only the mere lead descriptive term. Comparing apples and oranges here. --Shuki (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
3. To give primacy to the term "settlement" on all Israeli locales in the WB is to define them by their political status. The term is used nearly always by the various media outlets and organistaions mentioned above due to the polictical context of their reports and statements. But if wikipedia is to remain unpoliticised, then the various generic terms for populated places must be consistent with all other places. For instance, the illegal status of the Turkish settlement of Famagusta is not mentioned in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Famagusta has existed for 1700 years, since long before the Turkish military occupation and the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Nobody suggests that its existence is in any way illegal, and it is in no way analogous to the settlements established under Israeli occupation in areas occupied in 1967. And the lead does in fact state that "Since the 1974 Turkish invasion the city has resided in the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)". RolandR (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Turkish settlements are, AFAIB, analogous to the settlements established under Israeli occupation, just the circumstances and reactions of the vanquished are different. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem has existed for over 1700 years, long before Israeli occupation. Yet Jewish construction and presence in the old city is viewed as illegal! Why? Turkey has carried out construction in Northern Cyprus of previously uninhabited areas too. Their occupation is illegal and you state that their settlements and the massive Turkish population transfer into existing towns are legal? Chesdovi (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Look again. Where did I make any comment on the legality, or otherwise, of Turkish settlement in Northern Cyprus? You have no idea what my view is, and it is in any case irrelevant.

What I stated, and I repeat, is that the legality of the establishment 1700 years ago of Famagusta is not in question, and in this sense it is different from, eg, Gilo and Katzrin, established since 1967 in territories under Israeli military occupation. I also pointed out that, contrary to your statement above, them lead does indeed mention the disputed status of the regime governing Famagusta. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The "establishment" of Famagusta 1700 years ago was not illegal. Neither was the "establishment" of Jerusalem 3000 years ago. So why are some of the outlying suburbs of Jerusalem built since 1967 illegal while those of Famagusta built since 1974 are not? Please clarify. Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I have said nothing about the legality or otherwise of Turkish settlement in Northern Cyprus. Stop trying to change the subject. RolandR (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not changing the subject. On the contrary, I am providing an example to back up my opinion. You, for your part, should acknowledge and concede that Famagusta, the port from where the Gaza flotilla set sail, is an illegal Turkish settlement, just as Katzrin is. Just because the Greeks have not managed to whip up adverse world opinion against their occupied settlements as the Arab block have is no reason to abscond from calling them what they are, illegal Turkish settlements on occupied land. I am surprised you are not willing to state this as clearly and loudly as you do when it comes to Israel. As maybe you have not come across non-Israeli illegal settlements before, I am happy to introduce you to them. I am sure you will campaign against these illegal Muslim settlements as robustly as you do against the Jewish ones. The hypocrisy of Turkey is shameful. Erogden now calls of the “annihilation” (not defeat) of the Kurdish separatists after proudly announcing the latest killing by his advanced army of 13 of them. If only he had as much compassion for them and the Greeks as he has for the Palestinians. Let him lead the way by granting the Kurds their rightful state and ending his illegal (not brutal – no Greeks left to brutalise) occupation of Cyprus. (Sorry if I misunderstood, but you did seem to imply that you were of the view that Famagusta has no legal status issue: “Nobody suggests that its existence is in any way illegal.”)

What the Geneva convention forbids is changing the demographic makeup of an occupied territory. If Jews lived in the Jewish quarter before the Six Day War, the same Jews can continue to live there during the occupation without contravening the 4th Geneva convention. What's forbidden is for Israel to change the makeup of the population by increasing the proportion of a certain demographic group living in the area. The status of West Jerusalem is rarely addressed by WP:RS, in detail Jewish habitations in W. Jerusalem aren't typically referred to as "settlements". --Dailycare (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment