Revision as of 08:29, 9 January 2012 editMaterialscientist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators1,994,292 editsm (edit summary removed)← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:58, 9 January 2012 edit undoSk8rownot (talk | contribs)27 editsm (edit summary removed)Next edit → |
(No difference) |
Revision as of 08:58, 9 January 2012
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. |
|
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: 3 months |
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. |
|
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: 3 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:
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.
|
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Demographics
I haven't found in the resources the data of the just 2300 Jews in East Jerusalem in 1948. According to the data in Demographics of Jerusalem the population in the whole Jerusalem was of 100 000 Jews, 40 000 Muslims and 25 000 Christians in the same year. --Enkiduk (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible for any of the land on the West Bank to be 'Palestinian' owned? The land was annexed, ilegally, by Jordan in 1948 and handed to the PLO sometime after the 1967 War, again, illegally. Palestine has never existed as a separate, legal state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.26.148 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Link 52
The 52nd cited link is broken, I don't know how to fix it but if someone could either find the right link or take it down and the information taken from it that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.104.106 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Colony vs Civilian Community
P I changed the opening sentences of the article and my edits were reverted. The original paragraph was:
An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognize Israel's annexations of these territories.
and I changed it to this:
An Israeli settlement is an Israeli colony illegally built on land captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. These colonies are built on occupied territory. Such unlawful settlements currently exist in the West Bank. There are also Israeli colonies in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel.
My rationale for rephrasing the paragraph was that you don't call dwellings on illegally occupied territories civilian communities but colonies.
Another reason is that the emotional impact of the former is little more than this:
The strike on Twin Towers on 11 September, 2001 was a violent act committed by some students getting pilot training in the United States. This led to the death of more than 3,000 people including the students after they knowingly smashed their planes in the buildings. The international community considers it an act of terrorism but this view is not universal and has its critics who claim the students acted out of frustration.
I was told to make my case here. That's good. So, anyone who thinks what I did was wrong? And kindly tell why? :)
Sin un nomine (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm copying this from my talk page as it belongs here. If you think the article and its lead do not give due weight to the view that these are colonies and the occupation is an act of colonization, you need to compile high quality (preferably academic) secondary sources that examine and describe this perspective, then make your case. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Settlements as colonies
Thank you, Shrike, for engaging in this discussion and for referring me to the “Due and undue weight” section of the Misplaced Pages NPOV advice. If you look a little further down on the NPOV page you will find the section on “Good research” which advises “Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles,...” This is what I have done (in line with the suggestion on this talk page on 20 Nov 2011). Any similar investigation would indicate to you that the settlements have quite commonly been characterised as colonies over a significant time period in a wide range of fields, as diverse as architecture, critical theory, cultural studies, geography, planning, peace and conflict studies, politics, social theory, as well as in non-academic discourse. This discussion is an important part of the discussion of Israeli settlements in Palestine and should be addressed.
I am not sure what you meant by “so accessible to me references don't say that settlement= colony.”? However to reassure you I have cited a definition of settlement as colony. (Baltzer, 2007:391)
Misplaced Pages NPOV also advises that “it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use” and I hope we can do this in a scholarly manner, introducing the idea with a single word in the introduction and expanding it in later section, with an appropriate heading. I have replaced the reference to settlements as colonies and hope this will enable us to begin to properly represent discussion of the use of the word “colony” in the contexts of Israeli settlements.
I hope that you will contribute to this section by providing material which will help improve this article remembering that “Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes.”
We also need to work together to improve this article in both organisation and reliability – there are too many assertions inadequately supported, for example does the definition of settlement as “civilian community” adequately areas such as Barkan near Salfit which is in effect an industrial settlement? This definition of Israeli settlement is not supported by any reference or citation so I think it is unreasonable to exclude the alternative description which is well supported. And most if not all of the settlement/colonies on the West Bank are populated by members of the Israeli military and are more heavily armed than any normal civilian community. Miriel2012 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- First of all it shame that you didn't answered my question on the talk page. So I will ask it here too: “Did you ever edited Misplaced Pages under different user name?”. Second you was reverted so you instead of engaging in edit war that you currently are you should have used a talk page and only after reaching a consensus you should do any change please read wp:brd and kindly revert yourself.Third most of the sources use term Jewish settlement only minority of sources use term colony so per WP:UNDUE it shouldn't be in the lead. We could make a section how anti-Zionist and New Historian circles term Israeli civilian communities and Judea and Samaria but thier view is a minority view.--Shrike (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Miriel2012, setting aside the question regarding Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry which you should answer on your talk page rather than here and the WP:BRD issue (which another user needs reminding of at Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:Palestinian territories and Talk:Gaza Strip), I think you are going about things the wrong way around. If you think the article should discuss the colonization/colony aspect (and I think it should), you should develop the article content first and leave the lead alone for the time being. The lead is both a summary of the article body and it should include significant alternative names per WP:LEAD. Since there is no content in the article body about this and nothing to indicate whether colony is a significant alternative term I don't think the term belongs in the lead right now. The article Settler colonialism may be of interest if you haven't seen it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, for the record, I don't think someone like Rassem Khamaisi at the University of Haifa could be described as either an anti-Zionist or a New Historian even though he uses the term colonies. He's an Urban and Regional planner and Geographer. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- But as I understand its more political term so WP:RS should be backed by political scientist?--Shrike (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's circular reasoning because it's based on the premise that colony is a political term. It's a bit like arguing that using a word is a sin therefore the sources discussing the word should be religious studies experts. Khamaisi, who I think is clearly a reliable source, isn't using the term in a politically charged way, he's using it as a geographer, but others do as you say. I think the politicization of the word for many is just one aspect of it in this context. This chapter in A companion to postcolonial studies has some useful background on the terminology. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- But as I understand its more political term so WP:RS should be backed by political scientist?--Shrike (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
As Mirel2012 is not answering and not participating in talk moreover there is no consensus to include this word in the lead until there would be appropriate section in the the article that will solve the problem of WP:UNDUE I will delete this word. --Shrike (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Further reading
I see that everything was removed. I have to disagree with "rv per WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL. the onus is on whoever wants to include to explain why all these links are necessary". Editors can't just remove everything from an article section and then put the onus on others to justify restoration. It works both ways. Removals need to be justified too. Some of those links may be okay and so their removal is potentially not okay. I suggest restoring it and working through it to remove the non-compliant links. There's no rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to find out which links are OK and restore those. The onus, as is usual practice in wikipedia, is on those who want to add or restore the information. That there "may be" some okay links in there is not a good enough reason to restore the whole linkfarm. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- the onus is on those who wish to remove this material. The links will be restored.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:Linkfarm?--Shrike (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Or WP:ONUS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- so what you are saying is that each link from any article must have a justification? Where can I find this justification in any article? You are saying that if I go to any article i choose, and do not find a justification I can delete all the links, and the onus is on others to provide a justification as to why the links should be included. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Or WP:ONUS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:Linkfarm?--Shrike (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- the onus is on those who wish to remove this material. The links will be restored.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Removal of map
A map showing Israeli settlements was removed here: , edit summary "20 year old map" but this is not a valid reason to remove the map. It shows Israeli settlements in the area as of 1992 and I am not aware of any newer map, and its presented as Israeli settlements as of 1992 and im not sure that new settlements has even been created there after 1992. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- Palestine-related articles needing attention
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles