Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 9

The case of Alma

The town of Alma of the Galilee exists as two so called different "Almas" - the Alma, Israel and Alma, Palestine, which describe 2 periods of the same location and place name.

• The town has an ancient history, which is already the same for both articles.
• The location of both is practically the same - 500 meter difference between Arab town center of early 20th century and later Israeli town center (ancient artifacts of "Alma" of previous eras are described within both articles).
• Uninhabited periods - Alma was abandoned in 17th century, with the Arab town established in 19th century within Ottoman Syria (later part of Mandate Palestine), lasting till 1948, Jewish Alma within Israel established in 1950s. So the transition was very fast, compated with previous "Almas".
• Even the prenounsation is the same in both Arabic and Hebrew.

So, is "Alma, Galilee" is a good common ground to merge both Almas and createa better article, or the Israel/Palestine thing will keep being two alternative realities? Please discuss here.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for "Alma was abandoned in 17th century, with the Arab town established in 19th century within Ottoman Syria"? That is not what the article say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.174.210 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the Alma discussion, I think there are other similar article pairs that should be merged and this whole issue might benefit from a centralized discussion.

It is quite common throughout history for places to be abandoned and then re-established nearby with a similar name. See for example Jericho. It seems that usually the encyclopedia puts all the relevant information in the article about the current town, with sub articles as needed based on the amount of information about previous incarnations of the place. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the two articles are basically about incarnations of the same place and should be merged. However, in the spirit of collaboration, care should be taken not to diminish from the historical significance of either one. I've seen merges that completely demolished one of the pages for the benefit of the other. Seeing how Alma, Palestine carries a lot of history info, it makes sense to maintain the info and turn it into a sub-article of Alma, Galil, which could have a summary with link to it. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources treat the two places as one? Not those I have seen. They are located in different places and one was destroyed and depopulated to make way for the other. Treating them as synonymous isn't justified by the literature or the facts. Tiamut^talk 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic here. Do sources treat Londinium, Lundenwic and London as one? I don't think they do. The city was abandoned and re-established several times at different but nearby spots, and all the history of the place appears in the modern London article, with sub articles where necessary. In the case of Alma (and other similar article pairs) I doubt there's enough material for sub articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

There appears to be a common unresolved issue surrounding descriptions involving Jerusalem. If this issue can be resolved via some central consensus then, I suspect, a lot of time will be saved by many people editing in the IP area. I will first lay out the problem as I understand it, then briefly mention how the sources stand, before offering a suggested partial solution for discussion whilst canvassing for other options.

The Problem: Normally, when designating a location the format 'City X, Country Y' (e.g. Paris, France) is used as shorthand for the statement 'City X which is in Country Y'. A general problem arises when this formulation is used in contexts where there is disputed sovereignty over the city or a broader area including the city as use of this standard formula appears to require the formulaic endorsement of one of the sides in the dispute. 'Lhasa, China' would be objectionable as a standard usage to anyone who denies the legitimacy of China's rule over Tibet, whilst 'Lhasa, Tibet' would be objectionable to those who support said legitimacy. In the case of IP articles we have a more complicated version of this problem in the case of 'Jerusalem, Israel', in that not only is sovereignty contentious but there are more than two opinions on the status of Jerusalem and these opinions have further subdivisions with respect to the division or unity of the city itself.

To briefly list the main possible underlying positions that have at least some traction in the sources I have come across: 1. Jerusalem as a whole is currently part of Israel both in fact and in law. 2. Jerusalem as a whole is currently illegitimately occupied by Israel, is not part of Israel and is, in international law, part of the future Palestinian state. 3. West Jerusalem is currently part of Israel in both fact and law but East Jerusalem is only occupied by Israel (legally or illegally) and is, in international law, part of the future Palestinian state. 4. Jerusalem is currently occupied, as a whole, by Israel, but is legally, in part or in whole, an international open city. 5. Jerusalem as a whole is currently occupied by Israel and the final status of East Jerusalem is to be determined through negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Sources: Ideally, we would be able to refer to and weigh reliable sources to achieve consensus on which of these positions should ground a single description to be used consistently when referring to a location in Jerusalem in terms of the 'City, Country' formula. However, it seems clear that there is no current consensus amongst editors as to how the sources should be weighted in order to provide a single widely acceptable description. Whilst some of these issues might be overcome in other contexts by qualifying a description with reference to majority and minority points of view, such qualifications seem out of place in terms of natural reading and writing involving the 'City, Country' formula. There is also a problem with regard to weighting the sources in that we have three types of source: 1) Mainstream media reports; 2) Expert analysis and opinion; 3) Positions of National Governments. In each of these source types a range of opinions can be identified.

Moving Forward: I would like to suggest, to begin with, that we accept that, at the present time, no strong consensus can be achieved on weighting within and across these source types that will be sufficient to justify taking a firm stand on a single formula that can be universally applied. I'm happy to be proved wrong on this but having reviewed a number of recent discussions on related issues I think this is a realistic statement. However, this is not a counsel of despair as I think that with only a minimum of good will on all sides of the editing debate we can arrive at an imperfect, non-universalised context-dependent framework that will serve the aims of the Wikipedia project better than the current highly contentious situation does.

What I would like to do first is see if we can draw up a list of possible contexts in which the 'City, Country' formula might be needed and then address each context individually. A little organised chaos in this area may well be able to side-step many of the problems that a universalised approach will run into. This seems like a prime area in which to apply the principle 'There are no rules' in order to further the building of consensus.

Example: This issue came to my attention when editing the article on NGO Monitor. This is an Israel-based organisation with their offices in Jerusalem. Clearly, when writing articles on such organisations we will want to describe their location. However, use of the formula 'Jerusalem, Israel' is clearly considered to be POV by some editors because it implies something about Jerusalem as a whole: that it is in Israel. Avoiding the issue by simply saying that the organisation is located either in 'Jerusalem' without a country being mentioned, or just in 'Israel', without a city, is obviously far from optimal when writing articles that are meant to inform the reader.

So, for situations such as these I would like to offer a few possible alternatives that will a) preserve the integrity of the locational information, whilst b) hopefully being able to attract a consensus amongst editors. The key, I think, is being willing to depart from the standard 'City, Country' formula. This formula, when expanded to its fuller version 'City X, which is in Country Y', carries a built in implication of the relation between X and Y in terms of parts and wholes, for it implies that X is a part of Y. It is this implication that is the problem, I would contend, and the problem can be overcome by using phrasing that carries the same locational information without hard-wiring in the implication in its absolute sense.

Two possibilities: The first approach would simply be to qualify X by stating, specifically, where in Jerusalem the location is. For example, any of the following would work in restricting X to part of the city rather than the whole city (although some may be contentious for reasons I'm not aware of – please fill me in):

a) 'NGO Monitor is based in West Jerusalem, Israel' b) 'NGO Monitor is based in west/western Jerusalem, Israel' c) 'NGO Monitor is based (neighbourhood/district name) Jerusalem, Israel'

The last of these is a bit problematic in that it is probably most naturally read as '...in Z Neighbourhood, which is in Jerusalem, which is in Israel'.

A second approach would be to get rid of the part/whole structure completely and so avoid the contentious implication simply by reordering the pieces of data. Formulations created this way may be a bit more cumbersome in terms of the elegance of the English but would have the great merit of minimising the contentious element. For instance:

a) 'NGO Monitor is based in Israel in the Z neighbourhood of Jerusalem' b) 'NGO Monitor is based in Israel in the western part of Jerusalem'

My current feeling is that some formula along these lines would be preferable but I would very much like to hear some other views. However, if the view is that a universalised part/whole formula is absolutely necessary please try to justify this with reference to how the value it will add for the reader will outweigh the value of achieving consensus.

Thanks for taking the time to read my proposal and please forgive me if I have posted this in the wrong place, or in the wrong format, or have not followed proper procedures. I be new round these parts.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi BothHandsBlack, I think you did the right thing in bringing the matter here.

For Temple Mount, we resolved the issue using the last approach: "in the Old City of Jerusalem." This may work better in some circumstances than others, and I wouldn't want to see arguments about whether Z is a neighborhood or a settlement. Geographic descriptions ("western part") might work. I'd be interested in other editors' thoughts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, starting a centralized discussion is probably a good idea. I think that the solution to the problem may already be in the chosen example: there isn't really a need to say "Paris, France" since everybody knows where Paris is so "Paris" is sufficient. Likewise, everybody knows where Jerusalem is and probably most people are also aware of the convoluted situation, at least to some degree. "Jerusalem" is used by UNESCO and is also the current wording that e.g. the US government writes as place of birth in US passports (they write "Paris, France" for those lucky enough to be born there). The United Nations also refers simply to Jerusalem. Concerning NGOM, we can say in the article that it's an "israeli organization" and that it's headquartered in Jerusalem. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it controversial that at least some of Jerusalem is in the state of Israel? I think that given proper weighting, we can consider all of Jerusalem on the Israeli side of the Green Line to be in Israel today. I would suggest that for any entity so located, we don't need to worry. For any other location, I would suggest not naming the country if this is at all reasonable. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BothHandsBlack; I disagree with this: "Jerusalem as a whole is currently part of Israel both in fact and in law." By Israel it is considered that, but not anyone else. East Jerusalem is also seen as part of the Palestinian territories by a large majority of the international community:[1]. It can therefor not in any way be presented as in Israel. That is clear npov violation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dailycare's proposal is what I adopt in my editing, with but a few exceptions: for example, if the 1999 Eurovision Contest was in Jerusalem and hosted by Israel, and every report in the media acknowledged that the contest was in Israel, then "Jerusalem, Israel" would be NPOV for that particular context.—Biosketch (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

JSolinsky, it is indeed controversial, or more accurately it isn't recognized that West Jerusalem would be in Israel. The EU, for example, considers the whole city to still be legally the corpus separatum described in the partition plan. (source) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

1999? Seriously? Try this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That document is consistent with the one I cited in that it doesn't recognize current Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. The reference to 1967 in your doc refers to the existing understanding that the city will eventually be divided along the 1967 line, not to any current legal status. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If the EU thought Jerusalem should be corpus separatum they'd say that rather than just note they don't accept the annexation of East Jersualem (implying they have no problem with the status of West Jerusalem). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If your point is that the EU should use the words "corpus separatum" in each and every document they produce in order for them to really hold that view, well. As a second point, a logical consequence of your proposed reasoning is that the EU would recognize the Green Line as a legitimate border between Israel and Palestine, in other words the EU would recognize Palestine within the 1967 borders. That's not how I read that document. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness - Apologies for any confusion. I didn't mean to list that as an option for discussion but, rather, as one of the options that receives some support in some sources but that we are unlikely to reach any consensus on. The merits for and against it don't really need to be discussed. What I'm asking that people look at are possible phrasings for different situations that would avoid implying any, or at least the most contentious, of the positions listed.

@Malik - That seems like a very good way of dealing with locations when they are a) contentious, and b) the actual subjects of the article. I would suggest, though, that when dealing with the locations of organisations the reader would want to know something about their location in terms of nationality.

@Dailycare, I think your formulation '... is an Israeli organisation based in Jerusalem' is excellent and solves all the relevant conflict and information issues. However, something different will be needed for international or non-Israeli organisations that are based in or have offices in Jerusalem.

@Biosketch - Whilst I can see the grounds for suggesting that near unanimity in the media would make a compelling case, I fear it would still not be sufficient to achieve consensus as opponents could still demand the weighing of media reports and usage against expert opinions and the views of nations and international bodies. I may well be wrong on this, so if my limited trawl through past debates is misleading me and you think it would be realistically possible to achieve consensus then the case certainly needs to be made. But if you don't think that's going to happen, what do you think would be the best alternative phrasing? Would a format such as 'The contest was held by Israel in Jerusalem' be acceptable, following the format suggested by Dailycare for Israeli organisations?

@JSolinsky - I would imagine that this will be a critical point for discussion with regard to situations where we can't get the Israeli tag into the phrasing elsewhere (as we can for Israeli organisations in Jerusalem or events held by Israel in Jerusalem). Given that this is the most likely flash-point for conflict between editors, can I suggest that we acknowledge its importance and return to it last, once consensus has been reached on the easier issues, so there will be no temptation to use what should be easier issues as bargaining chips in the trickier discussion? Despite this suggestion, it will still probably be worth trying to identify as many possible situations to which this debate will be relevant before we actually have the discussion. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to handle this is to not mention a country. For example, I think Teddy Stadium should be: "Teddy Stadium... is a football stadium in Jerusalem, Israel." Jerusalem is well known enough that clarification is not required. Furthermore, in attempting to clarify we are possibly making it more confusing for the reader or even inaccurate since there is a grey area. This solution works for most scenarios that involve prose.Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Just say Jerusalem and link it. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Jerusalem" could do for pre-occupying period. When it is relevant, East and Wets should be added. For example: in Category names the distinction is needed: a Category:Parks in Jerusalem in a higher category ends up in Category:Israel and maybe Category:Palestinian territories (or even West Bank). This is wrong, because the whole of Jerusalem is not a subset of Israel. For this reason we need Category:West Jerusalem and Category:East Jerusalem separately. This is WP:CAT reasoning, not a tourist guide. The mathematical logics are described by DAG principles. -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As I write above, I think saying "Jerusalem" without an country is a good (and compact!) way to avoid any issues. --Dailycare (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

After that I wrote: Jerusalem ending up in Category:Israel is factually not correct. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Most people seem to be heading towards a sensible consensus to leave out the country.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Jerusalem articles can do without (e.g. when it is about pre-Israel Jerusalem). Still, whenever a country is named or relevant (such as Parks in...), it should be correct, not mixed up. Current namings are not so, so I don't think it is current consensus. The suggestion you make, which coincides with your opinion of being sensible, won't do. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

just for fun - where is jerusalem? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html and http://www.austrade.gov.au/Visiting-Israel/default.aspx - just the first two i googled. shall i look at more gov't websites to show that jerusalem is in israel? and if so, how many would be sufficient? Soosim (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand what people are saying, Wikipedia's narrative voice shouldn't state in prose things like "Jerusalem is a city in Israel" or "Jerusalem is an Israeli city," etc, because for a statement like that there are conflicting sources and there isn't really a way to resolve what the consensus is. But when RSes on a given topic all agree that Jerusalem and Israel overlap, in those cases it's NPOV to follow the sources. Like in a list of Eurovision Contests, for the country column Wikipedia will stay say "Israel" for 1999 because that's what all the sources said; and for Malha-hosted soccer matches between Beitar and its European rivals the country will still be Israel because that's how all the sports media report it.

@User:No More Mr Nice Guy, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that document in reference to the 1999 Eurovision Contest.—Biosketch (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the title of this section. Example: Mount Scopus is in Jerusalem. But saying that Mount Scopus is in Israel is wrong. What kind of encyclopedia did you have in mind? -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The first one of Soosim's links explicitly says that the US consulate in Jerusalem isn't accredited to any government. Concerning for example the United States, Israel's most faithful ally, their position per 1963 (i.e. applying to West Jerusalem) is "Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty" (source). Now of course there exist a number of sources that do say Jerusalem is in Israel (especially Israeli sources!), but the point is that the supermajority of countries, in the sense of "the international community" doesn't consider Jerusalem, East or West, to be in Israel. If it were otherwise, all the embassies would sit neatly in West Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

dailycare: no, the link explicity says that jerusalem is in israel. and there are numerous other countries that say the same thing. for sure there are issues with east and west and pre- and post- 1948 or 1967 or whatever, but for the vast majority of cases, there is nothing contentious by saying jerusalem, israel. in some cases where the issue (subject matter of the article) 'demands' it, then, fine, it can be qualified. Soosim (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:DePiep, was your comment addressed to me? I never said anything about Mount Scopus. What does your question "What kind of encyclopedia did you have in mind?" mean?—Biosketch (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, the text says "consulate(s) general: Jerusalem; note - an independent US mission, established in 1928, whose members are not accredited to a foreign government". However, it's a bit beside the point as no-one is contesting that there are probably a large number of sources, especially Israeli ones, that say Jerusalem is in Israel. That's not the point. The point is that whereas there exists the view that Jerusalem is in Israel, there exists also the view (and there exist plenty of sterling sources saying so) that Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli territory. Speaking of sterling, here is the official UK view: "no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem" (source). In fact, the latter view (Jerusalem not in Israel) is subscribed to by the vast majority of the world's countries, possibly all except Israel. Therefore, saying casually something like "Jerusalem, Israel" would be an endorsement of one from among more than one conflicting narratives, i.e. a violation of WP:NPOV. --Dailycare (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you show us a source that says that a "supermajority" of countries don't recognize West Jerusalem as being part of Israel? Not your interpretation of why there are no embassies, but an actual source supporting your assertion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess you might have to clarify "recognize West Jerusalem as being part of Israel". Does that mean "recognize that Israel has de jure sovereignty over West Jerusalem" or does it mean something else ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This source says (page 17) that "Israeli control in west Jerusalem since 1948 was illegal and most states haven't recognized its sovereignty there". --Dailycare (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Way to misrepresent the source. That's actually a good book that details the various POVs regarding Jerusalem. You chose a section describing what Henry Cattan said and are trying to pretend the book states it as fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Cattan isn't a RS for that statement? Do you have sources saying that there isn't a significant number of countries who dispute Israel's sovereignty in West Jerusalem? We've already been through the EU, the United States and Britain who all do dispute it. BTW, the book says on page 15, in the book's own voice, that "two main answers" to the sovereignty question are that Israel has it and that it's suspended or with the Palestinians. That's further support for the view that there is a significant POV according to which West Jerusalem isn't not Israeli. --Dailycare (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask if there is any consensus for the following proposal: 'When describing organisations based in Jerusalem, locations in Jerusalem that can be attached to organisations, and events held in Jerusalem by countries or organisations, editors should, where possible, seek to use a form of words that includes a national descriptor connected to the organisation or event rather than connected to Jerusalem.'

Examples: 'NGO Monitor is an Israeli organisation based in Jerusalem.' 'Teddy stadium is a football stadium in Jerusalem used by two Israeli teams - Beitar Jerusalem and Hapoel Jerusalem.' 'The 1999 Eurovision Song Contest was hosted by Israel in Jerusalem.' or 'The 1999 Eurovision Song Contest was held in Jerusalem; the host nation was Israel.'

This obviously still leaves quite a few situations unresolved, such as locations with no organisational affiliation, lists that have separate country and nation columns, infoboxes, and categories but might move us forward an increment. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC) And if anyone could edit that into a formal proposal format, please do! BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind it at all. Some examples of how Palestinian based topics would work might be useful to others. But overall, I think the wording is good if the intent is to prevent editors from overemphasizing the politics.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with the language, and with saying simply "Jerusalem" in other connections (e.g. when someone has died there, or a building such as a church is located there). --Dailycare (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Will we be applying the same standard to cases where Wikipedia's voice is used to describe East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories/West Bank?—Biosketch (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is felt to be a contentious issue, then I don't see why not. The purpose of the suggestion is to remove bones of contention amongst editors and the greater the scope for consensus the better. Despite Sean's indication that this issue rarely come up, there seems no reason to exclude it and I phrased the proposal in a country-neutral way. If you want me to add an East Jerusalem example to the list in the proposal, to make it clear that the scope goes beyond Israel, I would be happy to do so (although I don't know the issue well enough to construct such an example myself).BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen any examples of that by the way ? I tend to use the same approach as you on the Jerusalem issue i.e. no country unless it confuses the issue to not include it, but I don't think I've come across any examples of East Jerusalem being described as part of the Palestinian territories or West Bank. Searching for both those possibilities only generated Matt Harding. Whereas there are hundreds of instances of Jerusalem, Israel excluding talk/templates/cats etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

i started to make some changes in wiki world and biosketch suggested that we just say jerusalem unless the sources make a big deal over which part of jerusalem it is in. now, how did all this start? because ngo monitor is listed as jerusalem, israel. which, it is. no big deal, and that is what the sources say. but, it has to apply to all, no? some sort of rule: a) if it is not a big deal, then jerusalem or jerusalem, israel (see sean's comments above); b) if it is a big deal, then maybe both's suggestion of "the israeli non-profit 'x' is based in jerusalem"; and c) if it is a really big deal, then we go to western/eastern part of jerusalem? Soosim (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a rule based on the need to make a judgement in each case as to whether the convention is a big deal will just involve kicking the can of contention down the road and will provide scope for rehashing the same arguments in each case, rather than providing a standard that can be applied straightforwardly. If we can find an approach that is not at all contentious (in at least a limited set of cases) I don't see the point of preserving the contentious phrasing for some cases when an alternative is available. With regard to your point c), it's going to be useful to draw up a list of cases when the East/West distinction might need to be applied - do you have any suggestions for examples to be discussed?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, I think that in the "not big deal" cases, we should say just "Jerusalem" to avoid precisely the problem we're discussing on this thread. If it's an involved issue concerning the city in particular, then we should present the issue as it is in high-quality sources, namely as a point in dispute or then dance around the dispute by saying "organized by Israel in Jerusalem" or similar language. --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We aren't at templates or categories yet, Sean. Stop biting off more than the community is willing to chew. Baby steps and keeping a conversation about prose on prose. The proposal is great if we are just talking about the leads of articles. Note: At face value but the proposer still should give us some examples of how to handle more Palestinian based topics or else those calling for his head as a sock will not be silenced.Cptnono (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "We aren't at templates or categories yet, Sean". My comment "excluding talk/templates/cats etc" above just meant that in my search I excluded those items (and others like images) from the search so that the results were just for article bodies and infoboxes. Actually I thought this discussion was mainly about infoboxes so perhaps some clarification of the scope is necessary. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don;t understand what you need clarification on. We were all talking about sentences in the lead and you brought up templates and cats. I am trying to get you back on track.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not quite right. The only person who limited it to leads is you when you made the statement "The proposal is great if we are just talking about the leads of articles". Search for lead. BHB said "This obviously still leaves quite a few situations unresolved, such as locations with no organisational affiliation, lists that have separate country and nation columns, infoboxes, and categories but might move us forward an increment." and this whole thing started over at the NGO Monitor article, see Talk:NGO_Monitor#Rollback.2FJerusalem_in_Israel, this edit and this edit. So, the scope needs clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion from other editors as anything else then the leads in articles (or maybe even prose later down even though that is not the primary concern) then I don't know what to tell you. Does anyone else object to us trying to fix the lead of articles or should we continue bickering over what the conversation is about?Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the absence of information as the absence of information. It's one of my contractural obligations. There is a lack of clarity over the scope so I will spell it out starting with limiting it to the article body=lead+body+infobox for instances of both Jerusalem (and East Jerusalem for completeness). That matches the scope that is necessary to resolve the situation at the NGO Monitor article which started all this and many, perhaps all, other instances. Any objections to that scope from anyone ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

totally agree that this discussion should cover infobox, body and lead. was pretty sure that this is what this was all about. now a question, certainly applying to infoboxes: in what country is ngo monitor located? in what city? so, maybe to avoid those who don't like "jerusalem, israel", why not add a line to the infobox city = and country = ? Soosim (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly meant to include both the main body and the lead (I can't see any reason why an approach that is appropriate for one is not appropriate for the other). Infoboxes are something that I would like to include in principle but that the phrasing I have suggested is not going to be applicable for because of their structure. So, some different solution is going to be required there, although I'm sure we can find some way of breaking up the problematic logic. Would it be possible to add a 'nationality' line for the organisation, thus not placing the physical location in a country whilst still allowing the national affiliation of the organisation to be described?

I'm afraid I am going to have to recuse myself from this discussion for the time being due to claims being made that I am a sock-puppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer#User:BothHandsBlack). Cptnono has noted above how these claims are affecting the flow of discussion and I am not willing to frame my contributions in such a way as is apparently required to silence these accusations. I will return to the discussion once I have, at minimum, received statements from the relevant editors that they will assume good faith in my editing and will cease making definitive claims about me being a puppet in the absence of any supporting evidence. Hopefully, I should be able to rejoin this discussion, and start editing in the IP area as a whole again, in fairly short order. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Soosim in that this discussion relates to material in articles overall, not just leads. --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

this was one of the best things I have ever seen in this topic area. We had the chance to actually fix the prose. And now we are not going to. Nice work. Let us continue to bicker and fix nothing at all. Nice work guys. Feel bad.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we don't have a consensus now? Because as far as I can tell we seem to be more or less in agreement. --Dailycare (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that I like the suggestion that specified how to handle prose. I am wary since another editor brought up how it would impact other aspects of the project. I am also concerned that the proposal has yet to have clarification on how it would impact articles that do not already mention Israel. If we are going to talk about that one clear proposal suggested (as opposed to people BSing without doing anything) then I am going to say: I agree with the example provided that ignored states and focused on the city. I disagree with the proposal but I agree with the examples. But it is too late since this conversation isn't going anywhere. So I am now only supporting "Jerusalem FULL STOP." If you want to mention a state you can do it in the linked article. Numerous articles should not be held hostage by politics. Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my point, namely that we seem to have consensus on "Jerusalem." Of course, we can't, and shouldn't, decide that the controversies concerning Jerusalem wouldn't ever be mentioned anywhere. They can be, for example in Jerusalem. The categories, I think, are a different aspect that can be discussed separately. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No articles are being held hostage by this process. Until it has been completed there are no dependencies between article content and this discussion. This process was started because of a specific case, NGO Monitor, but resolving that case doesn't depend on this process unless the editors at that article want it to (which seems to be the case). Editors can do whatever they think works over there in the meantime if they want and this process is not stopping anyone from making changes to other articles or leaving things as they are now. I will still be changing things that I think are inappropriate if I see them such as saying that places across the green line in East Jerusalem are in Israel by removing the country. The discussion started because of BHB taking action after this short discussion. The process is incomplete and there's no rush. The outcome may have an impact on many articles and it may be controversial so there should probably be as broad an input as possible and people can go slowly. BHB asked for time to address the SP accusations. There's plenty of time. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Having taken some advice I have decided to just ignore the accusations made against me. I shall be like a helium filled duck, rising above the tempest as the water rolls off my back. However, I certainly won't be making edits in order to placate those calling me a puppet. I have also come to the conclusion that my concerns about this discussion were unfounded: if people don't want to join in for whatever reason, including because of their feelings about me, that is still no obstacle to achieiving consensus (silence not being an argument). So, if no one has any objections, we can pick up where we left off (and thanks for waiting for me!) I have responded on the issue of scope above but, in short, whilst I think we should aim to get as many things sorted out as possible, the phrasing in the current proposal can't really be applied to infoboxes (as they don't accommodate such phrases) although I think the logic can be. What I would suggest is that we first get agreement on the preferred phrasing to use in the article (both body and lead) and then seek to replicate the logical dissociation in the infobox format. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there hasn't been much in the way of opposition lately to the proposal of saying "Jerusalem", or "Israeli organization/event/XYZ in Jerusalem" in the cases that's appropriate. For infoboxes the first one is compact. --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There don't seem to be many objections but we may as well wait until my SPI is finished before moving on as some people may choose to voice opinions at that point. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

i think any reference to anything that is in west jerusalem should be jerusalem, israel. that is the world consensus. i understand that applying 'israel' to east jerusalem might be problematic, and therefore, i can agree to the 'israeli organization xyz is in jerusalem' format for those. there is no reason to whitewash the name of israel off of the west jerusalem places. Soosim (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I personally agree that there is at least a soft consensus throughout the world that west Jerusalem is in Israel, the problem is that the formula 'Jerusalem, Israel' refers to all of Jerusalem and implies that the whole city is in Israel, even if its use is restricted to places in west Jerusalem. That claim is obviously highly controversial and there does not seem to be much hope of getting consensus for a formulation that describes an unqualified Jerusalem is being in Israel. I don't think that my proposal whitewashes Israel off the West Jerusalem locations; it just seeks to avoid the whole question for those cases when it is not really necessary to make a statement on the issue one way or another. I suggested previously that 'west Jerusalem, Israel' might be another possible approach but that didn't seem to get much traction from either side.BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't overlook the sources discussed earlier in this thread that state that at least the EU, the US and the UK don't consider West Jerusalem is being in Israel, and that the view that it isn't is one of the primary opinions in the matter worldwide. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Gaza War

There are still multiple issues in Gaza War. Additionally there seems to be unresolved question of Gaza War naming. Feel free to share your thoughts on the article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is a mess. It doesn't need a copy edit. It needs a full-on blow-out. The article was one of the first real dramafest articles for several editors. That caused it to be garbage. It is now so far yesterday that no editors care enough to fix it. Why promote your side of a conflict when threre are current articles to rest your hat? How many editors have actually worked on the bread and butter of the prose? I assume the lead, infobox, external links, and pictures have had more discussion than the prose in general but then I remember how much work went into getting the pointy and "omg warcrimes" lines into a summary + subarticle state. The article is trashed and it will likely stay the same unless editors actually try to make it work. I can't even look at going to GA with it since I have so little faith in the community. That sucks since I like the GA process. In my honest opinion: The best thing for the project is to reduce the article to a stub right now. I doubt such an extreme posture can have any support. But every POV pusher being topic banned gets us closer to the solution. Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read carefully enough to parse out if one side or the other had more POV pushing, but it's probable there was a standoff where both sides got in what they felt was most relevant. Probably a semi-neutral editor could spend a couple hours cleaning up the worst POV/WP:RS issues.

As for title, it's like calling the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article the "Warsaw Ghetto War." Or the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article a war (unless it turns into a genuine civil war]]. It's not a war when a few poorly armed fighters on one side and an overwhelmingly civilian population are attacked by a massive nuclear armed military. But I'm sure that argument has been made before. And of course, the next time the Israelis go in with military might, there's the issue of naming it Gaza war II or whatever. Unless they finally manage to expell all the Gazans. CarolMooreDC 15:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That hasn't worked in the past so I think we'll just nuke the entire universe at the Big Bang and get done with it :-) --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Beitar Illit: Dubious statement on International Court of Justice

I'm not an expert on this topic and rather busy, if someone wants to deal with with I wrote on the Beitar Illit talk page here:

Status under international law section reads: ...Beitar Illit is considered illegal under international law...Fourth Geneva Convention...(With BBC ref). But then says: This view has been rejected by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross. With page 44-45 of Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a ref. It looks like they support Fourth Geneva Convention on page 44 and haven't finished giving an opinion on 45. So I'm wondering if this is malicious interpretation or vandalism or am I missing something? Tagged dubious in interim.

Thanks. CarolMooreDC 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the wording in the paragraph isn't very good English, but the meaning seems to be that Israel's view disputing the illegality has been rejected, not the view that the settlements are illegal. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of CAMERA as a source in BLPs (and elsewhere)...

..needs looking at by people with time.

• Here's a list showing where CAMERA are used as a direct source using material published on their site rather than via secondary source coverage.[2]
• As far as I'm aware from past discussions at RSN, CAMERA does not qualify as a source suitable for BLPs.
• Many of the cases where they have been used seem highly problematic, some less so e.g. Anna Baltzer, Avi Bell, Norman Finkelstein (perhaps), Ilan Pappé, Moshe Ya'alon, Alexander Prokhanov, Diana Buttu, Tony Judt, Christiane Amanpour, Norton Mezvinsky (maybe), Israel Shahak (possibly), John Pilger, Georgie Anne Geyer, Tony Kushner, Hanan Ashrawi (maybe), John Mearsheimer (maybe) and Eduard Gruner.
• In many cases they seem to be being used on the assumption that
  • a) there is a consensus that they are an RS when there clearly isn't
  • and b) that their opinion about something automatically meets the NPOV requirement that we include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" without any evidence in the form of secondary source coverage.

I think it needs looking into. For comparison, here is a list showing where Electronic Intifada are used as a direct source.[3] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sean. I'd like to add the following problematic sources

• www.mideastweb.org[4]

• www.counterpunch.com [5]

• www.counterpunch.org[6]

• www.ifamericansknew.org [7]

• www.btselem.org/ [8]

• www.dailykos.com[9]

• www.foreignpolicyjournal.com (Not to be confused with Foreign Policy) [10] Incidentally, this particular blog is owned and operated by a wikipedia account that been the subject of ARBPIA sanctions. Feel free to email me if you want to know which account.

Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been several CAMERA discussions on RSN (e.g. here) and there is clearly no consensus that they would be reliable. In fact, there seems rather to be a consensus they are (at least 90% of the time) unreliable. As a practical way forward, CAMERA citations could be provided with a tag in the hope that editors involved with the articles in question will work around the issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

JJG, yes, the quality of information in topic area has been compromised by advocates/people who don't follow the WP:V policy. I try to work my way through bad sources when I can but there are an awful lot. I'll have a look at some of those. I wouldn't necessarily agree that btselem.org are a concern though to anyone but a tiny minority. Unlike HRW who are both highly respected around the world and despised and heavily criticized by the multitude of nations who violate human rights, B'Tselem's critics are a tiny subset with a specific political agenda.

Dailycare, thanks, I always forget about the tag. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have some RFC about the sources that can be used in the area.--Shrike (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the claims made by organizations that exist primarily for political purposes (which includes both CAMERA and Electronic Intifada) should ever be used as sources of "fact". They might sometimes be citable as sources of opinion, but there ought to be something that makes the opinion particularly notable. Lots of the opinions sourced to CAMERA are so boringly predictable that anyone who knows the subject could write them without consulting the source. Zero^talk 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur. We should use neither. Camera sponsors activists, as does Electronic Intifada. If there are level headed, neutral scholars of recognized status writing for Camera, let us know. The others depend on who is writing. Counterpunch is quite different, since it spans views from the Reaganite right, and conservative economists to the radical left. Many scholars with academic chairs write for it, as experts in their field. Winslow T. Wheeler and Michael Hudson, to name two of many, are experts in their fields. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair co-edit it, and yet have diametrically opposed views on global warming. Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies researcher, may be slandered as a front man for Russian propaganda by spin-tanks like Camera and Co, but the fact is that he was senior policy adviser to Hazel R. O'Leary back in the 90s and can be cited as an RS on those issues. It all depends on who is being used for what. A lot of major investigative reportage, not carried by newspapers no one (except myself?) challenges for their reliability on the Middle East, gets into some of these, and, if of scholarly quality, should be accepted.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are reputable academic like you claim why they need Counterpunch?Its is clearly agenda driven not reliable source at least in WP:ARBPIA and WP:BLP articles.--Shrike (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't write 'claim'. I claimed nothing. I stated a fact(detailed on some other page with a dozen examples), i.e., that reputable academics right and left, and experienced bureaucrats, spies and politicians, right, centre and left, allow their work to be published there. They don't need Counterpunch, and you are evidently, like most who worry wikipedia about its reliability on some things, unbfamiliar with it. It is not 'clearly agenda-driven' except to print news, and articles that the ideological mainstream is queasy about reporting. That's why they got the whole Iraq WMD right, and the WSJ and the NYTs got it wrong. The latter didn't trust the experts, whom Counterpoint published. Instead, they trusted government handouts, and interviews with the shysters who manipulated the public. It's called 'muckraking' and is a noble tradition in serious journalism, i.e., not listening to big shots in the public limelight, but publishing the facts they fail to mention.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

back to the issue at hand: isn't this a case of camera (and ei?) being RS for what they say - and certainly if they have documented research (with links to the actual items in question, etc.) then, it is easier to rely on them, no? Soosim (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is CAMERA (and ei?) have online opinions on pretty much every topic in the IP area. In most cases their opinions would not be a significant opinion on the topic. I think the onus is on those wanting to include their opinion to prove that it is signification on any particular topic. Dlv999 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Then the same we can say about other sources like counterpunch.--Shrike (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. CAMERA is basically digging dirt to throw at your enemies, and undermine their credibility, or spinning the news to obtain a political effect of 'all on board' for besieged Israel. It's predictable opinionizing and all spin. There's no attempt at trenchant analysis, and it's hard to find anyone writing for it who is not identifiably part of a defined media lobby. The 'quality' of its writers and articles is mediocre. That cannot be said of Counterpunch, which pits libertarians against marxists, has pro and anti-China articles, is hostile to the politics of the country that hosts it, and above all is not there to promote an identifiable cause. CAMERA is always coming reflexly to the defence of a perceived Jewish or Israeli cause. Counterpunch lambasts the right and the left, the Republicans and the Democrats, and, though its line on Israel is more uniform, that line varies from optimism of the old Zionist school Uri Avnery to the pessimism of Michael Neumann. CAMERA exists to justify a political regimen: Counterpunch to dig for skullduggery whereever a state consolidates its power, whatever the state. It goes for lobbies, corporations, and states, from several angles, and has no ideological investment in a received truth, unlike Camera. Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok how many right wing-center/center/center-left wing Zionist did you see on counterpunch?--Shrike (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

They are interested in critics of the world, not its purblind defenders. That is the difference, as is clear from my remark above. People who militate to justify the indefensible can write for CAMERA. They're not interested in facts but spin.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

and now a word or two from our POV....c'mon guys, every newspaper/magazine/etc (regardless of its stated policy of being impartial) has a POV. no need to qualify or disqualify, just need to be aware, and use with caution. Soosim (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure Die Zeit is the same as Der Stürmer,Pravda on a par with Samizdat, Einstein 's POV is on a par with that of Avraham Stern etc. Bref. Think before writing silly comments. What you said just challenged policy (WP:RS)guidlines. Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether a source is in general reliable is judged on a source-by-source basis, and that's what we're in the process of doing now. An argument that "everything is POV" fails precisely since there exist different levels of reliability. WP:RS discusses "well established" and "less well established" sources, for example. --Dailycare (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

@Nish. Are you seriously arguing that Counterpunch, which is put out by Norman Finkelstien, is non-biased and not agenda driven. Seriously?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(a) The name is spelt Norman Finkelstein (b) Counterpunch is put out by Alex Cockburn, a born and bred journalist and Jeffrey St. Clair. It's financed in good part by private individual donations. The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times and the New York Times had no problem in recognizing Cockburn's investigative merits. His Corruptions of Empire back in the eighties is still citable for its meticulous recall of the financial and political sleaze we tend to forget. I don't see why folks get their undies dyed brown to see a journal he set up cited here. Norman Finkelstein couldn't 'put out' Counterpunch, since he's been reduced to a disgraceful penury after penning several books few could fault for misuse of sources: he was and still is an outstanding representative of Jewish critical scholarship, one reason why he lost tenure, thanks to the lobbying of an inveterate twister of facts whom many cite here as RS, though to any objective eye, that kind of RS spells out as 'ratshit'.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Behind on wikipedia. You/we have got list the CAMERA (and spelled out name too) discussions at WP:RSN and show they are basically negative on BLP, tell BLP you/we are going to do it, and start doing it. I think it would be appropriate to make a separate page somewhere on this with a chart naming articles and status of removal so people can work on it at their leisure. CarolMooreDC 22:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Alon Shvut

Request

• Alon Shvut (Talk:legal) {Talk:Naming), (Naming convention talk page).

Looking for clarifications on issues after considerable efforts to resolve what ArbCom and other consensus debates achieved. Also applies to some other settlements.

After some involvement and reviewing of related material, it seems to me that there is an effort to over-extend what the consensus arrived at regarding the legal statements on settlements and the naming convention on the West Bank.

As an example, I removed the terms "having no basis in international law" which was added to many settlements in the legal statement. This is one example of overstepping what the consensus arrived at in order to push a POV, and doing so in the name of the consensus itself which did not condone it. To Nableezy's credit, he finally agreed to the change after a considerable effort was made to explain it.

I haven't found anywhere in the consensus arrived at on the legal statement where it's deemed that it must be placed disruptively in its own section, interrupting sections about the settlement itself in order to give it prominence. I've suggested moving it to follow these sections because it seems out of place in its present position. It interrupts content specific to the settlement. As a legal statement on the broad issue of settlements, it seems perfectly fine coming after the content specific to the settlement itself instead of interrupting it. Nableezy reverted the edit and insists on its present placement though he gives no reasoning for it. Again there seems to be a POV push on this and I believe it turns the article into a referendum on the legal issue instead of being an article on the settlement.

I've explained at length why the naming convention does not assume a ban on the use of Judea and Samaria in article leads where it's appropriate. Here are examples made in arguments for the assumed non-existent ban:

• Now, if you believe such a POV is to be prominently displayed in the lead, one would hope that you also feel that the POV, held by an opposing group of partisans, that the settlement is an illegal colony established by foreign invaders on occupied Palestinian land, should also be included. Do you? Because there is another option, the one currently employed."
• "You complain that it cannot be missing from the lead as 'important information'- presumably the consistent removal from the lead of the fact that the town in in good part built on stolen property owes much to the objective fact that this is not as anywhere as important as noting how settlers like to imagine their area."
• " I see the attempt to include "Judea and Samaria", by hook or by crook, to be a blatantly politically motivated attempt to impose a settler-centric narrative in the very first sentences on an article on, using plain words with well understood meanings that would be used for any state besides Israel, an illegal colony in occupied territory."

I don't believe that such charged POV arguments should be the basis for content and I try not to make my case in such terms. I also do not see where ArbCom arrived at a consensus that the use of J&S is stripped of its historical relevance and equated to extremist positions, in order to enforce a ban-policy that was never stipulated. Just the opposite seems true, Arbcom did not adopt the position of some editors who felt it cannot be used without bias, but took these views into consideration by asking that it be done with qualifications to dispel such a possibility. I'm suggesting, for encyclopedic integrity, that its use, with relation to some settlements that have an established relevance to the term in the body of the article, to be historically pertinent and cannot be broadly considered an extremist term or "settler-speak". Its use does not in any way compromise the legitimate claims of anyone else. But omitting it, however, seems to compromise significant information about the articles.

After exhaustive discussion in several sections of talk pages, I suggested to make an edit that demonstrates how I believe the article can be improved. I also suggested we keep this edit as an example of the proposition for wider discussion, such as here for example. The edit can be seen in this version of the article. There was no consideration of my request and the edit was reverted immediately on the basis that I somehow violated a consensus which I have not seen expressed anywhere in the way it's being enforced here. Again to his credit, Nableezy, for a brief moment, seemed to accept the use of Judea and Samaria Area in the lead, though he added a qualification which I frankly feel gave it more prominence than it needed (not my intention, I thought the parenthesis was enough of a qualification and downplayed its presence). Unfortunately after Nishidani reverted Nab's edit, he seems to have backed down from having given his consent for it.

In short, I do not see how any changes I made violated any of the agreements arrived at previously. It's also become somewhat futile to argue with editors trying to push a demonic villainy POV of Israel in articles about the settlements. I don't believe these articles should be a battleground for such charged positions nor carry the burden of the entire conflict as is constantly being hammered here. These articles should primarily be about the settlements themselves. There are enough other articles on relevant issues where these editors' opinions and excessive disparagement of Israel, are brought to light.

In coming to this impasse, I'm asking for more opinions from editors familiar with the issues here. I am not one to go around and file complaints but rather believe every effort should be made to resolve issues through common understanding. But there is a limit to how much such an effort can be made, if it is trampled consistently with charged passionate disdain for one side, instead of due regard for a more neutral encyclopedic tone.

I've left a message for Nableezy, Nishidani and Zero (who's also involved in the discussions), to let them know about this request. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I would see no problem with the legality being mentioned in the lead if the lead was an actual summary of the article. It would fit in fine in an overview of the place but instead it is given too much prominence. I would be nice if editors would improve the lead but it is less interesting (and time is already consumed over) the political stuff.

There are alternatives to its own section. The legality info can fit in a paragraph in the history section. The prominence reasoning provided is a sufficient concern.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it inappropriate for the usual line-up to pitch in. For the record, in my understanding, Michael, following Gilabrand's edit, is attempting to overthrow a convention, at once explicit and implicit, that the I/P area editors have followed for over 2 years. A huge amount of tact and sensitivity designed to avoid the explosive potential of POV language is now being challenged, indeed openly defied, by a precedent which will abrogate these understandings which have lowered the temperature in the I/P area. From a Palestinian perspective, the settlement program and its systematic confiscating of lands, denial of natural rights to built on land with native title, renaming of territory to judaise it and deny a Palestinian presence, is a colonial project. 'Judea & Samaria' is emblematic of this ideology. Since in the highest legal opinion, unanimously underwritten by 15 judges in the ICJ, the area of settlements is under 'belligerent occupation', neutrality requires editors to refrain from constant terminological innovations that would 'naturalize' a state of warfare that involves the enactment of a policy of expropriative Lebensraum, as nothing more than the exercise of a biblical right by primogeniture established b an ethnocentric mythistory, which is wholly normative natural, unconflictual, and a due recognition of a 'right'. The facts on the ground are those of a military situation of preponderant power, in which armed colonizers dwell, rename and expropriate as an imperial cultural right territory whose native occupants are denied the exercise of developmental rights and the nomenclature customarily in use for their property. A remarkable degree of restraint in depolemicizing this potentially explositive conflict in narrative versions has been achieved. Michael0's proposal would demolish this, and create a precedent for chaos once more. This is not a request for 'collaboration' except in the most dubious connotation of that word, which historically also means getting elements of an occupied people to assist the occupiers in their annexation of the native land belligerently conquered by the imperial power. It's as simple as that. We have all exercised restraint, and Michael is both unhappy with that restraint, and quite willing to admit that we are welcome to mirror his own chaotic innovation by using the same nomenclature-iconoclasm regarding Israel which he advocates here for Palestinian territories. A recipe for disaster. Think closely about what the precedent he is endeavouring to smuggle past the sober safeguards against an editwarring environment will entail for several hundred articles. The articles will seize up, as everyone dashes to POVize just a few key sentences. Insanity.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing fundamental has changed since the conventions were established and I don't see any need for changing them. On the contrary, the need is to enforce them. Zero^talk 10:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree and support enforcing the naming convention which does not take the position of vilifying the term as Nishidani so eloquently does above. The only thing that's changed since the convention was drafted is that a couple of editors have strong-armed the articles on settlements to remove all mention of the term even when no bias can be construed. The naming convention specifically allows such NPOV instances. Yet some editors here are arguing the contrary and that the term is pejorative and to be eschewed under any circumstance. And they have intimidated other editors by reverting edits and claiming the naming convention supports their position, which is a clear misrepresentation. The convention never agreed to this vilification of the term. What's going on here is equivalent to ideological bullying by some editors who are threatening chaos and mayhem if their strongly opinionated positions are challenged. They are out to disparage the settlements in order to support their extreme personal views. They have used the naming convention and legality statement to turn the articles on settlements into their ideological battleground. It appears they are imposing their side of the Israel/Palestine conflict on the pages of Wikipedia, a repository intended for the free transfer of knowledge. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You say you agree, but you don't agree. You make edits in explicit violation of the convention. I had you in mind when I wrote that enforcement is what we need right now. Zero^talk 10:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the naming convention that is a violation, Zero? I know you had me in mind when you wrote it but I've went to lengths to explain the naming convention neither equates the term with the villainy attributed to it here, nor imposes a ban on its use when no clear bias is present. You seem to be taking a position that any use of it in reference to modern entities is biased. The naming convention disagrees with your position, but in consideration of the charged claims of "some editors" asks it be done with qualifications. Using the term J&SA and additionally placing it in parenthesis is in complete accordance with the guidelines. I've explained why my position enforces the naming convention while some editors banning the use of the term violates it. You have not addressed anything I said but rather choose to make general statements that have little basis in the guidelines. I'm sorry but I don't find this to be a fruitful way to discuss anything. Try putting your politics aside and read the guidelines with an open mind for once. If you just want to make baseless accusations as others have here, then the record will bear that this is your way of conducting a discussion. If you instead choose to explain yourself as I have, that might give us something to talk about. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Line 5: "When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used" (my bold). Those words "not merely referring to a specific land area" are there in order to prevent people writing that specific places are in Judea and Samaria Area. You did what this rule expressly says not to do. Zero^talk 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Line 5 would prevent someone from writing "Alon Shvut is located in the Judea and Samaria Area." Which is not what I did. This is how I introduced it: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria Area)." It's not the same as saying it's "located in Judea and Samaria". The parenthesis change the context from location to administration because it doesn't just say {Judea and Samaria) but rather (Judea and Samaria Area) which is an administrative context. This is relevant because Alon Shvut is administered under the "administrative area of Judea and Samaria". The guideline allows for referencing it in the context of administration and suggests one of two ways. Or "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria", or "Judea and Samaria Area". This is the intention of the parenthesis. It's like saying "The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Wayne County administration)". If this is problematic for some people, then it can be clarified further: "The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Administered in Wayne County)". The term "Judea and Samaria Area" is already a name of the administrative area and allowed in this context. But if it bothers some people it can be clarified further: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (the administrative area of Judea and Samaria)." This will certainly have some people in a huff but people's hate for the term cannot strip the guidelines from the allowance they make for its use. Before accusing me of changing the intention of the guidelines, please try to explain why the guidelines allow for use of the term in the context of administration? Before accusing me of violating something, maybe ask yourself why you and some editors are stripping the guidelines of the allowances it makes. If the guideline had agreed with editors who think any use of the term is biased, then the guidelines would have said so clearly and editors wouldn't be able to introduce it in any way whatsoever. This is clearly not the case. The guidelines don't agree with some editors who feel the term cannot be used without bias. This is why they made the allowances, which are there for a reason. Now, let's try a little intellectual exercise. What if we said something this: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank. It is governed by the laws of the administrative area of Judea and Samaria Area." Do you now think this would dispel the objections? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, it would still violate the clear intention of line 5. It isn't a sort of game of finding some clever wording to get the same information into the article despite the best efforts of the writers of the rules. Read WP:LAWYERING. Zero^talk 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Zero, it's not at all clear that line 5 intends to prevent the use of the term in an article, and that its introduction is a violation of the spirit of the guideline. This has been the position of editors who have mistakenly interpreted the guideline as saying that the terms Judea and Samaria are extremist hateful terms and their use isn't allowed in articles about modern entities. The spirit of the naming convention, it seems to me, is rather about refuting such claims. The naming convention does not adopt the position that the term is hateful and cannot be used without bias. This seems to be the heart of the issue, not the wholesale banning of the use of the term, as suggested here. My effort to explain, by analyzing specific articles of the guideline, why applying such a prohibition violates its spirit, does not seem to apply to WP:LAWYERING. This is not the first time you've said this about my arguments, so I'll kindly remind you to also read the Wikilawyering guideline and remember that it's a two edged sword which cautions editors against making pejorative frivolous accusations about it. The guidelines there rather advise editors to discuss the issues themselves and refrain from making blanket references to the term, without an explanation for why they do so. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Noone has said that the use of the term "Judea and Samaria" is "hateful". That is a strawman. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Hateful" is one of the milder ways to describe the superlatives showered on "Judea and Samaria". You can read them in links at the top of the section, here's an example:

"'If' you persist in reintroducing a POV term that hitherto has been used with great restrictive economy, then you are openly tempting or inviting all other editors to use terms that they, discretionally, have refrained from using with regard to 'settlers' (a euphemism what Palestinians, were they familiar with comparable western examples in the US, Libya, Algeria, would call carpetbaggers), such as 'colonizers', 'thieves', 'under belligerent occupation'.These are the Palestinian POV-equivalents of 'Judea and Samaria'." --Nishidani

Others have also noted the term as being hated by some editors. " If the only way we can mention the historic nature of the geographic area is by using the hated words "Judea and Samaria," then we are required to use those words. --Brewcrewer". Nothing strawman about it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So your only evidence that some editors are describing the term "Judea and Samaria" as "hateful" is Brewcrewer's allegation that they hate the term? If you want to make such an accusation, please cite diffs. RolandR (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to split hairs then let's go all the way. I didn't say "some editors are describing the term "Judea and Samaria" as "hateful"", I said "...editors who have mistakenly interpreted the guideline as saying that the terms Judea and Samaria are extremist hateful terms...". The two might sound similar but they're not the same. Evidence for this includes this compilation of sources, mentioned in the naming convention guidelines. This diff, the quote from which you didn't acknowlege, expresses the extremist hateful way the terms is viewed (I didn't say viewed by whom specifically). This one is for the one you noticed. I think that should be sufficient but if you'd like more, then you might like to sift through these: AlonShvutTalk:legal, AlonShvutTalk:Naming, NamingConventionTalk. If you're still not persuaded after all these then maybe one of us is reading things a little differently. In which case if you'd like to believe my statement is a strawman argument, well, that's alright too. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again extrapordinary wikilawyering to work round or rasp down declarations that originally suggested some of your interlocutors view these terms as 'hateful'

You quote me in a diff. What did I say?

'If' you persist in reintroducing a POV term that hitherto has been used with great restrictive economy, then you are openly tempting or inviting all other editors to use terms that they, discretionally, have refrained from using with regard to 'settlers' (a euphemism for carpetbaggers), such as 'colonizers', 'thieves', 'under belligerent occupation'.These are the Palestinian POV-equivalents of 'Judea and Samaria'.

We have (a)the Israeli POV and (b) the International POV.

• (c) You wish to add the Israeli settler POV., and tone down the language of the international POV. I.e. stack the pages with two pro-occupying power POVs by interoducing a third term:the Israeli POV,and its subset, the settler POV, to balance the 'International POV'.
• No one here goes about calling for a Palestinian POV, which, in the literature, and on the street, sees the whole project as one of theft, colonization, carpetbaggery and military thuggishness. To invite rhetorical clutter into these articles is foolish as well as a violation of an established entente. Build articles, don't waste our time on POV pushing for the community you have such strong feelings about.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me examples since the Arbcom decision and its conventions on naming were adopted, of any known, experienced editor in the 'pro-Israeli' camp who has consistently over two years tried to introduce 'Judea and Samaria' as a default term designating the area in which settlements are found, only to be subject to 'strong-arm' tactics and 'ideological bullying'? Unless my memory deceives me, neither camp has squabbled over this, and what you are discussing is the effect of Gilabrand's attempt to reintroduce the term for one settlement, while failing to show how Alon Shvut, rather uniquely, qualifies as one of those rare exceptions outlined in the protocol. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The highly improper POV addition to the legality statement "having no basis in international law" has been on the pages for nearly a year and no one contested it until now. Its removal, agreed to by the editor who wrote it, shows that silence over the passage of time is not evidence that it's proper. Wikipedia is a developing production. Improprieties may be on pages for a long time but that does not mean they're valid. Most experienced editors are civil people, do not like turning their love for the craft of editing, into an inflammatory ideological battleground, nor do they like being subjugated to the type of venom spilled on these issues such as in your arguments. Their silence cannot conceal the intimidation applied to the terms in your one-sided disparaging views. Since becoming involved in this article, I've heard many comments decrying the imaginary ban and vilification of the term. Here are the words of several editors from the recent discussions:

• "This proposal, that the guidelines disallow for the mention of the historic term, is word-playing. The guidelines, and specifically 6C, was specifically put in place because editors were removing all mention of Judea and Samaria. The guidelines were meant to disallow editors from erasing the historical context of Judea and Samaria from every Wikipedia article, not to further perpetuate the problematic behavior that led to all the bans." --Brewcrewer
• "Everybody agrees and it is reliably sourced that the settlements are in a region that was -- at the very least -- once known as Judea and Samaria. This historic fact is not only notable, but this Jewish terminology is in essence the seminal dispute in the Israel-Arab conflict. I can't imagine there is any policy basis for removing such important information from Wikipedia." --Brewcrewer
• "Can anyone point to policy prohibiting mention of Judea and Samaria in articles about geographic entities in Judea and Samaria?" --Brewcrewer
• "MichaelNetzer has worded his argument here and at AE pretty well. The alternative title that some editors may not like still has historical importance that should be mentioned. Explain why it is relevant, add the source, the end." --Cptnono
• "Further pushing and shoving here will be viewed dimly - the best way forward is to enlarge and source out the history (archaeology etc.) to determine its relevance to ancient entities, to ensure that mention of them is as uncontroversial as possible in the lead." -- Casliber

Now I ask you, Nishidani, can you please produce the stipulation in the Naming convention that equates Judea and Samaria with "colonizers", "thieves" and "belligerent occupiers", such as you base your case on? Can you please produce some agreed upon consensus demonstrating this to be Wikipedia's view of the settlements? Can you please explain why you allow this poison to command your editing and policy in an environment that politely asks to keep it outside of the work here? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer - try UNSC Res 252 and numerous reminders. The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 .. UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 .. UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 .. UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 .. UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 ... Israel's annexation of the Golan was also condemned by the UNSC Res 497

When your Secondary Source accurately reflect the UNSC resolutions you might have a point. Otherwise they're not WP:RS and you're pushing a denialist POV ... talknic (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile [11] [12] [13] [14] ... talknic (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is about the WB Naming Convention, Talknic. Please stop littering this discussion with your irrelevant political crusade. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer - "3) Guidelines 4–6 refer to modern times (after 1948)" Judea and Samaria were legally placed under Jordanian administration by the 1949 Armistice Agreement. Under their legal administration, the place name was officially changed to the West Bank. Now it is commonly known as the West Bank, because that is its official name ... talknic (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to name editors of standing who have, since the Arbcom decision, pushed 'Judea & Samaria' into these articles. So far you have no reply. No one has tried to revive that term over the past 2 years as effectively neutral and equal to West Bank, except yourself for the past few weeks. In lieu of data to the contrary, this means that since the Arbcom case, highly experienced pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors have not used that phrase in the way you now wish it to be used. The rest of your remarks indicate a failure to construe my remarks grammatically and conceptually, and raise, eheu (I avoid the term like the plague) 'strawman' spectres. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice I explained why silence in the face of aggressive editing and hostile arguments is not an indication of their validity. Nothing is being avoided. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Uhm,.. I wasn't around here for those two years, except as an observer. I never bullied, strongarmed, or harassed or intimidated anyone who might have taken it into their head to push the 'Judea & Samaria' meme. I watched, from the sidelines. So your inventive theory about a two year silence 'ìn the face of aggressive editing and hostile arguments' is nonsensical. Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't specifically name you when I said "some editors", Nish. Happy to see you weren't one of them, though I hope you're not trying to make up for that lost time now. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I watched these pages during my editorial absence, and, over two years, I saw no editors from the pro-Israeli side violating the interpretation that I am now, bizarrely, called on to defend. Since none of them, and they are present on this page and at AE against Nableezy, pushed the 'Judea & Samaria' line, no editors, Nableezy or whoever, woulòd have had an opportunity to engage in strongarm tactics on a non-existent (until recently) distortion of policy of the kind you are now trying to get across. Michael, as far as my understanding goers, you have emerged as a solitary paladin for a reading of policy no one other than yourself has dreamt of, from the day Arbcom made its deliberations, and the policy section was finished,(May 2009) to late October 2011. I'd like you to address this point seriously. How do you account for that absolute restraint and silence on this by a dozen of the best or most productive orm most intransigent pro-Israeli IP editors over that period? Surely not intimidation? I mean, I broke a law that had me up for a 5 years prison term as a recalcitrant pacifist (wimp), whereas I guess a lot of chaps here have IDF service to their credit, and don't pee in their undies at the spectre of a wild word or two thrown their way on a digital screen.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I account for it in the same way I account for "No basis in international law" being on the legal statement of many settlements, in violation of the consensus on the legal statement, RS and VER, and no one other than myself noticed it or said anything about it if they did, for nearly a year. Again, silence over the passage of time is not evidence of validity. But from one wimp to another, certainly you understand most editors are not here to fight wars and don't always feel like making waves. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This again? What dont you understand about "no basis in international law"? The ICJ rejected the basis of the Israeli argument. Do you still not get that? Israel argued that because Jordan did not have a legal right to the WB that when Israel took control of the territory it did not become occupied territory and thus GCIV does not apply. The basis of their argument is that due to the no state having legal control of the WB GCIV does not apply. The ICJ rejected that basis, saying that it does not matter who held the territory prior to Israel capturing them. I honestly cannot believe you still do not understand this. nableezy - 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that I've explained this issue enough times but I'll do so once again for the record. Here is a review of the disagreement between us:

1. You're saying that the ICJ rejected Israel's position on the legality of the settlements "as having no basis in international law" and that this is why you added the phrase into the legal statement.
2. I'm saying that the ICJ made no such statement "as having no basis in international law" and that adding this to the legal statement is effectively injecting a POV slant into the ICJ decision, in violation of the consensus previously arrived at concerning the legal statement.
3. We have both reviewed the ICJ decision and have not found any such statement by the ICJ, nor any such judgement by the court about whether Israel's position has any or no basis in international law. We have then agreed that "as having no basis in international law" be removed from the legal statement as unsupported in the source.

So then, whom of us is the one who doesn't understand? The one who is injecting a personal opinion about the ICJ decision into the legal statement and continues to assert its validity, or the one who is pointing out that such an opinion is not supported in the decision, and is a violation of the consensus on the legal statement? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. One more time. The Israeli argument has as its basis that territory not legally held by a sovereign nation cannot become occupied territory when another nation takes control over it. The ICJ rejected that, saying that the prior status of the territory is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the territory is occupied. That is, they rejected the basis of the Israeli argument. You have twice mistaken exasperation for agreement, this time after I cautioned you to avoid that earlier. nableezy - 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just dealing with the issue of the inclusion of the illegality of the settlement in the lead and in a separate section, WP:Legality of Israeli settlements calls for the sentence in the lead to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body. That alone is reason to both include the sentence in the lead and for it to be expanded in a section in the body. There is consensus for this, and until that consensus changes that line and section will remain. nableezy - 14:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the disruptive placement in the article, interrupting the flow of sections about the settlement itself, which you seem to insist on. I re-arranged all the sections in the article for better flow and you reverted the placement. It was never agreed in the Legality project that it becomes such a disruptive issue commanding prominence that's not warranted on pages about specific settlements. Framkly, Nableezy, your blatant effort to turn Wikipedia into your private ideological battleground is poisoning any prospect of collaboration. You must put these issues behind you and turn your attention to the improvement of the project. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The disruptive placement in the article??? Do you hear yourself arguing to include, in the first sentences, terms like Judea and Samaria and then arguing that expanding on what most sources consider the only noteworthy aspect of a settlement is interrupting the flow of the article? Yes, you rearranged the article to bring the most noteworthy aspect of the settlement, it being illegally constructed in occupied territory, to the end of the article. Your idea of what merits prominence does not concern me, and the repeated attacks on editors such as myself and Nishidani all the while playing the victim and crying that the big bad monsters are strong-arming and bullying you is becoming more than a bit tiring. Frankly, the ideological battleground was drawn up by users who seek to impose inaccurate or plain wrong material in encyclopedia articles, gaming every guideline to the point that its meaning is unrecognizable in the way it is being argued. First you sought to say that the settlement is in Judea and Samaria despite a prohibition on saying that a modern location is in either of those places. Next you attempted to define the West Bank as what is historically known as Judea and Samaria, despite the fact that this is plainly wrong and that the two terms used together was introduced by those who wished to lay claim to title of the West Bank as the settlement enterprise began to take off. Next you attempted to claim that the West Bank is equivalent to the Judea and Samaria Area, which is also wrong, as the West Bank includes East Jerusalem and the surrounding area that Israel effectively annexed whereas Judea and Samaria Area does not include either. You have tried, by hook or by crook, to use any method to attempt to force in these terms into the lead of the article, and now you claim that I am trying to turn Wikipedia into [my] private ideological battleground?!? If you would like me to respond to that blatantly hypocritical attack I can do that, otherwise kindly refrain from making such asinine accusations. The legality guideline calls for including the sentence in the lead and expanding on it in the body. That is the current consensus and until that consensus changes it remains how the articles will be structured. The WESTBANK guideline specifies when exactly the terms Judea and Samaria may be used when dealing with articles on modern locations. Despite your best efforts to distort that guideline into allowing the use where it specifically prohibits it, its meaning remains clear to all but the most disruptive and tendentious of editors. nableezy - 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Are you suggesting the consensus on WP:Legality of Israeli settlements agreed the legal statement should be the most prominent noteworthy item in the article about each individual settlement? Can you point to exactly where in the project on the legal statement this was agreed to? Or is this like "having no basis under international law"? Maybe next we should just delete everything else in these articles. Based on what's said here, they seem to serve their purpose sufficiently with the legal statement alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont believe I said anything of the sort, and this constant misrepresentation of both my comments and the policies of this website is becoming more and more tiring each time. nableezy - 19:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems you said the illegality of the settlement is the most noteworthy thing about it and thus the reason why you reverted the edit which moved them so they are not disruptive to the sections about the settlement itself. And you base your reasoning on the consensus in discussion on the legal statement. I don't think I missed anything but if I'm wrong, please explain why you said that and why you reverted the edit. If you're tired of what you believe is my misrepresentation, then explain what you meant by that with regards to the revert. I don't seem to be the one misrepresenting anything here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I did say it was the most notable aspect of the settlement, I did not however say that should be the most prominent noteworthy item. I dont have much to say about your repeated misunderstanding about without basis (the ICJ rejected the basis for the Israeli argument, it really is not as difficult to understand as you feign). I dont claim it should be the most prominent item, as can be seen by the fact that it is neither the first sentence of the article or the first section of the body. However, this repeated tactic of claiming that the section on the illegality of the settlement is disruptive to the sections about the settlement itself is so obviously spurious that I have so far neglected to respond. Ill do so now. The section on the illegality of the settlement is a section about the settlement itself (it is about that specific settlement being a violation of international law) so the argument that it disrupts sections about the settlement itself has no basis. nableezy - 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, if the legal statement was specific to Alon Shvut, it would say "The international community considers Alon Shvut a violation..." As I remember, it was proposed in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements that the statement make specific reference to each settlement it appears in, but the suggestion was not accepted by the consensus. Either way, it is a general statement on the settlements, only inferring application to Alon Shvut but not specifying it. It interrupts and disrupts the sections specific to Alon Shvut. But since you mentioned it, and in that my primary concern is the flow of sections specific to Alon Shvut, do you object to placing the legal statement as the first one in the body of article? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We can make the section open with something like Like all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territory, the international community considers Alon Shvut to ... to alleviate your concerns on specificity. Anything else? nableezy - 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand my concern which I've stated repeatedly. The addition you're suggesting was brought up in the project on the legal statement but was rejected by the consensus. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not even a little bit. The sentence in the lead is what has a specific consensus. That there should be a section in the body also has consensus, but no wording was either "approved" or "rejected". So, again, in the section in the body, if you would like to ensure that it is specific to the settlement, would you oppose starting it with Like all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territory, the international community considers Alon Shvut to ... Would that alleviate your concerns, or is this just a game of trying to remove the section through any handy excuse? If your concerns about specificity are genuine you have no reason to reject this. nableezy - 13:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer - "if the legal statement was specific to Alon Shvut" You say 'if' and then proceed to build a strawman. The law addresses ALL the illegal settlements of which Alon Shvut is only one ... talknic (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. It is a general statement about all the settlements, including but not limited to Alon Shvut. It is not however a statement specific to Alon Shvut, such as "Alon Shvut is an illegal settlement" or "Alon Shvut sits on the road to Jerusalem", from which nothing is inferred about other settlements. As a general statement on all settlements it is distinguished from information specific to Alon Shvut. Is this so difficult to communicate or is it simply more advantageous to confuse the issue? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen the coma so humped before. Turns out you are screwed, MN. There have been zero responses from anyone not already (edit:poopely) involved in the topic area. Any editor not involved in the topic area will not sift through the silliness to give you any advice on actually improving the article. Some might call it filibustering. I call it editing in the topic area of "OMGWTFRTFM dummy". I suggest you start edit warring and opening requests for enforcement since that is the only thing that will get anywhere. You could try IPCOLL. Unfortunately, I tried that and it is now being used to poo all over the topic area. Just give up and let the babies have their bottles. A few years of negotiations will make it all worthless anyways ($10 says at least 1/2 of the settlements' population stays but it all works out until someone blows something up with a tank or a vest) Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I see it a bit differently. If you step back a bit and just look at the overall trend, all of the little conflicts over details and generic issues at the article have resulted in a substantial improvement over the past year. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Sean, about the long term trends. Still, Cptnono's point about filibustering or "humping the comma", adopted disruptively in debates to promote declared ideologies is a compelling statement about the intellectual integrity of some editors whose purpose should otherwise be to improve the encyclopedia. Some people just seem to be out to destroy, instead of build. But who knows, seems that's what it takes for the builders to build even better. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My standards are too high then. That is not substantial improvement. There is a slight improvement MoS wise. There is some additional more content. It is all overridden by politics, though. But who am I to complain about content when I have spent more time contributing to the bickering than the improvement. I am shocked (no sarcasm text yet!) that others have found themselves in the same conundrum. I say we make the article all about wine in an effort to bury the politics. This might seem like the most unecyclpedic and uncollaborative thing to do but it would equal what is going on right now. Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised there aren't more editors in the same conundrum. Or maybe they just make themselves a little invisible. Your standards are just fine, wonders have been done with articles free of political antagonism in just short weeks. As a statement on the wider conflict of the article, if people would otherwise spend their time building and improving themselves instead of dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others, we'd surely have more peace in the Middle East and Wikipedia. The irony in the wine is reaching new heights. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, MichaelNetzer, I've been on-and-off following these discussions – or some of them, as I'm not sure how many there are now – but not to the extent that I feel confident enough to involve myself one way or the other. Hopefully that'll change as the circumstances allow it. I am, however, thoroughly impressed by your consistently even-tempered demeanor in dealing with the harsh language that's been characteristic of some of the responses toward you. That in itself is remarkable and should serve as model for how editors interact in this project.—Biosketch (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I find myself constantly failing my own standards, but thank you kindly, Biosketch. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Biosketch, you think that claiming editors "dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others" as a fine example of good behavior. Remind me to not ask you for examples of bad behavior. But all this won't matter soon, MichaelNetzer is getting steadily more and more offensive and the admin case against him is only a matter of when and not whether. Zero^talk 11:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since you're interested in what I think, I'll be completely open with you. I think if you spent less time plotting how to drag this or another editor who disagrees with you to AE, and instead channeled your energy to engaging them in a spirit of good-faithed collaboration, you'd find them more than willing to respond in kind. Threatening editors with AEs as an instrument of intimidation, which is the impression one gets from your comment directly above and from this obscenity, is all the more problematic given your authority as an Admin here. Your role – the role of all of us but yours in particular – should be to promote an environment that's conducive to resolving disputes. I'm not seeing you performing that role here.—Biosketch (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I recall, I took someone to AE only once in the last couple of years, so that comment of yours is pretty empty. There is also nothing obscene in my warning to Gilabrand about misreporting sources (and it would have been sterner if I'd realized she also changed "villager" to "infiltrator"). Finally, what dispute are you referring to? An agreement was made about a vexing naming issue and now someone wants to break it. The quickest dispute resolution process would be to enforce the agreement, then we could go back to bickering about other things. This "dispute" is nothing more than a monumental waste of time. Zero^talk 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind you going after me Zero, but I'd not like see it compromise you as a frivolous complaint. Take caution with material you're gathering on me. The quote you mentioned above was about "people" in the context of the "wider conflict": "As a statement on the wider conflict of the article, if people would otherwise spend their time building and improving themselves instead of dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others, we'd surely have more peace in the Middle East and Wikipedia." I clearly didn't say that in the context of editors. The wider conflict of the article is the conflict in the Middle East. The mention of Wikipedia after the Middle East is intended to say that when we are able to achieve more peace in the ME, we'll also have more peace in WP. I'd not want to be responsible for you being reprimanded on this one. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Cptono. I love that 'humped the comma'. Unfortunately you wrote 'hump the coma', which is also pretty descriptive of the state of mind (coma) this pointless hairsplitting has induced in me. In hermeneutics there's room to make Finneganswakish interpretations of even simple propositional terms, turning a lucid consensus into an image of dumb self-deception. The consensus prevailed for two years. Michael essentially is saying we have been labouring one and all under a massive misprision, or misunderstanding of the policy many of us risked our wiki lives to get written. It's rather like saying the Federalist papers were written by people who did not understand what they were doing in writing them, and mean something wholly different from the documented intentions of their authors, and the traditional interpretations that have prevailed for two centuries.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, let's not exaggerate, Nishidani. Wikipedia consensus is an evolving entity. It changes from day to day sometimes. It's not at all like the Federalist papers. Though I haven't for the life of me yet found where in the guidelines it states the terms are spiteful, biased, equatable with thieves, or forbidden for use in qualified contexts. So maybe you've all misunderstood the guidelines after all. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Try to stick to the point. You are the only person in two and a half years who thinks no one else has understood a protocol everybody however seems to honour in the sense you deny it has.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have also been the only one to have noticed an improper addition to the legal statement. So what? But I've already answered you before. Maybe you all misunderstood the guidelines. Human nature is such that if we're passionate enough about something, it's not entirely out of the question that we might understand or interpret a document about it in the way that supports our position. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You have convinced yourself that none of the editors who were in on the drafting of the protocol, and who engaged in a huge research effort through over 100 academic RS on the issue of the political-polemical-ideological valency of 'Judea & Samaria' in settler rhetoric within Israeli national-political discourse understood what they agreed to. As my mother used to say to me when I got uppity and was threatened several times with expulsion from school, 'Everybody is out of step but my Johnny!' I'd certainly allow for the heuristic possibility that all of the community who determined a constitution did not understand what they thought they understood by the terms of consensual rules they established. But the burden of proving this lies with the Johnny come lately, who certainly should not invent arguments about 'strong-arming' 'intimidation' or 'threatening' attitudes to explain why no one thinks as he or she does.ps. there is nothing improper about the legal statement. That one nation, with a decidedly vested interest in not accepting the international consensus, dissents from what the highest world court says is the legal lay of the land does not undermine the fact that the judgement rendered is the only one that fits the law as consensually and unanimously interpreted by 15 judges from all over the world, each hailing from countries with different political and cultural interests. Were there a basis for the Israeli position, the ICJ would not have rendered an opinion that is unanimous on virtually all relevant points. In wiki, we allow just leeway for the difference, as per NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant to the issues at hand. The Naming Convention does not support the position stated above nor the sources cited, as asserting the use of the terms is hateful or biased. Hammering at these sources, which most can be considered biased themselves, does not support the case for the naming convention having agreed with them. On the issue of legality, you're again making a personal assessment that is not supported in the ICJ decision. We seem to be discussing opinions much more than the sources in question here. Maybe that's alright and needs to be aired out, but the disagreement I have is not about an opinion on the naming convention and legal statement. Rather that the opinions stated above are not supported in the relevant sources. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is your claim that is irrelevant. The only grounds for your assertion that some editors see the term "Judea and Samaria" as "hateful" is your interpretation of a second editor's assessment of several other editors' opinion. This is laughably inadequate evidence for anything. RolandR (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I suggest you read Book 4 of the Odyssey, the Proteus episode. It is suggestive for your debating style, which keeps altering or disfiguring the reasoned arguments of your opponents on this issue. 'Most sources' (academic treatises) used to establish the political nature of 'J&S' are now considered 'biased themselves'. I.e. as editor, you don't accept what the majority of RS say, when their conclusions conflict with your private beliefs.

Of course I made a personal assessment on the ICJ since that is what your string of repetitious positions amounts to, personal assessments no one else agrees with. I appropriate the same right to make assertions which you have used throughout these humongous threads. It staves off the boredom.

All your arguments are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is to abide by the terms of the Naming Convention as consensually interpreted for two years before you decided to argue no one except yourself understands it.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look up the Odyssey. I know I'm a little persistent but I don't think I'm distorting what others are saying. And I haven't been the only one not agreeing with the interpretation of the guideline in question. Maybe we should talk about the guideline over a cup of coffee in a less tense setting. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course they understood what they agreed to. That's why they agreed to art 2 which says that editors should use "the British Mandate district of X" when referring to Judea and Samaria in the context of the British Mandate, despite having it pointed out to them that no such districts existed at the time. I think that is a good demonstration of the quality of this guideline.

And the likely reason "consensus has prevailed" is that most experienced editors don't want to deal with a bunch of other editors protecting their political gains. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fantastic that Nish knew I was talking about him. Seriously, coma coma coma coma coma. No one wants or does read past the third one in a sentence. Pulling a forth is reserved for real writers, but they would not even dare it. I am stunned no one commented on my use of "poop". I have also intentionally left other errors in my writing for you to look at. The others are due to intoxication (butt you all new that).Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think Nish is brilliant and endearing. But I now see that I'd better get off my but and pay more attention to your spelling mistakes. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been too ill to work that page, though I have a lot of notes to it, and I am not quite happy talking endlessly to no purpose. Agreement is improbable. In any case, I think one should, as Casliber suggested, just drop it and work the article. One thing that needs expansion is a section, at the moment we have just a bare demographics section, on the multiethnic mix there, more detail on the Peruvians and Amharic-speaking communities for example. I edited in, for those who haven't access to it, a comment from an interview with Incas, in the chapter on Alon Shvut which Donna Rosenthal wrote half a decade ago. It bears, in the remarks on how 'J&S' is conceived of, on what we are discussing and therefore I'll plunk it here as well.

Not all settlers were born Jewish; in summer 2002, Peruvian Indians left huts and were welcomed into new trailer homes in this Judean hills settlement. Although these former Christians have taken Hebrew names, they do not yet know the difference between Herzl and Hamas. The "Inca Jews" already have been taught the "holy trinity": the Torah, the People, the Land. And they call the West Bank of the Jordan river by its Biblical names Judea and Samaria. "We knew we were coming to a place called 'territories' because we know other Peruvians who immigrated earlier and are living in the settlements," said a kippa-wearing convert who carried a Spanish-Hebrew prayer book. "But I have no problem because I don't consider the territories to be occupied. You cannot conquer what has belonged to you since the time of the patriarch Abraham". <ref>Rosenthal, 2005 p.197.</ref>

A good example of the way 'J&S' is drummed into the new communities of aliyah settlers as a phrase which effectively establishes a sense of appropriative right over the land, indeed, denies they are 'occupied'. Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, someone, hardly matters who, said "belligerent occupation" is a Palestinian point of view. No, it is a formal legal phrase that has been applied to the occupied territories by the Israeli High Court of Justice on many occasions. Regardless of public utterances, the Israeli government in its submissions before the court does not dispute it (and could hardly do so because the legal system in the West Bank is derived from the fact). So actually it is an Israeli POV as well as a Palestinian and international one. Zero^talk 15:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I speak for everyone in wishing you only good health and a speedy recovery, Nishidani. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Break

Since we're all here, I'd like to point out the main problem I see with WP:WESTBANK. The terms "West Bank" and "Judea and Samaria" are used for a well defined geographical area. Per wikipedia policy, since it is obviously the most common term in used in English, "West Bank" should be used to describe this area. That's fine. The problem is that this guideline attempts to restrict the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" separately, Because "some editors" were "not convinced" that they can be used in the neutral voice. That's ridiculous. It's politically motivated bullshit, evidenced by the use of the word "nonpartisan". I don't believe WP:RS limits the use of "partisan" sources. We'd have to get rid of quite a few if it did. This guideline should limit itself to 1948 (or whatever) onwards, and anything that happened beforehand, or if not speaking about the whole West Bank, should use what the sources use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you also believe that wikipedia should use terms "the sources use", when the sources use terms you might find offensive? FWIW, I recall seeing some English sources mention Judea and Samaria with attribution along the lines of "in the West Bank, which is known in some Israeli sources by the Biblical term 'Judea and Samaria'". (e.g. this) However, I'm not advocating that we re-open this particular can of worms. --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Are you saying either the term Judea or Samaria, both of which have been in use (separately) for literally thousands of years, is offensive? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking, if you're in favour of using terms that you find offensive, as long as they occur in sources. Are you? --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally yes, but I guess that could depend on the term and on the source. Now can you explain what this has to do with "Judea" or "Samaria"? Are you saying either of these terms are offensive? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How about colony in Psagot supported by the following:

Fisk, Robert (2007). The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. Vintage Books. p. 494. Unable to bamboozle my way through the Israeli roadblocks on the highway from Jerusalem, I drove up to the illegal Israeli colony of Psagot, from where I had an Israeli-eye view of this new battle to destroy the Palestinian Authority.

Taraki, Lisa, ed. (2006). Living Palestine: family survival, resistance, and mobility under occupation. Syracuse University Press. p. 113. Psagot is an Israeli colony of around one thousand colonists that was illegally built in 1981 on Palestinian land.

and this? nableezy - 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I thought. What does it have to do with the topic of this discussion? I think it is obvious, but since it isnt for you, Ill try to explain. You argue that to use the language of the source, regardless of whether or not those sources use the language that is, by far, used by sources from parties not involved, directly or peripherally because we "should use what the sources user" without regard to the bias of the source and the conscious choice they make when choosing specific language. You argue that one should be able to say that X settlement is in Samaria because a source is referring not to the entire West Bank but to a section of it and we should use whatever language the source uses. So, my question is, if a source can be found saying that it is also a "colony" with another source saying it is built on "the stolen land of X village", should we also use the language of those sources? What exactly distinguishes "Ariel is in Samaria" from "Ariel is in occupied Palestine" (or for that matter Nazareth)? Sources can be found for each, why should we follow the language of one but not the other? nableezy - 02:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As usual, your attempt to read my mind fails miserably. Obviously, if an overwhelming number of sources use certain language, that's what should be used like we normally do. But the way this guideline is set up now, you can't say, to pick a neutral example, that Mount Gerizim is in Samaraia. I understand you consider this acceptable collateral damage when defending your political gains re "Judea and Samaria", but others might see it differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can someone tell me what the heck Samaria has to do with Judaism? Historically it was the land of Samaritans, for over a millenium mortal enemies of Judaean Jews. Jewish travellers never went there in the medieval period. Rabbis frequently said jews should keep clear of it, its people and women. Just curious about the invention of traditions, of which this is one.Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Judaism, Nishidani. Though what you say about the source of the name is partly true, no one is arguing that mentioning the name is based on rabbinic doctrine, or Judaism or whether Jews lived there throughout history. The argument is that this is the most common historic name of the region acknowledged worldwide, as much a part of history as the names Palestine, Israel and the ancient north and south kingdoms. The name carries over today as a specific name of the region and acknowledged by the United Nations when it explains that the West Bank is mostly the area known as Judea and Samaria. It is also used by Israel and the rest of the world in referencing the current administrative area of Judea and Samaria. Part of what you say about a lack of intimation to Judaism and rabbinic doctrine proves that its use is not Judaism and settler biased but rather for specific relevance and identification, which "West Bank" does not always satisfy. The 1812 New Madrid earthquake was also centered around the West Bank of a river, as an example. Cheers. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't repeat nonsensical statements ('It is also used by Israel and the rest of the world in referencing the current administrative area of Judea and Samaria.' Almost every example adduced 2 years ago to support this assertion came from a Jewish diaspora source, and the number of examples was negligible compared to 'West Bank'.) You keep forgeting that the term 'Judea & Samaria' is a term retrofitted to judaise 'The West Bank', made by government decree, and then imposed on the media after Begin became PM. No one here is talking of the independent terms 'Judea' and 'Samaria', which everyone uses with equanimity. What you say there is obvious. But, as has been repeatedly shown and argued, is that the 'Judea & Samaria' term is a modern invention designed to assert proprietorial rights over a region, rather than refer objectivity to a topological identity, one part of which has almost nothing to do with Jewish identity, biblical, Graeco-Roman or post-biblical (to citea snippet of a large and complex history), it being an indoctrinated modern fiction that Samaria was an integral part of ancient Israel, and the combined term carries this charged, ideologically contrived and historically false mythic wordage, for instrumental purposes. There were more Samaritans than Jews in Palestine throughout the long medieval period. For this reason, attempts to sneak it back in wreak substantial violence to wiki's neutral voice. You can repeat your 'beliefs till the cows come home. Over 100 books, in the long process of examining this, attest to these facts.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You are simply mistaken. The term was coined by the British administration, not Israel. It was used long before Israel captured the region and built settlements. The United Nation, many countries and scholars continue to use it for specific references on that basis. Not on the basis of it being Israel centric. The name specifies what the West Bank was and remains before Jordan remaned it WB, arguably in order to erase that history. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that. Michael. This was exhaustively examined 2 years ago, and the overwhelming mass of sources show beyond dispute that what you keep repeating is vapid mindless nonsense, happy generalizations. Keep repeating your belief system by all means, but the archives say otherwise. You are not making an argument, you are grasping at broken straws to make settlerdom comfortable with reading about itself on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My point isn't that "Judea or Samaria" is offensive per se, but that some people probably do consider it to be offensive. Of course this is a bit academic, since the obviously predominant term used in English-language sources is West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, respectively. By the way, the English-language source I cited above says that J&S is a term used by religious settlers. Suggesting that we adopt their terminology in this project is a bit bizarre. Along a similar vein, some of the Arab groups (and maybe even Iran?) refer to Israel as the "Zionist Entity". --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no word or name in the world that does not offend somebody, and we don't base policy on it. The naming guideline never accepted the argument that the name cannot be used for modern entities because it offends some people. There are a lot of people offended by the name West Bank, though no one objective tries to forbid its use because of it. Judea and Samaria are administrative and historic names, not the same as a politically charged name like "Zionist Entity" which has never been known as the name of a place but used only as a political statement. Such attempted comparisons are simply not relevant. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about J&S. I agree that the common term in English is West Bank and that should be used (even if "some people probably do consider it to be offensive"). I'm specifically talking about Judea or Samaria being used separately.

Also, nobody is bothered by the fact the guideline says In the context of events during the British Mandate (1920-1948), terms used by the British administration (ie "Judea" and "Samaria") are probably most appropriate. When used, they should be prefixed with "the British Mandate district/s" despite there being no such British Mandate districts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd ... TransJordan and Palestine were separate districts. Judea and Samaria were not in the TransJordan district ... talknic (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty good policy to me, and one that can handle specific geographic features that use the names in questions. Is there an example of a situation where this policy prevents us from doing what is best for an article? Jsolinsky (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no such policy for it to be good. Alon Shvut is compromised by an erroneous claim forbidding to mention "Judea and Samaria Administrative Area" in the lead, even though it's merited by the several mentions of the Judea area in the article. The entire argument is based on grounds that it offends some editors, though the naming guideline makes no such prohibition nor mention of a prohibition of use of the term in the lead. Policy is being blatantly misrepresented and strongarmed by aggressive editing...and some editors don't seem to care. A lot of people are offended by the legal statement being both in the lead and then getting its own section and placed disruptively in the article between sections specific to Alon Shvut in order to give it even more prominence. The arguments made here as if what offends some people holds more visible weight in the article than what offends others is the most blatant violation of NPOV I see here and a blemish on Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and objectivity. There is no such consensus and there will be no peace here until some editors stop waging their political wars on these pages and crying foul because they're offended by legitimate recognized terms that they don't personally like. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Blatant? You jumped into these articles to break a consensus, both tacit and formal, as the record shows for the past 2 years, started a brushwar, and now complain that people trying to put it out in order to pursue article building rather than contentious POV battles are themselves waging political wars. That is called in Italian, 'throwing the stone and then withdrawing the hand' so that the reaction of the person hit becomes the point of focus, not the hand of the assailant. Okay: if that is your premise, then it is a blatant travesty of NPOV not to mention of every town built on an erased Palestinian village in Israel that the town is in the 'Zionist entity'. How long do you want this jejune POV levering to go on? Not to mention controversial partisan terms is part of a long, rational, coolminded and fair consensus among serious editors. I see the example you tried to set with Alon Shvut has now drifted into Gush Emunim, that we are in for a concerted attempt to revive the dead controversy. Altroche NPOV. This is an attempt to throw back the clock.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to second the request for one or more examples, preferably highlighted so that they don't get lost in the wall of text. It would probably help if discussions focused of testing the guideline against specific cases to see whether and how it fails. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement highlighted above, reflecting this diff is one example of using the term in the lead (explained here) and giving the legal statement section more proper weight by moving it to after the sections specific to the settlement itself, that it disrupts, considering that it's also present in the lead of the article. The edit does not seem to compromise an objective position on the issues discussed, yet editors reverted it because they said it violates the guidelines and consensus. However, there's no prohibition in the naming convention itself nor in the consensus on the legal statement for such an edit. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

THe longer this argument goes on, the harder it is to WP:AGF that there is not an intentional attempt to undermine a pre-existing consensus in order to advance politically-loaded minority terminology. SHouldn't this g back to Arbcom given it was they that mandated the guideline in the first place.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Undermine a pre-existing consensus"? Are you serious? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That there are strong emotions driving this conflict, and that everyone who's commented in these discussions holds to one position or another on them, needs little elaboration. I think I've tried to extend due respect to editors opposing my position, and conveyed an understanding of their concerns. I believe I'm open to being convinced, though I'm also subject to the same human condition we all share regarding it. We'd all likely more enjoy contributing to the project without this difference. However, the conditions driving it are taking their toll on improving the work. It is not usually my preference to seek such intervention, especially at the capacity of Arbcom, but it seems we're nearing an impasse.

If Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank) is misconstrued to have decided that "Judea and Samaria" is a "politically loaded" term and cannot be used without bias; and if WT:Legality of Israeli settlements is likewise misrepresented to deem the legal statement must be displayed disruptively on pages to give it extra prominence beyond reasonable weight and what the legality project agreed to; and if after all these extensive efforts, (1), (2), {3), (4), (5), most attempts to explain, based on sources, policy and edit reverts, how these two decisions have been aggressively misappropriated - if after all this my position continues to be answered with little apparent WP:AGF, and responses to the substance of my statements are, for the most part, politically loaded assumptions, then perhaps it's in the best interest of a better collaborative atmoshpere that Arbcom attempt to settle the dispute, or alternately provide a more clear statement that can help us move forward. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That you're open to being convinced is asserted in the face of numerous editors who fail to convince you as you continue to repeat the same position. I think the settlement's legality was elided from the lead to please you, though it in perfectly legitimate there. In exchange, zilch, more POV tweaking. As to strong emotions, yes, boredom with the intransigence of one editor who is deaf to all remonstrative appeals to a policy many interpret differently.Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If I repeat the same positions, maybe it's because my statements are being distorted and no one is addressing the basic points I've made to reasonable satisfaction. If we try to stop making assumptions about motives and discuss the issues themselves, it might not be so boring and emotional. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a point that hasn't been mentioned but is obvious. (4) Imposes the obligation ('is to be') to use 'West Bank' as the default term. This cannot be glossed as 'Judea & Samaria' since 'West Bank' is toponymic, 'J&S' not so for wikipedia. (5) then reads:

(5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used, subject to clause 6 below, namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the neutral point of view.

The protocol refers to a specific case where the administrative area of settlements is under discussion. Leads do not 'discuss': leads affirm basic data that are then subject to elaboration (discussion) in the body of the article, and therefore it is abundantly clear that (5) is worded in such a way as to occlude the use of this gloss in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If the administrative area is discussed in the article, why can't it be mentioned in the lead? There's no indication that the guideline suggested to prohibit it. Not specifically nor by spirit. One might construe such an inference, but that would be strictly interpretation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I make the mistake of looking at this page and find the same ridiculous "discussion" still going on. Isn't there anything better to do? MichaelNetzer is still proposing text that the guideline was deliberately designed to exclude. Go and seek an arbitration committee ruling if you like Actually it is a good idea, almost certainly the ruling will be to read the damn guideline and obey it. Zero^talk 09:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's go back to the beginning.

Michael edited originally with the summary:

Judea and Samaria is the long-standing historical name of the region, not only "in Israel" but world wide. The West Bank is a modern application. They are not equal opposing POV names.)

The text he adjusted then ran:-

the West Bank, a geographical area historically known by its biblical names Judea and Samaria.

There is not a shadow of a doubt from this evidence that his original starting point was to consolidate a gloss in the text, challenged immediately by other editors as a violation of agreements, in support of Gilabrand, who made her edit only immediately to disappear and leave the battle to others.

The gloss has it that 'Judea and Samaria is the long-standing historical name of the region', which is precisely the sort of tendentiousness the Arbcom decision and subsequent protocol sought to avoid.

Therefore, all later adjustments veil this intent, which is to insinuate 'Judea and Samaria' as 'the long-standing historical name of the region.' This was both historically false, and in violation of the consensual agreement

Now however he is saying something quite distinctly different. He is stepping back from his overt declaration about using 'Judea and Samaria' as coterminous with 'West Bank', and saying that his intent was to speak of 'Judea and Samaria' as the 'administrative Area'. The intent is unchanged. To use 'Judea and Samaria' as an 'administrative Area' in order to jemmy into the lead the term 'Judea and Samaria' as the Israeli toponymic equivalent of 'West Bank', with a right to gloss 'West Bank' throughout these settlement articles, notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous language of the protocol which makes 'West Bank' the default neutral term.

Alon Shvut is compromised by an erroneous claim forbidding to mention "Judea and Samaria Administrative Area" in the lead, even though it's merited by the several mentions of the Judea area in the article.

In layman's language this is called prevarication.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already said once that I did not add that sentence. It was added by someone else, and mostly ratified by yourself with a slight change. You're now saying the guideline prohibits it, though you didn't remove it then, which means you seemed to change your position on it. I only edited it very slightly, as you did, and explained the edit. But I have never changed my position about it being a proper addition to the lead, as you seem to have done. My edit summary referred to the term "Judea and Samaria" historically preceding "West Bank", introduced by the British as early as 1947 and based on the historical names of the two regions it covers, "Judea" and "Samaria", going back to antiquity. The West Bank was only introduced by Jordan in 1967. I've explained most of this several times before, yet arguments persist as if none of it has been said before. In this case, you mistakenly misrepresent the editing history as if to say I changed my mind when it was actually yourself who seemed to do so. And you add more accusatory assumptions about my intent based on wrong and misleading claims about the edit history. Is it any wonder that I need to keep repeating myself? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't change your mind, you changed strategy, when it was pointed out that you were conflating recent Israeli colonial administrative terminology, Judea and Samaria, with traditional terms for areas in the West Bank. In the jargon this is called WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. It's been repeated dozens of times now that you are conflating two distinct territorial names from the past, consisting of 'Judea' and 'Samaria', referring to geographically variable entities over time, with the post 1967 settler/colonial slogan 'Judea & Samaria' which is the settler alternative term for what in international discourse is called 'West Bank'. No amount of wikilawyering can obscure the quite straightforward distinction between these terms in historical usage.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be possible to say that Alon Shvut is administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area as long as it is made clear to the reader that ISRAEL is the party which has applied that label. That seems to be what the policy says. If Wikipedia:WESTBANK also has the effect of requiring the use of quote marks in this situation (as I read it), I don't think that is a big deal. Some measure of deference must be shown to carefully negotiated compromises. At a minimum, no such compromise should be reopened unless there is an article which is materially compromised by the policy in question. I have seen no such example in this case. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That the Israeli settlement is administered by an Israel aministrative body is in the article lead already.

Alon Shvut (Hebrew: אַלּוֹן שְׁבוּת‎‎) is an Israeli settlement . .in the West Bank. . . It is administered by the Gush Etzion Regional Council.

If anyone wants to waste a month or two making a serious contribution to these issues, they'd do well to work on Judea and Samaria Area (an Israeli administrative area called Judea and Samaria Area.) and Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority. Any reader looking at these comical articles and their maps would conclude that the Governorates of the PNA are in the Judea and Samaria Administrative area, and that all the settlements come within the jurisdiction of the PNA. That's the simple reason why we just say this or that settlement comes under a regional council, as here.

What else is needed, a compass and a cutlunch?Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another deception not being challenged here is that Judea and Samaria (either as a single entity or two entities together) historically occupied about the same region as the West Bank does today. It is actually quite hard to find maps from before 1948 that show Judea and Samaria occupying that space. Most commonly, "Judea" extended to the coast, and the hilly interior was called something like "Judean hills", but even "Judean hills" included a lot of territory now inside the green line. This Hebrew map is typical: the lower pink region is Judea and the green region above it is Samaria. And of course it is impossible to find a pre-1948 map with a region called "Judea and Samaria". The phrase "Judea and Samaria" is a modern political slogan invented to promote Jewish ownership of the West Bank, and it is not used in its historical meaning. In comparison, "West Bank" has no nationalistic connotation of its own. Zero^talk 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it behooves all of us not to characterize any of the opposing arguments as "deception". The term was not invented by Israel, as you say. But rather by the British. Its use has been ratified in United Nations resolutions, a body not known for supporting Israel's position on the WB. To say it was invented by Israel in order to promote ownership of the West Bank is not only erroneous, but a grave vilification and distortion. Israel uses it in reference to its historic bond to the land, not ownership. If it was ownership Israel wanted, it would not have entered into the Oslo agreements and transferred notable parts of it to the Palestinians. If it was ownership, Israel wouldn't be agreeable to a Palestinian state there. And even if the settlers use the term to indicate the same historic bond to the land, it cannot erase the documented history that it was the British who invented the term and that it became used as such by many world agencies to specify the regions that later became known as WB. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the British tended to use the term "Judea" in exclusion of the coastal plain, contrary to most older sources, though they also excluded the Jordan valley which is a large chunk of the West Bank. However, there was never such a phrase "Judea and Samaria" in the British lexicon, even though they used each of "Judea" and "Samaria" from time to time. Even more to the point, claiming British origin is really bizarre given that the modern lovers of the expression would be horrified to know they are using a British phrase. Of course they don't believe that, and don't claim it either (unless as a debating point, as you have done). They claim it is Biblical. Zero^talk 11:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your interlocutors are mainly people who have been brought up in a variety of societies where indocrination about national identity is no where as intense as it is in that region, and many others where ethnic conflict and national-imperial claims are fervid. The 'deception' practiced is in the newspapers, school textbooks that drum in to many people from a young age a certain rhetoric as though it were absolutely natural, realistic and objective. The problem is nicely summed up in The Leopard. Invited to join the new Italian's state's Senate, the ageing aristocrat declines saying he lacks, la facoltà di ingannare sé stesso, questo requisito essenziale per chi voglia guidare gli altri (the capacity to deceive oneself, that indispensable requisite for whoever would desire to lead others) (1958) 1963 p.124)

Undoubtedly to many Israelis and Jewish people in the diaspora, this is completely innocuous language, and when they encounter reactions like those here, they are astonished, and perhaps suspect that their interlocutor is biased, or 'ideological' or an antisemite etc. No. It's simply that the language you find natural is rather quaint, obscure or ideologically charged to the ears of people who grew up in environments where this kind of incessant self-definition and self-focus with regard to another people's land is frankly bizarre.

What is nice about Wikipedia is that writing for it obliges all to step outside their parochial focus, throw off the lens of national grievance or redress, or of partisan background assumptions, in order to write in such a way any reader, from whatever background, can accept the text as neutral. All of the edits I have seen on this bespeak an uncomprehension of 'the Other', be it of the conventions of global scholarship, or of the immediate colonized adversary.

It is notably clear from remarks here that you have failed to review the discussions that go back two years, (b) are unfamiliar with scholarly and international newspaper conventions regarded the vox propria to be used (c) and read past the protocols established here in order to insert a settler perspective. This is deceptive for the reader, though I'm more than willing to read it as the inadvertent consequence of a deep attachment to settler rhetoric as though it were the most natural thing in the world. It isn't, and to cite just one source on the issue of over a hundred, the case here is as follows:

‘The exclusive attachment to territory is reflected in the naming and renaming of places and locations in accordance with the historic and religious sites associated with the dominant political group. Not only did the outflow of Palestinian refugees bring about a change in the Jewish-Arab demographic rations, it brought about the replacement of an Arab-Palestinian landscape with a Jewish-Israeli landscape. The names of abandoned villages disappeared from the map and were replaced with alternative Hebrew names . . Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have taken on biblical names associated with the specific sites as a means of expressing the Jewish priority in these places and the exclusive nature of the territorial attachment. Modern Israeli and Palestinian maps of Israel/Palestine possess the same outer borders, but the semantic content of the name is completely different.. The means by which new landscapes are created to replace or obliterate former landscapes is a good example of the way in which metaphysical and symbolic attachment to territory is translated into concrete realities on the ground.

For the details see my page. I could add a good many academic sources that have come my way in the interim, but it would be overegging the pud. Finally, you keep repeating the same line, and it is pointless to say, indeed tendentially mendacious to assert things like 'the UN accepts' (present tense) this usage, or 'Israel uses it in reference to its historic bond to the land.' There is no historic bond to the area of Samaria, and Judea in many maps encompasses areas that were, biblically, seen as Philistine. It's nice to think of history as a set of thumbnail simplifications of this kind, but we have obligations to give the story in all of its nuanced complexity, which is not something you get in Arutz Sheva, school textbooks in Israel and a lot of other partisan sources. What is true here is true, mutatis mutandis, of problems serious editors face all over wikipedia with countervailing nationalisms, or editors who wish to rewrite their nation's parochial version of some patch of territory that they say is an intrinsic historic part of their ethnic patrimony. Get used to the fact that we are neutral here, and what you are endeavouring to do is to break the neutrality of the encyclopedia by creating precedents for an Israelocentric narrative of a land it is occupying and settling belligerently. The moment some negotiation changes the terms of the status quo, and cedes these areas to Israel, if I'm still around, I'll be here to help adjust all articles to the political facts on the ground. Until then, 'Judea and Samaria' remains a legal fiction and slogan of partisan rhetoric and has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which of your partisan background assumptions have you thrown off? I find it somewhat amusing that you claim the people opposing MN in this discussion are "neutral" when their editing history (not to mention some talk page comments) tell a completely different story. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with the specific issues under discussion, Nish, but it doesn't feel right. You single out settlers in order to erase them from the equation, and then try to convince that you're somehow being "neutral". No. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Misreading. What I wrote above, is not some 'holier than thou' tirade. It consciously summed up what I have read on the subject from any number of sources. That Zionism inculcates through the educational system values, principles, standard interpretations etc., of history is nothing unique. It is what all nations in the process of self-creation do: they forget the past, reimagine it in heroic myths and wildly selective reconstructions of the past ('Samaria!'), and systematically ignore whatever fails to fit into the rosy narrative that forms the template for moulding a shared citizen consciousness.

This Israel's wholly predictable method for creating a shared national identity for the great variety of differential cultures and traditions brought to the country by Jews and converts making aliyah. I don't see why pointing this out should scandalize anyone. It's quite pertinent to what goes on here. I mean, there are guys here who edit in that the Golan is Israeli national territory, that the West Bank is Israel, that, when they read in a source 'the highest tree in Israel is in the West Bank', they don't notice the error etc.etc.etc.etc. One sees this every day, and personally I don't call this inability to see beyond the narrow grid of one's national rhetoric proof of malice or mendacity. It is sheer ideological obtuseness to the larger discourse of the world, and to the neutral academic study of regional history. Every country has it: the more powerful the nation, the stronger the closure. Many of you just do not appear to read outside the enclave opinions of a local culture, and when you encounter the larger discourse, say those who subscribe to it are 'ideologically motivated' or 'pushing a political programme'.

To cite a few instances of books that analyse the Zionist ideology in curricula:-

• 'the difficulty lies in an assumption operating in all of the Israeli school systems that the task of schooling is to promote ideology.'
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• 1975 'each student, before finishing high school and enlisting in the army, will participate in such a seminar and will receive a 'screening' of the intrinsic moral and social truth of the Zionist revolution . .A second, more comprehensive response was the preparaton of new history curricula and textbooks s in the ream of formal education with the aim of strengthening Zionist consciousness' here
• here. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nishidani: In your previous comment you accused me of adding a sentence to Alon Shvut lead that I did not add. You proceeded to disparage me personally as if I changed my mind about things, and along the way assailed my motives, which you've done throughout these discussions. I pointed out, through the links, that I didn't add the sentence and that it was you who seemed to change your position on it being there. But I made no remarks regarding your motives nor accused you of doing it intentionally, as you did with me.

Diffs please. That is such a total distortion of what I said on another page,turning a compliment for good editing into an insult, that it is almost reportable.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This was your comment, and this was my response (scroll odwn in diff to green area slightly under "Line 303"), explaining how the accusation is wrong and that you also edited that comment slightly indicating you agreed with it being there...and later changed your position. Links to the original diffs are in this diff.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you distinguish between 'accusation', 'assail', 'disparage', etc. 'claim' and 'assertion'? I see you keep using the strongest language to transform your adversary's position from one of conceptual opposition to one of personal antagonism. Give me diffs of the evidence I disparaged you personally. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• In your next comment above, you gloss over my response correcting you, and continue with more criticisms of a personal nature: "Many of you just do not appear to read outside the enclave opinions of a local culture, and when you encounter the larger discourse, say those who subscribe to it are 'ideologically motivated' or 'pushing a political programme.'" You did not even have the heart, nor minimal courtesy, to say something like: "Sorry about that Michael, I made a mistake." You rather went on to lecture me more about the enlightened position you hold, and how limited I am in my local view. Something you have absolutely no knowledge of nor basis to assume.

You have from the outset characterised your interlocutors as being motivated by ideology and politics. Once anyone replies to your personalization of the arguments, it becomes 'disparagement' or a personal attack. You can't have it both ways, dismissing objections to your unique objection as political, and then, when the politics of the settler position is extensively documented, crying 'shame'. Your opinion is a local view, identified as such, and calling it a local view, the view of settler religious Zionism, is merely glossing what this tedious argument has consistently shown.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• You posture yourself as someone neutral but have no problem posting an excess of sources that only support one side of the story, all the while claiming that I somehow am not aware of the wider world view... and all this as a basis for your accusation that my position on the naming convention and legal statement are not fair to the other side, when I have not said one single word that would question the position or narrative of anyone throughout these discussions.

Again, read. I didn't say I was 'neutral'. I said we all come from parochial backgrounds, and if we are to edit towards neutrality must learn to reign in our native bias. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• You are being entirely one sided and the thrust of your comments is to insult and disparage. You consistently violate tenets of Wikipedia's good faith and neutrality, and then have the audacity to posture yourself as some enlightened individual pointing accusatory fingers at the ignorant masses below you, including me.

Produce diffs for this nth attempt, which is a rhetorical device, of trying to reframe legitimate talk page responses to your opinions as little more than 'insults' and 'disparagement'.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just one example that I referred to above: Many of you just do not appear to read outside the enclave opinions of a local culture, and when you encounter the larger discourse, say those who subscribe to it are 'ideologically motivated' or 'pushing a political programme'. There are many more such comments and accusations of a personal nature that are advised against by WP:CIVILITY. You can find them yourself if you look. The record of all these discussions speaks for itself. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing enlightened about the way you've accused me unjustly and then ignored it when I showed you were wrong. In spite of your flowery vocabulary, there's little civility about the way you've conducted this debate, and there's hardly anything neutral about flooding this discussion with sources that all apparently have an ax to grind with Israel. I could bring you a million sources for the other side but I don't choose to base my arguments on such shallow grounds. I state my case and make no personal remarks about anyone.
• If you were to bring examples of how the Arab world inculcates its version of history through their educational system by forgetting the past (such as the gem about there never having been a Jewish temple on the mount), it might balance your position as being a little more objective about what drives the conflict. As it is, the way you present your case by insulting and disparaging one side is extremely biased, and hardly worthy of the enlightenment it espouses.

I'm not editing an article on the Arab world. I am editing specifically articles on settlements in a part of the Palestinian world. The points I raised about Zionist education as a form of ideological indoctrination are perfectly appropriate to what is going on here, the assertion of Zionist religious doctrines about 'the land'. Since editors refuse to see what is obvious from the outside, that clarification of how their position looks to external eyes is necessary. There is no offensive intent in this. It is a reminder to drop positions that are identifiably ideological (and offensive to the other party, here the Palestinians) when editing an encyclopedia that is very strict about WP:NPOV: [-Nishidani]

• If you were interested in conducting a respectful objective discussion, then you'd find me quite complicit and a good partner for it. But I cannot live with myself knowing I've helped you further compromise yourself and your reputation as an objective editor, by responding further to the uncivil methods you're using.
• Based on all this, I'd suggest it's you who have a lot to learn from me, not the other way around. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear.

I did enjoy the trick of after describing himself and those who agree with him as "neutral", and those who "step outside their parochial focus, throw off the lens of national grievance or redress, or of partisan background assumptions", providing a whole list of anti-Zionist authors as proof of the "ideological obtuseness" of people who don't agree with him (on a completely different issue). That's pretty rich but not unexpected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the primary claim that falls apart when reading the discussions, NMMNG. Another one is the assertion of a consensus supporting that position. I've scanned through the discussions since they began in Alon Shvut when Gilabrand added J&S in the lead.

The discussions started in editing descriptions on Oct. 30th. They cover: Alon Shvut, AS:talk:Naming, AS:talk:Legal, NamingConvention and IPCOL.

I made a list of everyone who chimed in relative to the position they supported. A few didn't relate specifically to the primary issues but suggested support or identification with one side (those passive supporters are in italic). Here are the results.

Side (A): 10 supporters (3 are passive)

• Nableezy, Nishidani, Zero0000, Sean.holyland, Peter Cohen, Ravpapa, Rolandr, Frederico1234, Talknic, Dailycare.

Side (B): 12 supporters (1 is passive)

• Gilabrand, MichaelNetzer, Brewcrewer, Soosim, Greyshark09, Calisber, Jiujitsuguy, Gruban, Cptnono, Biosketch, NMMNG, Jsolinsky.

This doesn't take into account the quality or quantity of arguments anyone made. It's not a scientific poll, but it does at least put to serious question the claim of a consensus for support of side (A).

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Before we start counting people in favor, or against, we should first clearly state what the proposal is. At present, I am NOT in favor of changing WP:WESTBANK. Jsolinsky (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We are NOT proposing that WP:WESTBANK be changed. We are proposing to adhere to it. We're explaining that the way it's been interpreted to suggest it prohibits the use of J&S is misleading and in violation of the word and spirit of WP:WESTBANK. ::::::Your comment was: "It should be possible to say that Alon Shvut is administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area as long as it is made clear to the reader that ISRAEL is the party which has applied that label. That seems to be what the policy says. If Wikipedia:WESTBANK also has the effect of requiring the use of quote marks in this situation (as I read it), I don't think that is a big deal."

This has been exactly our position. Some editors either misunderstand or misrepresent our position as if to say we seek to change the consensus. We do not. Below is an outline of the main points. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is on WP:WESTBANK. That consensus can change, but until it does that remains what will determine the content of the article. I would additionally be shocked to see a diff of Casliber (not Calisber) actually supporting your position. And as you correctly point out, the quality of an argument remains more important than the quantity of its supporters. The consensus is on WESTBANK, the words of which remain clear to any good faith editor. Even NMMNG acknowledges that the guideline restricts what you wish to include. I have yet to see a credible explanation that the guideline does not in fact do so. If you want to argue that the guideline should not make such restrictions we can do that, but repeatedly twisting the very clear words of the guideline to attempt to make them appear to allow what they plainly prohibit wont work. nableezy - 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is Casliber's comment supporting the position that there is no prohibition in the guideline for using the terms, subject to the qualifications, even in the lead. Consensus is a function of both quantity and quality together, but I also said this is only an indication. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps MN was confused since it didn't occur to him that an encyclopedia would restrict its editors from telling people that certain places are in an administrative area of a certain name. While we can argue about Israel's right to administer the area, it is an undisputed fact that it does currently administer it and uses certain terminology that is currently verboten even in the context of who administers a certain place. Frankly I don't see how this enhances NPOV, but this is not the biggest problem I see with WP:WESTBANK, as I mentioned above.

On the other hand, without some kind of formal procedure to have the guideline looked at, I think this discussion is pointless. Particularly since the guideline was made under the auspices of arbcom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that is simply not true. The words are not verboten, especially in that context. On the Alon Shvut page the words "Judea and Samaria Area" feature prominently in the infobox for the district name, as it does in every article on settlements in the West Bank. And if somebody had actually tried to expand on that in the body in a way that made it at all relevant I doubt this discussion would have spanned the pages and bytes that it has. But instead, there has been a push to try to twist the guideline in to supporting this or that, first with "known by the Biblical name", then, wrongly, adding the district in parentheses following "West Bank" as though the two were equivalent. nableezy - 02:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I understood what you're saying, NMMNG. Using the term as the name of the administrative area was only one example. Like I said above, the guideline isn't being challenged (other than your statement on 'districts', but that's not the thrust of the dispute). That's why it seemed you're in support of the point made that there is no prohibition to use the term J&S, subject to the qualifications. If I'm wrong, let me know. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The point NMMNG made about telling people that certain places are in an administrative area of a certain name is interesting. As Nableezy points out, we do that. Should we be telling people that the West Bank is part of the Palestinian territories when we say somewhere is in the West Bank ? We don't appear to do that at the moment in articles about places in the West Bank. The situation seems somewhat analogous with the difference being that J&S is a local name and the Pt is a global name. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

the proper analogy is, of course between the J&S Area (an administrative district of Israel) to Tulkarm Governorate (or some other PNA administrative district. Needless to say, we ALWAYS tell people that a certain Palestinian locality is in some PNA governorate, in the infobox, AS WELL AS IN THE ARTICLE. Who is it, really? (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)  strike sockpuppet comment

How lovely that we are joined by our old friends. What's next, Mount Hebron is in Judea, an area in Israel? nableezy - 04:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We do say something like that. For example, we say that Ramallah or Nablus are governed by the Palestinian National Authority. It seems like a close equivalent of naming the administrative entity under which a settlement is governed. In this diff, Nableezy elaborated on the term I added in parenthesis to qualify it as (Judea and Samaria Area): "...in theWest Bank, in the area under Israeli military administration known as the Judea and Samaria Area." That part seemed like a good edit and I thought that he finally agreed its use there complies with the guideline. But it was removed later. He said his agreement was given out of frustration.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, please do not mistake agreement with exasperation. I did not want to edit-war over the issue, but I could not accept a falsehood remaining in the article. nableezy - 04:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Then please clarify because you've stated two opposing positions here. In your answer above to NMMNG, you say: "The words are not verboten" and if they appeared in the article, there wouldn't be a problem. Down here you're saying that you don't agree even with your corrected version that you made in exasperation. So, which is it? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

They arent two opposing positions. I dont agree with placing in the lead that the settlement is in the Judea and Samaria Area because I dont think it is necessary. If this settlement had something to do with the JS Area, an administrative capital or something like that, that would be different. But we already give a more specific administrative zone, Gush Etzion Regional Council, in the lead. My exasperation was over your repeated attempts to force in to the lead of the article Judea and Samaria by whatever method you could think of, without regard for whether or not it should be, disregarding the naming convention and the prohibitions that you have repeatedly ignored or misconstrued. nableezy - 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I then take it you agree with me that the guideline does not prohibit the use of the term this way or any other way, subject to the qualifications, which is what I thought you were arguing until now, such as that I'm trying to change the guidelines or consensus. Because that's the only place I've been involved in defending its presence. We now seem to both agree that it's only a matter of your opinion that it's not proper in the lead. We can discuss that. My position is that it belongs there in the same way some Palestinian towns in the WB mention the administrative district they're in and the governing body in the lead. I'm happy to see the differences between us aren't so great after all. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The guideline was never intended to allow anyone to weasel back in a precedent for glossing West Bank with Judea and Samaria, which is precisely what you are endeavouring to do. For if that were valid for Alon Shvut, mutatis mutandis, it would be valid for every settlement, meaning that the whole point of the Protocol (4) turns into garbage. 'West Bank' is to be used. Yes, and forever glossed by 'Judea and Samaria'. What on earth would have been the point of making West Bank the default neutral term if the intention had been to merely give it temporal priority over the gloss 'Judea and Samaria' in every lead on every page regarding Israeli settlements. This is patently making a nonsense of the obvious and grammatical construal of that protocol.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The presence of a sockpuppet talking about what is proper means I'm out. I would like to see the discussion suspended until they have been blocked or agree to stop editing/contacting other editors on their talk pages. To clarify though, I'm talking about telling people where things are by saying "West Bank, Palestinian territories" in articles about places in the West Bank. That includes all of the articles about Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The locations are in the Palestinian territories so we should say that. That is an amendment to the guidelines that I would support. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about the name of an administrative area. "Palestinian territories" is not an administrative area. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The discussion is about making articles better and the role of the WP:WESTBANK guideline in achieving that objective. There's no other reason to have this discussion. Given that objective, the only legitimate objective, and given that the can of worms has already been opened, any suggestion intended to improve the content should be on the table. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it when we get to the silly threats part. I agree, let's open up the whole thing. Everything is on the table. Perhaps this time enough editors will participate in the discussion so that the result is a serious guideline that helps improve the encyclopedia rather than something designed to protect "some editors" from terms they "probably consider offensive", which includes instructions to put factual errors in articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a silly threat in my statement or were you referring to something else ? Confused. I actually do genuinely believe that the guideline should be changed so that the first instance of West Bank in an article should be West Bank, Palestinian territories and that that would make articles better. Same goes for the Gaza Strip. I'm not kidding. It has nothing to do with politics, religion, and various other things people seem to get upset about here. It's about dealing with named spatial objects properly and telling the readers where things are e.g. Haluza (Hebrew: חלוצה‎), also known as Halasa, Chellous (Χελλοὺς), al-Khalasa and Elusa, is a city in the Negev, Israel... Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not kidding either. If you can find consensus for your suggestion about Haluza, by all means, let's put that in. We can do the same for Palestinians villages, many of which have older names as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

bye. :D Cptnono (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. That statement seems to fail the motive part of the means, motive, and opportunity test...unless...wait a moment...surely not...the horror...the motive is to confess to the crimes committed by a loved one to protect them. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on main points

The dispute is about how the guidelines have been interpreted and applied. Here are the main points of side (B) above.

1. WP:WESTBANK does not adopt the position that "Judea and Samaria" cannot be used without bias, as some editors claimed.
2. WP:WESTBANK takes into consideration the opinions of these editors by stipulating that the term be used with qualifications.
3. Based on the qualifications, it is permitted to say, for example, that "Alon Shvut is administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area", or to use the term in other ways subject to the qualifications allowed in the guidelines.
4. There is no prohibition in WP:WESTBANK against using the term in article leads.
5. The consensus on the legal statement does not stipulate that the legal statement section in the body of articles must be placed disruptively in the middle of the article, interrupting sections specific to the subject of the article itself.

These are the main points we're discussing and the ones we should be focusing on. Going off on tangents or misrepresenting this position is not helpful. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are conflating multiple issues and even assigning support to sides to all these disparate issues and are doing so without actual evidence that the people listed above support all or even some of what you now say are the main points of side (B). Where do you get that including the section on the illegality of the settlement in the middle of the article is "disruptive"? Why do these unsupported premises get repeated as though they magically will become true. I have asked you above how you would like to make that section more specific to the article, and I even offered an example as to how that could be done. You neglected to respond to my last comment on the issue, a reply to your mistaken view that the wording of the section was discussed and that my suggested addition was rejected by consensus. But, again, there are multiple issues here and combining them only confuses things. nableezy - 04:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The disruptive placement of the legal statement was discussed previously and elaborated on in the opening "request" of this section. I'm not getting into another discussion of tangents. If you disagree with what I've said then explain why and we're done. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you argued that it is "disruptively placed". I dont see any backing or basis for that argument, yet you repeat that over and over as though something becomes true by repitition. And I dont see how any of the people you claim support side (B) actually support any, much less all, of what you say is the position of side (B) nableezy - 12:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Go and request clarification at Arbcom. You're patently trying, in my view, to rig a change in policy. Your construal above my remarks as 'disparaging' you are so off the record with what I actually wrote, that I think it purposeless to engage further with you since you cannot read what others argue. Throughout you have done your utmost to inject words like 'ideological' , 'politically motivated' ,'disparagement' to describe any form of counter-argument to your own. Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. That comment screams of poking at the other editor instead of addressing the issue. Note that you are accusing him of just that. The other editor has valid points and you should not equate it to "rig"ging Stop dancing and answer the concern head on. There is something to be fixed if you take a step back and consider that not everyone disagrees with you politically. And when they do, consider that at least a portion of the request is worth looking into. Don't pawn it off to what might be considered a higher authority. Show some balls and fix it together. The specter of AE for you after being blocked for so long since you might be going against a collaborative environment should be something I don't even need to bring up. ,,,Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me diffs of your efforts to put 'Judea and Samaria area' after 'West Bank' over the past few years, as evidence that you read policy as Michael now rereads it.Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all the points listed above, but still doubt that "Alon Shvut is administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area" should be in the lede. One does not follow from the other. Is the proposal to append this sentence to the end of the lede, or to replace the current sentence about Gush Etzion? Jsolinsky (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Every one of the point in Side B has been comprehensively shown to be wrong in the extremely long discussions. Michael has summed up his thesis, in defiance of the evidence, and rerepresented it, as if it has never been rebutted.Honesty would have required him to meticulously list all of the objections to the Lutheran theses he has posted on wiki's door. He fails to do this, and in failing to do so represents an argument of 1, as side B. Of course all of the editors who jump in now to support him never in 2 years imagined that there was any substance to Michael's thesis, because they have all abstained from pushing the 'Judea & Samaria' gloss into settlement pages since Arbcom made its deliberation. That is the single most devastating illustration of what is wrong here. You all, save Michael the latecomer, abided by the understanding 'Side A' itself, in the present discussion, defended. There is nothing to be fixed. Michael is a settler, and wants a settler voice in here, breaking WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll just have to keep quoting the authorities whose magisterial command of the issues, the rhetoric, the nationalist literature and religious-messianic positions prompted us to determine the protocols Michael is trying to tweak out of all their intent.

'Judea and Samaria are the biblical names for the general areas south and north of Jerusalem (respectively). Historically, they include substantial portions of pre-1967 Israel, but not the Jordan Valley or the Benyamin district (both within the West Bank). For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationalist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the green line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank, but as Judea and Samaria. Ian Lustick, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, 1988 (1994) p.205 n.4.

I'll keep posting this until I get some of you guys to take note of it. My opposition to the obfuscations of policy is being systematically represented as ideological. It is not. To the contrary, it is firmly grounded on abundant evidence that this language is not acceptable to wikipedia'ìs neutral voice, veils a partisan POV pushed by settlers, here and elsewhere. It is based on what we all understood after the Arbcom and Protocol decisions were made, and on the overwhelmingly authority of the best academic sources, which identify, as Lustick does here, Michael's position on this with the annexationist camp.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian Lustick is certainly entitled to his opinion. What's your point? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point's self-evident, i.e. you haven't the faintest idea who Lustick is, and the authority with which he speaks. He is perhaps the world's foremost authority on ethnic-territorial disputes, (and Jewish to boot) summed up the scholarship in terms which give the lie to virtually every statement Michael has made about 'Judea' and 'Samaria' (misunderstandings characteristic of religious zionist ideology, with its hazy theology of the boundaries of Eretz Israel, its contempt for secular scholarship and its indifference to conceptual precision). To you it is just an opinion to which Lustick is entitled, as subjective as anything an uninformed editor might write. My point is, Michael, and yourself, and everyone in here toeing the new line, is ignoring everything we know about the argument and policy, perhaps because you don't read the relevant scholarly literature, and when it is quoted, if you dislike it, it is just dismissed as some joeblow's blogging. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a pretty good idea who Lustick is, and yes, it's just an opinion as subjective as anyone else's. Unless political science has gained the status of an exact science while I wasn't looking? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour? Don't set yourself up by making thoughtless comeback statements like that. It really is painful for someone like myself to read a comment that translates: 'I, and anyone else in the world, know as much about any non-scientific subject as anyone who teaches it.' That really is, epistemologically, a dopey sort of thing to assert. No one, not even yourself, believes it, for the simple reason, that as a moment's reflection would reveal, it assumes unwittingly that no one can teach anyone anything, unless the matter is one of the hard or exact sciences, outside of which everything is 'opinion'. What you are embracing is, to dignify it with a name, a kind of small-Mall blogger Pyrrhonism.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How about you do me a favor and address what I actually write, not some strawman you erect for the purpose of inserting your childish attempts at insults. I said his opinion is subjective, just as anyone else's opinions are subjective. This has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge he has. Your "translation", if that's the correct term for when someone makes up an argument that is not similar to what their interlocutor said, is wrong.

I do appreciate that you restrained yourself from using too much excessive verbiage and words this time. I hope that was not too painful for someone like you. By the way, how was my English? Am I going to get graded again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@NMMNG. Please stop getting baited. You're far better than this.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that it is unusual for geography to be renamed after control changes? Where do you think the name "West Bank" comes from? It is the name the Jordanians chose for the new portion of their kingdom on the West bank of the Jordan river, after they annexed it in 1949-1950. While I certainly agree that Judea and Sumaria are used by Israel to legitimize their presence, it is also certainly the case that the term "West Bank" has been used by the rest of the world as a means of de-legitimizing the Israeli presence. I am writing this, BTW, from "New York" City. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - "it is also certainly the case that the term "West Bank" has been used by the rest of the world as a means of de-legitimizing the Israeli presence" Uh? It's officially called the West Bank. That's its name. If it was sovereign to Israel, Israel could officially rename it Judea & Samaria. But it isn't Israeli ... talknic (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with default or sovereign names. There are other notable names to entities outside of the default ones and none of them are forbidden in WP if their notability is established.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping editors from adding other notable names to entities that are the subjects of articles. That isn't relevant to this guideline. It's covered by WP:NAME e.g. The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎ aḍ-Ḍaffah l-Ġarbiyyah, Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit also known as Hebrew: יהודה והשומרון‎ Yehuda ve-Ha'Shomron (Judea and Samaria)[1][2]) of the Jordan River is the landlocked[3] geographical eastern part of the Palestinian territories located in Western Asia. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And there's also nothing stopping editors from adding other notable names in articles where the default name is mentioned and the other notable name is relevant. That's what the Naming Guideline states, subject to qualifications. The only thing attempting to stop editors from doing so is other editors who don't personally like the other notable name and have said so. They also mislead everyone by saying the Naming convention decided the other notable name is "biased" when it did no such thing. So, please.... --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is. Policy. You still don't get it. If you were right, every settlement would have the line, 'in the West Bank, in what is known in Israel as Judea and Samaria'. It was to avoid this that the restrictions were set out in the WestBank policy guidelines. Your innovation merely wishes to return to the 'status quo ante' by abrogating the force of that 'West Bank is to be used'+#6 (specific articles where the J&S usage is allowed). An exception in policy becomes under your subversive reinterpretation, the rule. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you see that your interpretation would enable editors to, for example, add Palestine as another notable name for Israel in all of the articles about inhabited locations within the modern State of Israel as defined by the green line that say "<location>, Israel" ? It would be quite easy for someone who was motivated to make such an edit to construct an argument, based on policies and guidelines, with evidence from plenty of secondary sources quoting prominent people/documents etc (for either notable current usage in certain quarters or historical usage), an argument that would be analogous to yours, and present it to the community in an articulate and polite way in order to justify the change. I think a reasonable editor who accepts that our job in the topic area, according to the discretionary sanctions, is "to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict" would reject such an edit as unnecessary and unhelpful. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can see how someone could try to make a case for it, but it wouldn't be the same at all. The modern state of Israel is not in dispute, at least not at the level of international dispute that the West Bank is. One can argue why the WB remains in dispute but comparing it to areas within Israel is not what "areas of dispute" in that guideline refers to. There are many arguments for both sides on how and why the territories fell into dispute and remain there. Censoring one side, or critical information from it, and extending over-emphasis to the other, as has been done wholesale on articles about settlements, (removing J&S and placing the legal statement disruptively for emphasis, to diminish from one side's position, by editors who declare strong personal opinions on the dispute) does not seem to advance "neutral encyclopedic coverage" that would "lead to broader understanding of the issues." I know it's not comfortable to open up this can of worms but I've heard other editors say they've refrained from doing it themselves because of the intensity and aggressive nature with which reverts and arguments are made by some editors. Cptono, who I don't think can be described as unreasonable, said this about it (I can't call up the diff because it's a closed case, but it's the second to last comment in Jiujitsuguy's section): "I assumed they would bunk it up them selves. But letting editors run rampant for awhile is just as well. It really doesn't matter and it will be wiped (or at least modified) sooner or later." Now, we can wait forever, or until the shenanigans peter out, but isn't it better to put it on the table now while we can, and request from everyone to put aside their opinions and crusades for the sake of this wonderful project of free knowledge, and through it try to make the collaborative effort a little better in this area? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cptono's comment is in the Brewcrewer case on that page (the link doesn't open the closed case). --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The modern state of Israel is in dispute an order of magnitude more than the level of international dispute over the status of the West Bank. There is no international dispute over the status of the West Bank. That is one of the reasons why one side must be diminished. For the legal statement, I think the outcome was generous to even mention "but the Israeli government disputes this". If you look at how reliable sources handle this, many don't mention Israel's position at all. I don't know why but I suppose it could be because even the Supreme Court of Israel recognizes that the West Bank is occupied and allows the military to run it on that basis. So, given that, why would an encyclopedia with the set of rules we have care more about allowing people to use J&S as an alt name for West Bank than allowing people to use Palestine as an alt name for Israel ? That doesn't make any sense to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll also say something about editors. For me, there is a world of difference between an editor who consistently advocates for a belligerent in a conflict as many do and an editor who advocates for Wikipedia so that Wikipedia can faithfully reflect what reliable sources say based on our rules. For the I-P conflict topic area, editors who want Wikipedia to just say what RS say have to be absolutely remorseless in their resistance to advocacy. They are branded as pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, all sorts of things, because from the perspective of the advocate, RS-world is pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel if you want to put it in those crude terms. What is so very important to the advocate is often not important at all in RS-world. That is just how it is. It's not our fault. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

While I generally agree with you on this Sean, I do have to say that I don't think it is always as simple or objective as that. I think dealing with RS can be difficult when dealing with legal definitions and especially legal fictions. To give a quick example, because it is late, I often deal(t) with Canadian political and historical articles. So the articles might say that a PM appointed, say, a Chief of the Defence Staff. But monarchists don't like that. They know the article should say the PM advised the Queen (or the Governor General) and the Queen (or perhaps the GG) appointed the CDS. That's true in a certain sense but if written simply that way it is misleading. It might be better to say the PM appoints the CDS because he actually has all the real power and is the one who really makes the decision. The Queen's role is a legal fiction. There are RS that describe this legal fiction. Because it is fun, especially for monarchists, to explore and savour the legal fictions we've created. So in these instances, the monarchists can always say they are defending WP:RS but really it is just a happy coincidence that their interests allign with a strict interpretation of RS to the detriment of our readers. I don't mean this to be an analogy for I/P, especially not a perfect one but I think sometimes we have problems that are alike this. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's anyone's fault but we can't isolate RS as the only WP policy to adhere to. And taking the RS high ground can also be problematic because if there's really no advocacy in it, as you say, it becomes problematic when RS integrity is breached. In one such case, adding "as being without basis in international law" to the legal statement after it was succinctly worded and sourced by consensus; and considering there was nothing in the reliable source that supported the addition; and also noting that the editor declares a strong advocacy on his user page to support what the addition wrongly asserts, well, that puts to serious question the claim of high RS ground. That's just one example, I see it all the time. Try to understand, Sean, that I may be as loyal to the encyclopedic integrity as you are. I think WP knew what it was talking about when it said that no one is free of bias. Recognizing this simple small truth is paramount for people of conflicting views to be able to work together. It is possible to sense personal political leanings through comments here. They're very difficult to conceal. I think we both try not to let it affect our work, but for whatever reason some editors prefer to deny this simple truth entirely. So forgive me if I'm not convinced there's any editor or administrator on WP who isn't an advocate of their own subjectivity, no matter how hard they try to conceal it. The first step towards being able to work in a group is recognizing it, and breaking free from the political molds we allow to shape what we do. There is so much more to WP guidelines than RS, that when it's all compiled, it brings us much closer to merit by behavioral patterns, than by adherence to sources. The same can be said for everything we work on. It's also true for Israel and Palestine. Behavior is the filter by which integrity is maintained. When you examine it from both sides, it reveals a whole new world. I think you can tell I'm able to let a lot of angst directed at me slide off without making a fuss about it. But when you look at the last month's discussions that I've been involved in, can you honestly say the way I was treated by editors who say they're are holding to RS standards, has been compliant enough with other guidelines as well? If not, what would such patterns say about reliability if RS integrity becomes suspect? Could it be that a little more humility before the human condition would be more beneficial to a project that demands a good collaborative spirit? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

please read Michael's numerous statements about these terms, please read the literature. Making silly statements (creating a balancing nonsense for the nonsense we've been served up) of the kind: 'it is also certainly the case that the term "West Bank" has been used by the rest of the world as a means of de-legitimizing the Israeli presence,' gets us absolutely nowhere. The ICJ does not use inflammatory language, or manipulate language to 'delegitimize' Israel's colonialism, in its court decisions. It interpreted the law. Please also read policy, namely section 4 of WP:WESTBANK. Were West Bank a term noted for its rhetorical nuances of 'delegitimizing' Israel, it would have been utterly unacceptable, to me, to Arbcom, to everyone, to accept it as the default term for this area, consonant with WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

From somebody who has used up a large fraction of this discussion ranting about the one sided blindness of others, that is a remarkable statement. I think I'm done with this conversation. While both sides may be blind, one side has the support of the world. That is reflected in the current policy, which requires no change. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ranting? Do you think that the vagrant assertion, which I've never encountered in 30 years of reading the academic literature on the Middle East, that the term West Bank 'delegitimizes' Israel, is somehow acceptable, and not an absurd provocation.

Put this logically.

One country, Y, invades and occupies belligerently a contiguous country, X.

International law in discussing the area refers to the contiguous country as X.

Y protests saying that to call X by its international name X delegitimizes Y.

I mean, wow, it's unbelievable that every time one mentions something about Palestine, people on the other side of the border can come out with this 'you're wounding our national pride', 'you're delegitimizing us,' gambit, and think it persuasive.

It is 'Judea & Samaria' which sources describe as 'delegitimizing' Palestinians in the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Kathleen Christison is "world's foremost authority" on what? Supporting Gilad Atzmon and his ideas [15]? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to inject some humour here. But 'the world's foremost authority' is Ian Lustick. My second link to Kathleen Christison is glossed by 'sources say' (and her comment is one many other good sources also affirm). She was by the way a Middle East analyst for the CIA. I see you've tried to google dirt. Fine. But please try and construe English correctly next time.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, you're not going to make fun of my English with a saying in Greek or French? How disappointing. And only 4 sentences? Are you feeling ok? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

言者不知 知者不言. Well kids raised under the regimen of a sound-bite commentariat strain at anything beyond a 15second blip on their consciousness, true. Andy Warhol etc. I'm fine, though fossilized in a world that thought Henry James makes sense, whereas George W. Bush doesn't. I know it's terribly oldfashioned to think that words mean things, and that syntax doesn't mean a tithe paid on porn consumption, rather than being things you throw about for the cute sound they make when they hit eardrums. Just be patient, lad. Another decade and people like myself won't be around to disturb the cosmic equanimity of the new world ordure.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting choice of quote for someone who's known for his excessive verbiage. But I get your point. It's the form, not the content that matters. I mean, if someone drops a "the" while having an informal discussion on a wikipedia talk page, that must be immediately pointed out since, well, it's just that important. It's not like you regularly make childish attempts to disparage people who don't agree with you. Or ever made a syntax or grammar mistake, god forbid. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm known for my 'excessive verbiage' by people who were never trained to recognize and avoid the use of pleonasms, pal. To illustrate: 'verbiage' means 'an excess of words for the purpose, so that 'excessive verbiage' means an 'excessive excess of words'.Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for so succinctly proving my point, pal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

не за что Nishidani (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ --JGGardiner (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no. Don't tell me yankee evangelism has spread to Vancouver and making converts among its urbane yahoos? What's the world coming to?Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it was intended as blasphemous profanity in the old-world tradition. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't wriggle out of this claiming it was a resort to a rhetorical anachronism, sir. Had it been an exfoliation of blasphemous profanity in the old-world tradition, it would have been accompanied by the obligatory exclamation mark (!). Just own up, come clean. All's forgiven, not least, I'm told, by the chappie you fingered.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow, Batman! --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Here in Vancouver old-world Christianity is mostly filtered through cultures that use logographic scripts. So exclamation marks get lost in translation. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And since we're on the topic of the resurrected, I should say that Canadian Monkey can back me up on all this. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, Mike, please don't report me for writing 'the chappie you fingered', which, on reflection might be a WP:BLP violation, given rumours in clerical quarters that JC still lives. 'Fingers' was an unfortunate term as well.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rest safe, Nish. I've never reported anyone here no do I intend to. Especially not for such a nice effort to relieve tension with a little finger humor. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm never going to get any sleep until one of you guys tell me how one says 'Holy cow, Batman!' in Hebrew. I keep mumbling פרה אדומה‎...!, under my breath of course, though fearing resurrections more terrible than that of the Canuck (with its own distinctive etymology 'can nuke') who likes monkeying around here. I think this about wraps up the section, 'Focusing on main points'.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

True that "red heffer", פרה אדומה, is the best proper translation of "Holy cow" in Hebrew, but the language doesn't use the word "holy" in such expressions. Maybe the closest one is !אלוהים אדירים, באטמן, or something like "Dear God!" I hope that helps you get some sleep. Time to follow JGG's lead and bring some focus back to the section. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC) ‎

Well I do also have a serious point. I've always felt it was pretty stupid that these debates go on and on, usually encouraging edit wars and embittering the participants. In any real world context I think two people would probably just ask a third party's opinion and agree to be bound by it. The problem is that WP's usual DR mechanisms don't work very well. RfCs don't get many takers and usually just end up with the I/P gang drowning them out. Arbitration doesn't even want to hear from you. I think we need to create an I/P specific device for these sorts of issues. We just need a neutral person or two to suggest what a reasonable reading of WP:WESTBANK is. I think WP's utopian notion that we should just work it out among ourselves obviously doesn't work in our little corner of the project. I think that's the only way forward for us. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's entirely stupid to air things out exhaustively. Maybe partly stupid, but it does seem to help take out some steam. The disagreements are very essential and need to be argued through. I agree that present mechanisms don't work in a case like this. But I'm still holding out for Casliber persuading arbitrators that we at least need a motion to clarify WP:WESTBANK. I'm somewhat new to IPCOL and all of the I/P zone, but I think a group of 5-7 editors or admins from the project can head up a sort of local IPARB, if they're elected/chosen in a balanced way based on past positions they've taken. The question would be whether such a committee could be given the needed authority from higher up. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about a similar idea the other day. Perhaps turning IPCOLL into a permanent mediation forum could do the trick. Appoint an admin (or some other masochist) who doesn't care about the issue, and replace them every 6 months or so when one side decides they're biased, unless they get support from a majority of participating editors on both sides. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute is now at Arbcom

Peter cohen has graciously brought this dispute to Arbcom (much appreciated) and I've made an opening statement there. I'd think we've exhausted argumentation here and veered off into enough tangents that we can now try focus discussion in a more appropriate setting for achieving a little more clarity. Regardless of disagreements and tensions, everyone's participation so far, and at Arbcom, will certainly help collaboration. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eyes and minds needed at Rujm el-Hiri

This article used to mention that the Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied territory. I readded it after noticing it had been removed. Biosketch removed it, replacing it with its having been captured by Israel. There is no discussion there yet. I though I would bring it here because I have little time and because its related to this discussion. Tiamut^talk 15:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record

While ArbCom considers the differences of opinion here, I want to jot down a couple of particular results of the discussion that seem important for the record.

1. Consensus seems almost evenly divided over the interpretation and intent of WP:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank) (thought a case can be made for a few more editors agreeing that it's been misunderstood or misapplied till now).
2. While Nishidani and Zero0000 have said they understand the naming convention prohibits saying "Alon Shvut is administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area", and have said so at ArbCom (Nishidani, Zero0000), Nableezy disagrees with them and states that the naming convention allows making such a statement in an article (here are the set of diffs from above, 1,2), and clarifies his opinion that his disagreement is only because "I dont agree with placing in the lead that the settlement is in the Judea and Samaria Area because I dont think it is necessary." (my bold) I think this is an important and honest statement by Nableezy about how the naming convention has been misunderstood by other editors including Nishidani and Zero000, especially considering he was more involved with discussions on it. (I acknowledged it in this diff, 3).

I thought this should be on record clearly so it can be referenced in case of future edit conflicts. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What's this all about? Just seems to be a way of keeping tensions high. If you really want to know what consensus is, offer two or three alternative wordings for wider community discussion. Otherwise, this is just using Wikipedia as an internet forum. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor who previously reverted edits of the above sentence made statements at ArbCom to indicate they'd still do it, even after this discussion. The other strongly supported them throughout previous discussions and made a similar statement at ArbCom. I'm not looking for tension, but I think the clarification is important in case I or someone else make another such edit and some editors revert it again. I didn't think it should remain scattered in the discussion without summary. I've already explained the naming convention, as you suggest, and don't see a need to make more proposals. That's all. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is needed is for some uninvolved editors to give their views on what the guideline means. I still cannot fathom how any good faith contributor can make some of the claims made here, such as claiming that 6D, when saying The term is being used within the article about itself, it actually means The term (Judea, Samaria and/or Judea & Samaria) is being used within the article (the article you are editing) about itself (the term refers to itself and not to anything else other than itself). I still find that to be an absurd twisting of the English language that I cannot believe anybody can actually claim is a plausible reading of that exception. If we could get uninvolved opinions on that we might be able to get somewhere. As it is, distortion after distortion of the guideline is being pushed, here and elsewhere, with the clear intent of subverting the clear meaning of the guideline. That is what needs to be resolved. nableezy - 17:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following this thread too much since not my area of expertise, but am confused as to whether you want "uninvolved editors" here to comment, at ArbCom (isn't that the purpose there?) or some other noticeboard, during or after ArbCom. Sorry if I missed something earlier that explains. CarolMooreDC 18:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to get comments at WT:WESTBANK but that, predictably, got flooded with involved comments. What is needed is for each party to make their case and then step back and see what truly uninvolved editors think. That is the only way this will work. Otherwise what will continue is the same cycle. I dont know about the rest of yall, but Ive already seen this show, and the reruns dont get better with age. nableezy - 18:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say above. If WP had a working version of RfC, third opinion or arbitration, we wouldn't be in this mess. I love debating as much as anyone but at some point it has to give way to solution, even a temporary one. Not only will it not resolve the issue but it will bias the participants against cooperation on every other issue. That's why I offered to flip a coin at Gaza War. It would have been a completely unjust outcome but much less destructive than the status quo. I really do think I/P will never settle down until we have an effective dispute resolution mechanism. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you again by the way. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right about needing a better DR mechanism, or even a more local one for IP. But I think there's some merit to asking editors try to work things out without intervention. I'd hate to think we can't find a way to understand each other when talking about editing an encyclopedia. And who knows, settling down too much can also stagnate. In retrospect, some edit conflicts I've seen have yielded not bad progress on pages. Anyway, Carol's link below is not a bad think tank brewing. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution. CarolMooreDC 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My view is that dispute resolution won't work unless everyone agrees to stop POV pushing. Obviously everyone has to be able to see that they are POV pushing first which isn't always easy even when there's a stark contrast between an editor's approach to an issue and the approach taken by a large sample of RS. We're all supposed to know that POV pushing, no matter how polite, impolite, friendly, aggressive, well intentioned or misguided is still POV pushing and it's not allowed in any of its forms. Polite POV pushing isn't better than aggressive POV pushing, it's the same. Itsmejudith asked a good question, "What's this all about?" I think it's about finding a way, any way, for articles about certain locations outside of Israel beyond the green line in the Palestinian territories to include the names preferred by Israel, but more importantly in practice, the names preferred by a small number of people with internet access who also happen to have Wikipedia accounts, either a) as the current name assigned by Israel as the administrative area or b) in the form of 2 old names out of the various historical names available presumably to demonstrate some kind of a historical connection between the contemporary 21st century settlers and the contemporary landscapes of the Palestinian territories where they build their homes. That's it in a nutshell as far as I can tell and I don't think what the guidelines actually say or mean is very relevant to this effort. It doesn't seem to be about making the encyclopedia better. It seems more like extending what is essentially a colonization program from the land to articles about the land, a sort of meta-colonization. If the objective is to give a voice to the settlers, to let them tell their stories, then why not just do that in the articles ? Let the people speak about why they are there, tell their stories about what they regard as their historical connection to the land etc based on interviews, analyses etc published by RS. Let the Palestinians respond with their side of the story about the impact on their lives etc in each article. Why do we have to reduce things to slogans like J+S as if it means something ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the J+S perspective is really so different from British editors who want to have article titles for chips, crisps and Black Forest gateau. If this was a short term or single issue article it really wouldn't be all that unique. I/P problems are usually ordinary and usually "lame". The real problem with I/P is that there's always a problem. I can't think of more than a handful of I/P editors who have the moral right to accuse another of advocacy and only one or two who deserve to be sanctimonious about it. I don't know how WP usually deals with places like Alma just below here but I do know how every I/P editor will "vote" on the issue. I used to do that in AfDs. I'd hold my hand up so I could only see the user names and guess how the users "voted". Try it some time -- you won't be surprised. The thing is I probably agree with your "side" 80 or 90% of the time, certainly much more often than not. But sometimes I think the urgency and necessity to say or not say certain things is itself a form of advocacy. I'm actually sure that it is but I only think about it sometimes. There's no way the McMurdo Station article would slide by if it were in our corner of WP. A reader might leave it not fully cognizant of all the intricacies of the legal situation but it is a decent article. I do agree with you about Alon Shvut for what it's worth. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Although Crisps and Black Forest gateau are already used as alternate article titles, we aren't even suggesting that. The West Bank page does not have a redirect from "Judea and Samaria" and we're not even asking for it (though it seems fair considering the Crisps and BF gateau.) All we are saying is that the term is allowed, under qualifications, in the same way as Chips, Crisps and Black Forest gateau are in article leads, and can appear there in a similar way, subject to the qualifications in the naming convention. I think JGG makes a good case why there's little difference between the two, being in the heated battling going on between sides in IP pages. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe those weren't the best examples. I used them because I knew that Sean was familiar with a particularily hysterical editor at the french fries article. Like I said at the end, I actually agree with Sean on this particular point. I don't think J+S should be used or needs to be used. I suppose I might not oppose certain used of the administrative regions name if it was used in a minimally intrusive way. Although I don't think I would favour them either. I was just trying to say that I think you're wrong but I think you should have the right to be wrong. And I think we need to be able to have these discussions without everything falling apart. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the right to be wrong, even if I might be right. I certainly agree that everything doesn't have to fall apart and I don't believe it can. The only falling apart I see is a little hysteric over-reaction by some editors who seem upset that someone's finally come around to show they've been using a loaded dice. "RS majority" that the naming convention never ratified and prohibitions that it never made. That's why they seem upset, because someone's calling their bluff. I can appreciate if they were discussing it candidly that the naming convention doesn't say what they claim, but that it's a matter of their opinion that the terms aren't necessary, as you do. The force and hysteria applied here by some editors tells another story.

I'll just keep listing them, Michael, because by now it is almost established as a debating trick. You argue neutrally. Someone replies, neutrally. And you characterise the response in various shades of emotion. Any rejoinder only serves to allow you to try and ratchet up the silhouette of an excited, well, 'Arabic' hotheadness. You lose at this point all credibility in what you are arguing. The idea is lost as the rhetorical strategem of trying to elicit heat from others only hits a cold wall. And bounces back. E,g.

little hysteric over-reaction by some editors who seem upset

Who's upset? or hysteric, even slightly. I do admit to a sense of tedium, at being dragged into the world of bloggerdom. Please make a conscious effort to refrain from this gamesmanship, please. I've been there. We were taught the tricks when deconstructing Plato. It's been around that long.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Look JGG, I appreciate your input here because it's the most fair and refreshing thing I've heard from someone who doesn't agree with me. I really don't know how to impress that what's being done here and the way it's being asserted is just wrong and violates the very word and spirit of Wikipedia guidelines for neutral content, fair representation and collaboration in good faith. I'd be happy to see the intellectual integrity you're showing spread around a little to inspire others. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying for years to convince the other editors that I have the fairest, most intellectually honest opinons here and it doesn't seem to resonate. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing should follow the Kantian principle that behind each act there is a rule. The rule in Michael's proposal is that the gloss 'Judea and Samaria' can accompany all mentions of the West Bank. This is not what, even on generous interpretations, the Protocols of 2008 established. In fact there is very strong contextual and hermeneutic evidence for the view that this is diametrically opposed to the original intent of the framers. The corollary principle, which Michael admits, but says nothing about, is that if the precedent is allowed in one case (Alon Shvut) regarding the West Bank, then 'Zionist Entity' or 'Palestine' should be pushed in a parallel case on say Tel Aviv, and a case be argued that these terms form the default gloss on all articles regarding locations, towns and geography in Israel. (The right of one side should be mirrored by a similar right exercised by the other party). I don't know of any 'pro-Pal' editor here who would agree to exercise that right and start messing with Israeli articles, in the way Michael's procedure would invite us to do (retaliation of the most jejune kind). Of course, 99% of us know that the second corollary is inapplicable. So, in terms of logical, and I would add, ethical practice, Michael's modification is unacceptable, in that it would lead to a massive destabilization of an already fragile editing envronment.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There's way too much hysteria here, Nish. I never once suggested the rule you extrapolate. If you're afraid of someone applying such an unwritten rule, we can write a real rule that addresses it, by consensus. But even so, if West Bank is the default name and J+S is the equivalent that Israel uses, then there's nothing to add like 'Zionist Entity' because a balance has already been struck with the first two names and any addition would disrupt the balance again. "Zionist Entity", btw, is not a name of an area so it's not relevant to suggest such a thing. And like I said, nothing else is needed unless we allow such a next level for both sides equally, as well. You seem to be assuming that a balance is achieved by prohibiting one side's position on it. I'm also not impressed with hysterical scares such as "massive destabilization". The situation has never been too stable and the reason for it is that one side has overextended the naming convention to assert it prohibits the other side from being represented, when it does not. This is the crux of the problem here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Kantian principle remains. A practice implies a rule. To deduce the rule from a proposed editorial practice is 'extrapolating' but not in the subjective sense you embue that word with. This thread is totally nonsensical, to keep nitpicking tidbits, and making a reply, while ignoring the logic of what you are proposing (the examples were 2, 'Zionist entity' and 'Palestine': your quibble collapses with the later, which is why you do not refer to it). In my personal view the Palestinian POV is not in most of these articles. The Israeli and international POV is. So a rule is violated. I don't get hysterical at the lacunae. I ignore it and accept the international POV. as a succudaneum (a word that came to mind probably to overcome the hystical boredom I feel in writing here, by the titillation of rarity). Since this is at a deadend, I suggest, if you want to keep pushing your point. That you restate it, and I will reframe it in propositional logic? That will enable us to thrash out the Kantian principle, and see if it is rational, reasonable, workable, and what its unintended consequences are. It's rather pointless cramming virtual space with unreadable chat.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really about Michael. Michaels come and go. Sometimes they come back again.

I'd just like for us to have a way to deal with these issues without this war of attrition. I've been watching the I/P stuff now for three years. Most of that time I'd thought we could fix things if editors would just act with some decency. Now I realize that was naive. I think need an emergency brake that stops every little issue from derailing the project. These little issues will come up. They come up in the history articles, the political articles and, like I said, I think they come up more in the food articles. They are going to come up here. We need to find a way to accommodate debate because right now we simply can't. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not so complicated really. I think people need to be taken out of the equation as much as possible because people are idiots. This is matter of historical record and it's supported by impeccable scientific evidence. Virtually every lame dispute here can be resolved by sampling a large number of high quality sources, seeing how they handle these issues and reflecting them, based on our rules. That has already happened in the J+S case as far as I can tell. It's already happened in the legality discussion. There's far too much talking/wikilawyering. It's 99% bullshit. Why do people think their opinions matter here when we are just source monkeys ? There aren't any sides here. There can't be. There's just what the sources say, the rules and us source monkeys. Show me the empirical evidence in lots of sources that support the statements being made about how we should handle things or stop talking is how it should be. That way, our bias, personal opinions and the things that make everything so very difficult here have the best chance of being mercilessly crushed beneath the full weight of empirical evidence and policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you if "sampling a large number of high quality sources" is used as a basis for improving the naming convention, but not if it is used as a basis for ignoring the naming convention. In practice several different viewpoints will be argued (rightly or wrongly) as "supported by sources", and one of the main reasons for having a convention is to avoid having that problem endlessly. Zero^talk 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the process is as objective as you do. I think you're saying that WP:RS suggests that the facts in the articles should appear in the same proportions as they do in the RS themselves. I don't agree with that. We're writing encyclopaedia articles. Our sources are not. Encyclopaedia articles might stress elementary facts that other sources will not. For example, I enjoy the National Hockey League and I've read quite a lot about it but I've hardly ever heard it described as "an unincorporated not-for-profit association" like it is in the first sentence of our article. I used to go to Clarence-Rockland often but I didn't realize that it was in the National Capital Region until I saw the WP article. You'd probably have more luck finding the WB described as J+S than you would find NHL sources that describe this fact but it makes sense in an encyclopaedia article. Encyclopaedia articles tend to include these organizational attributes like incorporation status or administrative status. I oppose J+S inclusion because I think there are troubling aspects to it and I would use my editorial discretion to withhold it but I think the objective robot would include it in some form just like we do at McMurdo and Rockland. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true that I'm oversimplifying and a completely objective approach couldn't generate every aspect of what people regard as 'encyclopedic' information but what it can do is to provide objective tests of subjective statements by editors about neutrality, weight, notability, phrasing, things like that that come up time and time again. You know the kinds of things. Statements like "you are POV pushing by giving this statement too much prominence" are demonstrably false when there are a large number of properly sampled sources giving something the same prominence as us, using similar phrasing and/or reliable meta-analyses/summaries of sources that make explicit statements about its prominence that are consistent with our approach. Similarly, arguments to include fringe views, the kind of thing that comes up all the time in the evolution topic (where there is absolutely zero tolerance for bullshit) and in I-P sometimes too, are demonstrably false when you can show that nobody really cares apart from the editor. It's a useful defense against the advocate who isn't interested in how things actually are. These guidelines are important. People shouldn't be allowed to tear them down, disregard them and wikilawyer endlessly over them. They're rare examples where a close approximation to policy based reason has prevailed over the usual partisan noise. They involved extensive sampling of sources. There ought to be more of guidelines to deal with the issues that come up regularly like specific forms of the generic question "is it okay to say that places beyond the green line are in Israel using Wikipedia's voice?" I see that this kind of issue has come up again in the Golan Heights related articles. I think an objective source based approach can help provide a reality check on arguments because people have a natural ability to make stuff up/hear something and think its true. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right that more guidelines might help. The situation here would be worse if WP:WESTBANK doesn't exist. By the way, WP:JUDEAANDSAMARIA should probably redirect there. But I think the problem is too little editorial discretion, not too much. Like I've been saying, if I had a similar disagreement in the real world, I'd just ask a third party what a reasonable interpretation of WESTBANK would be. I don't want an encyclopaedia written by code monkey -- I want one written by reasonable people, their robots and maybe a few of their unreasonable friends. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sean, the thrust of what you're saying seems to be questioning the validity of a challenge to how the guidelines are viewed by some editors who are taking the high position as if they're defending Wikipedia policies. It's not true. They're defending a point of view, as you seem to be. The Naming Guideline states how the terms are to be used, not that they are forbidden. You also cannot wipe away the intent of the guidelines by saying it's only one editor who cares. This discussion yielded more support for my position than the other side. You're argument seems to ignore what's happening here and tries to build a strawman case for dismissing it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, there's no phobia about 'Samaria and Judea' (b) there's no strawman argument that they are forbidden (c) there is only an insistence that the policy as written and as applied by all sides for two years, making J&S a particular case, as in the protocols, be rigorously honoured. Please don't misinterpret and distort your interlocutors' position. Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

<- Michael, that is not what I'm saying. I'm not questioning the validity of a challenge to how the guidelines are viewed by some editors. I'm rejecting the validity of this challenge. Potentially valid challenges are usually possible (I vaguely remember that NMMNG raised a potentially valid technical one at some point) but this isn't one of them. This is wikilawyering. I said it would end in tears. How is it working out so far ? You appear to assume that the mere fact that some editors have a point of view should matter to me. It doesn't. Many editors express views that are inconsistent with evidence represented by sources, policies, guidelines, and reality itself staring them in the face. They passionately believe that they are right despite all of the evidence to the contrary. They will argue at length about it. A few even resort to unethical and dishonest practices such as attacking other editors and sockpuppeting in support of these points of view. I not only reject the validity of these editors views, I reject their validity as editors. That's my choice. This is a volunteer project where editors can decide for themselves who they are willing to collaborate with. It's obvious when editors are here to POV push, to take down guidelines because they don't understand what neutrality means in Wikipedia or just don't care because they are on a mission. It's just old fashioned willful obstinacy. If I could block them on sight I would.

• "Jerusalem, as a matter of fact, is in Israel. There are buses and everything." -> blocked
• "The whole of Israel is occupied territory" -> blocked
• "Disputed is more neutral than occupied, it says so on the CAMERA site" -> blocked
• "by adding this set of (impeccably reliable, highly respected) sources you are POV pushing and trying to delegitimize..." -> blocked
• "by adding this set of (partisan ravings from a bunch of dogshit op-ed) sources I read over the weekend while polishing my hunting knife I genuinely believe I am enhancing the policy compliance and encyclopedic nature of this article" -> blocked
• "not enough weight is given to this contemporary issue because in <ancient religious text> it says..." -> blocked
• <large group of people> + <unsourced/unattributed sweeping statement about their evil nature etc> -> blocked
• "although we have a source that says 2+2=4 we need sources that specifically say 2 oranges + 2 oranges = 4 oranges for the oranges article, and 2 lemons + 2 lemons = 4 lemons for the lemons article" -> blocked
• "although all members of the Apis genus are honeybees by definition, we need a source that specifically says Apis dorsata is a honeybee" -> blocked
• "I genuinely believe that this painter's shoe size deserves to go in the lead rather than the biased and POV pushing (impeccably sourced) statement that the art world are unanimous in their view that he was one of the greatest and most influential artists of the 20th century because a) I like shoes b) it's a pertinent neutral shoe related fact and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about and c) I've never liked this painter much" -> blocked

This isn't a deprogamming centre to reverse the effects of a lifetime of indoctrination into whatever social construct people find themselves by having discussion groups to understand eachother's points of views and hammer out a common understanding. It's just an encyclopedia based on reliable sources written by people giving their time away for free. It's important not to be distracted by partisan noise. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean, the extravagant list of blocks is unimpressive relative to the disagreement here. And everything seems to be going fine, thank you. When the guideline can be interpreted in two such diametrically opposed ways, then the problem is with the guideline, not with the editors seeking clarification for what they see is an abuse and misrepresentation of it. If you hold to the position that the guidelines mean what some are saying, when its word and spirit do not seem to, then you are not showing due consideration for the balance sought on them. With all due respect, I can only be thankful that an editor taking your position does not have the power to block editors they disagree with and suppress an important discussion they don't seem to like hearing. Your position comes through loud and clear from behind the "defending guidelines" veil. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is with the editors inability or unwillingness to understand certain kinds of information within specific domains. It's not a problem a nonprofit charity like Wikipedia should be wasting its precious resources on. I don't want to block editors I disgree with. I disagree with almost everyone about everything. That's fine because I don't matter, I'm not an RS. I want to block editors who have a persistent and willful inability or unwillingness to understand certain kinds of information within specific domains that are pertinent to building this encyclopedia based on the set of rules we have been given and the guidelines derived from those rules. Call it suppression if you like but I prefer to see it as a necessary security barrier. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This case is about whether the naming guideline ratified the argument made by some editors that Judea and Samaria cannot be used in a neutral way. The guideline stated this to be the position of some editors and proceeded to stipulate that there are ways that the terms can be used neutrally. Thus the guideline does not agree with the position you're citing about "certain information within specific domains" regarding the terms in question. ArbCom did not agree with this position and made allowance for a wide area for use that it deemed remains neutral. This is stressed more in the "examples" within the qualifications it gave for use relative to modern entities. An example suggests there are many other applications based on that example. What seems to have happened is that editors armed with this guideline proceeded to remove all mentions of Judea and Samaria and found little resistance until now. This wholesale removal and exclusion policy was never the guideline's intent. The notion that editors have been silent about it is no proof that this is what ArbCom intended. The only RS that matters here is the Naming Convention itself, which, by the way, rejected the assertion made through sources presented to it, and declared clearly that they are not representative enough and that the terms can and are allowed to be used in a neutral way. What has happened is serious blow to neutrality and nothing said has even come close to addressing it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly one way of looking at it. Rearranging all of the letters in the guideline into different sequences might produce some alternative meanings that might be potentially useful. The guideline doesn't exclude adding the term 'in the Land of Israel' after West Bank so you might consider exploring that option too. Good luck with your resistance movement. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to rearrange any of it because it's there for anyone to read as it is. The sarcasm would be funny if it had any legs to stand on. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(ed conflict)The guideline was interpreted for two years in the same way, by both sides, until Gilabrand challenged it with an edit, and you stepped into the breach to prpvide a principle for the edit, immediately reversed, as per standard practice, which she made. I asked for evidence for established editors who over that two year period disagreed on this interpretation by pushing 'J&S'. None, zilch, nil. You have yet to show why many of us who were here when the protocol was written do not understand the clear English in which it is written, which gives you no ground for the distortive interpretation you have tried to push, that would construe a patent exception to a general rule as, in itself, disproving the rule since it turns out to be identical to the principle that excludes it except for particular instances. That is pure folly, logically. This is not an important discussion. The case is as it was. And until you can show that English means what you take it to mean, and not what several old hands who helped write it say it means (please refresh yourself with the philosophy on semantics enunciated by Humpty Dumpty), the policy will continue to be applied as it has been interpreted by both sides for over two years. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at Zionist entity and based on the sources cited on that article, it seems that "Zionist Entity" is used much more broadly in the world than "Judea and Samaria". Could we resolve this issue through this line of thought? Imagining for a while that the naming convention doesn't exist, would we feel like using "Judea and Samaria" and "Zionist Entity" as alternatives for the West Bank and Israel, respectively? I think not, so regardless of whether the convention is being read right or wrong, these expressions are hardly optimal language for the project. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Zionist Entity is only an expression. Judea and Samaria are proper names. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can wrap this noisomely repetitive argufying. It is quite pointless to pretend here that we have anything other than an ideological push towards breaking an NPOV convention in order to flood West Bank articles with Michael's settler POV. To cite one of the dozens of quotes from my files on the issue:

I blanch at the terms Yehuda and Shomron (Judea and Samaria), because of the current process of dispossession they imply, but it strikes me for the first time that the term “West Bank” is awfully neutral, doesn’t have a bit of emotional power.’ Jonathan Boyarin, Palestine and Jewish history: criticism at the borders of ethnography, University of Minnesota Press, 1996 p.69

It is a settler POV, Michael is unfamiliar with the literature, and the intense research that was involved in establishing the rule we all understand, and underwrote. Move on. We're not supposed to be using wiki for blogging, which is what Michael's arguments amount to.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh spare me please. "The literature and intense research". Really. Someone went on an honest neutral search and miraculously only found one side to the story. Academic buffoonery at its best. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There you go again, to cite President Reagan in his debates with Carter. I think at the end over 87 academic and high profile quality sources were brought to bear on this issue, which specifically 'fingered' the strong POV edge to 'J&S'. They made explicit that it was partisan settler usage. I was was there, and did that survey with Meteormaker. There's nothing buffoonish about taking one's obligation to be neutral as at times requiring exhaustive unpaid labour to see exactly what academic scholarship says, minutely, on an issue.Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of POV pushing as if you hands are clean? It's ridiculous and nobody's buying it. You are heavily involved in supporting one side of the dispute this topic area covers.

The correct way to solve this issue is to get a bunch of uninvolved editors (preferably ones who don't care about this issue) and get them to look over the naming convention. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To repeat. The issue was discussed thoroughly for several months in 2009, led to an Arbcom decision, and the protocols, which no one here has given any evidence of meaning anything other than what both sides understood them to mean. I haven't 'accused' everyone or anyone. That Michael is POV pushing is clear from the attack posts he has spattered the pages with over the last two days, which consistently ratchet up the heat on people who disagree with him by undiffed and highly emotive caricatures that cast anyone who argues against him as engaged in warfare (e.g. to cite just a few: here and here) and profile Arabs as hailing from a violent culture. The last time I saw that (by Jaacobou) it led to an ANI report. Indeed his phrasing was almost identical. Turn that phrase around to the other side, and the editor would be banned instantly, by unanimous condemnation.

This is not a policy dispute. It is a dispute about how the English language is to be construed. Michael misconstrued the Protocols. Period.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really Nish. Those diffs lie on your shoulders also because of the hostility you display and your unwillingness to be collaborative. Wikipedia is not a clique for like-minded editors to overpower it and push their beliefs on the way you and others are doing. I've not ever suggested that someone shouldn't be heard here or that a point of view is deemed forbidden. The way you vilify settlers and your intolerance for Israel's position make my responses over the last few days seem mild by comparison. I'm one of the nicest people you'll know when treated fairly. But when this lop-sided non-existent consensus you spearhead becomes so blatantly prejudiced and intolerant in a project that demands consideration and cooperation, then it must be addressed for what it is in order to end it. You have spilled so much contempt on me that I haven't responded to in kind, that I think you should feel fortunate and maybe even try to learn something from it. Btw, thanks for posting the diffs. The first and third are some of my best, but the link to the second one isn't working for me. If you can please check it, I'd hate to miss something else good that I might have said. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Come now. 'hostility', 'unwillingness to be collaborative', 'clique overpowering wikipedia', 'vilify settlers', 'intolerance for Israel's position' (!!!!!!!!!!!), 'blatantly prejudiced', 'intolerant', 'spilled so much contempt on me'.

Could I remind you that I am (a) describing the idea you are pushing, not you (b) that you appear to believe that 'collaboration' means that if anyone pushes a rule-distorting interpretation of policy, one must find a compromise. That is not collaboration, that is failure to ensure that fundamental editorial principles, whose clarity is not seriously disputed, are preserved. I'm not part of a clique. You do not see me charging round to follow Nableezy, or he me. Hoyland, or Zero's views are not known to me, nor JGG's. I know that if they disagree with me, as has occurred not infrequently, I am obliged to seriously review, and probably alter my thinking on a specific issue, they are that fair, scrupulous in examining sources and just in calling NPOV. On this, they haven't.Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And about my deserving to be blocked. If you can manage that a little more quickly then maybe I can finally have a well deserved rest from you scoundrels. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So you have a problem with uninvolved editors having a look?

By the way, could you try to indent properly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means get me someone who hasn't read the news for the past half century, preferably someone who can construe sentences properly.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And it would help in the meantime if someone could clarify why Daniel Boyarin's brother Jonathan, the Leonard and Tobee Kaplan Distinguished Professor of Modern Jewish Thought at the University of North Carolina, got so profoundly unfocused as to state what Michael dismisses as nonsense, in the quote above. He is, unlike us, drfinitely RS, and happens to sum up why the Naming Convention we have applied for two years reads as it does.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that JS represents the settler perspective. It might be part of a process of dispossession but that process has an objective reality as an administrative unit of an occupying power. Do we reject this name because it is part of the settler state or because it represents the settler ideology? The words in the name should make no difference however objectionable we might find them. How Would we have dealt with this if it were named "District B", "District XII" or the "Yassir Arafat Memorial District"? They should all be the same for our purposes. I still support exclusion but I don't think exclusion is required. Actually I think inclusion may be more like the Wikipedia norm. The real issue here is WP:WESTBANK and consensus, etc. That's why I still don't support inclusion. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The protocols establish a default term, West Bank. They allow 'J&S' in limited circumstances. Michael has argued in a way that strongly suggests there is no limit on its use. If Alon Shvut(for which there is no exceptional status as a settlement), then it follows, in sheer logic, that the gloss may accompany all introductory statements about settlements in the West Bank. Of the appropriate nuance in Israeli usage, Boyarin and Lustick assure us: the term does have a distinctive settler semantic tilt that implies appropriation, namely that (Eretz Israel is unalienable). We cannot have two Israeli terms and one international term. We have the regional council under whose jurisdiction any legal settlement falls. We would have, were Michael correct, thus 3 Israeli terms defining settlements to 'balance' the neutral default term, West Bank. I fail to see why there can be equivocation on this. If one is exasperated at times, it is because agreements that work to make life liveable in the I/P area are, out of the blue, suddenly challenged with noisome tenacity, and, only one side seems to do this regularly. There are no Palestinians here beating a woeful drum about their own POV, and the few editors who, for whatever motives, political, psychological or encyclopedic, have wasted quite a few years to make sure at least they get the dignity of whispered representation should not be called 'intolerant' or an unhinged 'clique' of crusading POV fanatics. One doesn't break gentlemen's agreements like that.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There are really two issues. One is the handcuff of WP:WESTBANK. I think there's an unresolvable difference of opinion there and that's why we need some sort of mechanism to manage that split. I don't think there's anything wrong with the disagreement. Reasonable intelligent people will disagree now and then but a reasonable intelligent system should be able to cope with that. The second issue is what would be the appropriate thing in the absence of our specific restrictions. It might be that WESTBANK prevents us from even asking what is otherwise appropriate which is kind of a shame but understandable given the problems I/P has had. The Israeli settlement system might be a disgusting colonial enterprise but it does exist and we have a duty to describe it. Wikipedians have a fetish for describign hierarchical administrative units and they are almost always well-described in the leads. For example "Paradise is an unincorporated town in the Las Vegas metropolitan area in Clark County, Nevada, United States" or "Fort McMurray is an urban service area in the Regional Municipality (R.M.) of Wood Buffalo in Alberta, Canada". In the case of Alon Shvut, it is a hamlet (as we'd call it Ontario) within a municipal corporation, Gush Etzion (GE bloc and GE regional council should probably be merged), within a regional division, JS. I think it is reasonable to assume that a reader looking at an article about a unit of the Israeli settler state might want to know about how that settler state is structured. I don't think we should just say to them, X is a part of a colonial structure but you don't need to know about it because it's repulsive. I think we need to describe our horrible planet in all its horrible detail.

Of course I understand that I'm only speaking of JS as the administrative unit and I realize that the proponents of the term initially wanted it used as a historical or geographic term. So I might be making the case they should have to begin with but didn't because they don't care about the same things I do. So I understand why we are where we are. Everything I said in that last paragraph is just academic if WP:WESTBANK means anything as everyone seems to agree it does.

Personally I think you and Michael should just find some acceptable third party, make your cases and ask them what a reasonable interpretation of WP:WESTBANK would be. It might not be binding in a legal sense but if you are both gentlemen enough to agree to that, it would satisfy consensus so long as the rest of us agree. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alon Shvut (Hebrew: אַלּוֹן שְׁבוּת‎‎) is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank. . .It is administered by the Gush Etzion Regional Council.

For your parallels, that is very specific. The hamlet is named, three geographic markers are given, and its administrative body named.

If you think that Michael's suggestion is negotiable, i.e., that we add Judea and Samaria Area to gloss West Bank, you have changed your opinion and now side with Michael, which is perfectly fair and legitimate, since this is an argument where the weight of a drift of ideas can lead to readjustments. However there is, beyond the question of the interpretation of policy, a purely logical objection to which no one has replied. I've raised it now a dozen times, and silence is all I get. To repeat.

Michael is saying that where, describing settlements, the policy's stipulated default term West Bank is used, the nomenclature of Judea and Samaria Area may accompany it. This effectively means, contra the clear and unambiguous words in policy ('is to be used'), that there is no default term, since Judea and Samaria Area would serve as the default parity POV gloss on West Bank. To me, that is an impossible hurdle.

It would mean no one had the foggiest idea of what they agreed to when the Protocol was written (this happens to be Michael's stated view). It would mean, Michael's search for a 'compromise' is no such thing, since were his interlocutors to accept mediation, they would be endorsing, not a 'compromise', but the restoration of the status quo ante, with the difference that Judea and Samaria Area gets official consensual sanction as a default sister term for all uses of West Bank.

That is not a 'compromise', it is the 'subversive' reversal of the previous policy, consensually obtained, which explicitly names 'West Bank' as the neutral default term, to be preferred over the POV term. Michael is not seeking a compromise over some ostensible hermeneutic ambiguity: he is seeking to overturn the decision made in 2009, which we all (including experienced POV editors on the Israeli side), underwrote, implicitly or explicitly, as is shown by the way everyone from 2009 to October 2011, refrained from doing edits of the kind Gilabrand and Michael are now attempting to do. Everyone, as the editing history in the I/P area suggests, understood that there could be no such parity between the neutral term and the settler POV term in terms of policy guidelines. Policy privileges West Bank: Michael's suggestion seeks parity between it, and the settler POV term. If parity, then WP:NPOV is voided of meaning, since the terms. one neutral and the other partisan, become interchangeable.

One can't compromise on that, for it sticks a bodkin into one of the pillars of the encyclopdia by confusing POV and NPOV. To do so would mean that no one on either side understood the policy, while they unanimously behaved as though they did perceive that policy's implications in the way they did, and which Michael alone argues was a misprision. Michael is a settler, and he has argued valiantly and doggedly for the overthrow of the 2009 agreement, but frankly, while I've tried to be patient, my deepest feeling is that this proposal is logically insane, and a POV subterfuge, in terms of the policy we agreed to. Not to speak of an egregious example of WP:COI, since Michael resides in the area he wishes to define in wikipedia by the partisan terminology settlers prefer. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting when you look at what we say and what we don't say in settlement/outpost articles when it comes to named spatial objects. For example, Alon Shvut is also in the PNA's Bethlehem Governorate. Everything in the West Bank is inside a PNA governorate. Peace Now include both the Palestinian governorate and the Israeli local council names in their settlement list. We don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I've always privately thought a huge war could break out if people starting to jump on these anomalies in order to further complicate things all round. Fortunately we all keep mum.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've stressed in every post that I agree with your interpretation of WP:WESTBANK; the problem we have here is that Michael et al. disagrees with that. My initial intervention here was to argue that we're at an impasse. You aren't going to convince the other of the merits of your edit or the interpretation of WESTBANK. That's why I think you need to move on and find some appropriate dispute resolution. If the standard ones aren't working, find another. That's what reasonable people do in the real world. That's the meaning I was trying to convey when I said "Jesus Christ". I haven't changed my mind. I still feel that we have the editorial discretion to write good articles. I think it is a shame that we all must bear that our poor editing has created protocols which limit that discretion. If the dialogue here was only about the WESTBANK constrictions I wouldn't have said anything. But the editors here have decided to attack the other side's opinions even though they would only matter in the absence of the protocols. When that happens, I'm always happy to be the devil's advocate. I think that's a very important function in Wikipedia. That's what I most like about "editing" and why I talk and rarely touch the articles. I think it is interesting to question my own perspective and consider how to construct NPOV articles.

The problem I have with the (absolute) exclusion is simple. The notion that the settlement is within a district in its administrative order has objective realtiy. It is an elementary fact that is always included in Wikipedia articles. The norm is to include it in the lead, almost always within the first sentence. This isn't my personal preference but it is, as I said above, a fetish of Wikipedians just like the inclusion of post-nominal titles. It is a useful bit of information for the readers to know. Someone reading about a place might like to know what district that place is in. Personally I don't think it is the most important fact; there are more important things about Taylor, British Columbia than its place in the Peace River Regional District but I'm sure I'd be overruled if I brought it up there. I wouldn't have it in the lead but it belongs at least in the body of the article.

Our case is of course somewhat unique. Perhaps it is more unique even than all of the other disputed orders in the world such as Kurilsk, Trikomo, Cyprus and Rizokarpaso or McMurdo which I mentioned above. We have both a "legal" order, the Palestinian one and a competing de facto order, the Israeli settler one. One perspective (or POV) might be to privilege one bit of information over the other. That makes sense as there is a tension between them. But what we've done is to remove relevant, useful information. Rather than contextualize nuanced information for the reader, the real NPOV option in my opinon, we've hidden it from them. This is the fundamental problem of I/P. In the rest of Wikipedia editors ask "is this information useful for the reader?" In I/P editors ask "what will the reader think if he sees this information?"

As I've said, I think WP:WESTBANK limits our freedom to edit. My reading of WESTBANK and my understanding of the jurisprudence surrounding it is, as far as I can tell, the same as yours. As I've also said, the restrictions might even be for the best given all the BS that's gone on around here. But I think it is pretty sad that we have to exclude what is otherwise elementrary information that Wikipedians at-large feel is the basis for every other article about a place on the planet. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd much prefer adding content to articles than to engaging in absolutely silly attempts to get POV leverage into them. At Alon Shvut I think the record shows that once Michael's challenge to the interpretation was frozen, good headway was made. I just don't see why, given the riven nature of the I/P area, old arguments should be resurrected when a fair resolution was achieved. No one is hurt by WP:WESTBANK's restrictions, which are sensible accommodations to a fraught discourse. I mean the Palestinian POV is not there (that all settlements constitute sheer theft). You don't see anyone here trying to thrust that in, do you, though it ain't hard to find numerous sources of Palestinian voices using that language? I expect those who are in favour of settlements to show some restraint as well, and not exhibit the features that Aharon Klieman listed in his essay “Israeli Negotiating Culture” some years ago (It's cited in Yoram Peri's Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy, US Institute of Peace Press, 2006 p.238). I'm not a policy wonk, hate that stuff. I find working here a strain on commonsense. But since a gentleman's agreement was made for once which lowered conflict, I think commonsense requires us to honour it and for editors to stick to it. I never took what I saw as a change of mind as anything other than what it is, a genuine attempt to strike a middle ground between two parties. But if one keeps shifting the goalposts from the centre, the middle ground ends up in the bleachers, along with the umpire. As to 'elementary information', given my quote from Boyarin, that is decidedly no where near the neutrality that we demand of information, as factual data shorn of a heavily POV-weighted appropriative rhetoric. It is the tendentiousness one seeks to keep out, not any relevant 'information'. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems pointless to try to speak sensibly to Nishidani. He made no response to JGGs comments about inclusion of administrative districts. It's been his style from the beginning. Nothing said is considered or weighed by him. In all his responses, he only stresses his political views. Filibustering these discussions with endless derision of one side and distorting issues with irrelevant tangential sources, while not being attentive to what people are saying, is not a good way to resolve anything. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

'Derision'? That was lacking from my list of friendly terms you reguarly employ. I'll add it. Thanks for that further courtesy and restraint. JGG's ref to administrative districts uses analogies to areas that almost never bear comparison to the situation of a country under belligerent occupation and settlement from the outside. I thought the objection obvious. I did however answer that earlier, and you appear not to have read my reply. What JGG said of inclusion of administrative districts (J&S), I have said several times, would translate as glossing all settlements as in the J&S administrative district, which means, where WESTBANK, there J&S, a subversion of the protocol.

Indeed JGG allows that there is some dyscrasia here. I would remind you that you do not answer issues I and others have raised, so my oversight is not idiosyncratic. You even fail to note that JGG does say that those who read WP:WESTBANK differently from you are correct in their interpretation of the policy. In nuce, that translates as 'you misread the protocol'. I.e. we have wasted a month because you didn't adopt the obvious diplomatic strategy of simply asking that the policy be changed, or the decision overturned. Instead you argued that no one could read English. Bad move.Nishidani (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution above. I forget to remind you all that there IS WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, a safer place for narrow issue conflist that WP:ARBPIA since far less likely to have both parties blocked. There is a very structured reporting system and at least a mediator of sorts where the more cooperative editors can try to work together. We should try to get in that habit of going there. CarolMooreDC 17:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the source Nishidani cites above says that "Judea and Samaria" implies a "process of dispossession". "Zionist Entity" is used to denounce the Israeli state, as argued by Virginia Tilley: "The 'Zionist entity' later denounced in Arab rhetoric was the Jewish state, not the Jewish presence." So these two expressions are both used to push a certain agenda quite intentionally and we have good reason to treat them similarly (although in some outcomes adopting ZE and not adopting J&S might make sense as ZE is much more broadly used). For the record, I still oppose using either any more broadly than they are used now. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Late as usual, but for the record, I too fully support WP:WESTBANK, and the resulting consensus version at the subject article. Whatever its foibles, it should be supported; it will be tested as there, with nibbling at it, but that is Wikipedia and its editors. My strongest support however, is for the better administrative oversight and sanctions that have been utilized since that fateful WP:ARBPIA2 decision. While late to that one also, I have been considerably impressed by the more pleasant and structured editing environment generally, since that decision and its consequences were birthed. Though severe and with losses for both sides, it re-set the rules of engagement to where they long should have been, and greatly reduced the rampant flouting of them. One earlier experience with rehabbed results was positive and reassuring and now there are two. Good to see you here Nishidani, and welcome back.
I do find however, that it is quite difficult to find a good quality, detailed and well-cited article concerning the history and motivations behind those who consider overly JS'ing the WB to be the neutral/normal scheme of acceptable description. This seems true from both the I/P sides as well as from distinctly Jewish/Christian/Muslim ones. Does anyone have a good suggestion as to where this might be found currently on Wikipedia? While I still occasionally follow such threads within and beyond Wikipedia, they too often culminate with a redlink here, indicating a lack of any content whatsoever, neutral or otherwise. That seems sorta unencyclopedic. Has anyone else encountered such holes? Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a detailed essay which I've kept on my talk page, to explain the reasoning behind my, and several other editors', position in preparation for the ARBPIA2 decision. It is too dense to be very helpful, but does synthesize what several dozen sources we discovered say on the loaded political usage of 'J&S'. Anyone who thinks it might be harvested to make a wiki article is welcome to use material there. Thanks, and cheers.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

i started to make some changes in wiki world and biosketch suggested that we just say jerusalem unless the sources make a big deal over which part of jerusalem it is in. now, how did all this start? because ngo monitor is listed as jerusalem, israel. which, it is. no big deal, and that is what the sources say. but, it has to apply to all, no? some sort of rule: a) if it is not a big deal, then jerusalem or jerusalem, israel (see sean's comments above); b) if it is a big deal, then maybe both's suggestion of "the israeli non-profit 'x' is based in jerusalem"; and c) if it is a really big deal, then we go to western/eastern part of jerusalem? Soosim (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a rule based on the need to make a judgement in each case as to whether the convention is a big deal will just involve kicking the can of contention down the road and will provide scope for rehashing the same arguments in each case, rather than providing a standard that can be applied straightforwardly. If we can find an approach that is not at all contentious (in at least a limited set of cases) I don't see the point of preserving the contentious phrasing for some cases when an alternative is available. With regard to your point c), it's going to be useful to draw up a list of cases when the East/West distinction might need to be applied - do you have any suggestions for examples to be discussed?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, I think that in the "not big deal" cases, we should say just "Jerusalem" to avoid precisely the problem we're discussing on this thread. If it's an involved issue concerning the city in particular, then we should present the issue as it is in high-quality sources, namely as a point in dispute or then dance around the dispute by saying "organized by Israel in Jerusalem" or similar language. --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We aren't at templates or categories yet, Sean. Stop biting off more than the community is willing to chew. Baby steps and keeping a conversation about prose on prose. The proposal is great if we are just talking about the leads of articles. Note: At face value but the proposer still should give us some examples of how to handle more Palestinian based topics or else those calling for his head as a sock will not be silenced.Cptnono (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "We aren't at templates or categories yet, Sean". My comment "excluding talk/templates/cats etc" above just meant that in my search I excluded those items (and others like images) from the search so that the results were just for article bodies and infoboxes. Actually I thought this discussion was mainly about infoboxes so perhaps some clarification of the scope is necessary. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don;t understand what you need clarification on. We were all talking about sentences in the lead and you brought up templates and cats. I am trying to get you back on track.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not quite right. The only person who limited it to leads is you when you made the statement "The proposal is great if we are just talking about the leads of articles". Search for lead. BHB said "This obviously still leaves quite a few situations unresolved, such as locations with no organisational affiliation, lists that have separate country and nation columns, infoboxes, and categories but might move us forward an increment." and this whole thing started over at the NGO Monitor article, see Talk:NGO_Monitor#Rollback.2FJerusalem_in_Israel, this edit and this edit. So, the scope needs clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion from other editors as anything else then the leads in articles (or maybe even prose later down even though that is not the primary concern) then I don't know what to tell you. Does anyone else object to us trying to fix the lead of articles or should we continue bickering over what the conversation is about?Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the absence of information as the absence of information. It's one of my contractural obligations. There is a lack of clarity over the scope so I will spell it out starting with limiting it to the article body=lead+body+infobox for instances of both Jerusalem (and East Jerusalem for completeness). That matches the scope that is necessary to resolve the situation at the NGO Monitor article which started all this and many, perhaps all, other instances. Any objections to that scope from anyone ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

totally agree that this discussion should cover infobox, body and lead. was pretty sure that this is what this was all about. now a question, certainly applying to infoboxes: in what country is ngo monitor located? in what city? so, maybe to avoid those who don't like "jerusalem, israel", why not add a line to the infobox city = and country = ? Soosim (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly meant to include both the main body and the lead (I can't see any reason why an approach that is appropriate for one is not appropriate for the other). Infoboxes are something that I would like to include in principle but that the phrasing I have suggested is not going to be applicable for because of their structure. So, some different solution is going to be required there, although I'm sure we can find some way of breaking up the problematic logic. Would it be possible to add a 'nationality' line for the organisation, thus not placing the physical location in a country whilst still allowing the national affiliation of the organisation to be described?

I'm afraid I am going to have to recuse myself from this discussion for the time being due to claims being made that I am a sock-puppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer#User:BothHandsBlack). Cptnono has noted above how these claims are affecting the flow of discussion and I am not willing to frame my contributions in such a way as is apparently required to silence these accusations. I will return to the discussion once I have, at minimum, received statements from the relevant editors that they will assume good faith in my editing and will cease making definitive claims about me being a puppet in the absence of any supporting evidence. Hopefully, I should be able to rejoin this discussion, and start editing in the IP area as a whole again, in fairly short order. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Soosim in that this discussion relates to material in articles overall, not just leads. --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

this was one of the best things I have ever seen in this topic area. We had the chance to actually fix the prose. And now we are not going to. Nice work. Let us continue to bicker and fix nothing at all. Nice work guys. Feel bad.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we don't have a consensus now? Because as far as I can tell we seem to be more or less in agreement. --Dailycare (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that I like the suggestion that specified how to handle prose. I am wary since another editor brought up how it would impact other aspects of the project. I am also concerned that the proposal has yet to have clarification on how it would impact articles that do not already mention Israel. If we are going to talk about that one clear proposal suggested (as opposed to people BSing without doing anything) then I am going to say: I agree with the example provided that ignored states and focused on the city. I disagree with the proposal but I agree with the examples. But it is too late since this conversation isn't going anywhere. So I am now only supporting "Jerusalem FULL STOP." If you want to mention a state you can do it in the linked article. Numerous articles should not be held hostage by politics. Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my point, namely that we seem to have consensus on "Jerusalem." Of course, we can't, and shouldn't, decide that the controversies concerning Jerusalem wouldn't ever be mentioned anywhere. They can be, for example in Jerusalem. The categories, I think, are a different aspect that can be discussed separately. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No articles are being held hostage by this process. Until it has been completed there are no dependencies between article content and this discussion. This process was started because of a specific case, NGO Monitor, but resolving that case doesn't depend on this process unless the editors at that article want it to (which seems to be the case). Editors can do whatever they think works over there in the meantime if they want and this process is not stopping anyone from making changes to other articles or leaving things as they are now. I will still be changing things that I think are inappropriate if I see them such as saying that places across the green line in East Jerusalem are in Israel by removing the country. The discussion started because of BHB taking action after this short discussion. The process is incomplete and there's no rush. The outcome may have an impact on many articles and it may be controversial so there should probably be as broad an input as possible and people can go slowly. BHB asked for time to address the SP accusations. There's plenty of time. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Having taken some advice I have decided to just ignore the accusations made against me. I shall be like a helium filled duck, rising above the tempest as the water rolls off my back. However, I certainly won't be making edits in order to placate those calling me a puppet. I have also come to the conclusion that my concerns about this discussion were unfounded: if people don't want to join in for whatever reason, including because of their feelings about me, that is still no obstacle to achieiving consensus (silence not being an argument). So, if no one has any objections, we can pick up where we left off (and thanks for waiting for me!) I have responded on the issue of scope above but, in short, whilst I think we should aim to get as many things sorted out as possible, the phrasing in the current proposal can't really be applied to infoboxes (as they don't accommodate such phrases) although I think the logic can be. What I would suggest is that we first get agreement on the preferred phrasing to use in the article (both body and lead) and then seek to replicate the logical dissociation in the infobox format. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there hasn't been much in the way of opposition lately to the proposal of saying "Jerusalem", or "Israeli organization/event/XYZ in Jerusalem" in the cases that's appropriate. For infoboxes the first one is compact. --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There don't seem to be many objections but we may as well wait until my SPI is finished before moving on as some people may choose to voice opinions at that point. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

i think any reference to anything that is in west jerusalem should be jerusalem, israel. that is the world consensus. i understand that applying 'israel' to east jerusalem might be problematic, and therefore, i can agree to the 'israeli organization xyz is in jerusalem' format for those. there is no reason to whitewash the name of israel off of the west jerusalem places. Soosim (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I personally agree that there is at least a soft consensus throughout the world that west Jerusalem is in Israel, the problem is that the formula 'Jerusalem, Israel' refers to all of Jerusalem and implies that the whole city is in Israel, even if its use is restricted to places in west Jerusalem. That claim is obviously highly controversial and there does not seem to be much hope of getting consensus for a formulation that describes an unqualified Jerusalem is being in Israel. I don't think that my proposal whitewashes Israel off the West Jerusalem locations; it just seeks to avoid the whole question for those cases when it is not really necessary to make a statement on the issue one way or another. I suggested previously that 'west Jerusalem, Israel' might be another possible approach but that didn't seem to get much traction from either side.BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't overlook the sources discussed earlier in this thread that state that at least the EU, the US and the UK don't consider West Jerusalem is being in Israel, and that the view that it isn't is one of the primary opinions in the matter worldwide. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Israeli cities in West Bank, Seeking reversal of prior consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion is no consensus.

I am acting on an old request on WP:AN that an administrator close this discussion. The question presented is whether the lead of all articles about Israeli settlements should contain the sentence: "The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this."

In assessing consensus, I am first factoring out the opinions that do not address (at least in passing or by reference) the merits of the sentence or its systematic inclusion, but instead focus on other issues such as the significance of the previous discussion(s), or which make no readily understandable argument. This concerns five opinions against, and three in favor of systematic inclusion of the sentence.

Among the remaining opinions, about 20 are against systematically including the said sentence, while about 16 are in favor of it. I must now consider whether Wikipedia policies or guidelines clearly mandate one outcome or the other, or whether they clearly invalidate or support certain arguments. I find that this is not the case. Insofar as generalizations are possible about this discussion, whose signal-to-noise ratio is rather low, the people who oppose inclusion of the sentence argue that it is incorrect or not neutral, and/or that it is not appropriate to recycle the same boilerplate text in the lead of many articles. The other editors take the opposite view. On the whole, both sets of arguments (but not necessarily the way in which some contributors have chosen to express them ...) appear defensible in good faith in the light of our core policies, and they invoke principles that require the application of editorial judgment, which means I have no basis on which to give determining weight to one or the other set of arguments.

On these grounds, I conclude that there is no consensus about whether this sentence should be systematically included in all articles (or systematically removed from any articles in which it may be present). My interpretation of this outcome is that it allows a case-by-case discussion as to how or whether the matter that is the subject of the sentence should be addressed in each article. If that does not lead to a satisfactory conclusion (as I can well imagine), my guess is that that a more well-structured and -advertised RfC could obtain input from a broader range of editors, instead of (as here) being limited mainly to editors who have a long involvement in the disagreements surrounding our coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such a RfC might be able to come to a clearer or more nuanced conclusion.  Sandstein  18:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Currently, every single article that covers an Israeli town or city in the West Bank has the following boilerplate language stuffed into the Lead, "The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." The basis for inserting this boilerplate language is this so called consensus. The now “semi retired” admin who forced this consensus disregarded the views of more than half of the editors who opposed having such boilerplate language stuffed into the lead. The following nine editors voiced objection to insertion of such boilerplate language into the Lead; Accipio Mitis Frux, Cptnono, Shuki, JiujitsugiyMbz1, Brewcrewer, Jaakobou, No More Mr Nice Guy, Wikifan12345. Numbers should most certainly be a paramount factor when evaluating consensus. However, this factor was all but disregarded by the imposing admin.

My concern also centers on compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. The boilerplate language violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because the source doesn't refer to the topic of the article, which is about a city or town, not about the settlements in general. It also violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE because this type of language is generally not found in publications about specific Israeli cities and especially not in the Lead. Such an edit would be permissible for the general subject of Israeli settlement but not appropriate for articles dealing with the specific towns and cities themselves. It violates fundamental policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

A secondary concern is one of accuracy. The current version makes it seem as though the entire international community views settlements as illegal and that Israel is the lone holdout. Prior US presidents have in fact adopted a positions that are more consistent with Israel’s. On Feb 2, 1981 President Ronald Reagan made the following statement regarding Israel’s settlements, "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there—I disagreed when, the previous Administration refereed to them as illegal, they’re not illegal. Not under the U.N. resolution that leaves the West Bank open to all people—Arab and Israeli alike, Christian alike." Ronald Reagan, 2 Feb 1981[16] Reagan’s position was reinforced by W. Bush who stated, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion." W. Bush, 14 April 2004[17]

Moreover, the current version is misleading because it does not take into account the views of notable Western scholars who have voiced legal opinions asserting that settlements are not illegal under international law. Among these are Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice[18] Eugene V. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School and former US Assistant Secretary of State[19] David M. Phillips, professor at Northeastern University School of Law and Fulbright Scholar[20] Nicholas Rostow, university counsel and vice chancellor for legal affairs of the State University of New York[21] Professor Julius Stone, international lawyer and author of 27 books on the subject[22] and Ambassador Morris Berthold Abram, US staff member at the Nuremberg Trials and drafter of the Fourth Geneva Convention[23]

Accordingly and for the reasons noted above, I wish to revisit this issue with the goal of reversing the so-called prior consensus and removing this boilerplate language entirely from the Lead of articles dealing exclusively with specific Israeli towns or cities within the West Bank.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS. You practically copied and pasted your argument from a year and half ago [24]. Are you trying to force everyone to give the same response here again? -asad (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You clearly overlooked the argument concerning policy which had not been previously noted. Moreover, ideas and opinions change and I have the right to present this view at IPCOLLAB without being attacked by you. The so-called previous "consensus" is not something that is set in stone and is subject to reversal. I incorporated my previous arguments and added new ones. I have every right to discuss these views at IPCOLLAB. This is what these boards are designed for. To start discussion and formulate consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the manner in which consensus was achieved, I would take it to the noticeboard or some place. IPCOLLAB is clearly not the right avenue. As the other part, most of what you have written are rehashed points that have already been refuted when you brought the same thing up last year. Maybe you could start by answering that, and stop applying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -asad (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you completely overlooked my arguments concerning policy which were not contained in the previous proposal. Second, I note that one of the editors who opposed me in the previous discussion is a community banned editor. Banned for sock puppetry among other bad acts. His skewed opinions may have influenced others against the proposal. Third, I am no longer seeking to revise the language but have it omitted entirely from the Lead. And fourth, I was not able to fully participate in the previous discussion that I initiated because an account brought an AE action against me on or about the same time. In essence, I was locked out of my own debate and was not given an opportunity to fully develop my arguments--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You are 100% wrong when you say that "Numbers should most certainly be a paramount factor when evaluating consensus." Consensus is based on the strength of arguments, not the number of people who can be mustered to support them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And in any case, by my count, the following eleven editors agreed to this, or a similar form of words, being added to the lead of relevant articles: CarolMooreDC, Carwil, George, Harlan wilkerson, LessHeard vanU, Nableezy, RolandR, Sean hoyland, Sm8900, Sol Goldstone, Supreme Deliciousness. It's interesting that Jjg did not link to the discussion which led to this consensus[25]; but reviewing it, I can find no evidence that at least four of the nine dissenting editors he notes above stated a view or contributed to the discussion. RolandR (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sol Goldstone was community banned for socking among other things. Take him out of the picture. LHvU was the syop who imposed the boilerplate language. take him out of the picture. I'm still reviewing the others but it appears that I left out AgadaUrbanit who also objected to the language. Thanks for pointing that out Roland. Much appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sol Goldstones main account was not a sock. He used another account to make a post at someone elses talkpage, he never used it editing any article. So there is no reason to take him out of the picture, and there is no reason to take the admin LHvU out of the picture either. Shuki on the other hand was blocked for socking, editing articles within the topic area. But you haven't mentioned him. It seems you only want to remove people out of the picture who doesn't follow your pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, we should also remove Accipio Mitis Frux, Jaakobou, Mbz1 and Wikifan12345, who do not seem to have taken part inb the discussion, and whom you have mistakenly included as dissenting. So, by my count, this is still eleven editors agreeing and six disagreeing, even if we disregard the weight of the arguments. RolandR (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that Sm8900 voted in favor? Because in the dizzying mound of wall-to-wall text that that long-winded discussion generated, I found this

Comment from Jiujitsuguy: No it doesn't sound perfect. It's actually pure bullshit. The United States and Japan take no stance on the settlements legality per the NYT[24] Moreover, Poland and The Czech Republic have also not taken a position vis a vis the settlement issue either. To say that the international community views the settlements as "illegal" is contrary to fact and sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If this were a product of editors counting up the positions of various countries and then deciding there's enough of them to justify the wording then I'd agree with it being bullshit. It's not. It's well-sourced. If you want to tweak the wording to "widely accepted by the international community as illegal" or something along those lines we can talk about that. What does "the international community" mean to the editors of the BBC? No idea, but that's what they say. Sol (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I crossed this out

Comment from Sm8900: Jiujitsuguy is right. you can't impose opinions on countries which they haven't expressed, just because they belong to the EU or to other groups.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In the discussion following the proposal by ElComandanteChe (who should be added as another supporter of the text being added), he wrote "Perfect. I agree with this suggestion, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 7:38 pm, 27 October 2010, Wednesday (1 year, 6 months, 27 days ago) (UTC+1)" RolandR (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not again. The status of the settlements is pretty clear and has been reasserted by umpteen international organsiations on multiple occasions. However much the advocates of a Greater Israel may dislike it, any claim that they are not illegal is a violation of WP:FRINGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@Roland: Moreover, the discussion was not centralized. Some weren't even aware it was taking place and had voiced their opinions at the article Talk pages like this from Accipio Mitis Frux. And Jaakobou had expressed his opinion on the matter quite forcefully here at an AE.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to include as disagreeing with this consensus people who didn't even take part in the discussion, then I could find dozens who agree with it but didn't take part. But this is irrelevant, and you are now confusing issues. Is your argument that consensus was not really reached at the time and the closing admin's decision shoiuld be overturned, or that the situation has changed, and therefore a new consensus should be sought? If the former, then you would need to find much stronger arguments for challenging a decision which has not been disputed since it was agreed eighteen months ago. If the latter, then you need to bring some strong policy-based arguments for not including this statement in relevant articles. The assertion that some localities are cities, not settlements, is not a convincing argument. RolandR (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

My main argument and the thrust of it centers on compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. The boilerplate language violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because the source doesn't refer to the topic of the article, which is about a city or town, not about the settlements in general. It also violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE because this type of language is generally not found in publications about specific Israeli cities and especially not in the Lead. Such an edit would be permissible for the general subject of Israeli settlement but not appropriate for articles dealing with the specific towns and cities themselves. It violates fundamental policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose — In my opinion this objection goes to the heart of the purpose of IPCOLL. Intentionally or not, accepting the idea that this material is a violation of WP:SYNTH opens the door to tendentious wikilawyering on each article in a way that only serves to confuse the readers of the articles and waste all editors' time.

A thought experiment: Let's suppose for a second, though, that we ought to find a specific source referencing each settlement and international legality to introduce this material. There are several ways of doing this:

• Given that multiple international news sources use boilerplate language on legality in any issue on settlements, we find one such article.
• We look up the date the settlement was founded and see if there was a UN resolution passed that year criticizing the legality of "new settlement construction" and cite the resolution or a news article about it.
• We find a comprehensive report on settlement legality, by say Amnesty International, that mentions the settlement in question.

Having done this, we now have one or another reference relating settlement X to the question of international legality. Some editor then summarizes it as best they can. At this point whoever disagrees with their particular phrasing begins the entire argument we had here on IPCOLL. Ultimately, a NPOV phrasing is worked out, which likely doesn't differ from the version bindingly approved here. end thought experiment

Okay, so is anything gained by this? I agree we are best served by an exhaustive attempt to make the statement as NPOV as possible. However, we are best served by having it once. If you want to debate the merits of the sentence itself, fine, this is the place.

But if you want to debate the merits of any boilerplate text, the merits are these: avoiding scores of contentious, conflictual arguments about the same issue taking place on multiple articles, spinning off AE incidents and wasting editors' time. If IPCOLL can't step forward to do this, what in the world is it for?--Carwil (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Japan: Bronner's article in NYTimes was in all likelihood factually inaccurate. This was reported rapidly by MondoWeiss just after the article was written: "I checked with the Japanese Embassy, which proceeded to check with the Japanese government. It got back to me a few minutes later [on Friday afternoon]: Of course it's a lie: the Japanese government considers the settlements illegal." (Confusingly, a professor calling an Embassy loses to the NYT in the world of WP:RS, but the truth remains.) To reconfirm the Japanese position, see this 2011 vote affirming "Affirming that the Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law and constitute very serious violations of the international humanitarian law and of the human rights of the Palestinian people therein." Let's keep Japan's falsely alleged "dissent" from international consensus out of this discussion.--Carwil (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another thought experiment. Let's say we have boilerplate text that's put in certain articles that says that the international community considers settlements illegal but that Israel disputes this. Now Let's say that it turns out that not all the international community considers them illegal and that not only Israel disputes the illegality. What would you say that editors writing an encyclopedia with an NPOV policy should do? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The extreme vast majority does. "international community" can be used when its the extreme vast majority. See for example this news article:[26] Lieberman: "Leave Iran to international community" "Lieberman also addressed the Iranian issue noting that it was the challenge of the entire international community: "Iran is a challenge for the international community and not just Israel. This is why the international community must be given a chance to promote meaningful sanctions…Even if the sanctions are implemented without Russian and Chinese support; it's enough to suffocate Iran." ... Do you think he is talking about Syria, North Korea, Hamas and Hezbollah when he said: "international community" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "extreme vast majority" means, but if I'm not mistaken Lieberman is a politician, not a wikipedia editor. Like most politicians he's not restricted by NPOV or, in fact, the truth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen. Jiujitsuguy tries a year and half ago to remove this consensus sentence from Wikipedia using invalid "arguments" based on nothing:[27]. All his invalid "arguments" are dismantled. Now he is here again and just reposts almost the same invalid post one more time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

SD I again refer you to the second paragraph of my initial post. The boilerplate language violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because the source doesn't refer to the topic of the article, which is about a city or town, not about the settlements in general. It also violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE because this type of language is generally not found in publications about specific Israeli cities and certainly not in the Lead of those articles. Such an edit would be permissible for the general subject of Israeli settlement but not appropriate for articles dealing with the specific towns and cities themselves. It violates fundamental policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. There's a simple solution. If you want to discuss the legality of settlements, just place "settlements" in brackets and hyperlink to the Settlement article where the matter of the settlement's legality is discussed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence doesnt violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it is a factually accurate sentence that is backed up by RS. The articles the sentence was added in is about settlements and that is what the sentence is about. It does not violate npov as as it is backed up by numerous RS. And it does not violate WP:UNDUE as it is talking about the view of the International community in regards to the illegality of the settlements, which is extremely important information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support --there is simply no reason that a chief editor should disregard the statements of half of the editors and then state there was a consensus on an issue. That is an abuse of power, and this can not be tolerated. The language employed is simply unnecessary, inflamatory, and incorrect, as demonstrated above. --Activism1234 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You believe that when a larger group of like minded editors who edit Wikipedia according to the same pov show up to a debate, only to "vote", without bringing any real intelligent or valid arguments, their votes means something. Your believe is inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not make any assumptions about me. Beginning your response with "you believe" reeks of arrogance and authoritarianism. I believe that you have a reputation for a certain rabid PoV, so perhaps your vote means nothing too? And when people vote for their party in elections, I assume their vote means nothing too, since they have the same beliefs and PoV? Now of course, the reason for my support is purely for the reasons I listed, and I find that is a rather valid argument. Your response, however, does not appear to make much sense, but rather appears to attempt to block people from expressing their views or from voting, launches an ad hominem attack and the like (based on pure assumptions too!), and fails to address any of the points I listed. I would say that it is your response which is not too intelligent or valid. Have a good day sir/madame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said Activism1234. SupremeD, please confine your comments to the substantive issues at hand rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks against well intentioned editors. When you engage in such polemics you undermine both yourself and your argument.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Mechanical addition of a stock phrase to articles across the board to promote the agenda of a group of editors is a violation of everything that Wikipedia stands for. "Consensus" of this type is what makes a laughingstock of Wikipedia. It goes against every policy in the book, among them WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and represents everything Wikipedia is not.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion of the admin was as follows. I have bolded the relevant parts since the consensus arrived at here has been so grossly misrepresented in a number of posts above: "As regards my understanding that there is consensus for the wording noted above, I will briefly note that consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition. The genesis of the discussion was whether WP:NPOV required the noting of the question of the legality of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and I saw a very quick realisation between parties that it did; that not noting the disputed legality of a settlement even in the smallest of stub articles violated NPOV beyond any consideration of WP:UNDUE. The discussion rapidly moved to what form of words would be appropriate to be incorporated into each relevant article. My view that the wording of proposal 2 has consensus derives from the number of persons agreeing it was appropriate, the paucity of the premises of the opposition, and that the wording is fully supported by reliable sources. The proposed wording accurately reflects what the sources say is the view of the international community, and the fact Israel disputes that view. Comments upon disagreements (of degree, sometimes) within the international community, and of Israel's position that the interpretation or application of international law is flawed is irrelevant to this consensus (although it may be, properly sourced, grist for any article regarding the international communities viewpoint on the legality of Israeli settlements in occupied territory.) I am therefore of the opinion that the noted wording has consensus to be included in all relevant articles." That aside, is there a WP policy on re-opening discussions about consensus? What are the conditions required? Obviously it can't be the case that this subject can never be talked about again so what would be sufficient to justify revisiting the issue? BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@Carwil, You rely on an article written by Norman Finkelstein to refute a New York Times article. Are you seriously equating the two in terms of reliability? Oh and by the way, to my knowledge, Finkelstein is no longer a professor, having been let go by DePaul years ago. Also, you rely on a primary source for the official Japanese position. Secondary sources are preferred over primary. Moreover, how one Japanese official voted at one time in the UNHRC is not indicative of the official Japanese government position. Most importantly however, even if you say it is representative of Japan's position, you forgot to mention that the United States opposed the motion to declare settlements illegal which is exactly the point I am making - that the international community has not expressed a unanimous position and the United states opposition vote proves that. So thank you for proving my point.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, I mentioned Finkelstein/Mondoweiss's WP:RS weakness in comparison to the NYT article. It is however Bronner who relies on "one Japanese official." The UNHRC vote is in fact an official position, but if you want more evidence see this 2010 vote, this 2009 HRC vote and this 2012 UN General Assembly vote (the draft was A/C.4/66/L.15 reference to Japan's vote).

As I've stated here before, I think that the United States section on International law and Israeli settlements is relatively accurate and NPOV and consistent with the description of the sentence here on the international community's views. The description ("the international community regards…") is advanced by multiple reliable sources fully aware of the US position.

(Parenthetically: The US position before the UN since 1993 is that the United Nations should not discuss issues of the Israeli occupation and defer to the bilateral (or bilateral + Quartet) peace process. US ambassadors say as much with nearly every vote.)--Carwil (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@Carwil: Even if factually accurate (and I do not concede that) it would still be inappropriate for said boilerplate language to be in the Lead. Sine you’re fond of "thought experiments" (which I concede are useful) I’ve conceived of one that will highlight my point. We all know that Salt is a compound composed of Sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl). Let’s put that in the Lead as it is factually accurate. This is an extreme example of course but it highlights the point that factual accuracy has nothing to do with whether something belongs in the Lead. The boilerplate language belongs in the general article of "Israeli settlement" but should not be stuffed into the Lead of every single article about an Israeli town east of the Green Line. It is absurd to do so because issues of international law are at best tangential to these articles, many of which are just stubs. In any event, these articles are hyperlinked to the Israeli settlement article and that’s the best compromise between the competing views. This was nothing more than a transparent attempt to shove a particular POV in as many Israel articles as possible. Proof of that rests with the fact that the editor(s) who inserted this boilerplate language across countless articles did nothing to improve or expand article content other that stuffing boilerplate language in every conceivable corner and crevice.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement that the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal is not "a particular POV"; it is a simple statement of fact. RolandR (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsu, Israeli settlement activity has been a major issue of international contention. Most settlements are built on land expropriated by one or another military decree, most of which are contested. Many settlements were built in particular efforts related to occupying the land they are on (Niran, for instance, is part of a Jordan Valley line meant to forestall connections between Jordan and West Bank Palestinians according to mainstream geographical sources). Some settlements were built without Israeli goverment authorization, others as part of government policies. Some settlements have land that was previously public land; some have active land disputes with Palestinian landholders. So, nearly all settlement articles could and should eventually have a legal status or legal issues section. The legal status of a locality is a relevant fact to that locality, and in a narrow set of cases (the OPT, new towns in East Timor under Indonesian rule, etc.) is probably the most notable fact concerning that locality's legal status.

Now, is the phrasing awkward in its non-specificity? Yes. I've tried to advance an specified alternative before:

The international community considers Israeli settlements in the [West Bank OR Gaza Strip OR East Jerusalem], including [name of X settlement],[1] illegal under international law;[2,3] the Israeli government has consistently challenged this judgement.[3]

1. Citation describing X as illegal, or all settlements as illegal in the context of discussing X
2. "The Geneva Convention". BBC News. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
3. Wedgwood, R. (2005). "The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and the limits of self-defense". American Journal of International Law 99(1):52–61. ISSN 0002-9300.

If you want to work on improving this with me, fine.

You might want to read the first sentence of Salt, by the way.--Carwil (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. To reiterate what I think I stated already at another forum. This mandated boilerplate language is unprecedented, not found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and not found in any other encyclopedia (like Britannica). This is a major NPOV violation and it is unfathomable why Israel related geographic entities should be treated differently. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Kibbutz Niran, a small kibbutz in the Jordan Valley highlights the ridiculousness of the boilerplate language employed and its awkward insertion into dozens of articles. We’re talking about a small Kibbutz in the Jordan Valley. It’s not a discussion on international law. It’s not a discussion on legalities and the Geneva Conventions. But that language overwhelms the article and has nothing to do, in a direct way, with the Kibbutz. There may be tangential relevance but peripheral at best. There already exists in the article a hyperlink to the settlement issue. If anyone reading the article wishes to explore the issue of legality, they can directly hyperlink to the relevant article, i.e. Israeli settlement. But the manner in which this boilerplate language is used on Wikipedia is clearly tendentious and violates a slew of policies including OR, SYNTH, NPOV and most importantly UNDUE. The question is why does this language have to be inserted in every single article that deals with Israeli West Bank towns and developments when every single one of these articles already has a settlement hyperlink?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Niran is an illegal Israeli settlement according to overwhelming majority opinion. I would regard any attempt at removal of the majority opinion to be POV pushing of a fringe position. See for instance this UN committee report which lists Niran as a settlement and details the numerous UN resolutions which have affirmed their illegality concluding that, "The Israeli settlements in the occupied territories in their different forms and locations, are in violation of two major international laws of military occupation. These are the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of August 1949, and the Hague Convention on the Laws and Custoius of War and Land, signed on 18 October 1907. The applicability of these two Conventions to the occupied West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip has been repeatedly endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council.

During the last four years the General Assembly as well as the Security Council have reaffirmed the previous resolutions of the United Nations which declared the illegality of the Israeli settlements. They also asserted "that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, have no legal validity, are null and void, and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East." [28] Dlv999 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If a source discussing illegality and mentioning Niran is needed, see this report by the UN's Division of Palestinian Rights in 1984. The following text about illegality appears there:

During the last four years the General Assembly as well as the Security Council have reaffirmed the previous resolutions of the United Nations which declared the illegality of the Israeli settlements. They also asserted "that all such measures and actions taken by Israel in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, have no legal validity, are null and void, and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Niran and the extant Israeli settlements are listed in Annex I. This document from the UN resolves the alleged WP:SYNTH problem.--Carwil (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I support the language in the lead sections of these articles. If anything, we could leave out the "Israel disagrees" part. Of course Israel would disagree since the alternative would be to admit to war crimes. Arguments along the line that the language is "unprecedented" fail since nowhere is it mandated that everything we do should have a precedent. The illegality of the settlements is one of the core issues that is very frequently discussed in sources when the settlements are discussed, and presenting such information is the purpose of lead sections. --Dailycare (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't shy away from making innovative solutions to the challenges of editing the I-P topic area. In terms of precedents outside of Wikipedia, the major news organisations often have agreed neutral language to employ in all articles related to the settlements. For instance the BBC uses the same or very similar formulations in all of its coverage of settlement issues or stories pertaining to individual settlements: "The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this."[29], [30], [31]. Dlv999 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC has published an "abbreviated version of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology" which states,

Settlements are residential areas built by Israelis in the occupied territories. They are illegal under international law: this is the position of the UN Security Council and the UK government among others - although Israel rejects this. When writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that "all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this". My guess is that the story you posted is primarily about the Peace Process with the settlements being a side issue, so the boilerplate language wasn't needed. [32] Dlv999 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999 has just clearly but unwittingly pointed out the absurdity of this boilerplate language. He states the following, "My guess is that the story you posted is primarily about the Peace Process with the settlements being a side issue, so the boilerplate language wasn't needed," which is precisely my point! Articles that cover individual Israeli towns within the WB are not about the larger issues of international law and the Geneva Conventions. They are about those specific towns, their population, geography and other issues specific to their locale. These articles have nothing to do with international law the subject of which is amply covered in the Israeli settlement article. The boilerplate language was inserted only for the specific purpose of pushing a POV in articles where it plainly doesn't belong.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So the BBC doesn't use "same or very similar formulations in all of its coverage of settlement issues or stories pertaining to individual settlements". Surprise. Another pertinent point is that the BBC can put whatever it likes in its articles, while we have a little thing called NPOV that requires us to note all significant views, which one would think experts in the field of international law would qualify as in this case. More so than a newspaper, I would imagine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@JJG The idea that these are "Israeli towns" in the Palestinian Territories is a minority opinion. According to the majority opinion they are illegal Israeli settlements. Any attempt to remove the majority opinion from these articles is POV pushing of a fringe position. Dlv999 (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG The story you linked is about the Peace process and tangentially mentions Isreali settlements. What is under discussion here are articles about specific settlements. As for your comment about "experts in the field of international law". The illegality of the settlements under international law is uncontroverisal see e.g.

Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): 85–86. "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law."

Pertile, Marco (2005). "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0. "the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars."

Barak-Erez, Daphne (2006). "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press) 4 (3): 548. "The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation."

Drew, Catriona (1997). "Self-determination and population transfer". In Bowen, Stephen. Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories. International studies in human rights. 52. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 151–152. ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8. "It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation …"

International Labour Organization (2005). "The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories". p. 14. "The international community considers Israeli settlements within the occupied territories illegal and in breach of, inter alia, United Nations Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 calling on Israel "to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem"." Dlv999 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think one salient point on the BBC guideline is that it reflects the BBC's editorial policy in the matter. The NYT seems to have a similar editorial policy to say that "Much of the world" considers the settlements illegal: 1 2 3 4 5 --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support --the canned text should not be used. Gilabrand said it well, as have others who are arguing against the boilerplate. Сол-раз (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC) PS --should this be filed as a Wikipedia:Request for comment? Сол-раз (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but since, to my knowledge, the issue was first raised on this board, I decided for the sake of consistency, to keep the discussion here. But you're correct, either board would have been appropriate for the subject matter at hand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - sorry i haven't been able to comment earlier, but i have been watching. (i was too busy defending and promoting democracy over at NGO Monitor and Mikis Theodorakis). anyway, no need to rehash all the same arguements in favor. but, i do want to say that it might be helpful rather than just arguing the point, we actually try to work on a compromise or alternative solution. let's try a boilerplate sentence that can be edited here, and then agreed upon. how about:

"The issue of Israeli settlements and towns is complicated. An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Please see Israeli settlement for more information." Soosim (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

...except that it really isn't complicated at all. If essentially the only parties to say they aren't illegal are Israel and Ronald Reagan, this is really a "slam dunk". --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think its clear case of WP:SYNTH.We should only talk about legality of the settlement if it explicitly mentioned in the source--Shrike (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The places are already described as settlements, which links to the legal standing of these places. It is WP:UNDUE to emphasise this every time something settlement related is mentioned, as well as an obvious synthesis as sources state this in conjunction with settlements at large, but not specific places.Ankh.Morpork 09:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, "settlements" links to a disambiguation page. I think you meant Israeli settlement. CarolMooreDC 04:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support The reason there is no precedent to this in any other encyclopedia is because the readership identifies such verbose campaigns as advocacy. That's why no other encyclopedia uses such boilerplate tags in such a way. It's enough to remove the short sentence now in the lede and place it at the end of the history section as an additional paragraph (not in its own section) linking to International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. And then remove the extensive section now in the body of the article. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose taking out some standardized language or format; don't have a problem with saying "most of" or "overwhelming majority of" international community is against settlements; agree the concept "Israel disagrees" should be taken out (I'll control myself and not present some equally absurd analogies). References supporting this factoid where available for specific settlements obviously helpful, but I'm sure every settlement has been described in some WP:RS as "illegal under intnl law"; it's just obvious international law is supported by the overwhelming majority of the international community. Obviously editors involved in past discussions should be informed, and perhaps a relevant Wikiproject or two. It's a long weekend in the English speaking U.S. so no need to hurry this. By the way, I see there is a Category:Israeli settlements. Shouldn't that have the disclaimer on top too? I assume there aren't any "legal" settlements under international law listed? (Which might necessitate a separate category?) CarolMooreDC 21:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course getting rid of the boilerplate for each settlement article then would necessitate a chart being created as a subpage of this Wikiproject that would list every single settlement with an article so that we can keep track of discussions and make sure each article has the proper caveat of illegality for readers. There also should be a "List of illegal Israeli settlements" to flesh out the vague statement in Israeli settlement that As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 live in settlements in the Golan Heights. Or every single settlement could be listed in the Israeli settlement timeline. I'm sure Category:Israeli settlements is missing a few. It would be a great consciousness raiser for readers and even the community as more and more readers and editors learned about these settlements and the article(s) listing them. If fact, someone should do the List of article in any case. CarolMooreDC 04:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"A great consciousness raiser", eh? And I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia. Nah, I'm kidding. I know what some of you are here for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, some of us are here to raise our own consciousnesses and that of others through the enlightening organization and dissemination of facts, knowledge and opinions where worth mentioning. CarolMooreDC 04:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Shrike and Ankh Mopork. Khazar2 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A measure of the value of this proposal is that the proposer needed to include a topic-banned user and a permanently blocked user to his list of supporters. The reason for this boilerplate is to prevent a battle being fought over each and every article about a settlement. That's what was happening before, and that's what will happen again if the boilerplate is removed. The agreement created an opportunity for actual article improvement. It was a good thing and no case has been made here for turning the clock back. Zero^talk 03:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This sentence (The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.) complies with WP:NPOV at best : all parties involved in that topic (ie Israel and the international community) agree that what is written is true. More it is concise and clear and doesn't fall in the trap of providing lines and lines of undigestive sentences nobody reads. So it also perfectly fits with the rule of giving DUE WEIGHT to an information (with just one line providing a short description of a very complex situation). 81.247.52.36 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The above-noted IP 81.247.52.36 that favors agenda driven, boilerplate language had never before made an edit and curiously, makes its first ever edit to IPCOLL. Can you say banned account?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter since the number of 'votes' on either side is entirely irrelevant. On another issue, could you clarify what exactly is being supported or opposed here? You introduced a proposal to re-open discussion of the consensus but half the comments and opinions here are based on the assumption that this proposal has already been accepted. Can you confirm that people are getting ahead of the game or am I missing something? It seems to me that the arguments for re-opening the discussion are entirely different to the arguments for or against including the text and that one might support revisiting the consensus whilst currently opposing or being undecided on actually changing it. At the moment we have a bit of a mess with some people addressing one issue and other people another.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - All of the policy related issues and objections raised here have already been covered by the WT:Legality of Israeli settlements discussion, a discussion that was based on a reasonable sample of sources (one of which by the way says "The international community, including the United States, considers the Jewish settlements illegal"). I'm one of the people who added a large number of these statements to the lead sections of articles, I support their inclusion and monitor the articles to ensure that the content remains intact. Several editors have commented here that this amounts to agenda driven POV pushing or variations on that theme. No, that's not what I've been doing. I've been implementing and monitoring compliance with a project-wide standard because when something has been agreed someone needs to implement it and monitor it. If there is compelling evidence that any editor has repeatedly violated WP:NOTADVOCATE in the topic area, in articles, talk pages, even here, an AE report should be filed so that admins can decide whether to remove the editor from the topic area. Advocacy is covered by the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - ok, based on all of the above, how about this: "This article refers to an Israeli settlements. An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Please see Israeli settlement for more information." Soosim (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't point out the extremely important and notable information that the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law. So your suggestion is a very bad idea. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone clarify exactly what people are supporting/opposing? Is it about revisiting the topic and then seeing if there is consensus to change the status quo? Or is it about actually reversing the consensus? The comments above suggest that some people have the first in mind and others the second. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they're supporting the annexation of the West Bank and Golan ;-) More seriously, this isn't a properly constituted RFC-style vte as there isn't a neutrally stated proposal. I think the support/oppose !voting is symptomatic of the long-term drift in these pages from the original purpose of the project. They are now just part fo the WP:BATTLEGROUND with not much evidence of the neutral mods that used to be here.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, of course! So when the vote goes in your favour it is legitimate. But when there is an indication that consensus may be changing against your POV, suddenly it's just an invalid battleground mentality that doesn't count for anything. You know what? THAT is exactly what is symptomatic of the long-term drift in these pages from the original purpose of the project. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - While I don't have an idea of my own of what would be an appropriate sentence, and clearly this is one of the most contentious topics that exists so coming up with something appropriate is understandably difficult, I think we have a lot of work to do. The existing sentence is highly problematic. The "international community" wording is intentionally vague. It's the classic WP:WEASEL and it is well known that the term is used for that exact purpose in the media in situations like this. "International community" is not an official organization which releases statements on its view of Israeli settlements, and the fact remains (sourced above) that there are a significant number of academics/politicians/governments/organizations that do not share the view that the settlements are illegal. The Israeli settlement article (or many of the other articles that exist about the exact same topic and should probably be merged but that's a different discussion ie: International law and Israeli settlements) is the appropriate place to get into the details about who considers settlements to be illegal and who does not. We can't go into that much detail on every single article that talks about settlements or anything that has to do with them (ranging from every settlement article itself, to companies that operate in settlements, people who live in settlements, etc.) That's what inter-Wiki links are for. If people want to know about the legality, they will click on the link to Israeli settlement and learn more there. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Exactly, 99. if the reader wants more information, there are numerous articles, links, biblio etc that the reader can turn Besides the redundancy you describe, it also singles out Israel for special disapprobation. It is not for Wikipedia to try to characterize one country in the world as "criminal," as this template does, or to "raise peoples' consciousness" about this or any issue. Opportunidaddy (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The illegality of the settlements are important for every settlement article as all of them are regarded as illegal by the international community. This is extremely important info relevant to all settlemnt articles as its about them. Its not "singling out Israel", its about Israeli settlements....because the issue of the illegality is about Israeli settlements. This has nothing to do with "dissproportion" or "try to characterize one country in the world as "criminal," .. it has to do with documented facts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We dont make such comments for Tibet, where we say only "The region maintained its autonomy until 1951 when, following a military conflict, Tibet was incorporated into the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the previous Tibetan government was abolished in 1959." Is the Chinese takeover of Tibet accepted by the 'international community'? Kashmir, also disputed, only says "Today Kashmir denotes a larger area that includes the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir (the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh), the Pakistani-administeredGilgit–Baltistan and the Azad Kashmir provinces, and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract." None of these other disputed geographical entities contain such a template. Is it true that the only country which the 'international community' considers to have taken over land illegally is Israel? Why is Israel being singled out by this encyclopedia? Could it be because a large number of editors in this area have a POV, hoping to convince others of it? As 99 above says so succinctly, "If people want to know about the legality, they will click on the link to Israeli settlement and learn more there." Anything else is redundant and therefore WP:UNDUE. Opportunidaddy (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of China establishing racially-exclusive settlements in Tibet, or of Pakistan establishing racially-exclusive settlements in Kashmir? And if so, then have these been condemned as illegal by the international community? If so, then this information should certainly be included in the articles about these illegal settlements; please identify them so that we can take steps to include this. RolandR (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes Roland, there is evidence of China replacing ethnic Tibetans with ethnic Chinese, which has destabilized the area and cause chronic unemployment among the Tibetans. But this template under discussion has nothing to do with racism. If you want to inform readers that Israel is racist, you should consider a different template altogether. If Israeli settlements are illegal because they are ethnically separate from Palestinian areas, perhaps you will explain why the Arabs are not comfortable with Jews or Christians in their countries or in the presumed future state of Palestine, but Jews can live in peace with all sorts of minorities in Israel. When East Jerusalem was captured by Jordan, the Jordanians immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of the Jewish Quarter and 58 synagogues were destroyed. This is a clear example of racism, yet we do not template Jordan or Arab states as "racist" because it not our perogative. We are not here to raise consciousness or explain that one particular country is racist. Opportunidaddy (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... There are some WP:Other stuff exists problems with this argument. To paraphrase that essay slightly, "because sentences must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of sentences do not exist that probably should." Is Chinese use of new settlements as part of an politicized strategy of creating a Han ethnic majority in Tibet? Yes. Is a WP:RS discussing this strategy something worth of mention on such settlements? I don't see why not. Their founding, political use, and situation in international law are a reasonable part of encyclopedia articles about them. Someday, someone may add such sentences to them.

However, the case for inclusion here is stronger. The international community has a clear position not just on the territory involved (something that is not clearly expressed in these other cases), but also the settlements themselves. So articles about these settlements can and should reference this status.--Carwil (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To be more explicit, if there were dozens of articles about Chinese settlements in Tibet which exclude Tibetans or Indian settlements in Kashmir that exclude Kashmiris, you can bet that whatever international law says about these would be included. However, I doubt there are any such Wikipedia articles, so it's not a relevant analogy. (Perhaps all US cities built on land stolen from Indians which excluded them way back when should explicitly note that fact if there are WP:RS; some probably already do.) CarolMooreDC 04:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: contininung on from my posts above, no one has still brought any valid argument against the sentence. Arguments such as the views of Ronald Reagen is ludicrous and, a couple of cherry picked lawyers doesn't reflect anything related to the entire international community. The consensus from the first discussion clearly still stands. Any reviewing admin MUST first read through the first two discussions: especially the first one: [33] (entire page) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Okay. Yeah, I hear the WP:UNDUE argument, particularly in cases like Niran where there aren't any sources that relate the subject of the article – Niran, not Israeli settlements – to the content of the boilerplate text. Also, the larger articles tend to go into greater detail concerning legality issues and the boilerplate text isn't appropriate to Israeli outposts, so in essence the text has ceased serving its original purpose anyway – which apparently was to function as a universal formula to take the place of article-specific content disputes involving considerations of legality. But why is this discussion taking place here? It would have been more constructive to have it at AN/I or DR or someplace where the discussion might not degenerate into the same familiar names making the same predictable comments and everyone just arguing in circles like always.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We have an official UN document which lists Niran as a settlement and reiterates the overwhelming majority opinion that they are considered illegal under international law and enumerates the various UNSC and UNGA resolutions which have affirmed the same. I'm not sure how it can be argued that it is UNDUE to include this significant view in the article citing the UN document as a source. Dlv999 (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The U.N. document demonstrates very well what the problem is. The mention of Niran there is incidental. The document isn't about Niran, nor does it tell us anything specifically relating to Niran. It tells us what the U.N.'s perspective is in relation to Israel's settlements and proceeds to list what those settlements are. The document is relevant to the Israeli settlement article, but the article on Niran should be composed of sources that give meaningful information intrinsic to Niran.—Biosketch (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Its legality or otherwise is an intrinsic quality of the settlement. The UN document shows that that the majority view is that it is illegal and this view should be included in the article per Wikipedia policy. Dlv999 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is a separate question, if what's meant by that is WP:Legality. This is a discussion whose purpose is to reconsider some of the factors that led to WP:Legality, so citing WP:Legality as an argument for the inclusion of the legality boilerplate text in the Niran article is circular. Now, the legality or otherwise of Niran isn't intrinsic to the settlement, or at least no source has thus far been offered up establishing that it is. It would be if there were a U.N. document on Niran where elaborating on the legal dimensions as they relate to Niran. But that isn't what the U.N. document cited above does, and that's why its natural habitat is the Israeli settlement article.—Biosketch (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I never understood why people think the way a certain country votes at the UN necessarily represents their official position. I can easily show examples where this is not the case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Without dissenting from Dlv999's point that international legality (Wikipedia:Legality seems to be an artifact of "Wikilawyering") is an essential subject of an encyclopedic article about a locality, we also have this 1979 report from the Security Council Commission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories, which does "tell us [some]thing specifically relating to Niran" after reiterating the UN Security Council position that all settlements are illegal. So does the 2012 report from MA'AN Development Center entitled Parallel Realities: Israeli Settlements and Palestinian Communities in the Jordan Valley. And, less specifically a 2011 PLO diplomatic factsheet on the Jordan Valley enumerates Niran and discusses its international illegality. And a 1980 UN Security Council commission report stating that Na'aran was built on "Land expropriated from residents of Al-Awja village" and that the settlements are illegal. Further, Professor W.T. Mallison [www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139297647.pdf testified before Congress in 1978] on the illegality of Israeli settlements and submitted a document including maps and descriptions of settlements (testimony begins on numbered page 50; description on page 62). And Professor Türkkaya Ataöv discusses Na'aran's water conflict with the Palestinian village of Al-Auja as an example of an "accumulation of illegalities" surrounding settlements, which he also finds are illegal under international law (pages 2, 5, 10).--Carwil (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Jiujitsuguy's argument is so full of holes that spacecraft could use them to voyage to alternative universes, propelled, no doubt, by the slingshot effect gained from its massive biases. That's what happens when you glean your information from sources such as Myths and Facts.     ←   ZScarpia   14:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

ad hom attacks do little for your argument, except perhaps to demonstrate its weakness. Opportunidaddy (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You should make sure you know what ad hominem attacks are before accusing people of making them. Presumably you don't think that Jiujitsu's argument is full of holes, nor that it's partial, nor that the argument about settlement legality presented replicates that given on hasbarah sites? Personally, I think that Jiujitsuguy's arguments are some of the most shameless I've ever seen in Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   23:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Mechanical addition of boilerplate material unrelated to specific articles violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I support the removal of the text. I don’t edit much. I missed the first discussion on this issue and even if I would have seen it, would not have had time to comment. I am not a believer in boilerplate language and I think that Geewhiz summed it up best when he/she said, “Mechanical addition of a stock phrase to articles across the board to promote the agenda of a group of editors is a violation of everything that Wikipedia stands for.” It just strikes me as promoting an agenda rather than creating an encyclopedia. For that reason I support the proposal to remove the text. --Ericsmeer (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)  — Ericsmeer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• What any group of editors thinks about the legal status of the settlements under international law is wholly irrelevant. We appear to have a higher local concentration of pro-Israeli editors here than exists in the world as a whole, but it doesn't matter in the least. It's what the international community thinks about the legal status of the settlements that matters, and it's simply impossible to dispute the fact in good faith that the overwhelming majority of that community says they're illegal under international law. --OhioStandard (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment- The issue also involves whether every settlement article 'broadly construed' should require the insertion of this text or could simply link to the legalities in the main settlement article. As it stands, this prescribed text is dutifully inserted in some settlement stubs even though the relevance of overall settlement legality is peripheral at best. Solely examining the legal content does not address this point.Ankh.Morpork 12:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Countercomment- Actually it is one of the most significant facts about each of the settlements and the subject absolutely should be mentioned. The alternative to this very brief and bland boilerplate is an expanse of sourced material on the subject in a large number of articles. For at least half the settlements it would be easy to fill a large paragraph. It is somewhat mind-boggling how counter-productive this proposal is. Zero^talk 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a key point. If we do away with the boilerplate, it does not mean the issue will not be discussed in the articles. It simply means that specific sources will be brought to each article individually to support the inclusion of this information (which represents the overwhelming majority view on what is an essential fact about the nature of each settlement). Dlv999 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment:The issues that you talk about are more appropriate for the Israeli settlement article. They are not appropriate for every single article dealing with an Israeli town or Kibbutz east of the Green Line. Moreover, this boilerplate language is agenda driven. One need look no further than Carolmooredc's

comment to establish proof of this. It would be a great consciousness raiser for readers and even the community as more and more readers and editors learned about these settlements and the article(s) listing them. (emphasis added). Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a "consciousness raiser" nor is it an advocacy blog. Wikipedia’s purpose is to present content in a neutral dispassionate manner. Insertion of this stock boilerplate language fundamentally undermines a slew of Wikipedia policies including WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV that are specifically designed to prevent it from degenerating into nothing more than an advocacy blog.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite my tongue and say nothing about pots and kettles. Oops. Zero^talk 14:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I find Ohiostandard's comment "We appear to have a higher local concentration of pro-Israeli editors here than exists in the world as a whole" to be extremely offensive and disrespectful. This account makes the unfounded assumption that because an editor wishes to see compliance with wikipedia's policy and have tangential boilerplate language removed, that editor is necessarily a "pro-Israeli" editor. The thought that an editor wishes to see content presented in a neutral dispassionate manner, never crossed this account's mind.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, this text represents an attempt to discuss the issue in a "neutral dispassionate manner," which is the result of a considerable amount of effort by editors to work out.

Re the policy issues you raised: You have never responded to my offer to include a specific reference to the settlement at hand as a way of dealing with your OR and SYNTH concerns (even though I consider them overblown). The text is NPOV, attributing opinions and describing both sides of a very uneven split. The claim that "the international community" has this opinion is backed up by five peer reviewed sources at International law and Israeli settlements (first sentence), so this phrasing is also verifiable and NPOV. The issue of UNDUE weight was considered carefully by an uninvolved admin who quite reasonably found that one sentence is not undue. We worked at length to shorten the sentence and to not include elements of the issue (Fourth Geneva Convention, ICJ, UN Security Council) precisely to make the text concise. So, the policy concerns are addressed.

Finally, a decision to suppress this information altogether from settlement articles (not just not have boiler plate text) is against policy and makes the encyclopedia less useful. A double link to IS then to international law is unnecessary and circuitous. It serves to bury an important aspect of each settlement, which has been critical to their history. It also appears to violate WP:NOT#CENSORED.--Carwil (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Which editors, exactly, do you think assumptions are being made about based solely on the opinions that they've expressed here?     ←   ZScarpia   15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You say: "Insertion of this stock boilerplate language fundamentally undermines a slew of Wikipedia policies including WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV that are specifically designed to prevent it from degenerating into nothing more than an advocacy blog." Making reference to what the policies actually say, please explain how they are being breached. It would also help if you describe how you would prefer to see each individual settlement's part in the settlement project handled.     ←   ZScarpia   15:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because noone has been able to explain how it could possibly be better to have the same debate more than 120 times. More broadly, I am generally supportive of the wider concept of using centrally-agreed text to deal with multiple similar articles - it makes wikipedia both more efficient and more consistent. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment re potential socks: not sure if anyone else has noticed but it's a little concerning to see that a couple of the support comments above are from accounts which look almost certainly like classic socks. Not sure there's anything we can do, other than ignore them and rely on Malik's well made point that "Consensus is based on the strength of arguments, not the number of people who can be mustered to support them" Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Counter Comment re potential socks And I can say the same for at least three of the oppose comments--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - i am soooo hurt. i have made two attempts to change the language, but i think no one even commented on either attempt. i will say that i am impressed with Zero's use of language skills - yesterday he referred to one of my edits as 'stupid'. that goes for the pots and kettles.... Soosim (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the lack of response to your suggestions might be because they are getting a bit ahead of the discussion. It is not clear yet if there is a consensus to revisit the topic at all so that really needs to be decided before time is spent examining the evidence and looking for alternatives. Another possible reason for a lack of response may be that JJG is looking to have the language removed completely rather than changed. Basically, the nature of the precise issues at hand, and consequently the flow of discussion, is rather muddy at the moment.BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ah, muddy reminds me of the situation in the entire middle east.... Soosim (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I did comment on one of your suggestions. --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, sorry if you're hurt. I have not commented on "The issue of Israeli settlements and towns is complicated…" because I think it's a non-starter for replacing this text. Even if it began with "The legality of Israeli settlements is complicated…" it would fail to adequately summarize the issue, which is the purpose of this sentence. A great deal of work has already gone into this text and it shouldn't be simply erased. Further, the text does and should point to International law and Israeli settlements, not Israeli settlments.

Stylistically, your text feels like a hatnote, while other proposals provide substantive information about the settlement at hand, which could and should be made more specific with further information relevant to the settlement at hand in body sections of the article.--Carwil (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I Support clean and neutral language in Wikipedia. Ori (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How is the sentence not "clean and neutral language" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Jiujitsuguy and also because: 1. WP policy does not encourage the placing of "proviso" and "conditional" warnings and templates on any pages unless they are for disambiguation purposes. 2. The aim of any article is to describe and explain and not become part of a political football for any side. 3. Any alternative POV's can be provided in "See also" links in appropriate articles. 4. Basically, the claims of Israel are rooted in International Law dating back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration whereby "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." on both sides of the Jordan River that included the Jews' right to settle in the West Bank granted by Great Britain as the Mandatory power. 5. Basically this is a blatant display of what has been labelled as the New antisemitism i.e. "the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the far-left, radical Islam, and the far-right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel..." that should be banished per violations of WP:POV from an objective encyclopedia like WP. 6. It would be crazy and stupid to put on top of every "disputed territory" the various POV's about it. Thus, correctly as suitable for a neutral encyclopedia, there are NO "templates" or "warnings" on top of EVERY article remotely connected to disputed places such as the Falkland Islands (disputed --with wars as well-- between Argentina and the UK); Kashmir (disputed --with wars as well-- between Pakistan and India); Kuril Islands (disputed --with wars as well-- between Japan and Russia); Cyprus (disputed --with wars as well-- between Turkey and Greece/Greek Cypriots); etc etc etc where in articles NO mention is made on top of the disputes but rather, if need be, in the body of the article/s if need be. 7. This sets a dangerous precedent by absurdity, can one imagine that in the future on top of Judaism-related articles there would be claims that "Christianity and two billion Christians do 'not accept' the claims of Judaism" due to Supersessionism that holds "...the idea that the New Covenant with Christendom replaces the Mosaic Covenant with the Israelites...". 8. Thus WP is NOT the International Court of Justice and it cannot and should insert itself into contentious political disputes and debates that have NOT been settled by international law to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is about the outcome of WT:Legality of Israeli settlements which is summarized here. Wikipedia's articles about Israeli settlements including the statement that resulted from that discussion, a statement that reflects what numerous reliable sources say on a routine basis about Israeli settlements, is not a "blatant display of what has been labelled as the New antisemitism". Sean.hoyland - talk 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is stock, mechanical, boilerplate agenda driven language that represents a synthesis of garbled information and has no business being in these articles. I note for the record that I reached out to both you and Carwil for possible alternative suggestions just to see if you were willing to possibly entertain new ideas but apparently, you're unyielding and see this as zero sum. So much for collaboration. This discussion is going nowhere. I will soon be asking an uninvolved administrator to possibly bring this matter to a satisfactory resolution. For the record, most of those who have posted support the proposal to remove this boilerplate agenda driven language from these articles. Soosim proposed an interesting alternative which might bridge the gap. "The issue of Israeli settlements and towns is complicated. An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Please see Israeli settlement for more information." But in truth, these specific articles, many of which are just stubs, are not about international law or the 4th Geneva Conventions. Those broader issues are reserved for other articles.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons this discussion is going nowhere is your active refusal to actually define it [34]. There is no clarity as to what the proposal is, different people are supporting different elements of your proposal but you are taking all these as 'Support' and very little has been said in the way of argument from the 'Oppose' side because it is not at all clear what is at stake in the current discussion. I'm not sure how an uninvolved admin can possibly bring this to any conclusion when no focussed discussion has actually started yet as it has not yet been agreed even that discussion on the topic should be re-opened. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. This is what might happen if the mandate for the current policy compliant, minimalist text is removed. No policy based consensus will be found for an alternative because this discussion is not about policy, it's about advocacy/nationalism, and policy consistent collaboration with advocates in this topic or any other is a waste of time. The current statement is uncontroversial, it's consistent with the approach used by RS and it complies with policy. This should be obvious to anyone who doesn't care about the real world issues because our obligations and constraints are clear and there are plenty of sources to provide reality checks. With the current statements gone from the leads, editors will probably try to replace them with far more wordy and problematic statements in both the leads and article bodies that vary from article to article. This will trigger edit wars across the entire topic area. That will provide a perfect opportunity for admins to pick off the most aggressive POV-pushers and have them expelled from the topic area via AE. So, from my perspective, whatever happens, it's win-win for the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus let's not forget under WP:ARBPIA one can get a block for the personal attack of yelling "antisemite" or - whatever phrase for alleged Israel supporters one might have to say to get in trouble. I think repeatedly making the same claim about generalized people who disagree with you in a particular debate also could count. CarolMooreDC 05:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support—the original "consensus" (actually disputed from day one) gave any editor a completely free hand in inserting a contentious statement without having to do any research or follow any of the regular Wikipedia policies and accepted standards. The guilty until proven innocent approach contradicts the very heart of WP:NPOV, and contradicts common sense. I see this dispute as not about Israeli settlements or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but a dispute about some core policies and inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Having the boilerplate text is an extreme case of poisoning the well, and has been inserted indiscriminately into many places where it's clearly unnecessary or unimportant (not even touching on the dispute of whether it's true or not). It would be similar to having something like "The international community does not recognize a Palestinian state" in the lead sections of all Palestinian-related articles. So please, let's go back to the neutral language that Wikipedia prides itself for, and avoid POV, WP:UNDUE, poisoning the well and other serious problems that the boilerplate statement created. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

False analogy. 130 countries already recognize Palestine [35]. Meanwhile the UN passes a resolution every year including "Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem" [36] supported year in year out by almost the entire world, with the most opposing votes it has ever received being 7. Dlv999 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Who says that if a country votes a certain way on a UN resolution the content of that resolution becomes its official policy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If a nation officially supports something at the UN, it is their official policy to support it. To me your question is something along the lines of, who says that if a country officially supports something it is their official policy to support it? A vote at the UN is an official expression of a country's policies. Dlv999 (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. For example, the UK's official position on Jerusalem is that it should be corpus separatum, but they regularly vote yes on resolutions that include East Jerusalem in the OPT. Perhaps you have a reliable source that supports the assertion you made above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just not correct. [37] -asad (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

From the UK government website, "Although we accept de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem, we consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. It is crucial that the parties involved come to an agreement whereby Jerusalem can be a shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian States.

Attempts by Israel to alter the character or demography of East Jerusalem are unacceptable and extremely provocative. Settlements, as well as the evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem are illegal and deeply unhelpful to efforts to bring a lasting peace to the Middle East conflict. [38] Dlv999 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The UK recognized Israeli and Jordanian de facto control of Jerusalem, and then in 1967 started considering East Jerusalem "occupied", but not "occupied Palestinian territory". They specifically state they think nobody has sovereignty over Jerusalem. Perhaps you should dig a bit deeper rather than pick the first site that comes up when you search for "uk jerusalem" and interpret it to your liking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not "the first site that comes up"; it is the official site of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.[39] Somehow, I think that their statement of official British policy is rather more authoritative than your own unsourced synthesis. RolandR (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And further evidence of official British policy, from the FCO website. Statement of Foreign Secretary William Hague, 5 April 2012: "The Israeli government's policy is illegal under international law, counter-productive, de-stabilising and provocative".[40] Profile of The Occupied Palestinian Territories: "The UK have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements to accelerate settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and called on Israel to reverse these. Settlement building is illegal under international law"[41] Note too that this formulation explicitly includes East Jerusalem in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is frankly bizarre to continue arguing, in the face of all the evidence, that the UK does not condemn settlements as illegal, and does not consider East Jerusalem to be part of the OPTs. RolandR (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not say the UK considers settlements legal, so I'm not sure who you're addressing that to. I said the UK has a specific position on Jerusalem, which you can read in the link you posted here under the heading "The UK position on Jerusalem". If you could point out where that says East Jerusalem is part of the OPT, I'd be much obliged, because it seems to me that they quite clearly say that "The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I did point it out above, with a link to the FCO statement: "The UK have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements to accelerate settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and called on Israel to reverse these" ((my emphasis). This is a clear, explicit and unambiguous statement that the British government considers East Jerusalem to be part of the Occupied Palestinian Terrotories. I don't understand what more you could want. RolandR (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. It's the first time I've seen them deviate from their position that the status of Jerusalem has yet to be determined, and that's in the same document where they specifically say that the status of Jerusalem has yet to be determined. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's an archived version from 2008 asserting that the final status of Jerusalem is yet to be determined (as per NMMNG)(http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front%3Fpagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1057335917798). However, holding this position is entirely commensurate with also holding that Israel's occupation and settlement building is illegal as this document shows. There is also no necessary inconsistency between holding that the final status of Jerusalem is still to be determined and holding that it is currently part of the OPT. What they are pretty clear on, though, is that it is not part of Israel. However, NMMNG is correct about UN resolutions insofar as it is not right to say that all provisions of all resolutions must necessarily correspond with official government policy of the countries that vote for those resolutions. On the other hand it is perfectly reasonable to take support of UN resolutions as indicative of a country's position unless there is explicit contemporaneous evidence of their dissent on specific points. A vote is an expression of a position but it is an expression that is lacking in nuance.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. Saying that the city's status has yet to be determined is not the same thing as final status has yet to be determined. Also, as many resolutions as results of deals and compromises (as is often the case in politics), the fact someone voted for a resolution is not proof that every word necessarily corresponds with that country's official stance on an issue. If they make a specific statement about the resolution that's one thing, but just raising their hand can't be taken as full endorsement. It's like saying that if a politician voted for raising taxes, he necessarily thinks taxes should be raised rather than, say, he made a deal with other politicians to raise taxes so he could get something else he wanted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the wise saying that we need a mind willing to understand, rather than one that seeks misunderstanding, should be applied here. We should also either discuss the topic of this thread or stop discussing as this is getting sidetracked. --Dailycare (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard that saying. Please explain what you meant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

From your post above "It's like saying that if a politician voted for raising taxes, he necessarily thinks taxes should be raised rather than, say, he made a deal with other politicians to raise taxes so he could get something else he wanted.". This is a false analogy, a more accurate anology would be saying that if a politician voted for raising a particular tax then he supports the raising of that particular tax. Or more accurate still, a politician who has voted to raise the same tax year in year out for a twenty year period. Now you can speculate on his reasons for his support, but you cannot deny that he has supported it with his vote. Dlv999 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Speculating on someone's reasons is not necessary. The point is that in politics a vote does not necessarily mean ideological support. in other words, it would be correct to say "the UN thinks X" based on votes at the UN. It would not be correct to say "state A thinks X" based on a vote it made at the UN. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What the saying means in this context is that we can take at face value what the British government says is their policy. We needn't assume we know better than they do what is the policy of the British government. A country isn't very likely to vote for a resolution that the country strongly disagrees with, so taking this all together we have a pretty good idea of what the UK thinks, whether the word "final" is there in any single document or no. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support— The current "consensus" is a good example of how Wikipedia is being abused for political advocacy. I hear voices who say that that without an agreement POV pushers are going to edit war again. I would try Soosim (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) style clarification instead, for enhanced noise/information ratio. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

How is the sentence "political advocacy" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Since I arrived at wp in 2005 some editors have been fighting this same battle; using the same dozen or so (all, AFAIK, openly pro-Israeli) "notable Western scholars" or "legal experts" to "prove" that the illegality of the settlements is "disputed", or, "highly contentious." Jiujitsuguy lists them all, but, alas, by the same measurement, there must be thousands upon thousand people who would count as of "notable Western scholars". And who thinks the settlements are illegal. Sooooo, if one in thousand disagree about an issue (while the other 999 agree), then it becomes "contentious", or "highly disputed". Rrrrrrrrrrigh. Huldra (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The most important fact about each and every settlement is the very fact that they are illegal under international law. Therefore, a statement similar to the consensus statement should be present in every settlement article. If the WT:Legality of Israeli settlements decision is reversed, supporters of the settlement enterprise will start to remove it from the settlement articles. The end result will be worse articles. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, absolutely not. We have a duty to represent all significant viewpoints on a particular subject. The view of 99.9% of governments and the token opposing viewpoint of the accused are both very significant viewpoints. It's an essential fact for readers on all articles relating to Israeli settlements. It prevents misleading the reader and it enforces neutrality. The previous consensus prevents repeated edit wars over the same issue across hundreds of articles. Such methods are used in many situations -- see another at {{Kosovo-note}} which is used on every geographical article related to Kosovo. And what is this vote-counting that JJG is doing?? Don't be ridiculous. Nightw 11:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Jiujitsuguy's proposal. Forbidding this phrase on all these pages would be wrong; so is mandating it. The sentence The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this is fine in an article about Israeli settlements. As the second paragraph of a two-paragraph article on some particular settlement, it's absurd. In each individual article, it's a matter for editorial judgement. That it has the effect of consciountioness-raising is a telling argument against putting the boilerplate in all articles. We might as well rename them all "Illegal Isaeli settlement __." Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It can't reasonably be described as absurd because it is exactly what reliable sources do when they discuss individual settlements on a routine basis e.g. Jewish Telegraphic Agency article here about Modiin Illit which contains the statement "The international community, including the United States, considers the Jewish settlements illegal." Also, I keep seeing people using an invalid exclusion/inclusion/weight argument based on the amount of information present in an article. Due weight for a given piece of information, a single sentence in this case, in the context of an individual article is not a function of the amount of information present in an article. It's a function of the amount of weight given to an issue by reliable sources as policy makes quite clear. Notable information can't be excluded on the basis of the absence of other information about a settlements attributes, history, so on and so forth nor can expansion of the legality related information be justified on the basis of the presence of a sufficient quantity of other information in the article. Articles are almost never in a perfect state of NPOV compliance because editors simply can't sample every single reliable source that is pertinent to an article. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Although I have made my view clear in the discussion above, I have so far abstained from voting here, as I consider this to be an invalid proposal in a procedurally-flawed exercise. However, to prevent any misunderstanding, and in case anyone is actually counting votes, rather than assessing the weight of argument, I affirm my total opposition to Jjg's proposal, whatever it is (BHB has several times pointed out the confusion here). Removing this text, hammered out after a long andf painstaking process, will open scores of articles to continued edit-warring, with some editors adding lengthy text which shows how the particular settlement has been found to be illegal, and others removing any mention at all. The previously-agreed text is not overlong, it is factually accurate and neutral in tone, and it has prevented such edit wars in the period since it was adopted. If this proposal is agreed, would it then become illegitimate to add this text to any article at all? That would mean that we have established a precedent, in banning a particular sentence from Wikipedia. Or would agreeing the proposal mean that it is permitted to add this text, but also permitted to remove it, until any resultant edit-war is settled in favour of the largest grouping of editors? Soosim's proposed replacement is far worse, it is not neutral and omits any mention of the illegality of the settlements, while the term "captured" is also politically loaded and unacceptable. Agreeing the proposal would mean opening a can of worms, and I urge admins not to allow this. RolandR (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Been following the discussion, but like RolandR have abstained from voting because this is not the way this should be decided, whatever this is. The text has reduced edit warring at Israeli settlement articles. It reflects both the majority POV and the minority Israeli government POV on the legality of the settlements, an issue central to these places existence both in the present and the future. It is a subject brought up in almost any coverage these places receive. We need a succint way of describing it in our articles and the text has provided that for some time now. It is not unprecedented as NightW points out. It allows people genuinely interested in improving these articles to put this issue aside and work on other aspects relating to these places. Dissolving this consensus without an alternate proposal on how to deal with the legality issue that enjoys wide consensus will lead to problems across tens of articles. no convincing argument as to how the text is problematic or how it can be improved has been made. Tiamut^talk 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the standard statement is in close to 200 articles and there may be some that have been missed, most likely for East Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was refraining from casting a definitive opinion as I was still waiting for JJG to clarify the proposal, but it seems that will not be forthcoming since he has now asked for a close. Personally, I can't see how it is possible to write an encyclopedia article on a settlement without a addressing an issue so central to its nature as its legality. Addressing the legality means representing the majority and minority opinions. I think the current text does that well and in line with Wikipedia policy. If we have to have a debate on how to represent the majority and minority opinions on this issue central to each settlement's nature on every one of these settlement articles individually so be it, but I foresee endless drama that I don't think will result in a solution that is any better than the current one. Dlv999 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no coherent single proposal to support here and the proposer appears to have no intention of providing one. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This mandated boilerplate language is unbalanced and a major NPOV violation. I agree with Ynhockey who wrote, "The guilty until proven innocent approach contradicts the very heart of WP:NPOV". The boilerplate text violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because the cited source doesn't refer to the topic of the article, which is about a city or town, not about the the topic of settlements in general. Marokwitz (talk)

Marokwitz, I'm interested that you see the text as unbalanced. Could you elaborate on that ? Unbalanced with respect to what specifically ? It would be particularly helpful if you could perhaps explain while referring to the sample of sources so that it's clear what you think is missing and from where. If you have something better to do, no problem. I'm asking you because you always provide sensible answers that I can understand. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I am not opposed to boilerplate language, but it should be used sparingly and in a way that reflects the true controversy of the issue, not what one group of editors has forced down the throat over others. I am extremely concerned about the tendency on this topic to discourage collaboration and honest debate by constantly seeking ways to punish those who have dissenting views. It is probably among the most shameful of all Wikipedia dynamics. Leifern (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I actually started that discussion and was almost happy with how it turned out. Each article is different and they should be treated as such since the solution failed to provide a fix that worked for each article. We ignored several guidelines in an attempt to smooth things out since certain editors were edit warring across the topic area. Although there was some decrease in edit warring, it was not eliminated. We also had the result of a sometimes clunky and jarring line trying to explain a complex subject in a SYNTHY manner. Weight issues are also a concern throughout. Consensus was questionable and keeping it now based on there being "consensus" is even worse. The admin failed to address a couple different important arguments as discussion was ongoing. I assume it was because he was flooded with filibustering but it might have been that he was simply wrong (no offence meant but I can't word it nicer). The only alternate proposal I see is going back to a case by case basis with a more methodical approach to fit the info into individual articles as best as possible. This is how it is done across almost the entirety of the project. Ban the editors who edit war and we don't have a problem anymore. Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: User: Cptnono wrote : a more methodical approach to fit the info into individual articles as best as possible. i.e., a List of Israeli settlements article that includes among other things links to specific sources talking about the settlements illegality under international law. (The intro would provide the top ten odd sources talking about why ALL the settlements are.) CarolMooreDC 16:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am egotistical enough to like you pointing at my statement but it appears way off. Either I worded it poorly or you read it wrong. Case by case basis. This is how most Wikipedia articles work. Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The argument to reverse is based on repeated assertions, wholly unfounded, of key policy infractions by basically just two editors. The wording is neutral (WP:NPOV); there is no WP:SYNTH problem; the suggestion that this minimalist phrasing violates WP:Undue fails, because it is the single most important fact for both sides regarding all settlements. But most importantly, the whole process here has been vitiated by unseemly haste. The policy under challenge was hammered out by editors over two months. User:Jiujitsuguy advanced his proposal on May 23rd, got a rush of votes, and was intimating after a little more than a week that, with these votes, he would be soon asking for administrative closure. This was delayed, but he again sought to rush for closure after another week or so. Several people who registered just a few months ago, have between them very few edits, and mostly are never seen in this area, made reflex votes for his proposal and then disappeared. They are duly counted, but of editors who actually are building these articles, the breakdown show parity.Nishidani (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm no fan of rote editing which copies and pastes the same content into lots of articles, but removing it is not the best solution in this case, because the text does seem to reflect international consensus on an issue of primary importance to these articles. I hope jiujitsuguy will update their "summary" below. bobrayner (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Mandating that phrase is an absurd. Flayer (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refract for vote tally and admin intervention

First, I’d like to thank all those who have participated in the discussion thus far. Most of us would like to see improvements rather than POV driven edits and I think that most of the comments, both for and against the proposal reflect that.

The result of the voting is as follows. A majority of editors who have commented on this thread support removal of the boilerplate language. They have offered a number of valid reasons for removal that center on policy as well as substantive considerations. 36 editors commented. Of these, 20 voted to support removal of the boilerplate language while 16 voted to oppose.

The majority have thus expressed the position against having any formulaic text inserted in an article where there is no reference to that specific location. Anything else is OR and SYNTH and should be disallowed. Every article needs to stand on its own, with editors bringing RS (not advocacy organizations or primary sources) to back up any material they add, which must be proportionate to the size of the article. Some who have replied in this forum continue to emphasize that the "majority" doesn’t decide but unsurprisingly, that opinion doesn’t apply when they are in the majority.

At this juncture, I will be asking an uninvolved admin to intervene and issue a decision that respects the position of the majority which seeks reversal of this and removal of mandatory boilerplate, formulaic text.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No valid reasons for removal have been provided. If they had been provided, I would support them. The summary here is highly misleading. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No such consensus was reached, and you have been around long enough to know that majority and consensus are entirely different things on Wikipedia. Actually you failed to establish a case for changing anything and it is time for you to give up. Zero^talk 07:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No valid reasons for keeping boilerplate language as is were provided. consensus and majority seems to say that a change is necessary. i think it is time for either removal or rewording, and let editors "vote" as necessary. thank you for your work JJG Soosim (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Soosim. This was a very time consuming endeavor. I appreciate the recognition of a respected colleague.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a pretty obvious consensus for changing the status quo. A proper discussion should be opened somewhere. No idea where though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with NMMNG. We need the assistance of an uninvolved administrator to respect the wishes of the majority of the community and undue the current situation, which was unprecedented and controversial from day one.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, the problem for me is that to argue that no valid reasons for keeping the boilerplate language were provided requires an extraordinary degree of tendentiousness and an almost agnosic inability to just not see the evidence presented in the previous discussion WT:Legality of Israeli settlements and here, the evidence presented in the sampled sources and other sources, the validity of a simple transitive relation between statements about the legality of the set of all settlements and statements about the legality of an individual member of that set under international law that is used routinely by RS (as can be seen from several examples in the compilation of sources e.g. the typical Jewish Telegraphic Agency article here about Modiin Illit which contains the statement "The international community, including the United States, considers the Jewish settlements illegal.") and a denialist approach to both the reality of the weight assigned to this issue by the international community for each and every settlement and the rather important fact that the boilerplate statement is true and consistent with the approach used by reliable sources. How things are, as reflected by RS, is no one's fault and it has nothing to do with political advocacy. It is just how things are. We are required to reflect how things are. I find it impossible to understand the objections because they simply don't make sense in light of policy and the evidence (and I say that as someone who believes that international law is about as relevant in practice as the color people paint their doors). From my perspective this is similar to the distractions caused by creationists in the evolution/geoscience topic areas and in individual articles that contain information about the evolution of an organism or Earth history. The difference is that in those topic areas editors who ignore evidence and policy are not given the time of day. This discussion is the clearest indication I've seen so far that another ARBCOM case is necessary to try to get the topic area back on track. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As for doing things because of what "the community" believes, it matters not whether an editor is acting in good faith or as an advocate if their actions diminish policy compliance. It doesn't matter whether a thousand editors genuinely believe that what they call "macroevolution", speciation, has never been observed and therefore the evolution article and other articles should be changed to reflect this through weasel wording etc because they are simply wrong about the facts as reflected in RS. Wrong is just wrong. Similarly here, editors have no choice but to accept that it is what the sources say and how the sources deal with this issue that matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a grotesquely misleading summary. I have asked JJG numerous times to clarify what his proposal was and he simply refuses to respond (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jiujitsuguy&curid=24184566&diff=495490682&oldid=495459122) preferring to make veiled sockpuppet allegations. It now seems pretty clear that he has no interest in clearing up the confusions in his proposal because maintaining this confusion allows him to count people advocating a change in the language, people who support revisiting the previous consensus, and people who support removal of the language as all holding the same position. Lack of clarity on what is at stake has also meant that little has been provided in the way of systematic argument against the proposal simply because there is a complete lack of clarity as to what the proposal is. This fact is obvious even from the statements of the supporters above: NMMNG thinks consensus has been achieved for opening a proper discussion elsewhere; Soosim thinks consensus has been achieved for some form of change and JJG claims consensus has been achieved for removal of the language. In the absence of a single clear proposal the whole exercise is farcical. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

sean, i just find blanket statements not very helpful, and hence when you and zero say that there is none whatsoever, then i guess 20 some editors are all full of fluff and no content (as per comments in previous section). i would've expected a comment from you like "yes, some good arguments were raised in the pro comments, but they do not weigh in for much compared to the con comments. therefore i suggest....", but instead, you just say that no one above gave any valid reason for removal. even 20 monkeys typing at random would've had at least one valid reason.... and BHB - i did give some proposals... Soosim (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. You gave proposals for altering the language which, in the context of a different discussion would merit consideration. But JJG has taken this as supporting the complete removal of the language. There has been no proper discussion here because there has been no well-defined topic for discussion. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, you ask that this sentence is removed and you say that you expected alternative proposals but where are yours ? 87.66.161.203 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There's obviously a large amount of editors who think some kind of change is necessary here. If it's a majority or 50:50 (I'll pretend editors who haven't made a single edit in months didn't just show up to !vote here) doesn't really matter. The right thing to do is open discussions on specific proposals and see what happens. That's how things are supposed to work here. I don't really have high hopes for it happening, after seeing pretty much the same editors block attempts to open discussion on a similar "convention" that includes factual errors, but I think we all know what's supposed to happen here. We'll see how it goes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not opposed to additions to the guideline. For example

• I think there should be a standard statement about the legality of outposts under Israeli law, preferably a statement that is separate from the standard statement about international law to avoid changes to the standard text. I see the lack of a standard statement for the legality of outposts issue as a source of instability.
• I would prefer the guidance about including the optional expanded legality section in the body of an article to be much more specific e.g. if it is to be included, repeat the lead statement per WP:LEAD and only include details specific to the settlement rather than generic content about settlements in general. This is another source of instability (although the number of expanded legal sections added after the guideline was introduced was very low last time I checked, something like 5 cases out 47 sampled).

Both of those are additions. Changing the current wording doesn't interest me because I don't think we can improve it. We'll just make it worse and drift away from the very simple way sources pretty consistently do it right around the planet. There will be pressure to include more weight for Israel's position (although the meaning of Israel in this context is complicated), but that is the wrong way to go weight-wise if you look at the large proportion of sources that don't even mention it. However, I think a prerequisite is that everyone is on the same page or at least the same star system and that might require another ARBCOM. The amount of sockpuppetry and advocacy in the topic area is quite amazing. It's broken. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to support reopening discussions (purely on the basis of time passed and the obvious desire by a number of editors to revisit the topic) if you want to put that forward as a simple proposal distinct from this mess of a discussion. Unfortunately, JJG has decided not to take that route and has bundled together the reopening of discussions with a bunch of far more contentious proposals in a confused and insupportable way. BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both Sean.hoyland and Zero, no valid arguments has been provided for the sentences removal and therefore there is no consensus for the sentence to be removed. And consensus is not the majority of votes. Also any reviewing admin must first read everything from the previous discussion:[42] (entire page), before he starts reading this one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A) I hope my tolerance for some changes to boiler plate language was not counted as a vote for complete removal.

B) Even IF nothing else further is done, I think an article listing every illegal settlement is a good idea, with relevant factoids such as: year of founding; population; method land obtained; any explicit mentions of that settlement in any international law finding, journal, etc; any other reasons that settlement is high profile, notable, etc. Of course, I'm not going to write it, but I'm sure that there's already some good lists out there on the world wide internets (plus Wikipedia's own categories) to get it going... CarolMooreDC 04:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks much like a wall of shame... Is this really interesting or to have such a compilation ? 91.180.71.148 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The list I'm suggesting isn't that different than, say, List of Israeli cities, List of Israeli airports, List of highways in Israel, Palestine refugee camps and this Wikipedia search of "list of" and "settlements". Whether it's a "wall of shame" obviously depends on one's perspective. CarolMooreDC 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carol,

Whether it's a "wall of shame" does not depend on one's perspective.

As you pointed out you talk about : "every illegal settlement" ; "method land obtained" ; "any explicit mentions of that settlement in any international law finding", journal, etc;

I don't think Israeli cities, airports or highways or Palestinian refugee camps are in the same perspective.

What do other think about this ? 91.180.67.180 (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be nitpicking. CarolMooreDC 00:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Refracting again for consensus & admin intervention

My initial refract seemed a bit premature as it generated a flurry additional "support" and "oppose" votes. Some of those who voted "oppose," such as RolandR, Dlv999 and Bothhandsblack, subsequent to my first vote tally had already been included as "oppose" votes in that tally. It was thus redundant for them to again issue "oppose" votes.

43 editors participated in the discussion. Of these, 24 voted to support the proposal to remove the controversial boilerplate text while 20 voted to oppose. If we exclude IPs (which is reasonable), it is 23 support to 19 opposed.

It is time to get an uninvolved administrator to properly apply quite obvious policy (or in this case undo obvious policy violations) in this area. I recognize that many administrators view the Israel-Arab topic area as toxic, and quite understandably don't want to get involved for fear of alienating one group or another. But it is clear that a consensus of editors view the current status quo, with its mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text, as intolerable. Serious issues such as violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE have been raised. I am asking for a second time that an uninvolved administrator issue a decision respecting the majority consensus that calls for removal of mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text. It is inconceivable that the views of so many editors, indeed the view of the majority of editors be so callously disregarded.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. The views of a majority amount of editors should certainly be given heavy consideration by an unbiased, uninvolved administrator. That is only fair. It is not right for personal views to cloud judgement in such severe cases as this.--Activism1234 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear JJG,

I permit myself to inform you about this page : meta:Polls are evil.

That may help you to understand better how wp works.

87.66.161.203 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Belgian hopping IP. Before contributing to this thread and issuing advice on "how wp works", I suggest you consult with WP:SOCKPUPPET.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry. I don't have any other account than my IP and I have no improper purpose. I suggest that you read also WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:AGF. 91.180.67.180 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

JJG, could you expand a bit on exactly where you see this consensus to change the earlier agreement? If we were to vote and the result would turn out to be 22-19, that wouldn't look like consensus at all. Of course, consensus isn't a vote in terms of this project. I'm asking since there seem to be some policy-related arguments that haven't been answered in the discussion above, for example that the BBC and NYT have a tendency to include boilerplate text into articles they produce that touch on the settlements issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy/Guideline on consensus

"In a discussion regarding a section of policy or guideline, "no consensus" means that a proposed section should not be added. If the discussion is about a section already in the policy, that section should be removed. Policy and guideline should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed. Similarly, if there is no consensus over the status of a page (e.g. policy, guideline, essay), then the status may need to be discussed further and more people brought into the discussion." [43] A majority of editors who partook in this lengthy discussion wish to see removal of mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text. They have proffered a variety of reasons centered on cogent policy and substantive considerations. I would say that that constitutes a consensus by majority.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Instead of relying on an essay, maybe you should read the policy, WP:CONSENSUS, instead. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that the views of 23 editors should not be callously disregarded in such a disrespectful manner. The insertion of mandatory boilerplate text was contentious from day one. I don't know how it originally got through but I do know that the majority of editors who have posted on this thread wish to see removal of mandatory, formulaic boilerplate text.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's all well and good. I'm just suggesting that you read the actual Wikipedia policy and not rely on what an essay says. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@JJG - "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Both from WP:CONSENSUS in case you don't have time to digest the whole thing. You keep talking as if numbers have some weight in this. Can you cite a policy that backs that up? It seems to go against pretty much everything I have read so far. BothHandsBlack (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

bhb and malik and dailycare - see? this is reverting into another lengthy discussion of whether the previous lengthy discussion was worth anything at all. amazing how you feel that 23 editors chimed in and not a single one gave an argument of any quality that could possibly stand up to the other side's arguments. amazing... (i think you would be better off if you said "those are all good arguments and very valid. however, x, y, z." - my mom always said you catch more flies with honey....) Soosim (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, Soosim, those are all good arguments and very valid. However, this is a poll that was held in the wrong forum. From the outset it was unclear what people were supporting and opposing. The discussion should have been publicized in neutral language at the relevant WikiProjects, and probably at the WP:Village pump as well. It's also a pity Jiujitsuguy can't tell the difference between a policy and an essay after three years on Wikipedia. But I think you each deserve a barnstar for trying. Is that better? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, could you point out where I said anything even remotely suggesting that "23 editors chimed in and not a single one gave an argument of any quality"? I think the idea of consensus is precisely that the views of 23 editors (or the other 20 editors!) wouldn't be disregarded, callously or otherwise. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is how the line got included in the first place. A whole lot of bickering while ignoring how a boilerplate could be beneficial or detrimental to the project. And now I don't even know if editors are arguing for if there is consensus to remove something that may not have had consensus or if the boiler plate is bad or good. Will this be a 2 vote process with a series of appeals? A handful of RfCs? How about some AE for ya? This is ridiculous. The intent of the the boilerplate was to improve the project. That clearly failed and consensus is just as unattainable now as it was when a single admin plowed through with a decision that needed at least one AE request to clear up. You should all feel bad. I feel bad for even trying to start the discussion that got us here. Of course an admin who has never touched the topic should review it since no one else is responsible enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

hey, how about a two-state boiler plate solution? or do we prefer a one-state boiler plate solution? Soosim (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cptnono is correct. If the intent of the boilerplate was to improve matters, it failed miserably and utterly. There was no consensus 17 months ago and if this thread is any indication, there is clearly no consensus for forceful inclusion of formulaic, boilerplate text. I also note that when this issue first came up some 17 months ago, many editors were simply not aware of it. When those who were unaware had the audacity to try to remove the forced text, they were met with something akin to revert or else. To my knowledge, this controversy has already resulted in 3 AEs. It is palpably wrong and disrespectful to disregard and disparage the views of the majority of editors who have commented on this thread and dismiss their arguments as POV pushing. As Soosim correctly points out even 20 monkeys typing at random would've had at least one valid reason.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is, will the removal of the current consensus text lead to a) an improvement to the editing environment on the articles in question b)An improvement of content and adherence to Wikipedia policies in the articles in question.

My estimation is that the removal will lead to lots of drama on multiple articles in order to decide how it is best to represent the majority and minority opinion on this topic that is central to each settlement that will not result in a solution that is any better than the current text.

Also I think 3 AE cases generated in around 200 settlement articles which are among the most sensitive in the IP topic area over the course of 17 months seems to me like like a success. How many AE cases would the issue have generated over the 200 articles in 17 months without the consensus? How many AE cases will be generated if we do away with the consensus and have to find a solution at each of these 200 articles individually? Dlv999 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

3 AE cases + how many noticeboards? Regardless, if you think even 1 is OK then you have a poor view of the overall project. If you think this mess all over this page is acceptable then I applaud your optimism while snickering at how silly it is. Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say this mess is "acceptable", but I do think it is an accurate reflection of the current situation in I-P topic area, in light of which my comments were made. If you are asking me if something should be done to address the underlying dysfunctionality of the topic area (as reflected in this discussion), my answer is yes. On the other hand if you are asking me to judge the success of a consensus text to solve a specific issue, then that judgment must be made taking into account the underlying dysfuctionality of the topic area. The judgment must be based on the reality of the topic area, not how it should be or how we would like it to be.Dlv999 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

i just had an idea. let's have two versions of every article in the arab-israeli domain. an editor has to register for purple or pink. if purple, you can only edit the purple versions of all articles. if pink, pink. all articles will have a link to the other version of the article. all wiki rules still apply (RS, OR, etc). a widget will randomly determine when a purple or a pink page shows up (when the article subject is searched, for example), and it will maintain a 50-50 ratio. something like this:

a) In May 2014, the Israeli Occupation Forces entered the Palestinian city of Um-Tuba, located in the occupied West Bank, and arrested two innocent members of the Hamas Social Welfare Society.

b) Two Hamas terrorists were detained by the Israel Defense Forces in May 2014, after being discovered in the Israeli-Arab town of Um-Tuba, a suburb of the capital Jerusalem. Soosim (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Should discussion on Wikipedia:Legality of Israeli settlements be opened under the auspices of an uninvolved admin to gauge consensus for current wording and suggestions for changes? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes per discussion [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Israeli_cities_in_West_Bank.2C_Seeking_reversal_of_prior_consensus|here], it seems that a large number of editors would like to revisit this issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand this RfC. What is it about? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question Are you attempting to promote the page to a policy or guideline? Before you do that tag it as such and clean up the page before you do.Curb Chain (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'm attempting to get a discussion going somewhere where it might actually yield results rather than the mess you can see a couple of sections up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes the Israeli-Arab conflict is intense, and editors who already have a bias may act unfairly in determining consensus or the final outcome of an argument. It is only fair that an unbiased editor should listen carefully to what people have to say in regards to this topic and act in a fair, logical, unbiased manner. Indeed, I write this for the Israeli-Arab conflict, but this point of neutrality - a key pillar of Wikipedia - can be applied in any other discussion, especially those that are intense and have people with predisposed biases. --Activism1234 (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• This is a joke or er... Support. An RfC to open an RfC? Nothing on this page is binding as if this was some committee who had to get something on the floor. Nothing on this page attracts neutral editors. Of course an RfC should be opened. Having it here in the first place was courtesy from an editor who wrongly believed that consensus could be found among editors who frequent the topic area. Open an RfC already but keep the standard process in mind when wording the opening since the last thing we need is knee jerk reactions, people hemming and hawing about one thing or the other, or a misrepresented and TLDR opening that will set things off on the wrong foot. Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - go for it. Soosim (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - Is there even a question about it? Twenty-four editors have expressed explicit and valid objections to the existing, intolerable status quo and its requirement for forced insertion of formulaic, boilerplate text in some 200 articles.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If we do open up a discussion to gauge consensus I would ask editors to try to refrain from this kind of ridiculous hyperbolic rhetoric as it gets us nowhere and it just makes it hard to take the points raised seriously or to gain consensus among editors with differing views. Dlv999 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

JJG, did you miss my comment above where I discussed this reasoning of yours? --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - For the reasons cited above.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Poorly worded the "current wording" has consensus based on the previous discussion. If we were to change it, the change is what would need consensus. I'm open to discussing possible changes to the "current wording", although based on the discussion we've just had here, such consensus doesn't seem easy to reach. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• The "current wording" had consensus when it was adopted a year and a half ago. It may or may not have consensus now since consensus can change. That's one of the reasons to open a new discussion, to "gauge consensus for current wording". HTH. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's misleading to say that the purpose is to see if the "current wording" has consensus. What we can discover is if there is a change to the current wording (which may be removal or re-wording) that has consensus. As this is a content issue, if there is no new consensus then the "current wording" remains in place so it's a bit pointless to investigate if it has consensus as such. --Dailycare (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt to decide the outcome of the discussion before we've actually had it, how about we leave that for an admin to decide when the discussion is concluded? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you missed my comment above ("I'm open to discussing possible changes"). I'm not deciding on an outcome, what I am doing is informing you of procedural rules we have as you seem to be a bit confused about them. Which in retrospect is somewhat surprising, since you had a clear understanding of this procedure here and here ;) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to inform me of "procedural rules" you can point me to a policy or guideline. That would not only save you the who knows how much time you spent digging up something I said in an unrelated discussion over a year and a half ago, but would actually carry some, you know, "procedural" weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no problem it took me just 5 minutes to dig up those diffs, which do show that in 2010 you were aware of this section in WP:CONSENSUS: "In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're trying to say now. Not sure how that is incompatible with "gauge consensus for current wording", though. Other than semantics, obviously. When gauging consensus for the current wording, an admin can reach the conclusion it has consensus, or there's consensus to remove or alter it, or there's no consensus either way. So what's the problem exactly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's precisely the rub. When trying to improve the project, we should build consensus for changes to the text. The current text is something that is already there. Carwil expresses the same point in his citation in this same thread, timestamped 00:35. (whatever does one mean by saying "not incompatible, except semantically"?) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There already is a (third) discussion above. Why do you want to open a fourth discussion? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment The only reason given is inference that the admin who closed it was "involved." Wikipedia:Legality_of_Israeli_settlements (which redirects elsewhere) doesn't even include a link to the archived discussion in question, and it looks like there were a couple threads on that topic over time. So this RfC gives incomplete info for anyone to make an informed decision. CarolMooreDC 05:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The admin was not involved. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that inference, or why you can't click the talk tab at the top of Wikipedia:Legality_of_Israeli_settlements to see the archived discussion, but neither is a problem with this RfC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a link to the talk page since I assumed (and I'm sure others might) that the discussion was in the archive. CarolMooreDC 02:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom, and what should also be clear from the two threads above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Concern: I think the direction and results of "opening to guage consensus" are unclear. If it's an entree to a conversation about improving the text, I've made it clear here and on my talk page (with JJG) that I'm supportive. If it's about an attempt to strike this subject, either "in the interim" or permanently from settlement pages, from settlement articles, I obviously object.

To frame this another way, The Arbitration Enforcement discussion on this issue ended as follows:

All participants here are reminded that they should conform their future edits in this respect to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, until and unless consensus for a different wording is established. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to blocks and topic bans.

Is this an effort to establish "consensus for a different wording" or to remove this editing process from AE?--Carwil (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While it sounds like the proposal is just to change wording, the suspicion based on all those wanting to remove language in previous discussion, may be the real intent is to remove all wording, thus I won't support RfC, but would participate in any discussion. Though I hope we're only talking minor tweaks. CarolMooreDC 01:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Carwil and CarolMooreDC have legitimate concerns. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an effort to have a discussion that can yield results, unlike the discussions in the sections above. What the results are will be determined by consensus (as determined by an uninvolved admin, hopefully. And by "uninvolved" I mean someone who doesn't edit in the topic area, in case someone tries to nitpick). I find it quite amazing there are editors on wikipedia who don't want to have a discussion because they fear consensus won't go their way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I can't support this as it is currently formatted in a way that makes it seem as if consensus for the current wording is what is at issue. Given the push in the discussion above to claim, against policy, that no consensus would require the removal of the text it is hard not to see the current effort as being on a continuum with those attempts to circumvent policy. 'Gauging consensus for the current wording' should be struck from the proposal as irrelevant; it needs to be made clear that what will be at issue is the gauging of consensus for changing the wording, as the change requires consensus whilst maintaining the status quo does not. Whilst it would be nice to think that this is a mere technicality, the preceding discussions and the misrepresentation of policy therein make it clear that we cannot afford imprecise formulations if we are to move forward. As a side note, I'm happy to support the RfC if it is brought into line with policy. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an eloquent way of expressing an issue that led to part of my a "bad feeling." :-) CarolMooreDC 16:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How is that a "comment"? That's a "no" vote with the reasoning being "I don't trust an uninvolved admin to make a policy compliant decision". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a 'no' with an explanation that I'll change to a 'yes' if the proposal is brought into conformity with policy. I think the discussion needs to happen but it needs to happen in the right context and not in the framework of trying to slip things through under the radar. By the way, why won't you just fix the proposal and provide something people can respond to without putting the strain of interpretation on the admin? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no strain of interpretation. There are policies. An admin will know those policies. I don't think I need to put the discussion in a limited "framework" you approve of. The framework is wikipedia policy.

I'll pretend you didn't just accuse me of trying to slip things under the radar. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's jolly good of you. I'll reciprocate by pretending that you are not ignoring the concerns of all the editors who have raised the same issue or the strained interpretations of policy that have already appeared in this discussion. Then we can both pretend that there is a chance of moving forwardly constructively even if we don't strive for maximum clarity from the start. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC is to get an admin to manage the discussion (you can easily see in the sections above why that is necessary). Everything is on the table. Why wouldn't it be? The concerns I've seen so far have been of the "I might not like the result of the discussion" type, couched in "someone might misinterpret policy". I don't find those concerns relevant. Feel free to !vote "no" and let's move on. To be honest, I don't see how an involved group of editors can manage to block discussion about something they don't like when there's an admin around, but I've been surprised before so we'll see what happens. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant attempt to filibuster, delay and make the discussion so dizzying and long-winded that it becomes difficult, if not impossible to follow. The goal of course is to scare off anyone willing to review the matter. Who in his right mind would want to waddle in such muddle? If those opposed to removal of forced, boilerplate text feel that they have the better argument, then they have nothing to fear from a de novo review.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG's, CM's and my statements suggest that neither side is assuming good faith, but rather worried that the other side of this discussion is gaming the system. Why? Because despite his NMMNG's bold (and therefore admirable) initiative in framing the RfC, he failed to be neutral as required (see point 2 at WP:RFC). Rather than !vote no, several of us have asked for clarification. If we aren't going to get it, let me attempt to reframe the current RfC in a more honest manner, and suggest a different one.

The current RfC asks, in effect:

Do you support maintaining the status quo, or beginning a new process which may result in either no text at all or a new collective consensus?

A more open and neutral process would ask:

Which of the following do you support?

1. Maintaining the status quo
2. Having no boilerplate text across the articles
3. Maintaining the presence of international legality in all settlement articles, but having a new discussion to improve the text

Malik is correct that we can have the discussion called for in #3 at the same time as holding a debate between these three options. The easiest way to do so would be to have a RfC between 1, 2, and 3 under one heading, while working on improvements under another.--Carwil (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the RfC was not framed in a neutral manner. Please state specifically what isn't neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Why are you having a discussion about whether to have a discussion? Just start the damn thing. Just do it right. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• The three sections above are ample proof that just starting a discussion won't work. I'm also fairly certain that however and wherever it is opened, there will be editors who'll say it's not being done right. There are things some editors don't want to talk about for fear they'll lose their current gains. An obvious example is this RfC. Notice the nitpicking about the language of the RfC, as if that's going to change the actual result of a future discussion. IMO the way to do it right is get an uninvolved admin to manage it from the get go. That's what I'm trying to do here. For the record, if this won't work I'll move on to asking at AN, then AE, then ArbCom, and then Jimbo if I have to. Eventually we will have a proper discussion at the proper venue with results determined by someone uninvolved and according to wikipedia policy. Then let the chips fall as they may. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If people's real goal IS to get rid of boiler plate language, fine, challenge it on that basis in the proper forum.

Thinking more about starting an article on settlements similar to List of Israeli cities, I just looked at settlement articles on Adei Ad, Afik, Argaman, Aniam, Asa'el, Avnei Eitan (found from Category:Israeli settlements). All had more or less the wording The international community considers Israeli settlements in the (West Bank/Golan Heights) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. with the same reference: The Geneva Convention, BBC News, 10 December 2009. I can't see that any discussions of changes would result in anything more than a few tweaks, unless people agree to quote a bunch of Zionists (including two US presidents) who think Israel can keep everything it’s conquered. Does that tiny minority position deserve more than a half sentence in any boilerplate language? The international community considers Israeli settlements in the (West Bank/Golan Heights) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government, Zionists and Presidents Reagan and G.W. Bush, who challenge international law in this specific case only, disputes this. Or whatever...CarolMooreDC 00:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please move the above to a relevant section? There are many places you can post your opinions about "a bunch of Zionists" without it looking like another attempt to derail the discussion. Feel free to remove this comment after you move yours. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• No More Mr Nice Guy, administrators aren't mediators or boxing referees. If you want it done, it's up to you to "manage it". I've already recommended starting a new page for the discussion, notifying the relevant WikiProjects with neutral language, and notifying the community at the Village pump. If you keep starting in the same place with the same incestuous cast of characters, don't be surprised when you get the same outcome. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Considering there aren't any definitive and final "no" votes, only support or a lot of questions and doubts (like the one I expressed) and caveats, and that it's 4 days after RfC opened, Malik's advice that it's about time to proceed makes sense. Of course specifying the most appropriate and efficient forum and finding a truly noninvolved neutral and able administrator is part of the art of consensus building, including among the doubters. CarolMooreDC 05:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment : the best way would just to discuss and follow the usual and standard wikipedia process : gather sources and sort them by notoriety (from scholars to blog), discard the less relevant or reliable of them and present all point of views with their due weight. If a "special wiki tribunal" has to be established to manage this -an idea which I disagree with but which can be understandable because situation seems blocked- I would suggest it is composed of 3 admins/contributors/external scholars and -on the contrary- involved in the topic. (Don't imagine a single second that somebody who doesn't have a deep understanding of the topic can comment such a complex issue.) After all arguments have been provided, they can debate all 3 openly without anybody intervention.
  But there is few chances it works. Soon, there will be an RfC to decide how to find, choose or elect this (or these) famous uninvolved neutral admin(s)... 91.180.65.140 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that is rather missing the point. We're not trying ourselves to determine the legal status of the settlements, but rather to reflect what reliable sources state about this, and to decide according to Wikipedia policy whether and how we should note this in relevant articles. It doesn't seem complicated in the least to me, and any complication is related to Wikipedia procedures, not to the legal status itself. RolandR (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I may not have been clear but I don't say the contrary and I agree with your comment at 100%. We are not here to decide about the legality of the settlements (and we don't care) but we are here as wikipedia editors to report (following wp principles) what WP:RS sources state about this situation.

Many contributors require a third party neutral intervention (that is what I call a special wiki tribunal). I think this is a bad idea but 'if' that idea should be followed 'then' we should have 3 people and they should be involved to understand what is talked about. 91.180.65.140 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

91.180.65.140 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am in favor of no template. But more than that I am in favor of a Wikipedia process/policy that should be followed in the case of NO CONSENSUS, such as the essay that was presented above. To put this on a single administrator is unfair as that person will always be accused of bias, which may or may not be the case. There should be a policy that should be followed and enforced in the case of no consensus, which seems to be a constant in this area. Opportunidaddy (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the essay cited above is not in conformity with Wikipedia policy; the actual policy is pretty much diametrically opposed to what appears in that essay. The relevant document is Consensus and it states: a) "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."; b) "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community."; c) "Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context ... In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article." So, the policy in the case of no consensus is pretty crystal clear: no consensus means no change and a local group of editors is not able to override this policy.BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would think that would depend on whether the first time the template was added, there was a fair representation on both sides of the issue. Had there been an RfC and did it go to the larger community to determine consensus for the template addition originally? If not, then I think a case can be made that no consensus means removal in this case. Opportunidaddy (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What essay are you talking about? Who said no consensus means changes should be made? How many more of you are going to illustrate your lack of AGF by arguing against a argument nobody made? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look closely you'll see that the editor to whom I was responding said this: "But more than that I am in favor of a Wikipedia process/policy that should be followed in the case of NO CONSENSUS, such as the essay that was presented above." This was a reference to the essay JJG cited above (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration%2FCurrent_Article_Issues&diff=496176891&oldid=496160069) which he used to support his claim that no consensus would lead to the removal of the text. The essay says this: "Policy and guideline should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed." Unfortunately, this isn't at all in line with policy but it is because this claim was introduced by the person who started this whole process that I, and others, have been concerned about the wording of the current proposal and that concern seems to be borne out by Opportunidaddy's comments. It's not a question of assuming good faith. The argument was in fact made and it was made quite prominently. This is why I suggested you rephrase your proposal. I hope that's a bit clearer now. BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a matter of assuming good faith, particularly since that comment wasn't even made in this section. If it's not in line with policy then what are you worried about exactly? Never mind, I'm going to stop replying to every attempt to derail this discussion from now on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are displaying willful blindness. BothHandsBlack (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What BothHandsBlack points out is that according to the rules the current text cannot be modified if there is no consensus to modify this and so, no consensus to modify this text means keeping this the way it is.

I agree that we should keep the current version but never mind : why on earth to try to wikilawer everything. The 5th pillar of wikipedia states there is no other rule but the 4 first and so the only question is to see if this boilerplate text is good or not and fits with four first pillars.

81.247.87.96 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Cptono that "This is a joke or er... Support. An RfC to open an RfC?" Ankh.Morpork 20:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just open the darn thing. 5.5 days and counting RfC's been up. I'm itching to discredit all those reliable sources (and Christian Zionists) who think Israel can build all the settlements it wants any where it wants within International law (at least til Jesus returns, for those who haven't converted and want to avoid painful deaths and hell, possibly after years of tribulation, depending on the C.Z. sect's interpretation...). See, Malik was right, you are inviting premature commentary and without relevant WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only did I not invite premature commentary, I specifically asked you to cut it out. You're the only one doing it. Stop please. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to start the actual discussion? NMMNG (who started this thread) has clarified above (timestamp 19:58) that he hasn't intended that no consensus would result in changes to the text, in other words the intention is to follow policy despite the poor wording in this "rfc about rfc". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My humble suggestion for the wording of the new RFC is "According to current consensus each article devoted to an Israeli settlement includes the phrase 'The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.' Should this phrase be amended or removed?" If there are new developments since the adoption of the current wording that make the discussion particularly relevant, these could be briefly mentioned in the RFC too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there are a large number of reliable sources available that support that statement and variations of the statement, perhaps the RFC wording should include scope for changing the standard source or set of sources cited. At the moment the standard source cited is a BBC article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Take care not to split an option in too many sub-options so that a minority proposal seems to get the largest consensus. I would suggest a step-by-stepy formulation such as this one :

• Should this phrase be removed (yes or no and why ?)
• If this is not removed, should this be amended (yes or no and why ?)
• If this is amended, how do would you suggest it is done ?
• If this is not amended, should a new set of sources be provided (yes or no and why ?)
• If new sources should be provided (which ones and how do you justify this ?)

91.180.64.65 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned sources is that my concern is to ensure that statements by editors are based on data rather than beliefs. I think an RFC needs to be phrased in such a way that it is clear to editors that the "why" must always reference actual source based evidence and policy and that the statements they make must be true, or at least not demonstrably false. It might seem obvious that editors should restrict what they say to statements of this kind but the discussion above shows that this is not the case and it is very often not the case in this topic area. For example, Jiujitsuguy said "To say that the international community views the settlements as "illegal" is contrary to fact and sources." That statement is demonstrably false because it is inconsistent with and contradicted by the evidence available in numerous sources. Many, if not most, of the statements by editors in these discussions are assertions that make no reference to the evidence available in sources. In other words, the RFC should somehow try to encourage high quality evidence based comments that reference sources and policy and discourage low quality assertions that lack evidence or are incompatible with the evidence available. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. 91.180.64.65 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to set up the discussion in such a way that we won't need to waste more time if a definitive consensus for a certain action is achieved. Pruning the decision is tree is always good.

On the other hand, I'm getting a little tired of editors explaining how they think the other side is going to cheat, "slip things under the radar", not adhere to policy, or whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

'under the rader' was used once. Editors who oppose deleting the phrasing that had been worked out by due process over two months were subject to a long barrage of hyperbolic language which accused them of 'filibustering', blatant bias, and hostility to Israel in virtually every other comment in the thread above. If you doubt this I'll give you a statistical breakdown of who said what. In any case, let it be reargued by all means, but, logically, not emotively.Nishidani (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Apropos:-

• 'Should this phrase be removed (yes or no and why ?)

'I don't think one can remove mention of the illegality of any settlement for NPOV reasons, not to speak of the self-evident consequence for articles of such a cross-the-board removal, i.e., an effective suppressio veri (of the elephant in the room). It would mean eliding the single most important fact in the Palestinian perspective, which is based on international law.

The essential gist of the opposition to the consesnsus phrasing is that it is unfair to Israel, i.e. the known legal fact should not be mentioned because it looks bad. This is a very peculiar approach to adopt for an encyclopedia that aims at uncensored, neutral, comprehensive coverage of the facts.

Of course, everything is arguable, and if folks want to argue that wikipedia I/P articles should 'disappear' (to use a recent solecism) the key fact, for Palestinians and the international community, regarding settlements, then they're welcome. But WP:CENSOR will be not the least of the hurdles in their way.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

i had made a suggestion for new boilerplate wording earlier (and my dear freind SD said it was very bad...) : This article refers to an Israeli settlement, which is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Please see Israeli settlement for more information." NPOV, doesn't mention anything positive or negative. anyone who is interested will click, just like they do on every other article on every other topic. Soosim (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that unlike many other editors you are an editor who seeks solutions that mitigate conflict, but I think this is an example of a statement that makes no reference to the evidence available in sources. The suggestion is not how reliable sources deal with the legality issue, an issue that is pertinent to every single settlement, when they discuss settlements, either as a set of things or on an individual basis. There are therefore no policy or evidence based reasons for us to do it that way. Whenever we detach things from the sources we'll drift away into wiki-reality. We just need to faithfully reflect the sources. Whether it's perceived as being positive or negative really isn't part of the decision procedure. I think that's something that many editors don't seem to understand or accept. Editors who care so much about this issue that it compromises their decision making are supposed to walk away according to the discretionary sanctions. I'm curious how many editors would be left if everyone with strong personal views about this issue walked away. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Soosim's proposal fits source as well as the current formulation.

The issue is rather how to decide what information to write about "Israeli Settlements" in the articles dealing with each of them.

What is the relevant information about these ? 81.247.161.224 (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

'This article refers to an Israeli settlement, which is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War.'

Soosim's boilerplate proposal has three pieces of information.(a) Israel has settlements (b) these settlements are Jewish communities (c) built on land Israel captured (c) the land was captured from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the Six Day War.

I.e. it has three pieces of information about Israel, and nothing about the Palestinians on whose land, in international law, the settlements are built. It completely discards WP:NPOV by asserting that a neutral description of what Israel did (on non-Israeli land) is sufficient. It effectively, to use the modern solecism disappeared the other party to the dispute. This is the technical reason why it won't get off the ground.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of the settlement articles suffer from this kind of WP:Systemic bias, in that they largely present the settlements as normal Israel communities. They largely downplay the illegality of the settlements and mostly do not include the Palestinian perspective at all. Dlv999 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment As I understand the RfC, the requesting parties are unhappy with or opposed to, the inclusion of the following referenced sentence (or some variation) being includ in the lede section of articles on Israeli settlements. The sentence is: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." I understand that such a statement was previously determined by consensus in an appropriate forum, with guidance from arbitration enforcement. While such content may be said in other ways, locations and depth of coverage, this sentence does so quite succinctly and neutrally; it enunciates both basic sides in one short broad stroke. It states the contentious limbo of legal reality and an overarching basic general context concerning all Israeli settlements, regardless of the differing points of view that may be held individually, and whether its inclusion is appreciated or not. The situation must be clearly stated and that sentence does it neutrally. If others feel it could be worded better, and can also mutually agree on some other wording, then they should have at it and see what betterment can development. I see more heat than light being generated from such an exercise again, and will accept the previously developed mutually accepted position indicated in the archives. While consensus can change, the basics of the differences will not. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Counter comment: Well, a sufficient number of editors - in fact the majority of editors who have posted on this thread - have raised genuine concerns regarding the problematic inclusion of formulaic boilerplate text into some 200 articles, something not found anywhere else on Wikipedia. The sheer number of people who have voiced objections, on substantive as well as policy grounds, should be enough to justify revisiting this issue, with an eye on resolving the matter in a manner consistent with Wikipedia’s own stated policies.

Various views in opposition to the text have been proffered. All have merit. My view is that no other articles in Wikipedia are treated this way and this boilerplate language is not found in any other neutral encyclopedia. I find this disparate treatment troubling. Moreover, the source used for the offending edit does not mention or reference the subject article (which is about a specific town, Moshav or Kibbutz) in any direct or indirect way. Therefore, its inclusion (in the lede, no less) is a product of SYNTH or an editorial attempt to fuse to two ideas based on some original research. Even if the edit were factually correct (and it is not for reasons set forth below) it would still be inappropriate to insert it in such stock, mechanical boilerplate fashion. Factual accuracy is but one criterion that needs to be satisfied and direct relevance is another. Tangential or peripheral relevance does not cut it.

In addition, the source itself contains qualifiers, such as the word "almost" that are conspicuously omitted from the corresponding edit. Thus, the edit itself is misleading. Indeed, the United States and Japan (there is some dispute as to Japan’s position) have not expressed this position. They may have other reasons for being opposed to settlements but these have nothing to do with international law. As such, the text in its current formulation is inaccurate.

To be clear, a consensus has formed. The position of more than half the people commenting on this thread support the proposal to remove formulaic, boilerplate text. At the very least, there is certainly no consensus to maintain the existing text. We should therefore, before doing anything, remove the existing text and if necessary, find consensus for new text if any is deemed warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep misrepresenting policy? I can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the process since you have been directed to the actual documents numerous times. Long and short of it ... stop making stuff up. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A majority of editors who regularly follow or edit I/P articles, I think 20 were opposed, and most gave substantive arguments. They were joined by another 2, one of whom was neither an IP or a newbie. Some 17 editors of the same category replied positively, but 60% of the argumentation, which were repetitive, came from just two User:Jiujitsuguy (29 comments), User:No More Mr Nice Guy (21 edits.). Another 7

• (18) User:Khazar2 (March 12, 2012, 14,234 edits) highly productive newbie
• (19) User Ericsmeer (17 edits since June 1910, one to revert Nableezy) newbie
• (20) User:Сол-раз (140 edits, mainly to Russian articles from May 14, 2011 newbie
• (21) User:Activism1234 (welcomed 16 March 2012 49 edits to I/P articles.) newbie
• (22) User:Opportunidaddy (52 edits since September 2010) newbie
• (23) User:99.237.236.218 (17 Feb.2012) newbie
• (24) User:Ori (2007.1,597 edits) rarely edits.

just voted in favour, using boilerplate comments. Even in a generous interpretation, that is not quite a 'majority' for the kind of consensus (based not on numbers but a clear capacity to evaluate and contribute substantive arguments to an issue) you are talking about.

In particular, substantive arguments, not answered, have addressed all of the concerns voiced in the sum-up you give. This was worked out over 2 months, no WP:SYNTH statement got through in that process as you can see in the original discussion, so to repeat the claim seems rather pointless. That said, by all means open a rediscussion. But the consensus statement remains valid until a clear, rationally argued new consensus comes up to replace it.Nishidani (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh Nish. Your comments are so decidedly strange and one-sided (and I'm being nice about my choice of words) I don't even know how to respond. Commenting in favor of the current stock, mechanical boilerplate phrasing and taking up your cause are SPAs who have dedicated their wikipedia hours to vilifying one nation on planet earth and have yet to offer any meaningful contributions outside of the topic area. Other notables include Belgian hopping IPs and an "editor" who takes great pains to identify himself as a newbie Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the third time in the last few weeks that you have called me a sock without bothering to go through the correct channels. I'm afraid that I find this behaviour strikingly uncivil. I'm also fascinated by the fact that you think you can glean so much from a paragraph I bashed out with very little thought just after I had opened my account.BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A sock? I can't vouch for the first two times, but nowhere in that paragraph is the word "sock" mentioned in reference to you. Nor does he call you any names, other than quoting a paragraph from your Wikipedia page in which you describe yourself as a "newbie." Don't make up things that aren't true. I'm petrified that I discover this conduct to be extraordinarly discourteous. All the best, --Activism1234 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2012(UTC)

Oops - my apologies to JJG and all others. I had mistakenly thought that SPA stood for "sock puppet account" (on the basis that SPI is "Sock Puppet Investigations"). When trying to hunt out the link to show you I found out that it actually stands for “Single Purpose Account”, which is slightly less rude. However, the suggestion that I 'protest too much' about being a newbie still directly implies that he thinks I am an editor other than the one I claim to be. My misapprehension may have been somewhat conditioned by this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABrewcrewer&diff=470626629&oldid=470588179) and the SPI against me that followed. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Putting "editor" in scare quotes is not terribly flattering either :-).BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Newbie? Who are you to call people "newbie?" And even if they are, so what? Personally, I've been part of the Wiki community for years, and then took a break for about a year, before creating a new account (forgot my info on my old one and wanted to start editing fresh and new). And last I checked, everyone here is allowed to voice their opinion. There are no social classes, no rankings, no fascist decisions on who qualifies to voice their opinion or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, you claim that one side using argumentation while the other does not, but ironically it is you who just used an ad hominem attack (calling users "newbies"—at least who of whom—Khazar(2) and Ori—have been editing about as long as you have). Please don't make personal attacks against other editors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

i think it is clear that there is a sufficient number of editors who want to have their say. that makes for a perfect way to open up an official discussion. assume that the very lengthy arguments and discussions on this page hvae been a 'straw poll' of sorts. we are now ready to run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. it must be worded properly, in steps, so that all possibilities can be discussed. let's do it! Soosim (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to have an RfC about which flag it should be ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Ynhockey, for the record, Nishidani didn't make any personal attacks. Describing editors the way he did cannot reasonably be described as an attack of any kind. Knowingly making statements about other editors or the issues being discussed that are patently false is not helpful and it's wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, Malik Shabazz asked us to stop waffling, and go ahead. No one here is obstructing a reopening of the discussion. All that has been done is to reply to errors or oversights by several editors who have not summarized the preceding discussions correctly.

Ynhockey, as an admin, you've too much experience not to know that making an WP:NPA accusation when none exists is extremely poor form, and perhaps a borderline case of WP:NPA. You will certainly be familiar with the fact that, esp. on the I/P area where sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is a daily occurrence all editors raise a mental eyebrow, and several from both sides pose questions on the newbie's talkpage, when, out of the blue, coming to wikipedia recently, a new editor edits a page or two of the 3,900,000 available for editing, and then leaps straight into a difficult I/P article to cast his weight, revert or whatever. Jiujitsu repeatedly made claims about numbers, so I examined them, and gave my results. They indicate that his majority consists 17 regular I/P editors, plus one or two (whom you name) who have either been around but don't edit much, or who are new, edit intensely and productively, but haven't been seen on controversial articles till a vote was called for. I have no problem with Khazar and Ori. That makes 19, which is still not a considered majority. To the contrary the 19 is less than the 20-22, depending on your suspicions, which affirmed the retention of the consensus phrasing. My point was, there has been no serious evidence that contributing editors to the I/P zone form a majority for overthrowing the policy which, need I remind you, as per WP:CONSENSUS, is not based on a numbers game, but on the quality and strength of policy-based arguments. Even there, only a handful of the 17/19 deigned to actually argue the case for reversal. Most just voted with a standard snort of distaste. Saying this is not ad hominem. It is merely empirically assessing what went on, and prodding people, if they wish to change policy to understand it more adequately, and not rehearse a meme (WP:SYNTH etc) as though it were a truth.Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope that any admin closing this will take into account that Nishidani, in things relating to IP, is a complete partisan and his "summary" above contains quite a few, shall we say, inaccuracies. These include, but are not limited to, not counting correctly, claiming that a large number of people with whom he disagrees are not making valid arguments while all the people he agrees with are, noting that people he disagrees with are "newbies" or haven't edited much in the topic area while ignoring people he agrees with who haven't made an edit in months but showed up to !vote here, etc.

Actually, now that I think of it, his above "analysis" is irrelevant to this RfC. Gotta wonder what the point of putting it here was. Since he said he doesn't mind re-opening the discussion, it all boils down to a "yes" !vote on the RfC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by this obscure innuendo that 'in things relating to IP' I am, 'a complete partisan'? If you mean the I/P area, look at my page contributions: I've written a consistent number of articles related to figures or events on both sides of the ethnic/national divide, and only get consistently reverted when I happen to work on material regarding the Palestinian side. As for the rest, to verify or challenge my numbers all one need do is provide a grid and chart, to see how things stand, if I have erred.

ps. on grammar. It's not that 'he (Nishidani) doesn't mind re-opening the discussion'. It's 'he doesn't mind if someone re-opens the discussion'. (I simply note that if opened, the RfC will be opened by a numerical minority among editors who regularly edit, and have worked hard, in the I/P area. The majority of regular I/P editors or observers opposed reexamining the issue. I have the statistics for comments per voter. Most opposed argued: most supporting JJG's proposal just used mantras like 'boilerplate' WP:SYNTH, yippee, and so forth. The hard work was left to you and JJG, who of roughly 76 comments for 'yes' made 50. The opposers with over 100 comments (I made that analysis some weeks back) statistically had a higher democratic participation rate in the arguments. I.e. the supporters mainly voted, the opposers, the regular majority, on a fair average, participated in a debate showing detailed understanding of the technical issues.) Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion is false and is colored by your partisan views.

I provided data, and will provide it in detail if requested. You have ignored that, furnished assertions to undermine my remarks by a meta-argument about my POV. I think that is called refuting an argument by an ad hominem insinuation.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

ps. on tells. When you resort to correcting your interlocutor's spelling or grammar we know someone made a point you have trouble refuting. By the way, shouldn't "ps" be capitalized? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since we harvest sources to write articles, and many editors misread sources, I make a point of grammar. The error you made was quite simple.

'he (Nishidani) doesn't mind re-opening the discussion'.

implies that 'I will re-open the discussion.'

which is diametrically opposed to what I said, i.e. that

I don't mind if someone re-opens the discussion'.

You implied I was ready to open the discussion. I had said I wouldn't mind if someone else did open the discussion. If one's interlocutor can't understand such elementary grammatical distinctions, then debating anything is pointless. It is not a matter of POV clashing, but of grammatical competence in understanding what is being said.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. What I meant was obvious from the context. You make a point of grammar because you think it makes you look smart, but it only makes you look childish. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Making, as you now have, several assertions about my putative motivations for correcting a misleading piece of grammar is ad hominem, and not appropriate as you should know from WP:NPA.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, this is a RFC about a specific point. Your discussion is no longer about that point. --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that some very serious offline events are taking me out of this discussion for the forseeable future. While I withdraw none of my comments, please don't read my silence as a block to whatever consensus eventually emerges.--Carwil (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

break 1

• Sure, fine, let's do that. How would you like to go about it? Sandstein suggested having one person, from either "side", participate in setting up an RFC. I'd suggest also asking some number (3?) of mutually agreeable admins to monitor the discussion and to agree to close the discussion. It will need to be properly set up as an RFC, something that wasnt done above, but by all means, lets start that. Ill volunteer for the "pro-statement" side, or if anyone else wants to throw their hat into the ring feel free. NMMNG, you want to put an RFC together with me? nableezy - 21:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  Sure. I think we should open a subpage where people can make suggestions for RfCs (or comment on what we come up with), moving ahead along the lines of this suggestion. If we can find 3 admins who are masochistic enough to be involved in this, that would be awesome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I say we start with an actual RFC on the first question in that diff. And we keep having it until it is closed with a consensus. We can move on to the next questions from there as necessary. nableezy - 22:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What actual wording are you proposing? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess that depends on where the "dispute" lies. In my ideal world, we can agree that the first paragraph of International law and Israeli settlements is accurate and NPOV. If that isnt the the point of departure, then I dont know where to start. There is a mix of arguments being deployed in this discussion, among them a. the sentence in inaccurate and as such does not belong, b. the sentence is accurate but is irrelevant, or UNDUE, to include in each settlement article. We cant have an RFC arguing both of those at the same time, it will not work. If we do agree that the aforementioned paragraph is accurate and NPOV, the question would be Should all articles on Israeli settlements include a sentence in the lead on the legal status of the settlement under international law? or something like that. nableezy - 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Starting by finding out if there's support for any kind of boilerplate is fine by me. Where are we going to advertise this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Before all that, I'd like to set up some ground rules. In the above RFC, there is one obvious Dajudem sock and several others who were apparently canvased (let's not kid ourselves, you don't randomly find that discussion on this obscure project page, a discussion that was not advertised anywhere, in your first ever edit to this page and in your first handful of edits anywhere). I'd say that the subpage we set this up on should a. be semi-protected and b. require a minimum number of edits to be allowed to participate. I'd say 5k would be a good starting point. Thoughts? nableezy - 14:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, you suggest editors with only 5000 edits be allowed to participate? -asad (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was, but I hadn't realized how high that number might be. I'm be open to lowering it, but I think there should be a minimum as a way of decreasing the ability of banned users to influence the discussion through socking. nableezy - 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When saying "others who were apparently canvased" you mean someone like Huldra who hadn't edited in months and hasn't edited since her comment here?

I don't have 5k edits. So I guess I'm out?

I don't have a problem with semi-protecting the page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant people whose very first edit to this obscure project page came right when this new discussion was opened, when there wasn't even an RFC tag to notify people watching RFCs. But if it makes you feel better, count her too.

I had not realized how high a number 5k would be. How's 1k sound?

Great. nableezy - 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem in principle with there being a minimum number of edits required for participation. I suggest we leave it to whoever we find to manage the inevitable mess to decide what that number is, rather than haggle over it here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer a time restriction, something like a minimum of 3 months editing. This should adequately deal with "the ability of banned users to influence the discussion through socking." Ankh.Morpork 21:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been active in this discussion here, mostly because it's so lengthy and didn't interest me, partly because I was too busy when it first opened to participate heavily and got lost in its lengthiness, and also because I don't see the need for an RfC when Sandstein already made his decision. However, should it be opened, I would like to voice my opinion in favor of AnkhMorpork, for the reasons he lists below, which is reasonable and sensible. I see some people still have an issue with it, but I'm sure something can be worked out that agrees with the principle of thought Ankh lists below of bona fide editors having a right to participate if an RfC is opened.--Activism1234 22:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But that wouldn't deal with the problem of sleeper socks, of which we seem to have quite a few in this area. RolandR (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I accept this. But I feel the alternative discriminates against bona fide editors with a low edit count and this must be avoided. Also, SPI is there for a reason so while I agree that you can't keep on filing a report for every new account that rears its head (hence, my time restriction proposal) nothing is stopping anyone taking action against any suspected sleepers "of which we seem to have quite a few in this area" that have materialized in previous discussions. Ankh.Morpork 21:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we looking just for an acceptable admin to close it off (as opposed to some random admin who may have biases or inability to deal sensibly with the issue) or looking for someone to be more involved in more of a mediation capacity? And is anyone now game to start The list I'm suggesting isn't that different than, say, List of illegal Israeli settlements, ala List of Israeli cities, List of Israeli airports, List of highways in Israel, Palestine refugee camps and this Wikipedia search of "list of" and "settlements". CarolMooreDC 20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that these sleeper socks are that much of a problem. If some of them show up, they're unlikely to influence the discussion much since consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not numbers as such. An editor resorting to socks is unlikely to come up with quality arguments one way or another. Of course their presence can be a nuisance and they can make it more difficult to determine what the geniune consensus is, so any useful measures to limit their participation make sense, my point just being that even if some slip through, I don't see it as a significant problem. --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have no problem in principle with a restriction based on editing time.

Also, for those interested, Nableezy and I have been having a short discussion about admins to moderate/close on my talkpage [44] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have thoughts on who, unless I recognize somebody questionable. But still not sure if they are just a closer or will be facilitating discussion to some degree. Don't care too much which, just want to know. Meanwhile, of course, I have to wonder if there has been whole sale expunging of the boilerplate if there is not refs that mentions specifically that settlement. Working on my off wiki project for a month so controlling self and not looking... CarolMooreDC 11:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

break 2

As mentioned above, NMMNG and I have been informally discussing how to set up an RFC and how it should be managed. I've asked User:Avraham, one of the few admins around that has widespread respect, to moderate this RFC. He hasn't actually said yes to that, but fingers crossed. NMMNG and I have also discussed who should close the RFC. The two names we have agreed to are Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs). If anybody else has other suggestions please put them forward. The idea is to settle on 3 (or more) admins who would close the RFC, much like some of the more high profile RFCs have been closed in recent memory (Muhammad images comes to mind). Those admins would need widespread support from both "sides" and be willing to make what will likely be a decision in which many people will be upset. What I do not want to see, more than a "remove sentence" result, is "no consensus". So try to suggest admins that are willing to make a decision if you can. As far as RFC structure, I'm thinking something like WP:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. And I do think we need to have some minimum requirement for who can participate. Time active combined with edit count seems to be the best way to remove the likelihood of canvassing/socking (which frankly shows up rather blatantly in the RFC up above). Also, we will need to settle on a neutral statement for the RFC, but I think we can table that until we have the basics on structure and administration defined. nableezy - 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion on my talk page, I am not familiar with the two admins mentioned above, and I have no objection to them closing the RfC. I also don't have a problem with the structure Nableezy is suggesting.

If anyone has any suggestions for other admins, or a problem with these two, please speak up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the status? And have nationalists been busy deleting the "boiler plate" from all the illegal settlement articles? CarolMooreDC 03:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Districts of Israel

There's something problematical about using that page, or the lack of specification there, in info boxes for the West Bank, as I've just now noticed at Susya. The West Bank has two forms of administrative district imbricated over the same territory, those of the occupying power and those of the Palestinian government. This has to be thrashed out, because it is untrue at Susya, that the Palestinian village belongs to the District of Israel, or comes under the jurisdiction of the council which governs the Israeli settlement there. The District of Israel should, I think, be something like Area C in this case.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Organizing Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements

OK. I figured out the "old consensus" archive was here at the project page, but not linked from anywhere besides talk page discussions. The talk page discussions of the issue are linked from this talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements under "Legality of Israeli settlements".

Should the old consensus get its own listing or just be listed in the talk page archive, either at the top or chronologically. Hearing no response I'll do it as I feel like at the moment I archive. No strong feeling right now myself.

And shouldn't Alon Shvut be archived now under Talk Page "Legality of Israeli settlements" archive. Evidently the four most recent entries, from "Israeli cities in West Bank, Seeking reversal of prior consensus" to "RfC" should wait a bit more for archiving. The ever tidy.... CarolMooreDC 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

JMCC

Currently Ford controversy section is missin.If someone want to do it I have put links in the talk Talk:Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre--Shrike (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please help end one of wikipedia's most ridiculous discussions of all time

Please help - we have been locked in discussion for four months over one sentence at Talk:1929 Palestine riots. The argument has become wholly circular - no one appears able to break the deadlock, in my opinion because there have been so many editors coming into the debate to "vote" rather than to understand the issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to the previous, I believe that Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, Hebrews, Jews, all religions and religious and non-religious people, are all connected in the human family. There is even evidence in the Bible of the distant relation therein; really, it would be dangerous to take the wall down. But Diplomacy can exist, in my opinion. I do believe that all is needed is a green-card, passport system between the two countries, and maybe some metal-detectors to keep people from being mean. Or like body-scanners, maybe some security. It would not be a safe job; that doesn't mean there aren't people brave enough to do it. On both sides of the wall. This is only an opinion, from someone who has not been to either land. But I do see a connection to be possible. And all I hope for is peace for distant family. People should have the right to travel to either side of the walls, in respect for humanity.

Problem with Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict

• Per: Talk:Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict The content of 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict casualties timeline was merged into Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict on August 08, 2012. However, 95% of the article is just a listing of Israeli-Gaza-related casualties from 2006-2008.
• A lot of articles have "see alsos" to this article and people must be very confused by what they find.
• I've proposed at Talk:Timeline_of_the_Israel–Gaza_conflict creating an article called Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006-2008 and moving article's content and talk page there, and then redirecting Timeline of the Israel–Gaza conflict to Gaza-Israel_conflict#Timeline which is an actual timeline of relevant events. The article doesn't get a lot of traffic so I may not get a response at the talk page.

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Going to do it soon, so chime in. CarolMooreDC 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Always use State of Palestine now?

While I've just been editing in the UN vote today, writing compiled from two other edits:

On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly passed United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. This implicitly recognised its sovereignty.

I've seen edits that make me wonder if there will be debate on when and where to call Palestine a state from today on. So if this needs to be discussed collaboratively, lets do it. If it's fine to just do that, do tell. CarolMooreDC 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not "always". Only when it's referred to. Actually with the UNGA 2012 resolution the only thing that changes is that the "Palestine delegation" at the UNGA will be representing the State of Palestine instead of the PLO as it was so far. That gives them some rights there, that are reserved to states (thus the "Palestine" representing the PLO didn't have those) - but nothing more. Outside of the UN nothing changes - there are still the PLO, the PNA and Israel out there. Japinderum (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this request - Talk:Palestine#Requested_move - to start changing names after posted above.

• Palestine → Palestine (region)
• State of Palestine → Palestine

It's going about 50-50. (And no mention of merge on State of Palestine article. I'm opposing for now until wider Wikipedia discussion based on WP:RS.) Discussion ongoing on other pages too in disoriented faction. CarolMooreDC 16:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Either_include_both_Jews_and_Palestinians.2C_or_neither

Please help us resolve this dispute, once and for all.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This isnt an Israeli-Palestinian issue, and the attempt to politicize it into one should be resisted. If it were me, I would article ban every person who has shown any interest in articles related to the modern conflict, Jews as a people, or Palestinians as a people. nableezy - 06:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I share Nableezy's mind.

The more I think about this and the more I think global bans based should operate on the articles related to topics where people are too deeply involved. I know it is contrary to pillars or some feeling of freedom but it is not those who decided to follow these rules strictly who are in troubles every day.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. From my understanding, the issue surrounding Jewish/Palestinian claims of indigeneity is entirely relevant to this page. In fact, it was EdJohnston who recommended that I request your aid on this matter.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except for people who wish to export the battle to any tangentially related topic. Your comments on that page, such as [t]o include Palestinians and not Jews would be POV pushing, demonstrate the problem. You look at the topic through the lens of a modern conflict, not trying to make an encyclopedia article but trying to establish a claim. Your point here, very obviously, is to establish that Jews, as indigenous to Palestine, have a rightful claim to the territory. You dont care that indigenous on that page has a specific meaning, you just want to say that Jews an indigenous people to that area. If you took out the modern conflict, there would be no discussion on the matter; the relevant sources would be inspected, and the article's talk page wouldnt be plagued by pages and pages of editors trying to prove their case. nableezy - 20:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)