Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:24, 21 April 2009

Israel C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expropriated

Sources (UN/Amnesty/B'tselem, plus RS books and articles) give 'confiscated/expropriated'. One can vary the term according to taste. Whatever, these matters are not 'allegations'. The land was under Palestinian management until the government and the IDF seized it, and then turned it over to settlement, as documented. I will provide greater details and complete refs presently. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources are in the article - the cite I removed was to a claim by an activist (Shulman), and the new cite added is to a partisan group. Perhaps there are court rulings that establish that the land was owned by Palestinians- please provide those. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shulman is an academic, with a major work on the area, and in saying he an activist and nothing else, you are reducing his credentials to those of a peacenik, or partisan. Academics are peer-reviewed. He doesn't 'allege', he states the area's history. With this method, everythiong quoted from an academic source you dislike becomes an 'allegation'. Put 'according to D Shulman, if you like. As for the Jerusalem Research Group, it is financed by the European Economic Community among others, and doesn't make allegations. It is a notable and sophisticated research group. I'm building the article. Wait for me to finish and then challenge it. Your edit just wiped out, in an edit conflict, a full paragraph of work on the ancient history I had written. You couldn't know that, but give me the courtesy of a break and a breather until I can establish some shape to the page. In the meantime, study the area, its history and sources. It is not Shulman claiming this. See here, and then click through and read the sources cited.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shulman's academic expertise is in Dravidian languages, and has no bearing whatsoever on his claims regarding Susya, which were made in a partisan rag (a self-described "muckracking newsletter"), in his capacity as a pro-Palestinian activist. Needless to say, those claims were not peer-reviewed, not academic, and are nothing more than allegations by several activists. The ARIJ is indeed financed by the EEC, which takes care to make it very explicit that "The views expressed herein are those of the beneficiary and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the Commission." - the views of ARIJ are theirs, and theirs alone, as those of a pro-Palestinian partisan lobbying group. You claimed there are court findings that establish the veracity of these allegations - if so, please produce them. Until then, they are properly labeled as allegations by partisans, especially when the partisan sources themselves admit the opposing view - that the land is "State Land", and that the Israeli Supreme Court has found the dwellers to be squatters.

As a side note, you will find it much easier to work collaboratively with other editors if you stop constantly preaching to them in a condescending manner. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Look. Go to it. Since your curiosity has been attracted to Susya, I'm quite happy to see how you can build up the article without my condescension. I lost about 30 lines on antiquity in that edit clash, 3 hours work. The first thing to do is to check out the details as to why the Government's naming commission decided to call it Susya, with input from Gush Emunim, and Moshe Levinger sidekick Bentzion Heinemann, which founded the settlement. Your last edit, 'containing the remains of ancient Susya' shows that you are editing a page you know nothing about. That this site corresponds to an ancient 'Susya' is an hypothesis, probably a fiction, not a reality. Bye.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again with the condescension? When you stop telling editors they "know nothing about" the articles they are writing, you will get more useful work done. If you can't do this, please find another hobby. I'd be happy to instruct you on how to avoid losing your work due to edit conflicts, but your harassing attitude makes it very difficult. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'Shulman's academic expertise is in Dravidian languages, and has no bearing whatsoever on his claims regarding Susya,'

There was the signal again, which told me a labour of love in building a full page would turn out into another battle through bad sources (Meyer), contested 'POV', with no serious work being done on the other side but simply the political control on text. Your remark is verbatim, straight from the maestro's remarks, duly memorized, on the Israeli Settlements page. Neither you nor User:Jayjg seem to know that Shulman's first degree and thesis at Hebrew University was in Arabic. He was an Israeli Arabist before becoming a scholar of Indian languages. I'm sick and tired of this nonsense of having to explain simple things endlessly, when wikilawyers start to jump on a sketch of an article, challenge 'confiscate','expropriation', put in 'allegations by peace activists' to gloss scholarly comments, cite books on the Galilee for information on the Southern Hebron hills (3 words in a footnote on the Galilee mentioning Horvat Susya do not constitute a useful source). I've been through this too many times, and I am absolutely sick of it. You've won.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears you are simply incapable of working in a collegial manner, as every single post of yours is condescending, uncivil, and bordering on personal attacks.

Shulman's first degree (in History, incidentally, not Arabic) has no relevance to the land ownership allegations in Susya, and his claims regarding the latter, made in an far-left partisan rag, described by its own editors as a "muckracking newsletter" has no academic credentials - it is a source that should not be used anywhere on Misplaced Pages, let alone for a contentious claim. That you persist in referring to this as "scholarly comments" reflects badly on you, and suggest that you do not understand the concept of a scholarly publication.

Eric Meyers, whose name you could not even get right, a professor of Archaeology at Duke University, the editor of The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, is, according to you a "bad source", because a well-sourced and non-contentious statement about an archaeological finding in Susya came from a compilation of academic papers which he edited, published by an academic publisher specializing ancient Near East and biblical studies, whose main topic was the Galilee. And in the same breath you advocate for inclusion of a contentious statement from a political activist, published in an openly partisan political rag. Perhaps once you get your standards to be a little consistent we will be able to continue this debate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to make me spend several hours, is it days?, wasting my time by correcting on a talk page your inventions, and stopping me from building an article.

For the record

Shulman's first degree (in History, incidentally, not Arabic)

• Wikilawyering. His first degree was in Islamic History, with a major in Arabic language and literature. Typically you look at 'History' ignore 'Islamic' and 'Arabic' in order to equivocate. You erred on Dravidian, and, when corrected, saved face by saying his BA was in history, and now have to wipe it again, because the BA was in Islamic history, with an Arabic major. Of such fatuous threads of trivial correction are talk pages made. Doing this is, I have long assumed, part of the technique used to waste editors' time.

'land ownership allegations in Susya'

Just a bad faith assertion, evidently you don't even read up on Susya.

• Wikilawyering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Counterpunch is not a 'far left partisan rag'. Were it so, it would not host so many ex-Wall Street economists, ex-Reagan administration undersecretaries, ex-Knesset politicians, ex-CIA operatives, etc., on its pages. Those who know it call it an anarchic-libertarian (libertarian means radical, and rightwing). One of it editors shares many views you would find held by the Cato Institute. Shulman and Neve Gordon and Ehud Krinis are all published Israeli academics. It matters not a whit whether their article is sourced to Counterpunch, since they are prominent Israeli academics with a published academic record in the area of West Bank settlement studies.

• Where did I say Eric Meyers was a 'bad source'?. Again you are misreading for strategic advantage. You put in Meyers' book, Galilee through the Centuries to source the archeology of Susya in the far south, which is well-documented. Well what does Meyers have to say? On page 179 his text dealing with Sepphoris runs:

These objects appear ..on a series of mosaic floors belonging to Jewish (note 4) and Samaritan synagogues.

We go and check note 4 and find 'They include the synagogues of Beth Alpha, Beth Yerah, Gerasa, Hammath Tiberias, Hulda, Isfiya, and Horvat Susya.'

• So, and only pre-college students need to be told this, but your use of Meyers's book for the mosaic pavement at Susya is bad. Since you blundered, I said Meyer's book (Meyer) was a bad source for Susya, and provided the detailed Oxford guide footnote to replace it. Now you equivocate and draw in Meyer's credentials. This is only bad faith, deliberate wikilawyering, or an attempt to waste my time in elucidating things that any high school student should know. You don't quote irrelevant sources that happen to drop a word or name dealing with the subject at hand and get anything less than a -G grading on your paper. It's like quoting Pear's Encyclopedia on quantum theory.

I'm not going to continue this debate. I know what the game is. Make me waste so much time on the talk page, as tonight, that I'll be too exhausted to finish the page. I've a long record on wiki for interest in the Hebron area, and editing on it, so it is natural that I turned my attention to this stub. You show up (I expected someone to show up). Well, as on other occasions, I defer to the drifter-in. If you are seriously interested in, and informed on Susya and the area, you can convert the stub into an article on your own. You surely aren't here just because I am, and therefore you're welcome to take the burden off my shoulders, research it as I did over these last weeks, and write the article. Go ahead. No edit war, no condescension, it should be a breeze.Remember we're here to write articles, not to kibitz on people who write articles. This is my last comment. If you don't go ahead and substantially enrich the article on your own with some thoroughness, arbitrators ort administrators can make their own conclusions as to why you chose to come here in the first place, since you evidently know nothing of Susya.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Until then, they are properly labeled as allegations by partisans, especially when the partisan sources themselves admit the opposing view - that the land is "State Land", and that the Israeli Supreme Court has found the dwellers to be squatters.

Don't forget to add things like the fact that it's not State Land, according to the ICJ opinion 2004, which overrides anything a court in Israel, which is a foreign occupier of the West Bank, may say. And note while editing on the section 'land disputes' things like this, one of many accounts of what the High Court rules, family by family.

'On the dispossession of the Hushiya family’s land between Susya and Mitzpeh Yair from 2000 who were ‘prevented from accessing their lands by army-backed violent attacks of settlers. The ‘ban’ became permanent in 2005. At one point, some of the family members were shot at and one person has never fully recovered. In 2007, a settler from Susya named Moshe Deutsche who is known for cursing RHR staff and volunteers as « Nazis » « Satan, » etc., began to plant hundreds of grape vines across the road from the Susya settlement on part of a 110-dunam plot belonging to the family. He began to plow and otherwise prepare additional lands for cultivation. The family turned to RHR. Law enforcement authorities can force trespassers of the lands they have taken over without going to court- if they do so within ninety days. We, therefore, quickly and urgently appealed to the police and the legal advisor for the Occupied Territories. These officials maintained that they were investigating the situation, but time was passing by and the limit was almost up. RHR appealed to Israel’s High Court to compel the authorities to enforce the law. In what seemed like a miracle, the authorities ruled that all of the land other than the vineyard belonged to the Hushiya family even before the court heard the case. (A separate hearing ruled the vineyard was to be off-limits to all parties until ownership was resolved, except that Deutsch could send in foreign workers to do limited maintenance). Given the history of settler violence, the army issued an order forbidding Israelis to enter. With out prodding,, the army has on several occasions guarded the family when they requested protection, working their lands., thee cultivation of which they had been denied for five years. It was a very emotional moment to see the two ninety-year.old patriarchs of the family returning to their land. Moshe Deutsche did everything he could to prevent the work that day, and every time the family has come to work their land. Unfortunately, this was not the end of the story. Deutsche appealed to the High Court against the State, RHR and the family in November 2007 for having allowe3d the family to access their land, calling on the court to prevent the family from having such access. In the meantime, the Civil Administration ruled that the planted area also belongs to the Hushiya family, and that Deutsch must uproot his grape vines and abandon the land. In February 2008, Deutsch again appealed against the Palestinians and the Civil Administration, arguing that he had been working the land for 12 years and that therefore it was his. This legal move has meanwhile prevented the family from regaining the planted land. We are waiting for the results of both appeals. … Recently, a new battalion commander in the area hasd been closing his eyes as settlers enter the area forbidden to them and attack shepherds tending the family flocks. The army hjas not provided protection and has even arrested international volunteers sent in by us so that we ourselves would not violate the prohibition against Israelis entering the area.

RHR attorney Kamar Misharki-Asad writes : ‘The behaviour of this settler is only one example of a much wider phenomenon spreading through the Werst Bank. Violent settlers use threats and intimidation to prevent Palestinians from accessing their lands, with the direct or indirect backing of the army. After the land has been « cleansed » of its owners who are prevented access every time they attempt to get their lands,. Palestinians have for all practical purposes been forcibly expelled from their lands. Settlers take advantage of this vacuum to trespass and take over Palestinian lands. They begin to plough and plant, or even set up hothouses. Ironically, the settlers argue that the land belongs to them and not to Palestinians because of Turkish laws (also found in the Jewish Tradition-A.A.) granting ownership to those who work the land for a given period of time. This misguided interpretation is given full weight by the police and ignores that the acts of trepassing and violence by the settlers themselves that allow them to work the land while forcing the Palestinians to keep away. In many cases, the police refuse to enforce the law despite their obligations, even when the Palestinians present all of their ownership documents.’ This story is not yet ended, nor is it the only case in the region when we are being sued for a decision made by the State ! However, within the context of Occupation, we must act with the same « irrational « investment of resources as do those who invest a greater amount of time and money to take over the land. If not, we will only be able to watch as the land disappears.’ Rabbis for Human Rights Volume XVIII - September 2008 Pp pp.17-18Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to some well deserved vacation on a nice Caribbean beach, so I don;t have time to respond in detail just now. I will make one comment though: No one is forcing you to spend any time wikilawyering on this talk page, or making personal attacks on it- it is your choice to do so. You could instead spend the time improving the article, by finding those court rulings you have alluded to, which prove the veracity of Shulman's allegations. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I look forward to your edits on the Antilles and the Bahamas. First hand experience of a subject-matter does wonders.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of establishment

The UN report is ultra RS. The susya.net. source is not an RS. It is the homepage, in a foreign language, maintained by the settlers, i.e., the word of an interested party. So CM's attempt to elide the former in favour of the latter is dubious in terms of policy. Secondly, putting the Hebrew dating system is inappropriate. Thirdly, the edit summary justifying the elision of the UN RS, is partial. The UN annex reads:-

ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF THE WEST BANK

CM left out the first part, established and selectively gave the second part, italicized, as reason for suppressing the UN document. His edit also ignored that the UN gave a precise date in its annex. May 1983. I have been reasonable not questioning the right of the moshav homepage to its version (apart from the fact I am only at the beginning of editing the history of this section). To suppress the UN version is simply to play, in wikipedia, spokesman and praetorian guard for a self-promoting web page of nondescript value in terms of RS. Don't do it again.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There's really no need to turn every minor detail into an edit war, and there's no real mystery or controversy surrounding the date of establishment of the new community. It is September 1983, according to both Palestinian sources (which, incidentally, you added to the article) as well as to the official site of the community, which is a reliable source for facts about itself, such as the date it was established. The UN source you keep citing as a "differing" source actually does not say otherwise, the May date it gives is for when the settlement was "IN TE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED", ie., not yet established. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The moshav webpage (given its highly ideological character, want RS on this?) is not an RS for historical detail. From the beginning there has been a conflict in sources. The history of the settlement is complex, and I am retaining the two dates because the UN source happens to be of higher RS value than the Palestinian source (which in turn is of higher value than the susiya.net source). The May date given refers to settlements 'established 'or in the process of being established. As an editorial principle, one retains what reliable sources say until the disparity between them is overcome by some tertiary source whose authority decides the question. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Moshav page is no more 'highly ideological' than the UN committee. I again suggest you take it to the WP:RSN noticeboard if you think your argument has merit. The UN source gives a list of "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" which means we don't know if the date there is for when the Moshav was established, or 'IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED'. Since we have two other sources that are more precise on this question (and which happen to agree on the date, even though they come from completely opposing political POVs), there no need to use the UN source, which is useless for this purpose. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your game CM, trying to get me sanctioned for a 3RR violation, because I insist that your repeated editwarring to remove the highest quality RS on the section is a violation of wiki policy. I can see no other motive here. Your editing insists on giving a non-RS source, a virtual webpage blog, higher RS rating than a UN document. I fail to understand your warring persistence in preferring poor to quality sources. These pages are edited over time, not overnight. My record here is clear. Your record, as contributor so far, is near to zilch.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The only game-playing that is going on here seems to be coming from your end, as you insist on turning every edit I make on this page, including trivial non-contentious issues like the date of the establishment of the modern settlement, into some huge point of contention, apparently due to some personal issue you have with me.

We have two sources, one pro-Palestinian, one pro-Settler, which both agree that the date is September. We have a third source that gives a date of May as the time when the settlement was either "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - we don't know which is which. So we could turn this non-contentious issue into a cumbersome sentence that implies some mystery or controversy, and reads something like "According to both Palestinian sources and Israeli sources, it was established in September", but a UN document gives a date of May for when it was 'ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - or we could edit the article in an encyclopedic manner, and state it was established in September, which is what the sources say, and give one or two reference for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, this seems like a tiny point to make a fuss about, and CM is correct that the UN document, whatever its provenance, doesn't give a specific date as to when the settlement actually started... and really, who cares? IronDuke 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

CM is correct in that the UN document doesn't say whether the village was established or in the process of being established, on the given date. Other sources are more precise. According to Immanuel HaReuveni, a prominent Israeli geographer, Susya was started in 1982 and the residents moved in in 1983 (doesn't say what month). Therefore, it can be added that the village's established process started in 1982 and was completed in September 1983, which seems to be as accurate a picture as we get from the various sources. --Ynhockey 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All three of you are wrong, and this is block judgement. I found the UN date in sources. Canadian Monkey first added the susya.net source, giving September. At this state of the play, I had an official document, specifically registerinng West Bank developments, published by the specific UN agency monitoring settler activities on the West Bank, giving May, and the September date.

If you examine Canadian Monkey's monkeying with this, he (a) eliminated the UN source giving may while (b) giving the susya net source, which in anycase is an unreliable source, since it is a self-promoting website by a moshav with some notoriety in the world.

What did I do? I noted the September source from the moshav website was unreliable, but knowing the alternative date does exist, left it there, with the UN source. For in principle strong reliable sources should not be deleted and replaced with poor sources, and, there is no harm in keeping the alternative dates since (c) they may very well refer to different moments in the establishment of the moshav (fencing in, expropriation, first building, caravans, or first settled habitation etc.etc).

CM then read what he calls a 'pro-Palestinian' source which he uses to justify his elimination of the UN document. He's happier having two partisan accounts which appear to balance each other and confluesce in their data, than having a third external source which disagrees with both. Bad practice.

Who rarely cares? I do, and I have worked hardest on the article to get details precisely sourced from the best literature, and if I find a conflict, I don't make a personal judgement according to what I personally prefer, I retain all available information until I or some other editor establishes with indisputable clarity which source gets things right on what details. This, gentlemen, is what editing towards an encyclopedic end. All I see in Canadian Monkey's behaviour is work to ensure the moshav's point of view is secured, even at the cost of contesting what external international bodies say.

One cannot equivocate, as he did, on 'established' as equivalent to 'in the process of establishment'.

I haven't warred on POV. I have warred to retain alternative information that happens to come from the UN authority monitoring the West Bank settlements, while CM has consistently edited to suppress it. That is suppression of a high quality alternative source, and is unconscionable. It is unnecessary because adding 'May' to or 'September' saves the phenomena, while retaining the best available source do date.

Ynhockey is correct about 1982, which I was also familiar with from my files. I have a large file on Susya, and precisely because information from various sources is ragged, I edit point by point to get the whole picture in, not to push some line. Last night's idiocy should not be repeated. Nothing is lost by retaining at the drafting stage all reliable sources. Much may be lost by priviliging partisan sources at their expense. It's a matter of principle.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles