Talk:Settlements in Israel

message: I think the solution of having an article about Israeli settlements in general and another which is region-specific may be good solution. gidonb 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a total mess (like you said earlier, even though you created this mess). Like I said, I'm not a fan of the word "settlement", but the way you went about this was, to put it one way, POV-pushing. Plus it was without consensus, which is even more regretful. According to NPOV rules, the solution to this lies in "common use", yet you created a new stub that will baffle anyone who come to WP to read about "Israeli settlements" the way most people (even those who oppose the word) know it. Ramallite (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The ironic thing about this is that extremists on both sides would be happy with the new Israeli settlements stub (as of the time I'm writing this)! One one side, extremists would be glad to read that all Jewish population centers in Eretz Yisrael (including the territories) are considered equal, and on the other side, people would be delighted that Wikipedia considers Israeli towns even within the Green Line as "settlements" (because of the temporary or illegal connotation it implies)  :-) Ramallite (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I know what the English word "settlement" means, but this article is about "Israeli settlements" and as far as I know there is no article "X settlements" for any other country X.  Can you show me a link that calls Haifa, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem a "settlement" in modern times?  The silliness of this article is seen by reading it: "Depending on one's definition, most or all the latter are Israeli settlements in the West Bank."  By who's definition is Haifa in the West Bank?  I vote to make this article into a redirect to one on the settlements in the OT.  The ambiguity of the word "settlement" can be disposed of in a single sentence near the beginning of the latter article.  --Zero 21:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I believe that every country should have articles about its settlements. Also, the article "Israeli settlement" now opens with the phrase "Israeli settlements" and is extremely misleading, as it deals only with Israeli settlements outside Israel's sovereign territory. The great majority of the Israeli settlements are not in such territories and therefore the article purposefully misleads the reader with marginal information on the topic it claims to cover. The terminology chapter is a slap in the face to all spatial sciences. gidonb 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which settlements in each article?

message: it's not a settlement if it's part of Israel-proper (i.e. excluding West Bank)
This article is extremely misleading. Several articles mistakenly link here because the disambiguation link was removed. There is already an article on the settlements which includes a dispute over terminology. This page should be deleted. -136.159.208.20 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to totally disregard the meaning of the word settlement. gidonb 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This should be restricted to the West Bank" 

message: Now that the claim of "original research" has been totally refuted, there remains a problem of some ambiguity between the scientific use of the word settlement and between a use that has become quite popular in various media. Proposals which overcome this ambiguity (and do not introduce new confusion) will be welcomed. gidonb 06:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This ambiguity could be eradicated by specifying in the title exactly which of the settlements populated (predominantly) by Israeli citizens the article refers to, namely those contrary to international law. Journalists, academics and politicians critical of Israeli civilian presence beyond the Green Line refer to these houses collectively as illegal settlements, while many Israeli media outlets make no such distinction. As long as no peace deal is brokered, these communities are caught in a legal vacuum and are not legally part of any state. How about renaming the article accordingly then? I propose "Israeli civilian communities outside Israel proper", or something less cumbersome but equally precise. //Big Adamsky 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cybbe and Doron, the article is still OR as it is currently presented. A tiny minority may refer to Israeli cities as "Israeli settlements," but to present this view as a neutral fact is disingenuous. The scattered evidence provided by Gidonb does not constitute the "scientific use" of the term, and can hardly be called "proof," as anyone with even a sophomoric understanding of scientific methodology could attest. I agree with most of the suggestions offered by other editors. This page could be merged with either Geography of Israel or Israeli settlement, although the claims currently presented should be highly qualified. I don't think this stub really needs to exist, even with a different name. It certainly shouldn't continue to exist with this name, since the site has redirected all links using the plural form of the term away from the main article. 
-Gregor Samsa 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If not redirected to Israeli settlement, this should be moved to Settlements in Israel and the redirect from here pointed to Israeli settlement. How many other articles are there where the singular title deals with one thing and the plural title with something completely different? At least I hope the proponents for its continued existence at this location will have the decency to go around checking that none of the linked articles are meant to be linking to Israeli settlement. Is that too much to ask? Palmiro | Talk 03:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not particularly reassuring, as there is by contrast plenty of argument over what is going to happen to the other article, and on a quick glance the bulk of opinion seems to favour it staying where it is. Palmiro | Talk 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I never created one single link to this page, unless from a talk page when relevant in our discussion. The rest of your claims, unfortunately, also do not hold water. gidonb 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Effectively you did, since you changed it from a redirect to Israeli settlement into a stub on a different topic, without, as far as I can see, fixing the links to it that were relevant to the original meaning. Palmiro | Talk 18:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: The requested move was successful. The discussion is archived here. enochlau (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the article has moved and is developing I look forward to the apologies for the disgusting personal attacks on this longtime contributor, which were totally disconnected from any reality and inappropriate per our policies assume good intentions and no personal attacks. As a strict NPOV contributor, I have always had good working relations with all political parties on Wikipedia and hope things will remain this way. gidonb 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: (after conflict) Shuki, please do not revert before a different consensus is reached than the previous one. I have explained the concept with tons of refernces but to no avail. People remain confused about the concepts. I want to move on. Do me a favor this time. The discussions are old and closed. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that this now belongs to the Geography of Israel. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being reasonable :-/ I was going to ask more wikipedians to come and give their advice. This move was performed steathly and not according to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. --Shuki 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no objections at the time. We all agreed on the issue, after I gave up explaining. Why not just go ahead and write more. If you want to write a new article on hitnachluyut, go ahead. No problem with me, but others get utterly confused. Not everyone swims in social science and there is a lot of resistance since the popular but sloppy use of settlements in the press is so prevalent. gidonb 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the word I was looking for - sloppy. Now there is no mention of the important biblical term of 'hitnachluyut', especially since Jewish settlement was long ago redirected into Israeli settlement which only describes Jewish residential areas on the West Bank. I suppose that given some time, I could have fixed up this article, Ynhockey had only recently suggested his help. --Shuki 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I have to execute the verdict opinion of the community. You are most welcome to write a new article. Perhaps you will do a better job than me persuading that this is NPOV. gidonb 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: * gidonb 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Approve

message: Much has already been said. I think that the article is valid if fixed up properly. Currently, it seems more geography oriented but could have more history/bible references inserted to explain why the term settlement is the literal translation of the Hebrew 'hitnachlut' which does refer to the settling of any area (not only in 'disputed territories'). I reverted the redirect since the compromise of moving the contents to Geography of Israel was not even performed yet. I also added a merge template to make the move a bit more official and binding and copied this section to the destination talk page. --Shuki 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after conflict) Shuki, please do not revert before a different consensus is reached than the previous one. I have explained the concept with tons of refernces but to no avail. People remain confused about the concepts. I want to move on. Do me a favor this time. The discussions are old and closed. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that this now belongs to the Geography of Israel. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being reasonable :-/ I was going to ask more wikipedians to come and give their advice. This move was performed steathly and not according to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. --Shuki 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no objections at the time. We all agreed on the issue, after I gave up explaining. Why not just go ahead and write more. If you want to write a new article on hitnachluyut, go ahead. No problem with me, but others get utterly confused. Not everyone swims in social science and there is a lot of resistance since the popular but sloppy use of settlements in the press is so prevalent. gidonb 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the word I was looking for - sloppy. Now there is no mention of the important biblical term of 'hitnachluyut', especially since Jewish settlement was long ago redirected into Israeli settlement which only describes Jewish residential areas on the West Bank. I suppose that given some time, I could have fixed up this article, Ynhockey had only recently suggested his help. --Shuki 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I have to execute the verdict opinion of the community. You are most welcome to write a new article. Perhaps you will do a better job than me persuading that this is NPOV. gidonb 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Object

message: I am unclear how the following text fits in: The Hebrew bible mentions the word 'nahalot' (נחלות) as estates in the land of Israel that were given to various tribes and groups. 'Hitnahlut' (התנחלות), commonly translated as settlements, is the term used to describe the areas actively settled, rather than merely allocated. With corrections, it may be of use in some another article. gidonb 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitnahlut

message: here is already an article about the real settlments (those beyond the green line). No one other than Hamas propeganda calls Israeli towns (inside Israel proper) "settlements". This article should be deleted. can anyone explain to me how to list an article for deletion ? Thanks. Zeq 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assumption that only the Hamas refers to Israeli cities, towns and villages as settlements has been discussed above. Plentiful proof of the opposite has been provided. Also, the old discussion is closed. As the name change increased the ambiguity of this important article, I have proposed another change. gidonb 11:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli settlements