Talk:Amona, Mateh Binyamin

message: This is not the place for POV. Eyewitness, settler supporters, and peace activists alike should realize that there are many different perspectives on the same story. Let's not demonize one side at the expense of the other. This is an encyclopedia. Danny 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo that. It looks likely that there will be Commission set up, or at least some form of investigation will be undertaken soon. It's hasty to come to conclusions at this stage about what exactly led to and who did what, beyond what we know of from mainstream media sources. El_C 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Facts are facts, and video evidence can't really be disputed. In one video, a police officer is shown smashing the heads of protestors who were literally sitting on the floor with arms linked in classic civil disobedience style. Do you think the policeman and protestor were hugging each other and the protestor just happened to "fall" off the roof?  LandOfIsrael 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Great pictures!!!!!!
I'd like to remove the POV header. I tried to make the article even more "neutral". Please chime in below this line. Five votes to remove the POV heading (not including mine, of course) and the fifth person will remove it. Fair enough? Please write in the edit summary "my vote to remove POV heading" as well as entering your vote below. LandOfIsrael 20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Matt: What would you change? LandOfIsrael 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the issues were, but the article now quotes the results of an official government inquiry, so I am removing the NPOV tag. If anyone feels that there are still issues to be resolved, they should make note of them on Talk and work to correct them. Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Super! Thanks for taking the initiative Tewfik! LandOfIsrael 11:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [NPOV]

message: Since the last POV discussion it seems like the article has gained a little bias (more in style than in factual content). On the other hand I have just reverted an edit which was clearly biased to the other side (and even counter-factual in one place). Maybe a POV check would be useful, and certainly adding inline citations seems to be in order. Eldar (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and citations 

message: In the first part of the article, there is a sentence "According to the demonstrators, Israeli security forces beat them over the head and body with truncheons, and some were trampled by police horses."
This should be changed. first of all, since the battle, a sad wealth of media has surfaced depicting the police running down protestors and bludgeoning them. But even worse, this very article makes reference to the conclusions reached by the knesset commission which found that horses and bludgeons had been used. 
So which is it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by  Bennyp  (talk • contribs)  20:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's something worth looking into, particularly given what may happen with Migron pretty soon. Don't forget to sign your Discussion page comments with four ~.—Biosketch (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "according to demonstrators" 

message: The line in the lead on the settlement being illegal under international law was removed as "irrelevant" because the government apparently did not approve of the settlement. I dont see how that could possibly make the status of this colony as a violation customary international law not relevant, but if Eldar would be so nice to explain that would be much appreciated. In the meantime, in keeping with the consensus established at WT:Legal status of Israeli settlements, I have reverted the removal of this material. nableezy - 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. There was a discussion at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements which established a consensus for including this material in all articles on settlements. That discussion also resulted in a consensus that this one source should be used, regardless of whether or not it mentions a particular settlement, as it says this is true for all settlements. nableezy - 06:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the conclusion reached following discussion nor is it consistent with the way reliable sources deal with this issue. Here for example in a BBC article from 2006 about Amona they say "The international community considers all settlements in the occupied territories - Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." The illegality is a notable attribute of all Israeli settlements. It's probably the single most notable attribute of any Israeli settlement so RS include it in their articles when they discuss settlements. To exclude such a notable attribute of an instance of something when RS take care to include it seems odd. Also, I don't think your candy analogy works. The legality of settlements isn't like a health warning. It's a distinctive feature that is common to all Israeli settlements that distinguishs them from other kinds of settlements in the world. It's like the "Distinctive features" attribute in the List of candies article if you assume that the set of all candies in the world is the analogue of the set of all settlements in the world. The distinguising feature of a particular candy is naturally included in the article about a particular candy because it's a notable feature of that candy. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal status under international law 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Amona, Mateh Binyamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327204721/http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp?infocatid=499 to http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp%3Finfocatid%3D499
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001212300/http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp?infocatid=411 to http://www.yesh-din.org/infoitem.asp?infocatid=411
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : The High Court of Israel ruled in 2006 that the settlement is illegal under Israeli law,[3] but as of March 2013, its status remained unresolved as the Israeli government continued to fight the court's eviction order.
The  settlers have been evicted, so perhaps someone can add more updated info? ImTheIP (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is out of date