Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

(Settlements) Legality and edit warring

Conversation continues at #Settlement illegality text

The following discussion 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.

A line discussing the legality of settlements was a hot issue a couple months ago and is back. It has been discussed on a handful of article talk pages but never centralized. It has led to renewed edit warring at Psagot. It was already part of the reason one editor received a temporary ban (now completed) from related articles so I figured I would be proactive and see if it it is time to open up an RfC or something similar. How should the line "Settlement name, like all West Bank settlements, is illegal under international law." be handled? Editors have cited NPOV for both keeping and removing and I agree that both trains of thought on it have merit. It can continue on a case by case basis if people prefer, but at the very least the edit warring and dismissal of previous arguments needs to stop. It has already disrupted the topic area to much. Stating an opinion on a talk page or edit summary then making the change regardless of the response is not reaching consensus.

And before the accusations start flying, I came across this from stalking LibiBamizrach. I was curious about the new guy. And no, Nableezy is not all to blame for it since others are also reverting.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is who can label a place illegal and if there is context to use that label? Can a reporter from BBC, just say off hand that 'X is illegal' and we accept it plainly because BBC is normally a reliable source? Should not some context in that source be necessary to back up that claim? Is it merely 'widely known', the opinion of many people, or a fact? Are only Jewish settlements illegal, or anything built after 1967 including Palestinian settlements? Can a BBC reporter or one from the Guardian make legal judgements? --Shuki (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Is legality/illegality a fact? Simple answer: no one can say. However, the legality issue is one of the central topics regarding the settlements and should be mentioned in the respective articles. The exact language have to be as neutral as possible, reflect the major POVs and integrate naturally into the article style. In general, something like "The settlement is illegal under international law ref, though Israel disputes thisref" or "The settlement is illegal according to Aref, Bref though Cref and Dref disputes thisref" can fit most of the articles about specific settlements. I guess finding very solid reliable sources (UN, etc.) would be easy. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Should that be added to an article when it is only a stub or does that present undue weight?Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as the desirability of mentioning the legality of the settlements and outposts in international law is concerned, I don't have a firm opinion. I'd like to point out though, that as far as the BBC is concerned, there is a guideline advising journalists how to write about the settlements: 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". I'd also like to point out that the International Court of Justice, which guides the UN, has given an advisory opinion that all the settlements are illegal. Also, Israeli government lawyers in the aftermath of the 6-day War gave a similar opinion to the Israeli government of the time.     ←   ZScarpia   13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding stabs: surely some mention of legality question can be added to a tiny article of 100-200 words like Ma'ale Levona, without ruining the style. But stabs? Don't know... Is 1/5 of total word count looks undue? 1/3? Are stabs unbalancedby definition? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
ZScarpia, I guess UN and ICJ documents can be easily found. Can you please provide any clue where to look for the Israeli government lawyers opinion? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The post 6 Day War opinion was written by Theodor Meron and is in English here. Excellent topic for a conversation, fights over terminology are a big part of the I/P talk page fights. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
My principal source is 1967: Israel, the war, and the year that transformed the Middle East, Tom Segev, 2005, ISBN 0805070575. Page 576:
Roughly three months later, a top secret - and quite embarrassing - legal opinion by the foreign minister's legal counsel stated that civilian settlements in the "administered territories" contravened international law. The counsel, Theodor Meron, was unequivocal: according to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, an occupying country shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Meron quoted an authoritative interpretation of the clause, which reinforced his opinion that Israel could not settle its citizens in the territories. He concluded that settlements should be implemented by the army, in camps that were - at least in appearance - temporary. Military camps could not be set up just anywhere, and ownership titles had to be respected. These restrictions, the opinion went on, applied first of all to the Golan Heights, which undoubtedly constituted an occupied territory.
According to Israel, the final status of the West Bank had never been determined, and its annexation to the Hashemite Kingdom had not been carried out legally. And hence Israel claimed that the West Bank was not an occupied territory, which meant that it was not prevented from settling its citizens there. Meron did not refute this argument, but noted that it was disputed by the international community. Furthermore, Meron noted with embarrassment, Israel itself had recognized the status of the West Bank as an occupied territory by publishing military decrees declaring explicitly that it would respect the Geneva Conventions.
    ←   ZScarpia   16:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, apparently, on 9 June 2005, in a case in which a petition by a group of settlers against the Evacuation Compensation Law and the Disengagement Plan was rejected, the Israeli Supreme Court also ruled that the occupied territories are “lands seized during warfare and are not part of Israel.” (source: P K Kumaraswamy, Historical Dictionary of the Arab-Israeli Conflict)     ←   ZScarpia   16:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It might help jump start the discussion if someone familiar with the particulars of this dispute summarizes both sides. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there are sides here. Given the right sources and polished wording the issue can be addressed almost in every settlement-related article. Am I naive? Also, is this the ICJ advisory opinion mentioned above? Is it good as source? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, perhaps I should have phrased it better, I was referring to "Editors have cited NPOV for both keeping and removing and I agree that both trains of thought on it have merit". So if the question is just "Can we call settlements illegal under international law without violating NPOV?" that is simpler. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Pro says it is NPOV since it is presenting facts. Con says it is NPOV to reduce undue weight.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Geneva Convention is a universally ratified written agreement between contracting state parties which defines grave breaches and categorizes them as crimes. About 175 states have formally adopted Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Article 85(4)(a) and 85(5) provide that the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is a grave breach that shall be regarded as war crime. [1]
When the Security Council established the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals it adopted Statues under the terms of Chapter VII resolutions which said that the Additional Protocol had, beyond any doubt, passed into the body of customary international law that was binding upon non-signatories, e.g. [2] The Israeli MFA advises that the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Fourth Geneva Convention and certain parts of Additional Protocol I reflect customary international law that is applicable in the occupied territories. [3]
113 States have subsequently ratified the Rome Statute. Article 8(2)(b)(viii) provides that the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory is a war crime.
Individual states do not determine their obligations to other state parties under the terms of either conventional or customary international law. A Reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention issued a Declaration that the territory Israel captured in 1967 is occupied under the terms of the convention and that the Israeli settlements are illegal. [4] The ICJ also advised the General Assembly that Israel had facilitated the transfer of portions of its population into the occupied territories and established settlements there in violation of its obligations under international law, including Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See for example paragraphs 120 & 134. [5] The Court noted that many participating states in the proceedings had argued that under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law (paras 144-145). harlan (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, thank you for excellent reference. To the matter: we have to agree on a single neutral phrase or two about legality which can fit most settlement articles, or address the problem from a different angle (for example, mention that the land is disputed), or decide nothing and accept sporadic edit warring. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, I thought Cptnono was asking about whether it should be put into individual articles and not if it is true/supported. To save rehashing the "International law and Israeli settlements" article, yes, they are illegal. There are academics and some parts of the Israeli government that uphold their legality but even the Israeli High Court describes the land as occupied (while deferring to the military on what constitutes the "military necessity" that legitimizes creating civilian population centers). Should it be put into every article on Israeli settlements? It seems a little pedantic to insert it into each article but if it's Nableezy's 6 words it's not too disruptive. I'd say not an NPOV issue and probably not an undue weight issue but I'm open to persuasion on the latter. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The Psagot shows how surprisingly complicated it is. It originally was a complete stub. One of the reason for removing it was because there was a wikilink and that was due weight (from my understanding of the dispute only). The of course editors start saying "well you should expand the article then". I'm glad that it happened but it isn't the responsibility of those not supporting a line to expand the article. Unfortunately the wording is still not hammered out. One editor thought he had it a good idea and propsed it on Nableezy's page. Proposals are in at the other talk page and some even just made edits hoping it would work it looks like. And it gets even worse since now people are concerned about ho much weight it deserves in the lead and the body. So it isn't very clear cut how to go about fixing this yet if we are going to be doing topic wide.Cptnono (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Haha, oh wow, the Psagot talk page is a killing field at the moment. Nableezy does have the strength of a few articles directly discussing the illegality of this particular settlement which makes it seem like the sentence in question is appropriate for this article by virtue of its notability. For other articles lacking devoted articles/sources, I'm really not sure. If it can't be blocked as NPOV then I guess it would be a matter of determining undue weight on a case by case basis. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

This is a ridiculous discussion that completely ignores the sources and instead focuses on what some editors want without any backing in the sources. Here is a collection of sources saying that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law:

p. 17: annexations, expulsions and the creation of settlements are specifically prohibited by international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, in Article 47, proscribes the annexation of occupied territory, and the United Nations has repeatedly condemned Israel's precipitous annexation of East Jerusalem and a wide belt of surrounding suburbs, villages and towns. Article 49 of the same convention prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of residents from an occupied area, regardless of motive. And yet thousands of Palestinians have been expelled (see Lesch, 1979:113-130, for a partial list of the "officially deported" ones) while many more have been, through measures to be described below, "pressured" to leave. The same Article expressly forbids the transfer by an occupying power of any of its civilian population into occupied areas. And yet, at most recent count, over 90,000 Israeli Jews have been officially "settled" within the illegally- annexed Jerusalem district, and more than 30,000 others have been "settled" in some 100 nahals (military forts), villages and even towns that the Israeli government has authorized, planned, financed and built in unannexed zones beyond the 1949 cease-fire line that Israelis refer to not as a border, but euphemistically as a "green line."

p. 17: Article 49 has been interpreted as prohibiting both forced deportations of Palestinians and population transfers of the sort associated with the establishment and continuous expansion of Israeli settlements

p. 85: The settlements program is quite simply contrary to international law. However, it is now so far advanced, and so plainly in violation of the Geneva Convention, that it actually creates a powerful reason for Israel's continuing refusal to accept that the Convention is applicable in the occupied territories on a de jure basis

This is not a real dispute and the solution is simple. Follow what high quality sources say and just say "Israeli settlement X is illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this". The entire opposition here stems from a demand that what can be sourced to countless high quality sources be watered down to suit the political leanings of a few wikipedia editors. nableezy - 03:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a real dispute and you just dismissed several editor's reasoning by assuming it is not. Yes, settlements are obviously condemned by the international community. However, sources verifying that there are other concerns with the seizure of land but not the installation of housing need to be disregarded (there are plenty without it though). More importantly for our concerns here on Wikipedia, how is it to be worded? Where in the article does it belong? If it is twice (lead and body) how is the wording adjusted? If an article is too small how does it get addressed? It is not nearly as simple as "it is illegal". NPOV is not verifiability. It is wording and weight. So does this go into every single article about settlements? The original question here was if we need a centralized discussion and it is still question that needs to be answered. There is edit warring and there has been edit warring over this so it is not clearly as easy as you providing sources would assume. Psagot is the perfect example. Why are you and other editors edit warring? It shouldn't be happening. So how do you, Nableezy, and other editors who agree that it is illegal wish to present the information across the topic? Or you can keep on edit warring. There is nothing I would lik to see more then all of you hitting the revert button banned from the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As is so often the case, you have no idea what it is you are talking about. I am not "assuming" anything. The editors "reasoning" is not based on any sources and as such it is invalid. Why are you getting involved in yet another topic where you plainly have no idea what it is you are talking about? A "dispute" does not occur simply because some nationalist editors dont like what the sources say. I provide sources, you and your friends provide nothing but obfuscation and time-wasting tactics. There is no dispute in the sources on the illegality of Israeli settlements. That is a well-documented fact. That nationalistic tendencies prevent some users from accepting that fact should have no bearing on what supposed "encyclopedia" articles say. To your last line, there is nothing I would like to see uninformed editors either being banned or going to a library and reading a book before they get involved in these issues. nableezy - 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this discussion was started to address the points you just mentioned. I understand your frustration after repeating the same arguments again and again, but may be this time we have a chance of a constructive dialog? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not with some of the names we are seeing here. This isnt a discussion on the topic and wasnt meant to be, this is just one editor continuing with his years long campaign to try to get me banned. If this was about the content Cptnono would not have put "and edit-warring" in the thread title and would not have said some of the stupider things he wrote above. He would have, and this part is shocking, tried to read some sources and see what they say about the topic. I can have this discussion, but not with those who are both uninformed and show no interest in becoming informed. I gave sources and reasons based in policy for why the articles should say certain things. The response from Cptnono is blanket statements without any backing about "NPOV" or "edit-warring" and other such inanity. There was not even an effort to look up sources and determine if his or any other positions have any backing in the sources. This will end up being one more example of what is wrong here, process is put over substance. Cptnono thinks he is doing things the "right way" but has no understanding of the actual substance of the issues involved here. So we get "discussions" about "disputes" where we need dispassionate analysis of the sources and how to reflect the weight the sources give to the well-established fact the settlements are illegal under international law. "Nableezy, and other editors who agree it is illegal" is an example of how uninformed discussions do not help. It is not "Nableezy and other editors" who say that the settlements are illegal. It is the sources. That is what matters here, but too many editors disregard the sources when it does not fit their nationalist agenda. All that matters here is the sources, and when I provide sources the response is, as is often the case, lacking in a single source but rather tries to shift the discussion to the "process". nableezy - 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU NABLEEZY This is the man who wrote the The Truth section on the Gaza War talk page. I expect you'll ban my IP after you read this, so let me get straight to it. Cptnono told me to take my "soapboxing" here, so I found something else, what I was looking for, a guy who skips all the stupid technical talk that doesn't matter and says forget the POV discussion and start using sources in an article that demands sources. And I mean good sources, like frontline battle accounts and pieces of international law. From what I've seen I'm sure I disagree with Nableezy's politics, but he's done with your process that is getting nowhere. He's using facts, the Geneva Convention is legit material to use. Most Israel related articles here are mostly manufactured news pieces and filled with editorials by people who aren't experts but claim to be, like John Mearshemier being referenced somewhere in one of these talk pages. He wasn't there, he sat in an air conditioned room at the University of Chicago. Sure Nableezy puts a spin on them a bit because of his beliefs but I do too, we all do. Nobody is innocent. Cut the BS. Whoever they are biased towards, its stupid to debate their neutrality. Middle Eastern related articles all need huge overhauls, and using actual facts like international law and frontline battle accounts before spitting off a viewpoint for anyone's side. Whether you think Israel deliberately launches wars to massacre Palestinians or not, I don't care, but use facts like Nebleezy does. If a political commentator that isn't involved in being in government or military or anything relevant is being used as a source without using facts himself, he shouldn't be used to even show what a viewpoint is. I use Wiki for some things, when it uses facts, but I have my doubts. I want to see the attitude and writing style change, not just articles. Ban me if you want, if you do you're only proving that you're going nowhere with this. But thanks Nebleezy. I don't like your politics, but keep using facts like the Geneva Convention and stuff, it's going out of style with these "excuse me"'s and "actually"'s all over Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


What are the policy grounds for objecting to putting in the "illegal settlements" sentence into the Psagot article? It's verified by RS and not a NPOV issue to point out that this settlement, by name, has been decried as illegal. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
May be I'm missing something, but my impression is that almost everybody agreed to have it in Psagot. The disagreement is about the exact wording and it's location in the article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That is about right. I have seen people dispute the line on factual grounds but I don't get that. Yes, the issue has been about other aspects. Relevancy (originally it wasn't sourced to that specific settlement), how to word it, if Israel's stance on it is necessary, where does it go, and so on.Cptnono (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall we go back to this discussion? Can it result in a rule of handling the legality issue in the settlement articles? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What do people feel about this sentence added into all settlement articles? : "Israeli settlements in the PT/GH are regarded as illegal by the international community, though Israel disputes this." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That phrasing is ambiguous. What does Israel dispute -- the illegality, or the fact that "the international comnmunity"" regards them as illegal? Also, the phrase "international community" is undefined, and open to endless quibbling. Any such sentence, rewritten, should link to International law and Israeli settlements which sets out the debate. RolandR (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Israel objects to that the settlements are illegal. By "international community" I mean the vast majority of all countries on earth, what other word or phrasing should be used for this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, "international community" is a legally defined term of art. The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380, Volume 1, page 16 says "International law. International law is the law of the international community. It deals with the law of nation states and their relations with other states, and to some extent also with their relations with individuals, business organizations, and other legal entities. ... ...The international community. The principal entities of the international political system are states. The system includes also their international (intergovernmental) organizations with independent status and character, for example, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the Organization of American States." harlan (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean, of course. But I am trying to prevent the use of terminology which would be open to constant quibbling by editors who fail to assume good faith. Maybe we should just use the first sentence of International law and Israeli settlements, "The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this", with a link to the article. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Logically, this one is great. The problem is that it will take 50% of an average settlement article and will cause "undue weight" complaints. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no problem with adding one single sentence. Even if some of them are stubs, its the view of the entire world, it deserves one sentence at least. RolandRs suggestion is to long and can easily be cut down, for example we don't have to mention legality of West bank in Golan articles and vice versa, and "The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements" can be cut down to: "The international community considers Israeli settlements"... ElComandanteChe, what do you think of my suggestion?: "Israeli settlements in the PT/GH are regarded as illegal by the international community, though Israel disputes this." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty happy with any wording, if it neutrally presents the relevant viewpoints and is properly sourced, but not for stubs or tiny articles. In these cases links (1, 2) are enough. Both you and Nableezy tried it in stubs, and each time it sparked an edit war and/or dragging each other to WP:AN/I. Unfortunately, in I-P area we have to be diplomatic in our edits. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and call me Che (I like it, others call me this way, and it saves typing), if you don't mind. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You are right on with the stub thing. And for start or higher articles, it still hasn't been addressed if it belongs in the lead, its own section, a history section, or all three.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the BBC is confusing defiance of international law with disputing the content of international law. There is a lot of out-of-date material on the Israeli MFA website that was written before the Rome Statute entered into effect in 2002, e.g. [6] That also means that it was written before the 2004 ICJ Advisory ruling too. At the time that it was adopted in 1998, Israeli officials acknowledged that the settlements would be war crimes under the terms of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court when it entered into effect, e.g. [7]. Prior to his appointment to the Israeli Supreme Court, Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein warned the Knesset Constitution and Law Committee that Israeli settlers could be indicted by the ICC, and that non-ratification would not provide immunity from prosecution by the court. See "Israel and the ICC" in the July 1, 2002 edition of The Nation. [8] After the ICJ advisory opinion, Attorney General Mazuz and the experts at the Justice Ministry warned that Israeli citizens are open to criminal and civil suits abroad, and that the state is open to international sanctions, e.g. [9].

Some Wikipedia editors still argue about the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, even though the MFA says that "Israel must adhere to the rules and principles in (a) the Fourth Geneva Convention, (b) the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention (which reflect customary international law), and (c) the customary international law principles reflected in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions on 1949." See paragraph 31 [10]. /Operation_Gaza_factual_and_legal_aspects_applicable_legal_framework_5_Aug_2009.htm] harlan (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I just came across this lengthy discussion, and while not having read all of it, I skimmed it a bit. This is really a reply to Che's comment that "The problem is that it will take 50% of an average settlement article and will cause 'undue weight' complaints." Okay, maybe others read Wikipedia's undue weight policy differently than myself, but my understanding is that undue weight doesn't have anything to do with what percentage of an article can be devoted to which aspects of a topic. My understanding is that undue weight refers to reflecting majority and minority viewpoints on a subject, in proportion to the prominence of each. We have a majority viewpoint (held by most of the world) that the settlements are illegal. We have a minority viewpoint (held by Israel) that the settlements are legal. The proposed statement above is short and includes both. I don't think that WP:UNDUE has anything whatsoever to do with how long this sentence is relative to the length of the article. Am I missing something here? Where does the policy page mention the length of the majority/minority viewpoint relative to the length of the article? That page actually says that "All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout." ← George talk 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The scope of the article should primarily be the location, not the legal question. So it is fair to mention the legal viewpoint but if it overpowers the other aspects of the subject then it is receiving excess prominence. That was part of what I was getting at up above when mentioning where in the article and how much space it should receive. I honestly don't know the correct balance (one of the reasons I delayed responding to ElComandanteChe). Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
When you write "if it overpowers the other aspects of the subject then it is receiving excess prominence," I guess my question is - so what? Regardless of whether or not that's true, which Wikipedia policy says that it's bad to give excess prominence to one aspect of a subject over others? I really think editors are misreading what the undue weight policy says.
Let me try to give an example. Say I'm writing an article about my favorite soccer team, and say that half of that article is about one specific player (on a team of eleven). The undue weight policy doesn't say that's bad. All that the undue weight policy says is keep fringe and minority views to a minimum; to keep out (or at least keep down) claims like 'the earth is flat'. At some point that article might get too long, and guidelines say that the material should be spun off to another article, but that's a different subject.
Based on the sources above that say it's the "international community's view," I don't think that labeling settlements as illegal is a fringe theory. If editors think that the label itself is a fringe or minority view, then they can cite the undue weight policy. But if anything, since only Israel considers the settlements to be legal, that would be the more fringe-like of the two theories. (I'm not saying keep out Israel's viewpoint. Since Israel is a key party to the topic, its opinion should be included too.) ← George talk 05:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Half of a soccer team's article about one player would be terrible. It is often referred to as undue weight across the project when such instances occur but you are right, undue weight does not directly say that articles cannot overly focus on one particular aspect. However, articles on a populated place should give the proper amount of focus on schools, roads, demographics, and so on. If the article is primarily about the legal issue (which happens on these short stubs) then they need to be retitled "Legal status of settlement x". And it has nothing to do with keeping out Israel's viewpoint (UNDUE does come into play there, though) but the overall scope of the article. Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, a good fix to an article on a soccer team that overemphasizes one player would be to create an article for the player instead. Unfortunately, the solution is not as easy here!Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
While I certainly agree that having half a soccer team's article about one player would be terrible, I don't think anyone could just go and remove the information about that player from the article citing undue weight—especially if there's only one sentence talking about that player in a two sentence soccer team stub. And I agree that there is this common misconception floating around about what the undue weight policy says. And I agree that articles on populated places should include as much information as we have available in reliable sources, but that's also not a valid reason to remove information about the legal status of the populated place—only an incentive to expand those articles.
Now, if these were sizable articles, and they were mostly about the legal status of the settlement, then of course it should be split into two articles—one about the legal status, and one about the settlement. We have the content forking guidelines for that very reason. But, if I understand correctly, we aren't discussing sizable articles ready to be split, and there isn't much information being added about the settlements (as in, multiple paragraphs making up the majority of the article). If it's just one sentence in a stub being discussed, I can't see any policy-based reason to exclude it—especially not due to common misconceptions about what undue weight says. ← George talk 06:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like neither of us believes the info should be removed completely. It is a matter of space. In the perfect world, people would be expanding these articles. Unfortunately, I feel that the space allotted is tied by the reality that they are not expanded. You're right about the size. I saw one settlement article (don't recall which) that was of decent size and the legality received a whole section. Did not jump out as a problem at all. The concern is with these stubs and how much play it gets there. Since we cannot rely on the articles being expanded first, there needs to be some consensus on how to handle those since it is edit warred over repeatedly. It sucks since I really have know idea what the best step forward is.Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
My personal opinion is to allow a single, short, to the point sentence in those stubs, one that states both viewpoints, a la "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the (West Bank/Golan Heights) illegal; Israel disagrees." We shouldn't allow editors to remove information as undue weight when it isn't. We should encourage them to expand the articles. If the legality information gets too lengthy, we should consider refactoring, retitling, or forking the article. We also have to keep in mind that there may be some cases where the legality/illegality is what makes the place notable. ← George talk 07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

<- I think Roland's proposed phrasing, "The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this", with a link to the International law and Israeli settlements is fine. I agree with George that there is no undue issue. The presence or absence of this highly notable information, central to the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, consistently covered in numerous reliable sources can't depend on the number of words in a particular article. Readers can't be deprived of information because editors haven't added far less notable and less significant information about a topic. Even information about roads for many of these places is likely to derive much of its significance and weight in reliable sources because infrastructure is managed under the rules of belligerent occuption by the military commander. The undue weight argument doesn't make sense. This is clear when you try to apply it to other topics. If you look at Cataglyphis hannae for example, a stub about an ant species, not something prone to partisan politics, it says, "Cataglyphis hannae is a species of ant in the family Formicidae. It is endemic to Tunisia." That's it, but that leaves out by far the most significant piece of information about this species, namely that it is workerless social parasite that lives in other species nests and the very first example of this adaptation that has been seen within the Cataglyphis genus. It wouldn't make sense to argue for the exclusion of this highly notable information on the basis that its inclusion would give undue weight to this single aspect of the animal and that editors should wait until more routine content about its morphology, development/reproductive cycle, communication/defensive adaptations, feeding habits etc are added. Settlements, ant species, whatever, it's all the same, we're building an encyclopedia bit by bit. The legality updates should be made to all relevant Israeli settlement articles, we should just move on and put this issue to rest once and for all. That is the best step forward in my view and if it triggers people to add further content to the articles that will be a bonus. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So where in the article should that (or a similar line) go? If it is more then a stub does the line belong in both the lead and in a section? Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any absolute rule can be made. Personally, I think the type of sentence we're discussing sounds best at the end of the lead. It's effectively the "current status" of the area, so, chronologically speaking, the end of the lead is often (though not always) a good place. It's probably a case-by-case call with regards to a section as well. These articles should not go into detail about generic "settlements are illegal" information. For example, Psagot is a settlement. It's fine to say that it is considered illegal by the international community in the lead. If there was some particular sources that discuss Psagot specifically as being illegal, we could include details on that (e.g., Follow his trip to Psagot, President X said "This place is illegal."). We should not, however, talk about something like an International Criminal Court ruling that deemed all such settlements illegal, which was discussing Israeli settlements in general and never refers to Psagot. We have other articles for that kind of information. ← George talk 08:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, placement is a case by case detailed issue. What seems more important to me is making the first step towards solving this issue once and for all without drama i.e. at least including the information in all of the articles somewhere. I don't think there's a sensible reason for these detailed placement issues to prevent inclusion or be used to justify removal or trigger edit wars. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Getting a line worked out is a great first step. I am assuming there will be other issues still (how any lead line differs from a line in the body, if people are going to cry foul if a source does not directly mention the settlement in question, etc) but the bulk of the issue is addressed if we can hammer out a generic line for placement somewhere. Does anyone have any complaints about having a generic line available for every article? If not, any concerns with Roland's suggestion? Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Breaking down RolandR's version: "The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this":
  • The consensus view of the international community is that..." seems needlessly wordy to me. Why not just "The international community views/considers/regards..."?
  • ...the building of Israeli settlements... - I'm actually pretty sure they consider both the building, and the very existence, of the settlements to be illegal. I would just say "...Israeli settlements..."
  • ...in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights... I don't see any reason to list three areas for every settlement, and the way this is worded makes it sound like the Golan Heights is in the West Bank (which it isn't). I would just specify the appropriate one for the settlement in question.
  • ...is illegal under international law... Do we need to add "under international law"? Or is it enough to just say they consider it illegal? Seems like extra words, and I'm not sure which law that refers to (we should wiki-link it if it's included).
  • ...although Israel dispute this... Per WP:WTA, "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." I don't know if the usage here undermines or promotes either, but it's something to keep in mind. There's also the vaguery around whether Israel dispute that settlements are illegal or if they dispute that the international community thinks that settlements are illegal.
All in all, I would prefer something like "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (East Jerusalem/the West Bank/the Golan Heights) illegal; Israel dissents." The words in parentheses would be interchangeable. I'm not 100% sure about the ending with the semi-colon and the word "dissents", but I think it would be best to find some single, formal term for "disagrees" at the end. I'm not vehemently opposed to RolandR's suggestion though (or SD's above, either). ← George talk 09:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Been reading some of the latest posts, and what George and Sean say is true, adding the view of the international community with one single sentence in a stub has absolutely nothing to do with "undue weight" and that "Readers can't be deprived of information because editors haven't added far less notable and less significant information about a topic". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I also feel Rolands is to long and has several unnecessary words, my suggestion above is almost the same as yours except that the first main part of the sentence is flipped around and the last word "dissents" I'm not sure we should use the word "dissents", why not just say "disagrees" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I was going off yours when I started thinking about a way to write it. I'm not really happy with the word "dissents" either, but it would be nice if we could find a single word that means disagrees, but in a more formal manner. Like a word that means when you disagree with something in a court of law (to imply that it's Israel's official stance). Though I'm sure "disagrees" would be fine too. ← George talk 10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The more formal phrase for Israel is "defends their legality." A reference for it is: Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, 20 May 2001. URL accessed April 11, 2006. Also, this sintence should be wikilinked to International law and Israeli settlements, probably piped from "considers Israeli settlements in (East Jerusalem/the West Bank/the Golan Heights) illegal."
George above and Supreme Deliciousness below are correct that UNDUE does not restrict adding a sentence about the settlements' legalilty. The issue with balance comes because they are stubs. The stub policy does seem to prohibit going around creating articles that don't provide basic descriptions, but just say "XXX is an illegal Israeli settlement." Once the basics (location, for instance) are in, however, we have a genuine stub, which can accept this information.--Carwil (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
We can not say "defends their legality" because it implies that they are legal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
On wording: I like the one used by BBC ([11]), it's clear, simple and short. And if it's good for BBC journalists' guide, it's good enough for me. The rest of the raised issues (relevancy, relative volume, location, etc.) are style considerations and are individual to specific articles. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The BBC version is quite well worded and neutral. What about Israeli settlements in (the West Bank/the Golan Heights/East Jerusalem) are considered illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this.? ← George talk 22:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The source I have does not say that the settlements in Golan are illegal "under international law" but that its the view of the international community that they are illegal .--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not sure if there's a difference, but what about three options, depending on where the settlement is:
I dunno, there's some wiggle room in there. Open to other suggestions. ← George talk 22:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm cool with all the above or their derivatives. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

George, for Golan I prefer the other way around (no big difference) Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are considered illegal by the international community, but Israel disputes this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally fair. I think the order is somewhat subjective, and I don't really have a preference. Swapped my suggestion around to match yours. ← George talk 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer "international community" over "international law". The wikilinks look good. Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have a preference, but I've updated my suggestions to yours. If the international community deems something illegal, it implies that it deems it illegal under international law (versus, say, Israeli law), so I'm fine with either. I'm not sure if only "illegal" should be wikilinked, or "illegal by the international community". ← George talk 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Er... lots of blue v less Easter eggy. Not sure. Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOSLINK#Link clarity says blue is not so important. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've changed to the fuller wikilink, per Che's link. Upon consideration, I wasn't a big fan of the way that the term "illegal" looked highlighted when it was highlighted by itself. ← George talk 23:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Good call, Che.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Some discussion of resolution

Gentlemen, I hope we have made a remarkable progress. Congratulations. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Funny thing is that this proposed line is very similar to the one edit warred over. Discussion is good. And not to be a downer, but we are only partially through. The hardest step has been taken but we need to address citation (I have no problem bending standard practice by using sourcing not related to particular settlements) and placement. On the bright side, this is pretty cool.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page. Let's see if editors can identify two good sources for this sentence (one for international view, one for Israeli view). Then we can discuss location. As mentioned before, my inclination is towards the end of the lead, but I'm open to discussing it, and we should keep in mind that there may be exceptions to whatever we come up with. ← George talk 00:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)One additional note. In many of these articles, Israeli settlement and the geographic location are probably linked to earlier in the article (such as Psagot is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.), so we probably won't have to wikilink them in this sentence. I've removed those wikilinks from the suggestions above, but of course they can (and should) be re-added if not already wikilinked earlier in those articles.
Also, we should probably discuss specific sources to support each part of this sentence (one good source for the international view, and one good source for Israel's view). They've probably already been brought up above in this discussion, but we should try to isolate the best two so we don't get people adding a dozen sources for either part. If we can agree on which sources to use, we'll have a nearly cut-and-paste solution in many cases. ← George talk 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yearbook of the United Nations 2005, p 532-533 supports both the view of the vast majority of all countires and the Israeli view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Two things. First, I think we'd be better off using a secondary source rather than a primary one. Second, while UN resolutions are good when trying to determine who thinks what, I don't think they're a good source. Nations will vote for or against UN resolutions for any number of reasons. It's not uncommon for one nation to vote in favor of another nation, so that the second nation will vote in favor of the first at some later point (if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours). It's also not uncommon for them to vote against resolutions for more minute reasons (disagreements over whether the UN should condemn vs. note vs. suggest, etc.). ← George talk 00:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thats OR, if a nation votes for a resolution, then it supports its text. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If I read your source correctly, the United States voted against the resolution. Does that mean that the United States considers the settlements to be legal? ← George talk 01:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
For a country to vote against a resolution, doesn't mean that they disagree with all of it, one thing that they disagree with is enough to vote against, but of course I dont know what this was. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The whole of the international community does not think it is illegal from my understanding (US). The phrasing seemed broad enough to be OK and but it could be further tweaked ("the majority of the intl community", "widely considered by the intl community...", or something similar.)Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Just because the US voted against the resolution doesnt mean that they disagree with all of it (settlements), this goes for Israel as well, one thing in a resolution is enough for them to vote against, we don't know what it was. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The issue of the US position on legality is discussed at length by the Washington Post, a "newspaper of record" for the US context here. Summary:
  • The State Department legal adviser issued an opinion, on request from Congress, in 1979 that creating the settlements "is inconsistent with international law."
  • "As far as I know, I don't think it has ever been rescinded or challenged by any legal officer of the United States government," said Herbert J. Hansel, the former legal adviser who wrote the opinion.
  • The Washington Post's reporting backs this assessment
  • President Carter elsewhere stated that the settlements were illegal.[12]
  • President Reagan viewed the settlements as "not illegal," but as "ill-advised" and "counterproductive"
  • Hansel states: "Ronald Reagan expressed his opinion. But whatever you think of him, he was obviously not a lawyer. It still stands as the only definitive opinion of the U.S. government from a legal standpoint."
  • The Washington Post states: "Despite the passage of time, the legal opinion, issued during the Carter administration, has never been revoked or revised. President Ronald Reagan said he disagreed with it -- he called the settlements 'not illegal' -- but his State Department did not seek to issue a new opinion."
  • The Washington Post calls Hansel's opinion "the US opinion" in the present tense in 2009.
  • Diplomatically, the US would simply prefer not to discuss the issue. "Aaron David Miller, a former peace negotiator, said successive U.S. administrations generally have chosen to dance around the question of the legality of settlements."
  • The United States opts to talk in more general terms opposing the settlements, such as this phrase from Obama: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements."
  • The policy positions of US administrations (besides Reagan) have been: "the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations' characterization of Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territory as 'illegal.'" Succeeding administrations have not said so, although they have criticized the settlements on other ground. See this article from Foreign Policy.
The current US diplomatic posture was described by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here (scroll down for her exact words.
  • "For 40 years, successive American administrations of both parties have opposed Israel’s settlement policy."
  • "And the Obama Administration’s position on settlements is clear, unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the President has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
  • Vaguely, she describes the settlement freeze as "far short of what we would characterize as our position, or what our preference would be."
Comment: The US does not dissent from, or disagree with the international consensus. Adding "except the United States" to the text would be a distortion. Its internal review on the legality, rather, concurs with it. Its external diplomatic posture is not to talk about it, but to oppose settlement expansion on pragmatic grounds. It's not surprising then that the US has voted both ways on a series of UN resolutions condemning the settlements as illegal.--Carwil (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind collapsing that into a table must for easier viewing? It is clear that the US opinion is unclear. Voting one way, officials saying different things, and so on. Are there any other nations that may question the legality?Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if you accept the idea that the US votes against the resolution count as a vote for settlement legality (which is a stretch, at best) there's no question about the current US position. As to other nations that question the legality ,everyone that's expressed an opinion, that I know of, has condemned the settlements. Sol (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I just don't think we should use a primary source like a UN resolution for this info. I'm sure we have good secondary source that just summarize the stance for us (similar to the BBC page someone linked). We should not be trying to interpret who thinks what, based on their voting record (akin to saying a politician is pro-Taxation because they voted for a bill that included taxes but had other elements to it). We should just be reporting what reliable secondary sources say. Same goes for Israel disputing the illegality. ← George talk 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Was this the BBC article you were thinking of? Or what about this letter from the UN Permanent Observer: "despite the international consensus that these actions are illegal"? (seems to be in the context of settlements and associated policies but that could be overly broad) Sol (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sol Goldstone, this is a great source:[13] "It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies." Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel, have referred to the situation in these territories as occupation. The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Im gonna start adding the sentence of the international community, we can use both the BBC source Sold Goldstone provided and the United Nations book, now before this we need to decide on the Israeli point of view, considering harlans sources below, what source shall we use for it and what shall we say that the Israeli pov is? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that Israel's point of view is that it's ok to occupy the lands which it currently occupies, and it's ok to allow the settlements which it is currently allowing. :-) sorry, not trying to be facetious here, just pointing it out. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
ok. so then maybe the phrase which we insert should deal with the occupation itself as it relates to legality of settlements. For example, Israel feels that in 1967 there was no binding delineation of borders, so until agreement is reached, some of the land occupied in 1967 in the West Bank may be legitimately claimed by Israel in a final agreement. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Further colloquy on resolution

SD, in the spirit of consensus building I'd suggest to wait to this discussion results. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
And on the Israeli position sources: MFA site, propaganda or not, is fine as official position; and BBC reference, especially the second part of it, is fine as secondary source. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the BBC reference alone is enough. As a first draft, I suggest the following:
--ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with this text. A lot of the discussion below could be incorporated into International Law and Israeli settlements.--Carwil (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, SD. We still need to hammer out placement.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Has already been discussed, somewhere in the end of the lead but its a "case by case". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to the extent that is necessary and there have even been contradictions. Where are you going to put it? Do you even know or should we just let you do whatever you fancy? And if you add sweeping changes it is not a case by case scenario at all is it? Any further shenanigans is straight to AE. Another day of waiting won't kill you. But if you want to make a sweeping change then rely on a case by case basis it will be funny to watch.Cptnono (talk)
What "contradictions"? I was planning on putting it in the same location as I had done before, and it depends on the article. At some articles it was the last line of the article: [14][15], while for example it was not the last line of the article here: [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
IMHO in general it can fit almost any part of an article (lead, history section, legality section). I can see both pro-lead and contra-lead arguments: pro-lead: it's important enough; contra-lead: the place being Israeli settlement is already mentioned, no need to expand this specific point. However, we hopefully can agree on having it as one of the last sentences in the lead, or in separate "Legality" or "Conflicts" section. (I think the separate section is not a bad idea, for it can contain additional content, such as land conflicts with Palestinians neighbors, construction bans, etc., but I'm very flexible here) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, I guess we should add 
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
to the talk pages of all articles edited according to this discussion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed this discussion, but if we are finally getting to a consensus about this line then it should also include that/whether the locality is illegal in Israeli law or not, not just a measly 'Israel disputes this'. --Shuki (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the discussion below its not even sure if they are legal according to Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think (emphasis on think as this is a quagmire) that they are legal under Israeli law de facto, de jur is the tricky bit. There are no direct rulings on their legality. The High Court agrees the land is occupied but believes a)settlements are temporary military necessities and thus allowed under international law b)they can't tell the commander what is and isn't militarily necessary and c)confusing issues of jurisdiction. That's them saying it's legal under international law, not domestic, which I can't find much on. How we want to express that is up in the air but, baring any new evidence I'd vote for "legal under Israeli law" as it's pretty much correct and the other options would very long. Sol (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that, since Israeli organisation and people such as the Supreme Court and government legal advisors have expressed opinions which, in aspects, are in line with what is considered the international view, it would be necessary to specify who in Israel holds the counter view; attributing it to Israel as a whole is not precise enough.     ←   ZScarpia   15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note that "international community" is a generalization and is omitting a lot of details too. But for the sake of compromise, how about "the Israeli government disputes this" instead of "Israel disputes this"? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. I agree with this suggestion, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess the stuff above do not fit the so called "illegal outposts", who's story is quite different, if that's what you mean. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
@Supreme Deliciousness; if that's your assertion, I guess that we don't have consensus, and also that editors here generally don't want consensus, and don't expect to reach consensus, and don't plan to try to reach it. just my personal opinion on this current process. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
For sectionless sort stubs there is no issue with where it goes. With sort sectioned articles there is a problem with having something in the lead and not the body (assuming it is the only line available about a particular settlement) or it could be a problem of having it in the body but not mentioning the controversy in the lead. The line could also be completely duplicated but I don't know if that is any good. On longer articles that already discuss legalities there should also be no problem.Cptnono (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Please consider this two options: Almon with lead addition and Almon with section addition (based on the actual Almon article). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If an article has more information specially about that settlements illegality we should use the second choice, but for the rest, one sentence is enough without a special section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but grammatically I think it should either be "the Israeli government" or "Israel's government". ← George talk 23:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops, fixed --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks to be the official position of the government and if editors want to remove it (an amended version specifically mentioning government is fine) then I cannot support the move to multiple articles. Also, any thoughts on Che's examples?Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure what's currently being discussed, but both versions look fine (and almost the same) to me. I guess an editor wanting to add this sentence to an article could go either route, though if they chose to add a section it should probably be tagged as needing expansion. ← George talk 07:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Having a legality section would need more depth including the Israeli status. WP may be vulnerable to legal action in Israel if it claims a location is illegal when it is not (at least by Israeli law). Some of the Israeli newspapers, as well as a couple leftist groups, have been taken to court for libel and forced to retract stories, publish apologies, or pay compensation as well. Their is no BLP for localities, but does not mean that we do not have the same responsibilities. --Shuki (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we not worry about that right now. we can always add more content to reflect if one settlement's legality is highly disputed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If you are including wording claiming that something is illegal, and that that is 'merely' disputed, you should also add that under Israeli law it is legal, perhaps with this extension: '..., Israel disputes this and has officially incorporated the city, local council, village, etc...' The boilerplate BBC text does not seem to assume (or give legitimacy) that the settlements are legal at all somewhere. --Shuki (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, we can also ad tons of sources and information specifically discussing how the settlements are illegal according to the IC into the articles if you want, we are talking here about adding one sentence, "Israeli government disputes this", shows that according to Israel it is not illegal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't claim that settlements are illegal, we simply report what reliable sources say - that the international community considers them illegal. I don't know the status of settlements under Israeli law, and I'm not sure it matters. Do you have a source saying, as explicitly as possible, that "settlements are legal under Israeli law"? Does Israeli law have jurisdiction in the West Bank, Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem? I actually think a sentence saying that they're legal under Israeli law is less neutral than a sentence saying that the Israeli government doesn't believe they're illegal under international law, because the former would make it sound like Israel is purposefully violating international law, while the later just makes it sound like a disagreement about what is and isn't legal. ← George talk 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
(Reply to Shuki) Are you kidding me? why are you even bringing this up here? that makes no sense. why would you undermine your own position so much? we're talking about settlements here as a category. nothing that we approve here would be binding on articles on individual settlelements. why are you bringing that up here and now in this forum? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Israel points to their interpretation of international law for them being legal so it doesn't just mean "Israeli law".
Also, what we do here should have enough consensus that it withstand any challenges on individual articles or at least be hammered out in a way that challenges are reduced. That is why I asked SD to slow down. Remember how I said that placement was an issue? Well there is already reverting going on because of it.[17] Note that I called one editor out in particular earlier. So we need to take it slow and maybe even open up an RfC for even more approval.Cptnono (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, "Israeli government disputes this", shows that according to Israel it is not illegal. It fits both if its their view of Israeli or international law. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, an RFC is for when editors have trouble reaching resolution. we are already 95% of the way there. so why would you even mention that procedure? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree, no RfC needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I like Che's suggestions. We could add "under international law" after illegal to be more specific but if no one is confused by the wording then I'd omit it for space.
@Shuki: Going more in depth into the legality under Israeli law is a good idea but are you saying you want to put a Legality section into every settlement article along with the proposed sentence? I r cunfuzed. And when your talking about the BBC text are you referring to settlements legal under international law or under Israeli law? I think 'disputed' works but perhaps you could elaborate on your thoughts. Sol (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
@George: Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are considered by Israel to be within their jurisdiction but that's also explicitly rejected by the international community as an illegal annexation. The West Bank is not under Israeli jurisdiction according to Israel; they supposedly still use the old Jordanian/Ottoman laws as required by the Geneva Conventions. I'm not quite sure where the settlements in the West Bank fall, I'll look into it. Sol (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I reject the phrase "international community." I am willing to consider the phrase "some international organizations" or alternately "international bodies" depending on the context. So I don't really agree with the formulation which is being discussed here.With that said, I don't plan to actively fight it for now if others here agree. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"international community" is the verbatim phrase from the proposed source. Sol (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure how far away we can stray from "international community" or "international law", as those are phrases commonly used among reliable sources. And it's significantly more succinct than trying to list out all the groups and countries that hold that stance. We only need one source that says "international community" (which we have), but if we were to say some international organizations, we'd likely have to identify which, with sources for each. ← George talk 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Its the view of the vast majority of all countries on earth and all major organs that the settlements are illegal, that is the "international community" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, George. Many editors feel that populated places can be notable regardless of coverage (I'm one of those and am surprised that Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) is only a proposal). Regardless of that and as already mentioned her, I think that Psagot is a fine choice for the line. We do need to figure out placement. Right no editors are discussing (er... bickering?) how to handle the potential duplication of the line over there. Someone said we are 95% there up above. This apears to be the last big sticking point.Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Argh, we're section jumping! :) Regarding the notability, I'm not saying we shouldn't have an article on Psagot because it's a tiny place, but I do think it's unbalanced to have a paragraph on the (relatively insignificant) economy of that tiny place, when the average reliable source is more likely to mention Psagot in the context of the settlement question than in the context of its booming economy (sarcasm intended). I also don't understand the discussion over there. The legality of the area shouldn't be in the History section regardless of where it ends up - the international community considers it illegal at the present time, not in some historical setting. The argument is that the lead shouldn't say the same thing as the body of the article? Poppycock. The lead is there to summarize the body; if it's in the body, it should be summarized in the lead. The only issue with duplication is if we had two sections of the body saying the same thing, which we don't. ← George talk 22:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we have a shorter sentence ("Settlements legality is controversial") in the lead and the whole of it in the section, if lead summary is so important? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
1. Its not controversial. 2. Why have a summary for one other sentence? just have that one sentence and be done with it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, we should "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Your suggestion doesn't summarize the most notable controversy, it just mentions that there is one. The only time we tend to not summarize controversies is when they are too complicated to be summarized. But that isn't the case here - we clearly have reliable sources saying the international community considers settlements to be illegal, and we clearly have reliable sources saying that Israel disputes that label. The only reason I've seen to not include this information is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. ← George talk 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
George, you want to have this in all settlement articles or only Psagot? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for misplacing my comment. Let's continue in the section below. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Have what? The sentence we were talking about earlier that included the international community's view juxtaposed with the Israeli view? I think that it could go into the article of almost any Israeli settlement, because that's what the source cited is talking about - any (and all) Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights. There might be case-by-case exceptions to that rule, but, prima facie, I wouldn't object to it being put into any settlement article. ← George talk 22:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Placement in the lead

Seeing that the above discussion has settled on a text, I added it to the lead at Psagot and Shilo, Mateh Binyamin, which was met with reverting (at Psagot) and moving it to history (at Shilo). I posted my rationale at Talk:Psagot, which boils down to three reasons to put this in the lead

  • It's a notable controversy per WP:Lead
  • Legal status is a basic fact about any human settlement, parallel to "incorporated city" or "unrecognized village."
  • When there is a legal status section of the article, it should be summarized in the lead

For any one of those reasons, this text belongs in the lead. Concerns? Counter-arguments?--Carwil (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am open to letting this be decided separately at each article. However, practically speaking, I suggest you pick one of the more notable articles, and focus on the discussion there, and then try to reach consensus there. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed before. Some people talked about in the end of the lead, but that its also a "case by case", and I agree with this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course you agree with this. You are evidently giddy at getting this inside as quickly as possible because you know that any issues on each article will get the typical filibuster. Better to make an effort now at getting it right the first time. --Shuki (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Seeing that the above discussion has settled on a text?! No such settlement or consensus is at hand. Far from it. SD, please stop mis-characterizing the nature and direction of these discussions. If anything, we are farther apart than when we started, principally because of your extreme and unyielding attitude. You will get nowhere by shoving POV down our throats. We resent it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? The only one opposing Proposal 2 is Shuki. And your claims about Poland, Check Republic and your NYT article turned out to be false. So the majority support the sentence, 1 objects to it (shuki), and your arguments turned out to be inaccurate. So how is this not a consensus? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm getting really confused now. hmmm WP:Confused? maybe that will help. Nope, no luck. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic".WP:LEAD That actually touches on it more than the UNDUE conversation held earlier. So if editors make an effort to ensure that the lead does not give too much emphasis (as in if includes other information about the settlement) then it should be OK in the lead. Something like "X is a settlement. Legality line" probably won't work so editors should attempt to be in full compliance with WP:LEAD instead of using it to put in their preferred information by solely relying on controversies being appropriate. Shouldn't be too hard.Cptnono (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Since they are settlements in occupied lands considered illegal by the international community its very important to the settlement articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Much like lines on history and demographics. Make sure to not overemphasize the dispute by putting some focus on other important aspects and there should be no worries. Like I said, "X is a settlement. Legality line" would not be appropriate but by filling in other lacking information it would be cool. Psagot actually looked like a perfect candidate for the line, IMO, but we still shouldn't be jumping the gun.Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean, could you take a look at the Israeli settlements in GH articles and see where I added the sentence? Is there anyone of them you disagree with? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Supreme, you know that the other editors have managed to keep things quite civil and neutral here, but you keep ramming your POV into the discussion which is now exposing your true intentions to not look for NPOV. --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is not in line with past occurrences here: [18] [19], and that is what I support. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
SD, we clearly do not have consensus as a group yet whether I agree or not. This is shown with the reverts. I believe we will sooner or later though. Another issue that came up is repeating the line. It sounds like we have a basic idea of what we want at least one line to say at least. Figure out the placement and if it goes in twice and we should be good. Also, I have no problem with the line in stubs that currently do not have a structure. Anyone mind if someone does a seep through those or are there other details to hammer out?Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone object to the "end of the lead" proposal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat of a mugwump on this. Taking Psagot as an example, we dedicate a full paragraph to the "economy" of this settlement of 1,600 people. What does that paragraph discuss? A single, twelve-year-old winery, and the types of wine and number of bottles they produce. You could pick a couple blocks of almost any city in the world and get a larger population with a more complex economy than that. It's a supremely tiny subject, yet we dedicate a full paragraph to it, while ignoring the elephant in the room. It isn't easy to even find an article from a reliable source about that winery that doesn't discuss it in the context of the broader settlement issue, or in the context of the I-P conflict in general. While I certainly agree that there's no rush to include this information, and we shouldn't be giving it more emphasis than it deserves, we also have to keep in mind that for some of these smaller settlements, the very fact that it is a settlement is what makes it notable. ← George talk 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with the above editors that each article should be judged on a case by case basis. Editors will argue for hours to include the legality issue in the lede of a tiny stub, but with less time they can just expand the article so that the legality in the lede will not be unduly proportionate. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Eager to see if my sourced, largely Psagot-specific material gets regarded as "unduly proportionate." Meanwhile, I have to say, we should decide whether the material is lead-worthy in this discussion, at a minimum. That's the point of collaborating, right, to avoid having conflicts again and again?--Carwil (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Eager to see you self revert since you are bordering on edit warring and there is already a discussion. In response to Che's suggestion ("Settlements legality is controversial" as the lead line with the other in the body): Wouldn't hurt my feelings. I assume other editor's will feel it is not a proper summary, though. I think Che's suggestion is fantastic MoS style wise. (seen it come up in assessment discussions and duplicating lines exactly does look silly, IMO.)Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Repetition is problematic, and the only solution for having it in the lead and deeper in the article is going into more details in the second case. But I'm cool with having it only in the lead, if Brew agrees :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I support the sentence that we agreed upon in the lead of all articles, and then if there is a settlement that has further information about legality/illegality, that can then be expanded in the main body of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not true that "Settlements legality is controversial". I provided a large number of sources that demonstrate that it is a near unanimous view that the settlements are illegal under international law. This watering down of a fact that can be sourced to countless high quality sources in the hopes of appeasing the unsubstantiated and, frankly, absurd feelings of a few editors is not in keeping with the policies of this website. There is nothing in WP:WEIGHT that backs up the claim that a stub should not include this information, not one thing in WP:NPOV says that the super-majority view should be whitewashed. This is a game being played by editors who can only be described as wikilawyers, and I mean that in the most derogatory way. Editors tossing out random strings of letters yelling that this line violated this policy or that policy, playing them against each other and never once showing what in any of those policies backs their position. nableezy - 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Stop it with the personal attacks. You have done it twice today and need to knock it off. Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I have been fairly clear on just how much I care about what you think is a "personal attack" or what you think I need to "knock off". nableezy - 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm fine with only including the boilerplate text we've been discussing in article leads, and letting the article-specific Legality sections develop organically. ← George talk 23:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against having it only in the lead as Che mentions. Part of me hates that since the lead shouldn't cover stuff not touched on in the article. However, these settlement articles are so poor on the quality scale that bending a rule to make everything a little better isn't a bad idea.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think we should be constrained by the relative poor quality of these articles. Oftentimes, the body of the article follows from the lead. If you had a lead that summarized all the main topics of an article, which didn't have a body to go into more detail, you'd just have a really good stub. In the future, interested editors could expand the body to provide details of what the lead summarized. Nothing in doing that violates WP:LEAD. ← George talk 23:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems we are 98% percent here. Also, I guess we can thank Brew and Nab for taking part (at least to some extent) in this discussion. So, let me bring once again what seems to be the agreed:
  1. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal by the international community, but the Israeli government disputes this.[1]
goes to lead, and can be expanded in the body but without direct repetition. I'd like to see if it's ok with the less enthusiastic editors, namely Brew and Nab. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
In the expanded articles I wouldn't see a problem with a somewhat repetition of "settlement is illegal" in the body if there is also other information about the legal/illegal issue besides that first line in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with that, there should be an extra few words saying that they are legal by Israeli law. --Shuki (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are the only one here who wants to change the Israeli view part of the sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a bit of fragile situation here, but we have to continue until everybody are happy. Consensus building isn't easy , but not having it is even worse. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
He is one person, he shouldn't be able to block our majority consensus with his own pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be made clear that it is illegal under international law, not just "considered illegal by the international community". Part of the reason is that sources not a part of the "international community" say it is illegal (see the sources I provided way back when up above) and for the reason that Shuki keeps bringing up. Does the international community consider them illegal under Israeli law? No. It is under international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention (which is considered customary international law, meaning that even states that never signed the conventions are bound by them) that the settlements are illegal. nableezy - 23:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What if you and Shuki write down all these missing things? I guess it can be done in 3-6 sentences, that can perfectly fill the "Legality" section. This way we can have both the lead part (single sentence) and a solid stub for deeper coverage in a separate section. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
ElComandanteChe, Since the majority of us in the discussion have agreed on a sentence for the lead, we should be able to ad it now, and then when Nableezy and Shuki are finished, they can ad the rest later into the main body. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great if it's ok with them. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree that it should be "made clear that it is illegal under international law" since Israel uses arguments based on intl law for it being legal. There is zero dispute that the intl community has condemned it so we should stick with that.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Israel disputing it is illegal under international law is covered by "though Israel disputes this". Let's see if we can get you to follow a logical process. Ill ask a question, as politely as I can, and you give an informed response. First question, does the "international community" consider Israeli settlements illegal under Israeli law? nableezy - 23:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you should hold off, SD. Anyone mind if I draft a proposal this evening covering everything we have discussed and giving editors a few hours to support or oppose. I would prefer to not have this conversation a week from now since we pushed it through too fast. It looks like Nableezy is already dispting it and the last thing we need is more edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure why a draft would be needed since we are already done with the sentence, but I think that if anyone is going to make a draft, its better if its ElComandanteChe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I frankly don't care if you feel that way as long as you don;t start making the changes yet. Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well we have a problem with your non neutral pov as is clearly evident here, where for example in the comment above you say that "It looks like Nableezy is already dispting it and the last thing we need is more edit warring.", while not mentioning a word about Shuki going against the consensus, trying to stop the sentence for the lead, you are not in a position to present any draft for people to vote on. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I respect the idea that this decision not be confined to people editing in a couple of time zones. --Shuki (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, could you please answer my question? Does the "international community" consider Israeli settlements illegal under Israeli law? nableezy - 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, do you mind having me instead of Cptn as a partner for this intellectual game on your or mine talk page? I promise to report the result here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont care, and its not a game, but Cptnono says that he Disagree(s) that it should be "made clear that it is illegal under international law". I would like to show him how meaningless a sentence structured "considered illegal by the international community, though Israel disputes this" is. If Cptnono holds that position he should be able to defend it. nableezy - 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you SD, but if Cptn is volunteering to write the proposal, I'd like him to, for I have no doubts about his integrity (if left alone ;). Also, if Cptn agrees to have SD as the first reviewer of his proposal, everybody will be happy. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine. I think I touched on everything but I might have missed something while going through all of the text.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of placement: there is a substantive objection on Talk:Psagot to placing the sentence alone in the lead, because it "does not summarize" a later section, and therefore is not an "overview" per WP:Lead. This strikes me as big-time wikilawyering, so I'm bringing the issue here to seek consensus. Can we have the single-sentence version in the lead without a corresponding section on the issue later in the article?

FYI: On Psagot, I first noted that that there were at least five other facts in the lead not described elsewhere in the article, to which Brewcrewer argued that "they are not facts that tickles anybody's fancy. thus its non compliance with WP:LEAD does not violate WP:NPOV." (I don't know what that means exactly.) I then tried the laborious alternative of writing a Psagot-specific section, which was reverted as well. My experience on Psagot is the best reason I can think of to try to come to a general consensus on placement of this text (which could be a multiple choice agreement, like lead is okay and so is lead and longer section.).--Carwil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse others of wikilawyering, even if it is meant less derogatorily than the accusation made before yours. In response to your lead question: It is touched on specifically due to your conversation there. I hope both you and Brews will respond to the proposal shown below.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

1: The line "Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) are considered illegal by the international community, but Israel disputes this." is acceptable in all articles about specific settlement. Many of these articles can be found at Category:Israeli settlements. This proposal does not detail use in articles that merely discuss settlements.

2. The BBC source[20] is acceptable in all articles regardless of if it specifically mentions the settlement or not. This is often frowned upon across the project so editors should consider adding a hidden comment or talk page section referencing this discussion.

3. Placement:

3.1: The line can be added can articles that do not have a sections at he end or near other lines discussing legal issues.
3.2: The line can be added in the lead of articles that have a structure but do not have a section devoted to legality as long as other information summarizing the settlement are included. Other valid information that properly summarizes settlements typically includes history, demographics, and the like.
3.2.a: A section should not be included that consists of only this line. If other lines are added to the article in an attempt to create such a section it modifies the scope from "Settlement x" To "Legal issues of settlement x". Editors are encouraged to add more information on the legality along with other aspects to ensure that this does not occur.
3.2.b: This currently is not compliant with WP:LEAD since it does not summarize information in the body. The hope is that editors will expand articles with relevant information regarding multiple aspects so that it will be compliant in the future by being considered an article under point 3.3.
3.3: The line can be added in the lead of articles that have a structure and do have a section devoted to legality.

Requests for amendments to this draft
  • Since SD isn't realizing his jus primae noctis, I'll jump in. It took me reading 3.2.a 3 times to realize that it isn't actually imposing a restriction on large legality sections, but only encourages editors to develop the rest of the article too. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Any way to word it better or should it simply be removed?Cptnono (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
How about something like this?
BeautifulCptnono (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow. Brew just summed up 3.2.a at the trainwreck over at Psagot‎. Basically, don;t make a WP:COATRACK. I doubt we need to link to that essay (one of the essays that represents widespread norms) but thought it was interesting enough to mention. Especially for George since he has been on top of that stuff. (Sunday the 31st, baby!)Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
New drafts
Editors approving
  1. While I think the phrase "under international law" would be a lovely addition, I'm fine with the overall proposal. The concerns raised against my adding it elsewhere suggest that 3.1 and 3.2 will be highly controversial with other editors unless we discuss the issue here in more detail, explaining why those ideas (which I support) are consistent with policy (for reasons I've outlined at Talk:Psagot).--Carwil (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. ← George talk 22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support, although I don't believe we should vote about this, only thoughtful discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors opposed
  1. The line "considered illegal by the international community, but Israel disputes this." is almost meaningless. The link is to an article about "international law" and whose opening line is The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. It is sourced to an article whose opening line is It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal. Does the "international community" dispute that under Israeli law the settlements, not outposts, are legal? No, but it is not even as simple as no. The point is illegal how is not answered. This is an ambiguous sentence, a sentence for which both the link and the source used are clear. Also, it is not only the "international community" that says they are illegal under international law. Is the ICRC part of the "international community". Is Adam Roberts? What about the International Court of Justice? The sentence should read that "under international law the settlements are considered illegal, though Israel disputes this" or some variation of that. "under international law" needs to be included. nableezy - 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As explained above, Israel uses its interpretation of intl law to deem them legal. They could be wrong but there is absolutely 0 dispute that the intl community considers it illegal. So intl community is better wording. This has also be hashed out above with apparent consensus for intl community. I believe the proposal above can be tweaked to gain consensus regardless of your oppose. Of course, we will see. Also, I will not be able to support any proposal that says intl law instead of intl community so that is a breakingpoint for both of us. Thak you for finally engaging in proper discussion by the wayCptnono (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says: "Israel uses its interpretation of intl law to deem them legal." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's more or less correct reading of the BBC source[1], in particular. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've lost track of this a bit. Can someone point me to the place where it was decided to not say what the sources says ? There's zero dispute that the sources say that the international community considers them illegal under international law so, in principal, this can't be a policy based breaking point. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sean, the question is how to push all this into one sentence and avoid converting every settlement stub lead into detailed legal opinion. Cptn and Nab: how about taking Nab's proposal and softing it a bit in BBC style: "Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) are widely considered(that's for Cptn) illegal under international law(that's for Nab), but Israel disputes this"? Alternatively, can "international law" be replaced with "Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention"? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't think I can support it. Intl community is sourced and has consensus above. Intl law is sourced but is both redundant and editorial judgment can see the concern with using it since it raises a big issue tat would need more explanation. Also, the "widely considered" idea (although not bad) does not properly convey how shunned it is by the intl community (as opposed to scholars) which I think is a point that is completely noteworthy.Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
How is it "redundant" and how is it an "editorial judgment"? Your sentence is meaningless. What law are the settlements illegal under? You say "Israel uses its interpretation of intl law to deem them legal". What about "but Israel disputes this" does not solve that issue. And what exactly does "Israel uses its interpretation of intl law to deem them legal" mean? What the PMs office says? Or the Supreme Court? Your sentence does not mean anything. Tell me, under what law does the "international community" consider settlements illegal? Is the ICRC part of the "international community". Is Adam Roberts? What about the International Court of Justice? nableezy - 02:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
May be we should better concentrate on content. How about "Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) are considered illegal under the international law by the international community, but Israel disputes this."? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds perfect. (with the removal of 'the' before international law ;) Sol (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thats a better proposal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Alternate proposal
Editors approving
  1. ← George talk 22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. This is fine. nableezy - 22:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Sounds fine. Sol (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support, although I don't believe we should vote about this, only thoughtful discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    Screw it. I'll support this version. The whole point was to get Nableezy to stop edit warring and if adding the couple words is all it takes then let the baby have its bottle. I say we go with this. SD was all about going for it yesterday so knock the not voting crap out of here and make the change if you really want it. Do it topic wide. I recommend waiting a day or so to make sure there are not any last minute cries of foul and mentioning it on every talk page. Any edit warring over it should result in an immediate stop (and requests for topic bans at AE) to make sure no one's feeling are hurt and that everyone is on the same page here. Good to go on my end.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. Conditional support, see my comment below. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. Fine by me. --Carwil (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors opposed

For reasoning explained above.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. This is the same problematic line as proposal 1. --Shuki (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. For reasons articulated by Shuki and set forth by me below--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
How is it problematic? I asked you before about what sentence you support, and you didn't respond. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've already stated that
  • A) boilerplate synth text applied blindly on over 200 articles is POV and not WP:V because
  • B) The BBC or any 'peer reviewed' univeristy journal is not a court of law. It might certainly be V to reference that X, Y, or Z said something is illegal, it does not mean that WP can make this statement in first person, or in the voice of some community or law (Geneva convention are the base for laws, not laws themselves). It is not the BBC saying that Ariel is a city, but taking a side on the issue.
  • C) In a fair court of law and in an objective encyclopedia, each settlement would get its chance to prove why it is illegal or not in defense. Peace Now and Yesh Gvul actually take villages or outposts to court once in a while if they think they have a case, the vast majority of the time they lose, and even get stuck paying for a retraction in the media. The line might be fine at some 'int'l law' article where this 'inalready exists, but not on specific settlement articles unless the locality itself is mentioned not in some media reporter's off-hand remark ' Psagot is illegal' but actual verification that Psagot is built illegally on private land and found guilty by some court, not just someone's legal interpretation (unless attributed of course). If Psagot is not proven to be on alledged Arab land, then it is innocent until proven guilty.
  • D) Many of the villages, towns, and cities were built, as opposed to 'state lands' (absentee or Jordanian government), on private Jewish land bought (with full documentation) from Arabs before 1948 and after 1967. Is this illegal, or is this a racist application of the 'law' to prevent any Jews from buying land in these areas? Does 'international' law or the 'community' discuss this?
  • E) 'Israel disputes this' is pathetically wishy washy without any additional info that can easily be summarized in less than ten words showing that this place or that is legally built by Israel. Sounds like everyone is right, but Israel is whining. Puh-lease.
  • F) Despite that there are many other disputed areas in the world, I have yet to see any other WP convention to show how this is being applied fairly on all disputed areas and not just having Israel singled out. If this is a NPOV and V sentence, than it should be absolutely fine to add it to all the other disputed areas as well, in Cyprus, China, etc... Since we have no precedent for even any attempt in these other places, this effort is POV.
  • G) Thanks for asking. --Shuki (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There are many things wrong with your response. A, there is no synth or pov, and it is WP:V. B, we follow the reliable sources, BBC is a reliable source whether you like it or not. C, this is not just "some media reporter's off-hand remark" there are tons of sources including UN resolutions that show that the IC view is that they are illegal, and its attributed to the IC in the sentence we want to ad. D, If you have sources about specific settlements being built on jewish owned land, bring them, who is stopping you? E, Well it is not "legally built by Israel." and we don't say that "everyone is right", the IC view is attributed to the IC, and Israels view is attributed to Israel. F, This is the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Cyprus and China issues are dealt with at their talkpages and noticeboards, if you are interested in those subjects, go to those talkpages and noticeboards. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, as best I can tell B and C are really complaints about the phrase "Israeli settlements are illegal under international law" not about "The international community considers Israeli settlements ... illegal under international law." While you're not impugning the BBC vs peer-reviewed articles, here are quotes from a peer reviewed international article that reaffirm the current text:
Would it help with E if we used the phrase "the Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument" instead of "disputes this"?--Carwil (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
First, in reply to Shuki regarding their points A & B - please note that we don't say the settlements are illegal as a fact, we say that the international community considers them to be illegal. This is exactly inline with the "X, Y, or Z said something is illegal" phrasing you identified as compliant with WP:V. Regarding C, Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not have guilt or innocence, we only have published reliable sources making statements. The proposed sentence does not say that Israel is guilty or innocent, only that one side (the international community) thinks the settlements are illegal while the other side (Israel) thinks they are legal. Regarding D (and to some extent C), my understanding is that whether or not the people who built the settlements owned the land they built on is a related, but separate subject to whether or not the settlements are considered legal. That's not a subject we can cover with a boilerplate sentence, as it is specific to each settlement. Many were probably built on Jewish-owned land; some probably weren't - but the international community considers all of them illegal settlements under international law (per sources). Regarding E, I would also prefer a stronger statement of Israel's position as well, and I think we're all open to suggestions. Carwil's suggestion below might be a better option. Regarding F, the I-P conflict is probably one of the most contentious around. If we can come up with a reasonable solution, derivatives of it may appear in other conflicts. However, the fact that none of those other conflicts have compromised to come up with wordings such as this one, and given that those conflicts are often much smaller in scale (than the couple hundred Israeli settlements in question), there's no reason to let a lack of compromise elsewhere stop us from trying here. ← George talk 22:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Editors commenting on placement and not on content
  1. I am trusting the community to find the most neutral, wishy-washy wording as possible. However, the question of placement appears as unresolved to me, personally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: We shouldn't have any kind of "vote" for any proposal, only discussions about them, votes will lead to people only adding they're votes on a proposal without bringing any intelligent conversation to back up their view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Wonderful. Seems all agree. However, I realized that we still have a problem that can easily undermine the consensus we worked so hard to reach. It has been discussed by Agada and George, with no conclusion reached (yet), and I'd like to attract the common attention to it. The problem: stating that settlement X is illegal without sources specifically dealing with settlement X is based on a simple logical operation: X is settlement, settlements are illegal => X is illegal. Now, the question: is it WP:OR? If this question remains unanswered, the only policy we can base on is WP:IAR, meaning the consensus might become unstable. Please note that for the part of the settlements specific sources dealing with legality do not exist. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no OR, the source says settlements, and the line we want to ad says settlements. Even if the line said the name of the settlement then it still wouldn't be OR, its just common sense. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we're not even putting the phrase "X is illegal" in the article, just "settlements are illegal." So, I think we're on solid ground saying so with regard to OR/Synthesis.--Carwil (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
So what's our status here? I can't tell which issues we are still addressing or if the whole thing has stalled due to confusion (that's my excuse at least). Sol (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached per the discussions to include the sentence above, and you can see above in the "proposal 2" that only one disagrees with the line, while seven others support it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks more like stalemate to me. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
How is 7 for and 1 against a "stalemate"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no feeling of a happy I-P consensus I hoped for, just a lot of frustrated people who don't care anymore or don't feel obliged by the vote above. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Only one guy has objected to the sentence, all others support it, that is consensus to have the sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a lukewarm consensus for the second proposal, which is about the most you can expect from I-P conflict topic area discussions. The real question is placement, which we really haven't discussed much (people get tired, and the discussion dies down). While certain areas of the article may be too "high profile" and others too "low profile" for this sentence, I really can't see much argument against adding it at the very end of the lead to these articles. Editors may want to create a new section where we can list specific areas of the article for this sentence to go (mid-lead, end of lead, history section, legality section, or infobox). ← George talk 23:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you a few reasons; This is so dragged out and very hard to follow for anyone except the first few people involved including too many edits to the discussion in 'real time' that made it even harder to follow, a lesson to all involved. A 'real' discussion opened at Psagot which seemed much more practical and I even posted this discussion over there but no one could be bothered to move here. The discussion also seemed very lopsided from the beginning and while Carwil made a last minute 'strenuous' effort, but it was too late to prove that this effort was entirely NPOV. Only eight people here from the entire 'conflict' is not a consensus that will hold. --Shuki (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
All here except you support the sentence, that is consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
We can only invite people to the table. We can't make them join the discussion. Since we have a pretty good consensus for a sentence among the editors involved in this discussion, do you have any suggestion for how to put that sentence in front of a broader audience in a way that will foster further discussion and aid consensus building? ← George talk 00:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Why would we need any further discussion? The discussion is already very long and many people have participated, consensus has been reached, only thing left is to ad the sentence to the articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed confusing. What was a "consensus" version? SD,do you think it would be enough to put this information in one place instead of making 200 copies? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is proposal 2, as you can see by the majority supporting it and only one objection, and since I voted for it, you know what articles I support the line in. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

SD, could you hang on for a bit (we're already quite a way into this) and see if we can go from consensus with an objection (Shuki) and some discomfort (Agada), to full consensus. Some of the concerns raised seem to be already addressed, while others would be best dealt with by including more information in a Legality section, or by tweaking the lead in particular cases:

  • Shuki's B & C are policy objections, which I think have been satisfied and Shuki has not restated them. Shuki, can you confirm based on the "IC says settlements are illegal" wording, at least?
  • Re: synth. I think we've talked about this enough, but we could advise people to add a second reference naming the given settlement if it's available to reduce edit conflicts.
  • Re: Agada's hidden link to "data redundancy" and Shuki's "boilerplate": I've never heard either of you advance the claim that legal status is not basic to a description of an inhabited place, nor that this material is irrelevant to any particular Israeli settlement. If that's not the claim, does this amount to a procedural "I just don't like it" roadblock against a widespread change? What else you basing this on?
  • Shuki's D has generally been left unaddressed. The answer under International Humanitarian Law, as described by Swedish development NGO Diakonia, is this: "A fundamental idea in the law of occupation is that occupation is a temporary period at the end of which control of the territory will return to the original sovereign. During this limited period, the occupant administers the territory on behalf of the sovereign. The status of the occupying power can therefore be compared to that of a trustee that is supposed to introduce as few changes (demographical, geographical, political etc) as possible, to preserve the status quo that existed at the beginning of the occupation." So, international law is unmoved by the argument offered in D. And no, it's not an issue of racism, but of a level playing field for the future of a territory following occupation.
  • However, D is one of those things (like types of land ownership, see recent discussion on Talk:Psagot#Latest addition) which is specific to certain settlements. It is something that belongs in the "legality" section of those settlement articles. If necessary, we could change the lead text in those (relatively few) cases to something like: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law. The Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument, and claims prior Jewish landholding in the region makes the settlement legal" or somesuch, if reliable sources confirm this. The body section would then detail the size and existence of such landholdings, and explain that interpretations of international law still argue the settlement is illegal.
  • We also might decide to provide a small resource guide of sources discussing principal settlement-specific issues of legality. But procedurally, it would be very very nice to close this discussion, and then do that second task as a "group project" if you will. Shuki seems to fine with that happening at Psagot and so am I.

Shuki and Agada, I know this process may be exhausting, but your participation now could make it all have been worthwhile. If we still reach an overwhelming vote plus minority objection/"stalemate" condition after this discussion, we could work from there as well, but let's hang on a bit longer.--Carwil (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Re: synth. I think we've talked about this enough, but we could advise people to add a second reference naming the given settlement if it's available to reduce edit conflicts." Excellent idea. However, expanding a legality section is the exact opposite of what I think the preferred solution is if it is done without expansion of other aspects. I'm also a little disheartened than an editor says the point of such centralized discussion is to simply waste time. I'm leaning towards not supporting any mass change. Bent over backwards to make it an option and too much sniping still going on. Let the edit warriors revert over this and get banned. Then in a few months we can try this discussion again without interruption from them. And without a stable method of implementation being feasible (and one editor flat-out saying it) I can;t support a change. Striking out (again). When editors truley want to make this work then I will be onboard. Until then this really turned out to be pointless. Cptnono (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Carwil, I appreciate your levelheadedness in this issue. When it comes to accusation lines like this, I suggest to all to replace the protagonist with another entity and see how they like that. Something I came up with and food for thought. This is not a formal proposal and does not insinuate any agreement for placement in all or any article.:
"Many countries consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law but the Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument, claiming that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal and it considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention."
or from a different angle:
"The Israeli government claims that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal and it considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, though many countries consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law. "
--Shuki (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
"Many countries", is not the same thing as the international community, we are talking about the vast majority of all countries, (we don't have one single confirmed objection from any country) and all major international organs, this is not "many countries", Do you have any evidence that every single one of the Israeli settlements are built on land that has "both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership)" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Then suggest most instead of many. I really don't like 'int'l community', it really sounds cheesy. (Does the international community condemn Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad? Sure, and reporters can say this anytime they want too, but does not sound encyclopedic at all) I don't think the wording I used is explicit that all are on owned land because I think that most are on 'state lands' (an article / definition I hope to upload to WP sometime). Please suggest how we can improve the Israeli 'defence' of the allegation. This is your opportunity to show you can be NPOV and collaborative here. --Shuki (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
"Most countries", is not the overwhelming view of the international community as the sources say, and does not include organs. Well this is the problem, you "don't like" it.. well thats what the BBC source uses [23], and BBC is a more reliable source then User:Shuki at Wikipedia. You have so far not brought any source for your claim that all the Israeli settlements in WB and GH are owned by Jews so your suggestion is not backed up by anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, I think you overstate the importance of the private land claims issue, since it is a local (to particular settlements) claim. If you're willing, we could create a second sentence to add in those cases (this is discussed at Israeli settlements and international law, but I don't remember how well). To include it will require settlement-specific sources as well.
Per SD, "international community" is not only well-sourced but uniquely descriptive of international organizations plus nation states. Ideally, we would have a well constructed article at international community that explained the specific definition used here, but we could add a footnote if it added clarity. We also have two citations for "virtually the entire international community" (including the law review article), so if that combination of qualifier and extender makes anyone happier please say so. I support George's effort to centralize further discussion below, but want to be clear I heard the above dialogue.--Carwil (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
SD, FWIW, I don't think anyone is taking your presence here seriously. You are just here to push this line that you've struggled to put on many articles already. You are not collaborating, suggesting alternative options, and this reminds me of one of those bobblehead toys.
Carwil, I'm not overstating anything, I merely suggested a starting point to actually allow Israel to have a significant defense included in any proposal here. For simplicity's sake, the Jewish presence exists on state lands, Jewish owned land, and a minute part on Arab land (without going into the issue that a similar percentage of Arabs have built on Jewish land). The vast majority of settlements are Israeli legal, some are 'unauthorized' meaning built with government funds but not completely accredited, and some illegally built on state land without permission. 'Israel disputes this' is enough for SD and you merely added 'strenuously disputes this'. Please comment below about changing the order of the line and especially what Hope&Act3! added because this is where I'm getting as well. Anything that diminishes or minimizes the Israeli objection is not going to get a credible consensus. --Shuki (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing part of the point. Israel can own West Bank land, Israelis can own West Bank land, that's great (they can't currently buy it but that's another issue). The ownership of the land (and let's not even get into what constitutes proof of ownership in an Israeli military court), at this juncture, is immaterial; under the Geneva Conventions an occupying nation's citizens can't settle in the occupied territory. End of story. Even if there were no occupation, does owning the title to property allow you set up a colony outside a host country's jurisdiction? If so then I'd expect to see a lot of Hamas officials streaming into Tel Aviv with pre-1948 titles. Sol (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No, what you are suggesting is that undue weight be given to an argument made by a tiny minority while not giving due, or even equal, weight to the super-majority position. Israel doesnt claim that the settlements are legal under GCIV, they argue that GCIV does not apply as in their view the West Bank is not occupied territory. This is a view that has been unanimously rejected by the ICJ and has been rejected by both the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the high contracting parties of the Geneva Conventions, and countless human rights organizations, multinational organizations and scholars in international law. You seek to give undue weight to a minority opinion and presenting it as more valid than the views of countless reliable sources. nableezy - 20:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

further discussion

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)
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)
Thats not true, Japan, Check republic, and Poland have all voted in favor that the settlements are illegal.[25] - Supreme Deliciousness
That source makes no mention of the countries that I noted. I have no doubt that Gabon and the Republic of Congo voted for the resolution but the countries that I mentioned are not named in that source so stop misleading editors--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does, on page 533 it mentions those countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The minority opinion within the community is one thing that has bugged me. Alternative wording. JJG?Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Your own NYTimes source says: Virtually the entire international community opposes the settlements. The vast majority of governments accept what the United Nations and the International Court of Justice in The Hague have declared — that the settlements violate international law. The spokesman for the US embassy in Israel is mistaken. The last legal judgment by State said the settlements are illegal, I think it is quoted on this page currently. nableezy - 03:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
re: illegal vs illegal under international law and this process in general, I understand what we are trying to do here but once editors start departing from sources based on implicit rules that are not evident from the sources themselves or suggesting wording that changes the scope of the statements the sources make (e.g. illegal in general instead of illegal with respect to a specific set of laws, international law), we're in a world of policy violating poop. Editors aren't allowed to do that. It's not an option. There is no editorial freedom to change meaning. We have to say what the sources say which means we need agreed sources before we can agree on content statements. Everyone already knows that WP:V compliance is mandatory so every single thing we say must be directly verifiable using the sources for the statement and it must mean the same thing as what the source says. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, Poland and the Czech Republic are part of the European Union, which has a position. The paragraph you cite begins, "Virtually the entire international community opposes the settlements." "Pure bullshit" might be excessively harsh. We have a more comprehensive set of sources on the US position below above (summary: State Department legal analysis found illegality; diplomatic posture is not to talk about legality).--Carwil (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
So now the NYT is not an RS. It's only an RS when it suits a particular view, eh?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This shows that the NYT article is inaccurate:[26] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont think anybody has said that. I said that the spokesman for the US embassy in Israel is mistaken, I dont doubt that the NYTimes is accurately reporting what he said. I also think there is a reason they saw the need to explicitly attribute it to an embassy spokesman. nableezy - 03:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey now, sovereign states regardless of EU. Anyways, we all know some in the intl community have not condemned it but it is a minority. So does it need to be modified to "most" or "the majority"? Tis was actually one of the first proposals up above. Intl law is still a nonstarter for me since its interpretation is an issue but we are close to consensus on intl community. If done right everyone should be happy (surprising since that hardly happens but this one is close to covering all the bases).Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You have yet to provide an answer to my questions regarding your objection of the inclusion of the words "under international law". I have asked them several times now. nableezy - 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, details about the US position are important. I cited several sources above on the US position, but predominantly an in-depth look at the issue by an equally reliable newspaper of record; the article's focus make it a more reliable source that an individual embassy being quoted. The Rand Palestine State Study Team also speaks directly to the issue, and is a definite reliable source. On page 16, it notes:
  • Official U.S. policy holds that these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and are “inconsistent with international law.” Excerpts from the State Department’s legal finding may be found at http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html. While political language has softened over time (e.g., settlements as “an obstacle to peace”), the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal and, indeed, has reconfirmed it on a number of occasions at the United Nations. President Bush’s April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon indicated that a final negotiated peace would likely leave in place some Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but did not renounce the official legal opinion set out above.
Also, it seems like a connection between "international community", "international law" and illegality is available in reliable sources. JJG's NYT source for instance uses just this phrasing.--Carwil (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is moving a bit fast for me to keep up, but why did we change back to "but Israel disputes this" instead of "but the Israeli government disputes this"? Not a big deal, just curious. Also, I don't have any problem with Che's suggestion of "Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) are considered illegal under international law by the international community, but Israel disputes this." but I would change the wikilinking tweak the wikilink (as I did in the preceding quote) to not include "by the international community". It's already a big block of blue. ← George talk 04:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Japan's official position as reported by Bronner is thrown into doubt here; the site is maintained by the Nation magazine. The point is not to have a reliable source contest, but to seek clearer sources than these conflicting ones. Late night google was no help, just don't assume this Japan claim is true.--Carwil (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Views of individuals are not stronger then official views of country's. Japan voted for that the settlements are illegal. No other reliable sources has been provided showing that the offical view of Japan is somethign else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Because I totally space it. Fixed. (note: government bit not wikilink since I do not support the intl law line)Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain why you don't support the international law line? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
We should find some place quiet to tweak the proposal. I don't really agree with 3.2.b... ← George talk 04:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
We can open up additional proposals below (collapsible tables for this and those maybe?). As it stands it is getting a little wacky.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I might play in my sandbox a bit to try to roll my own proposal, using yours as a starting point. Btw, the reason I don't agree with 3.2.b is because I don't think that's what WP:LEAD says. It doesn't say the lead has to summarize stuff found in the body of the article, it says the lead has to summarize the most important points of the subject (full quote being "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies"). The body should cover those same points in more detail of course, but the body lacking information on those important points is not a reason to leave them out of the lead. This is another one of those guidelines that editors cite but often misunderstand. ← George talk 04:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not say it but it certainly implies it and is treated as saying it in assessment discussions. Yes, a tweak would be good but the principle is rolled out across the project on articles held to higher standards. A line that applies is: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body..." (yes "usually") and since the lead is used to "summarize the most important points covered in an article" it is pretty common to have those expanded upon in the text. This is one instance where it might be a challenge so "usually" might be a good word. So remove WP:LEAD but make sure to mention that it is not a good thing typically.04:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I amended my version to "This version does not summarize information in the body which is unusual in higher quality articles. "Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of article structure

I don't think we should have any kind of "vote" for any proposal, only discussions about them, votes will lead to people only adding they're votes on a proposal without bringing any intelligent conversation to back up their view.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • While I appreciate a rare collaboration support of Wikipedia project in form of this discussion, I clearly oppose tagging (mentioning in the lede) of all Israeli settlements articles (i.e. civilian residential areas built on the land east of the Green line on the Palestinian West Bank or on Syrian GH) as illegal. Please imagine yourself, for a sec, that all articles that mention Hamas or its members would start to discuss whether or not Hamas as organization or merely its military wing is "illegal resistance", i.e. considered terrorist organization by let's say Japan. Uh wah ah ah ah, it could be a lot of fun massive Wiki editing, my droogs ;) IMHO it could be "...an organic full of juice and sweetness and agreeable odour process, being turned into an automaton" which goes well with Ninth Symphony. However, it does not go well with OR or LEDE Wiki policies/guidelines, beacuse I'm not sure that reliable sources mention Psagot or Yonatan for instance, specifically in legality context. I would prefer that we expand legality discussion in the Israeli settlements article to full extent, i.e. UN/USA/UK Queen/Cuba/Czech Republic/... view and Israel classification. We could knock ourself down there, going into as much details and nuances as we can. However, generally, as rule of thumb, for articles about geographical locations we should clearly note facts: whether or not this location is in "Israel-proper" or on "occupied territory" and wiki-link relevant article, i.e. IS. How does that sounds? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
excellent points by AgadaUrbanit, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Okey, since you believe agadas points are excellent then maybe you can explain how his analogy to hamas members has any relation to what we are discussing here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
SD would you support a proposal tagging Hamas and for that matter Hezbollah and the IRGC as terrorist organizations since they are considered as such by most of the free world. Yes, I think that's an excellent idea--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Both the Hamas and Hezbollah articles already have information in the lead about who considers them "terrorist", although this is a minority pov and not a pov of the interantional community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow the articles on Hamas or the IRGC, but the lead Hezbollah article does indeed mention who does and does not consider them a terrorist organization. If sources can be found saying something along the lines of "most of the international community considers (Hezbollah/Hamas/the IRGC) to be a terrorist organization", then I would support including that. ← George talk 05:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically there is no benefit whatsoever to editing every single article about Hamas to say that hamas is illegal, just like there is no benefit to editing all articles about Israeli settlements to say that all settlements are illegal. what else is illegal? was the US invasion of Iraq illegal? Was the Cultural Revolution illegal? Was the Mukden Incident illegal? Even if they were, we don't artificially inflate the article leads by saying so. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is only one article about Hamas. Do you know any other article about Hamas? And Hamas is not illegal, so why would anyone insert this inaccurate information into any Hamas related article? I don't know anything about the Cultural Revolution or Mukden Incident, if the international community regards those as illegal under international law, then it should of course say so in those articles, same thing with the US invasion of Iraq. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The international community does not consider Hamas members illegal under international law. And in the Hamas article in the lead there is a sentence of what country's that sees it as "terrorist" although these country's are far from being the "international community" and these are views that have no relation to international law. You say that it does no go well with "OR or LEDE Wiki policies", there is no OR as we have many reliable sources, and WP lead says: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." This is the aspect of the international community, so one sentence is appropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And how about Japan, is it part of International Community? Or Germany? And UN does see terrorism as a problem, see 9/11 article for instance. UN does not maintain "a list", or name any organization as "terrorist", though. However generally, SD, my friend, you miss a point. This was only an example.
  • Let's stay on topic, i.e. EW and IS. Per WP:OR, using two sources: UN consider all ISes as illegal[1] and Y is IS[2], strangely we can not include in Wikipedia article about Y: UN consider Y as illegal [1][2], it would be "original research", though it is definitely a logically solid claim, per transitivity. However inclusion in Y article: Y is IS, where IS is wiki-link to IS article which discusses legal side of things, is OK. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What about Japan or Germany? Does the UN see Hamas as a terrorist organization? What does anything of what you are talking about have anything to do with what the rest of us are discussing here? There is no OR going from reliable sources saying: "Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) are considered illegal under international law by the international community, but Israel disputes this." to adding that same sentence in settlement articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I read. There is no OR. Its sourced.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Its not OR or synthesis. There is no "new position", international view and law is sourced, and israeli view is sourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If it "should go" that way, and we follow your view, then for example all the text in the History, Conflicts and peace treaties, Geography and climate, Government, politics and legal system, Military, Economy, Transportation, Museums, Sports etc in the Israel article should also be removed from the main Israel article and then only have links throughout the article to those main articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't support this 'simple' line without expanding on what this 'international community' means (is this from the Israeli Declaration of Independence), what international law means, and whether the locality is legal in Israeli law or an unauthorized settlement. --Shuki (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
So what sentence do you support?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Shuki, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Since you agree with Shuki, maybe you can tell me the sentence you support. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Question: Currently the linked page expands in great detail about the int'l community and int'l law. Are you suggesting we summarize that material in any given settlement article? To what degree?--Carwil (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • First, AgandaUrbanit, I think you're misinterpreting the proposed sentence as synthesis. Synthesis is when you take source A, and you take source B, and you combine them to synthesize something original item C that neither source says; it's the combination of two disjoint halves to make a synthetic whole. That's not what's being done here. The key difference is that source is explicitly discussing all Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem; not some, not most - each and every one. I don't follow your Hamas analogy, but let me offer a simpler one. All cats are animals. Felis silvestris is a type of cat. What you're arguing is that we could not say that Felis silvestris is an animal unless we had a source that said so explicitly, and that a source saying that they are a cat isn't sufficient to say they are an animal, even though all cats are animals. I don't think that that's what synthesis says, nor what it's intended to prevent.
  • Second, Shuki, I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, but there is no short way to list a dozen international organizations and hundred-plus national governments in every single article. I haven't seen any suggestion for a way to describe that group more succinct than the "international community", which is a term often used in reliable sources. Also, I'm not sure why you keep harping on "whether the locality is legal in Israeli law or an unauthorized settlement". We're not discussing Israeli law here, we're discussing international law. I don't think anyone, save yourself, has brought up Israeli law.
  • Third, and this is to several editors: We are not saying that this is the view of the international community based on voting records, or combining multiple sources. I don't know why this discussion keeps devolving into a discussion about how Japan voted when, which U.S. politician or government organization said what, or what Germany thinks. That's an obvious mud pit that editors are getting pulled into too easily. The source says, explicitly, the international community. It is not for us to interpret what they means - whether it means every country, a majority of countries, or most countries - none of that matters. Reliable sources say the international community, so we simply repeat what they say. ← George talk 18:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't think this will work unless it is a simple statement that says what the sources say when they say something simple about this issue. If they can manage it and they do it all the time, hence this discussion, we should be able to manage it too. Details are for the detailed articles and we can use links for clarifications if necessary. Maybe some of the articles will eventually have detailed legal sections because of microgeography/land purchase issues etc but that's a separate matter. The legality of a settlement in occupied territories is a notable attribute of that location, possibly the most notable aspect (...that isn't our fault). We have no problem saying what the sources say about other attributes of the settlements, their population, when they were founded, which council manages them, which region they are in, the archeological sites, infrastructure etc etc. We even provide maps and coordinates so that people can see where they are in physical space on the ground but as soon as we try to make a simple sourced statement so that people can see where they are in 'legal space' it seems to go wrong. It's not that difficult. It should be as easy as adding a simple sourced statement about someone winning a Nobel prize in biographies about people who happen to have won a Nobel prize, an unusual and notable attribute of that particular person and of all of the people who share that attribute. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it should be easy enough. We even had multiple editors supporting a line and SD ready to pull the trigger. It somehow got bogged down. "Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) are considered illegal by the international community, but the Israeli government disputes this." Was fine yesterday but now it isn't. Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think since there is consensus for this sentence, it should be added now, and then if the consensus is developed into something else, I can ad the rest later. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Why have you refused to answer the questions asked of you regarding your opposition to including the words "intentional law"? Is it because you have no policy based reason for opposing it? nableezy - 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, may I suggest that putting your own proposal might be more effective step than trying to read Cptn's mind. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Im not trying to read his mind, Im trying to get him to answer simple questions. He has repeatedly made statements for which he is either unable or unwilling to back up. If a user refuses to justify their opinion with an actual argument that opinion should be considered worthless. nableezy - 20:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I already explained why I was against intl law. Was clarification needed? Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, I asked multiple questions multiple times. Once more: What law does the "international community" say the settlements illegal under? You say "Israel uses its interpretation of intl law to deem them legal". What about "but Israel disputes this" does not solve that issue. And what exactly does "Israel uses its interpretation of intl law to deem them legal" mean? What the PMs office says? Or the Supreme Court? Is the ICRC part of the "international community". Is Adam Roberts? What about the International Court of Justice? nableezy - 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Israeli government interprets the laws the intl community does. By intl community I assume everyone is thinking multigovernment bodies, sovereign states, and so on. Two editors have brought up the Israeli government official position with [27] and [28]. As explained, yes it is intl law being cited by both. So saying simply "It is illegal under intl law" does not work since it means we are taking a position. And as already mentioned, saying "considered illegal by the intl community under intl law" is redundant. So I basically just repeated myself but I don't see how that does not clearly represent my position. And the "Israeli government (note the addition of government last night based on the conversation the day before) disputes this" should be clear unless you are actively looking to poke holes in it. Of course, we could make it even wordier (which we should not be doing since the longer the line means the more emphasis which is actually mentioned in the MoS) by saying "... while Israel says they are legal". I personally wouldn't like the flow but it could work.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, even when you respond you dont answer most of the questions. "Considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this" covers everything, including your apparently unsupportable contention. Does the "international community" consider it illegal under Israeli law? What law does the "international community" consider the settlements illegal under? What about the countless scholarly journal articles that all say that the settlements violate international law? How does your sentence cover that? nableezy - 21:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm hoping this isn't taken as a personal attack, but part of the reason we're still here, going in circles, is because editors keep arguing things unrelated to the proposed sentence. One editor brings up that Japan doesn't consider Israeli settlements illegal. Rather than immediately identifying and dismissing this as something that does not refute the reliable source about the international community's view, editors take the bait and instead start arguing about whether or not Japan considers settlements illegal. It doesn't matter. Another editor keeps harping on a question they posed to a third editor, which has gone unanswered. I don't know what point is proved by pressing the question, but again, it doesn't matter. It's all just fodder. Do you want the sentence to include "international law" Nableezy? Then write up a counter proposal, and let's discuss it. There's no point in filling this page with repeated requests for Cptnono to defend their viewpoint if they choose to ignore your question. It gets us no where at best, and can make others think you're being a dick. ← George talk 20:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Look above. I already have. The first comment following the "Editors opposed" line. How exactly are we supposed to "collaborate" if users make proclamations, insist that others follow them, and refuse to answer questions about them? You can call that being a dick if you want, but Ill call it asking that a user demonstrate that they have a basic minimum understanding of what they are saying. nableezy - 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
About that Japan claim, its false: [29] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Not only does the link by Norman Finkelstein show that what Ethan Bronner wrought in the NYT article is false, but the United Nations resolution vote on page 533 here shows that Ethan Bronner in the NYT is wrong: [30] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't chose to ignore anything. I was offline for 12 hrs or so and didn't see it. I explained why I was against intl law last night. What's the time stamp on the question?Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I asked these questions multiple times and you responded elsewhere, always ignoring the questions. nableezy - 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, whether you answered it in full, writing a well sourced essay in the process, or you totally ignored it, it just doesn't matter. Repeating the question comes off as dickish, and is detrimental to the consensus building process. ← George talk 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but thats bs. If a user does not back their argument and is unable to address concerns with it that argument is worthless and should be treated as such. A user has repeatedly said something that is not supported by either the sources or the policies of this website. That, if you ask me, is "dickish". The problem here is people seem to think that the "consensus building process" is more important than getting the content to be accurate and well sourced. It isnt, and all you process over substance people are free to call me a dick. There is a response to that Id like to make, but Im fairly certain that if I make it I will be blocked for a long time. nableezy - 20:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Rather than further derail this discussion, I'll be replying at your talk page. ← George talk 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I beg all the "opposing" editors to spend 2 minutes and suggest an alternative. Ladies and gentlemen, please try to be constructive. There are POV pushers from both sides here, including myself, but we are honestly trying to solve a problem here. Please help us. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Another option

So I opened a discussion on the NOR talk page to ask uninvolved editors about whether or not the sentence we're including was synthesis, per AgandaUrbanit's concerns above. Generally speaking it was found to be acceptable, but I also got some good feedback in the process, and a suggestion for a possibly better approach.

Since we've been discussing placement lately, what if instead of trying to pin down where in the lead or body to place said sentence, we put it in the infobox. I've done this previously with moderately contentious material over at the Lebanon article. Basically, we would use {{Infobox settlement}}, and give it a value of <references group="infobox"/>. Then, in the infobox itself, we would include the line we've been discussing {{#tag:ref|The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal under international law]], but the Israeli government disputes this.|name="infobox_fn_1"|group="infobox"}}. This would appear at the bottom of the infobox (similar to the three notes at the bottom of the Lebanon infobox). Thoughts? We could also consider different places in the infobox to place the statement, besides in the infobox footnotes. ← George talk 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Im against your suggestion, there is absolutely no reason why this should be in the infobox. We should do what we have agreed already. I also see now that you misrepresented what we are talking about here at the NOR noticeboard, you told them that we were gonna say that the "(name of settlement) is considered.." which is not the case here. So whatever other people said there, it means nothing for this issue, since they were responses on misrepresentation of the issue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, we have seen what's started in Psagot article as a result of an attempt to implement the "proposal 1" solution. May be infobox is better solution, but I can see both pros and cons. Pros: it solves the issue and it doesn't mess with the style of the article. Cons: some editors want this information in the lead, and for good reason. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yo, what is going on over there is not inline with proposal 1 and people were being touchy over it before this was even presented. Also, if a proposal of some sort was accepted it should be done with tons of acceptance so it can be pointed to when people start edit warring. The fact that people are discussing over there and here and still letting it turn into reverting is ridiculous. Cptnono (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion here needs to get closed, and then we can carry out the change on all articles, and there wont be a problem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to agree with SD, probably I'm getting old :). But George has spent an enormous effort, let's see what he has to say. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
SD - Not really sure what you're talking about or where I wrote "(name of settlement) is considered..", since it appears you're quoting me with that statement; both proposals include the term "consider" if you object to the term.
Che - I wouldn't mind if this discussion gets closed. Or at least more focused. It may be worth opening a new discussion, starting from where we are now.
Generally agree with Cptnono that the edit warriors at Psagot don't seem to be using the proper venues of discussion, but it's also worth noting that they're discussion several different edits too - not just a mention on the legality of settlements. But it's definitely quite ridiculous. ← George talk 08:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You said: "if source #1 says that A is B, and source #2 says that B is C, is it synthesis to say that A is C?", you therefor presented it as if we were going to say that the "(name of settlement) is considered.." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I say we see what happens to those repeatedly hitting the revert button over it. Oops, the 31st is here!Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I clearly appreciate George's effort to check this through and as always more eyeballs turned out to be better ;). I feel that exploring Slim's idea could be worthwhile and it might be a fair compromise, since usually infoboxes should burn in hell and considered even bolder than lede by partisan parties. Lebanon example, looks OK for me personally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Good day to all of you! Up to now I refrained to participate since I saw from some of you a real tentative to come to a suitable one line edit. I actually believe this to be impossible, reading the lenghty exposés of harlan you should by now have gathered that legal matters cannot be stated in a few words (despite that he wants you to believe that law is a yes or no case).

- the international community is not academic for it is as meaningless as 'every body' thus it must be clearly defined: who? when? where? the name of the body (League of Nations? UN? Arab League? or?) the names of the states, and dated indeed, otherwise it's academically irrelevant

- international law is also unspecified, though I guess that you don't think here of the still valid Mandate for Palestine, art. 80 giving the Jews mandate to settle the land, so which law? when? who edicted it? etc. must be clearly stated (by necessity laws are modified all the time to fit new circumstances)

- Nableezy has rightly pointed to the inadequateness of the links (uninformative verging on deceit)

- the Israeli government does not consider all settlements legal, so there is a need to differentiate with a relevant source

- if ever you find a consensual one line edit how could it be relevant to all Israeli settlements?

- the BBC's guidelines are for its journalists only, and who ever else which is not an official legislator cannot be the last word to be used in an encyclopedy

- I propose this kind of pattern (based on logic):

This Israeli settlement is legal -or not when it is the case- according to the Israeli government (refnec) and -?-?- disagree (refnec) with all the required details (what? who? when?)

I put first the Israeli government position since it's about an Israeli settlement -that implies that the initiator -the Israeli government here- decides if it can or cannot be built and why, then comes second the external opinion which can only be a reaction to the Israeli government action

I think that covers my opinion, as I said I believe it's impossible to put all the necessary information in a short sentence, lacking these there must be a permanent pov tag along one requiring improvement to bring the article up to an encyclopedic level on top of the edited article. Try to prove me wrong if you still have good hope, that would be great, good luck with your endeavour, cheers, Hope&Act3! (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope, I know it's hard to join a conversation this long and convoluted late in the process. However most of this has been addressed.
  1. I pursued a long search through Nableezy's comments to find the one on "links." Nab wanted us to specify how ISs are illegal, and suggested "under international law." We added it.The linked page goes into great detail. Please explain what you mean by "uninformative verging on deceit."
  2. Israel's dissent is noted and sourced. The details are on the linked page.
  3. It's a good point that Israel may not dispute the illegality under international law of some settlements which are illegal under Israeli law. I have no evidence of this, but if you provide it, we could just say "The IC considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law."
  4. Other than branching our statement based on such different cases, what settlement is it not relevant to?
  5. We have a peer-reviewed legal studies source as well. The issue is law. I think we have enough reliability for an encyclopedia.
  6. Order: We're presenting the WP:MAJORITYVIEW first. We've shown amply that it is the majority view. Also, initiating possibly illegal acts does not give an entity the first word on their legality. Consider what this would do to assassinations, invasions, and thefts of all kinds. I think you'd agree that, "Germany invaded Poland as a part of reincorporating it into the German homeland and the greater Reich. The Allies then found this action to be illegal," is unencyclopedic.
  7. Doubt. We've worked very hard to make a simple sentence that links to a nuanced article. In cases where the details are more complicated for a given settlement, that settlement's article can and should have a Legality section to discuss the details. If the sentence remains an adequate summary, than it should stay in the lead. If other issues must be summarized then it can be part of the legality section.--Carwil (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The IC considers all Israeli settlements illegal, so that part of the sentence can go into all artilces, if the Israeli pov is also that they or some of them are illegal, bring sources and we can adjust the sentence to those articles. BBC source is a reliable source, and not just "for its journalists" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@Carwil, thank you for your detailed comment, I have no time right now and will answer later today (I hope),I tried to be concise and probably left out too many details, cheers, Hope&Act3! (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2010 (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.

Discussion of sources and content in settlements issue

Conversation continues at #Settlement illegality text

The following discussion 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.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says that "any notable controversies" should be mentioned in the lead section. It is high time that we laid this issue to rest by including the available information in an international law article that can be included with the "main article" or "see also" templates.
Carwill says the state of Israel "defends the legality of the settlements", but that is a gloss that avoids including the relevant published views. In “The Jewish Settlements in the West Bank: International Law and Israeli Jurisprudence”, Michael Galchinsky began by lamenting that: “Many who care about Israel have learned to stop caring about international law.” and finished his introduction by claiming “For good reasons, many who love Israel have honed their contempt for international law.” [31]
Carwill cited a 2001 web page that became moot when the Rome Statute entered into effect in 2002. Even in Israel, those arguments are considered "quirky" and misleading PR. In several cases the High Court and the government have argued that the settlements are only "temporary" and that establishing permanent settlements would be illegal. See for example the Supreme Court ruling on the Elon Moreh settlement in Kretzmer, David, "The occupation of justice: the Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories", SUNY Press, 2002, ISBN 0791453375, page 88 [32] While the "disputed territory" arguments have been used by settlers and the government alike for PR purposes abroad, both groups have used completely different arguments in actual Israeli court cases. See for example the section where settlers employed the law of belligerent occupation on their own behalf in "Naaleh Association v. The Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria" in the International Law in Brief at the ASIL website [33]; and journalist/historian Gershom Gorenberg's remarks on the subject of actual government case law arguments at the South Jerusalem blog [34] and on page 363 of "The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967–1977", Macmillan, 2007, ISBN 0805082417.
In 2002 the Israeli MFA claimed that the Rome statute is politically motivated, but acknowledged that "the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" is an included criminal offense and that "the prosecutor has extensive powers, including to initiate proceedings on his or her own initiative." [35]. In the section above I supplied two articles in which the Attorney Generals of Israel and legal experts of the Justice Ministry acknowledged that failure to ratify the Rome statute does not provide immunity. They said that Israelis are open to civil and criminal action and that the state of Israel is open to sanctions. [36] [37]. FYI, many Wikipedia articles incorrectly claim or imply that only the Security Council can refer or initiate ICC cases.
In previous discussions here regarding the "disputed territory" claim I supplied citations to the relevant published views of the MFA legal advisor, Theodor Meron, and the Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan. The latter was responsible for establishing the first Nahal-affiliated civilian settlements. Both officials acknowledged that the settlements violated the applicable international conventions. See Gorenberg's "And the Land was Troubled for Forty Years", The American Prospect, May 29, 2007 [38] - and pages 99 and 173 of Gorenberg's "The accidental empire".
The 2003 MFA article on "Disputed Territory" ignores those inconvenient facts and the Rome Statute. It also suggests that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967. Many experts and scholars, including Theodore Meron, have pointed out that responsibility for the outbreak of the Six Day War has never been authoritatively established - and that it would not alter the principle of international law regarding the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war contained in Security council resolution 242 in any case. See Meron Theodor, "Henry's Wars and Shakespeare's Laws", Clarendon Press, 1993, ISBN 0198258119, page 46. In the same passage, Meron cited the General Assembly's definition of aggression which included invasion and occupation as constituent acts of aggression. That same customary law definition has been employed by the General Assembly in connection with the Israeli occupation of the territory it captured in 1967 (e.g. UNGA 39/146) and was recently incorporated in an amendment to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression.
The status of the Palestinian territory became moot after the 2004 ICJ Advisory opinion and the 2004 HCJ Beit Sourik Village ruling [39]. The 2005 Sasson report revealed that many Israeli government officials could be held liable for aiding/abetting or complicity in connection with their roles in establishing settlements. Culpability in such cases could either be established under Israeli laws or the provisions of Article 25 of the Rome Statute regarding joint criminal enterprises. harlan (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Then create a new article. However, a hat note at the top seems unnecessary and this sub conversation should not have impact on the discussion above since specifically how to word a line is a good step that is currently close to happening.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I opened this thread with a statement on Wikipedia policy regarding lead sections that is applicable to your discussion. I think we will need to have an ARBCOM clarification about the use of Wikipedia for propaganda purposes before this is finally settled. There are a number of high quality sources, including declassified Israeli state archive materials, which indicate that the so-called legal arguments about "disputed territories" are just that. harlan (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I certainly hope you are not accusing me of propaganda. Right now you are actually harming the consensus building process in the discussion above.Cptnono (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes Harlan, you should know by now that providing high quality sources and asking that users educate themselves on the topic is "harming the consensus building process". How dare you do such a thing! nableezy - 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you understand what I was saying. But feel free to keep on edit warring over settlements, Nableezy.Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Article structure and placement of text

No Cptnono, I am not accusing you of propagandizing. I am pointing out that Wikipedia has a number of articles that present carefully pruned published legal arguments about the disputed territories. Mant of those articles do not mention that those published legal arguments are quirky "PR" that the Israeli government or the settlers do not, and would not, use in actual court cases. harlan (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Harlan wilkerson, so how does all these sources you brought help this one sentence we want to ad into all settlement articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an article, Israeli settlements and international law, from which I pulled the citation I mentioned above. All of this material belongs in it. And a one to two sentence reference to the settlements' legality belongs there as well. And I have no strong interest in "Israel defends their legality." Israel "has disputed their illegality" might address the POV concerns, and incorporate those moments when Israeli spokespeople have acknowledged their illegality. Everyone, do we have any post-Rome statute sources showing the Israeli government actively disputing the legal status of the settlements? Cptnono, Harlan's well-cited intervention didn't harm anything.--Carwil (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel's defense is needed. To be inline with UNDUE it should not overshadow the allegation though. But Harlan might be right. Instead of having any line at all I believe we should wikilink to the issue regarding the legality. At the bottom of the article in a See also section seems appropriate. Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think we should relegate Israel's defense on the legality into a See also section. That said, we do need to establish that reliable sources actually say that Israel defends the existence of settlements as legal. From harlan's comment above, it sounds like Israel may have some mixed messages on the issue. ← George talk 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
For me the MFA position is official enough. If different arguments are used in courts, they can be given too, being supported by RS. The Harlan's conclusion on what is propaganda and that the Israeli government deeply inside it's soul considers the settlements illegal are WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, if I'm not missing something. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
ElComandanteChe, you certainly are "missing something". You ignored the analysis of the declassified documents provided by Gershon Gorenburg that I cited. I'm quoting reliable published sources, so your comments about WP:OR or WP:Synth are inapplicable.
The MFA page you cited is inadequate. It doesn't contain any policy statements defending the legality of the settlements on the Golan Heights, the annexation of East Jerusalem, or the establishment of settlements in those areas. Syria was a signatory of the Geneva Convention. The British Mandate was inapplicable to the Golan Heights and was terminated by the General Assembly in 1948 at the request of the Jewish Agency. A Special Committee established in 1977 to report on the situation in the occupied territory noted public statements made by Israeli government officials who said that the Government of Israel had consciously decided to follow a policy in violation of article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See UN Doc. A/32/284 and UN GA Res A/RES/32/91 [A-C]. The MFA claims that the International Red Cross commentary on the Geneva Conventions is "authoritative". The MFA does not defend Israel's violation of the terms of Article 47, "4. Annexation" [40]. The commentary says that even in cases of [illegal] "anticipated annexation" the population continues to enjoy the benefit of the GC IV rules governing occupation (which prohibit the unilateral application of Israeli municipal laws in Jerusalem and the Golan pending a peace treaty). The MFA also does not defend Israel's violation of the explicit terms of Article 49(6). The commentary says that the intent of the article was to prevent the practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers to "colonize" occupied territories. [41] harlan (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, thank you for the high quality analysis. The idea of using the MFA site as a source has been abolished some time ago, in particular as a result of your hard work here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the commentary above was that the MFA page you linked to (from 2001) may not be the current view of Israel, as the laws changed in 2002 (or whatever the Rome Statute that editors keep mentioning is). We can't say the Israeli position did or didn't change, as that's just our opinion, but it would be cleaner if we could find post-2002 assessments from the Israeli government. If those don't exist, perhaps some post-2002 secondary sources discussing Israel's view on the settlement legality issue. If those don't exist, then we could probably run with the MFA article, until something better comes along anyways. ← George talk 21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless the changed law is retroactive, which I guess it is not, it's irrelevant, for no settlements were founded since then (am I right?), except "the illegal outposts", who's story is different. To the point: we aren't about writing a legal opinion here, BBC says it's disputed by il.gov - it's disputed, the story ends :). Oh, and of course I'm going to look for more stuff on MFA site.--ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Carwill, Israeli settlements and international law is cruft that was spun-out of the Israeli Settlement article. Supreme Deliciousness, I would hope that you would not agree to include unnecessary propaganda as boilerplate in a lot of articles. But if you do, editors are certainly free to include published material which points out that the government of Israel doesn't use those arguments in its actual court cases or that declassified documents in the state archives show that the responsible Israeli officials agreed that the settlements violate the terms of the applicable international conventions. harlan (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You missed my point, George. If Harlan is suggesting that the mention of legality should be at the top of the article in a hat note I think that it being at the bottom in the See also section is an alternative that could also be considered. In regards to Israel's defense, the current official policy of the state (not individuals in the government or cherry picked quotes) appears to be that they think it is legal. MFA website is one example.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
See also section is to link to other articles, we can not mention that the international community sees settlements as illegal in that section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I don't think either is particularly good option. I don't think using a hatnote in that manner would comply with the hatnote guidelines. And I don't think being in the See Also section makes sense either. In some cases, the most notable aspect of a settlement—that is, the most common reason that it is discussed by reliable sources—may be its legal status. We usually put notable aspects of a topic in the body of the article, and ancillary, loosely related aspects in the See Also section. I do think that the source you provided is pretty good though (and more recent), and could be used to support the official Israeli stance mentioned in the proposed compromise sentences we were discussing earlier. ← George talk 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Usage of various sources

How about this, we ad now that the international view is that they are illegal, and then when its decided about the israeli view here, we can ad it later on, ok? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would we leave out the Israeli view? It seems we have reasonable, official sources that give it. I think we're (more or less) in agreement on a sentence that says the international view, then the Israeli view. It's just a matter of nailing down the specific wording. ← George talk 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Because Harlan have some sources that say that the Israeli view is not that they are legal.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
harlan; so you're seriously arguing that Israel itself considers the settlements illegal? I think this is somewhat contradicted by the fact that it is still occupying the West Bank, and has not outlawed the settlements, isn't it? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I actually think the the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs page from 2007 supersedes harlan's sources, to some extent. Internally, harlan's sources seem to indicate that there is some dispute (as is common among democracies - one party has one stance, another has an opposing stance, etc. And it appears that certain individuals or groups inside Israel also consider them illegal. But we're aiming for Israel's official stance here, and the MFA is effectively Israel's official mouthpiece. ← George talk 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I must say that statements by the MFA seem fully notable and worthy of inclusion in any such entry on this topic. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, as a side note, let me suggest this article by Daniel Kurtzer for getting the historical perspective on the issue, especially from the words "The ideology". --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You missed my point. We are not going to come to an agreement here to withhold relevant information from the readers, while including quirky PR statements like the one Cptnono just cited. It uses a well-known technique called "hit 'em where they ain't". It doesn't mention the Rome Statute or the prohibition against indirectly facilitating the transfer of a civilian population (that the MFA acknowledged in 2002). It also speaks as if the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention is doubtful, although the ICJ and HJC had both already ruled on that issue in 2004. The MFA itself has subsequently stated that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable. See paragraph 31 [42]
We all know that Meron and Dayan said that the settlements violated the applicable international conventions. Those are not cherry-picked quotes. Both men were writing about a subject within the scope of their official duties and the declassified documents from the state archives have received a lot of notoriety. You are not going to "put the Genie back into the bottle" on something like that. Government officials frequently say one thing for public consumption, and another thing entirely for the official record, or before a court of law. Kretzmer claims that Dayan was the first government official to raise the disputed territories argument in a speech to the UN in 1977. See Occupation of Justice page 34. harlan (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
harlan - That's a well reasoned argument, but I think the issue here is where we discuss details like that. I certainly think information like what you're discussing belongs in an article discussing Israeli settlements in general, or the legality of those settlements. But I think there is simply too much information there for us to add it to every single article about every single settlement, which is what we're discussing here. I think the aim should be to have a sentence that summarizes stances generally (which I think the proposals above accomplish), while leaving the more intricate details like you're discussing to the articles on the broader settlement issue. ← George talk 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The MOS says that significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead of the article. That is where the brief statement regarding the legality of the settlements belongs. The rest belongs in a separate article that gets mentioned in a main article template. Gorenberg and many others have written about the fact that Israeli officials knew the settlements were illegal from the very outset, and that they have made PR statements to the contrary ever since. There is nothing WP:OR, WP:Synth, or [[WP:UNDUE}} about mentioning material like the Meron and Dayan memos in an article. harlan (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Harlan wilkerson, does the comments from Israeli officials also cover settlements in the GH or just the PT? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The declassified Meron and Dayan memos applied to all of the territories occupied in the Six Day War. Of course, the Golan was outside the scope of the ICJ and Beit Sourik Village cases I mentioned above. harlan (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thats the view of two people then, not Israels view today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The position of the Israeli Supreme Court in the Elon Moreh case (cited above) that the establishment of permanent civilian settlements would be illegal was not a personal opinion. The citation that I mentioned on page 363 of "The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967–1977", Macmillan, 2007, ISBN 0805082417 is a reference to another Supreme Court case, HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. In that case the government and the Court both rejected the settlers arguments about the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, & etc. They said that the settlements in occupied territories were not permanent and that "most Israelis do not have ownership of the land on which they built their houses and businesses in the territory to be evacuated. They acquired their rights from the military commander, or from persons acting on his behalf. Neither the military commander nor those acting on his behalf are owners of the property, and they cannot transfer rights better than those they have." (cited in HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel, see page 17 [43])
FYI, those views about the permanency of the settlements were shared by Secretary of State Rusk in 1968, when the Nahal settlements in the Golan started "taking on aspects of permanent, civilian, kibbutz-like operations", e.g. [44] In any event, we are discussing the official views of the Legal Counsel of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs that were contained in an advisory opinion written for the Prime Minister in September 1967 (Israel State Archives, 153.8/7921/3A. Legal opinion numbered as document 289-291) and the Defense Minister who established the settlements in the Golan Heights (Israeli State Archives 153.8/7920/7A, Document 60, dated October 15, 1968). Rusk, Meron, and Dayan were discussing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which hasn't changed in the intervening years. harlan (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
harlan, the problem is that the Israeli Supreme Court case refers only to isolated, anomalous settlements like Elon Moreh. while you are attempting to apply their language to mainstream settlements like Ariel. This is what happens when editors try to battle it out to get involved in larger issues. The Supreme Court never said it was taking a position on all land occupied by Israel since 1967. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Elon Moreh's importance stems from its requirement of declared military necessity by the military administrator to bring it into line with international law. That's the keystone on which settlement legality rests in domestic law although it's not an argument any country besides Israel is buying(perhaps because civilian population centers in possible conflict areas serve no fathomable military purpose but I digress). We could present the the FMA stuff (it's notable) but most of it has nothing to do with the legal justification approved by the Israeli judiciary. No other government/legal body buys either argument so they are both equally fringe views =X I'm also thoroughly confused by what context we are wanting to put this information (the settlement article? the short sentence in each settlement article?). Sol (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If the Israeli view is more complicated then legal/illegal, then it will be to long to have it in all settlements articles. Sol Goldstone, can you summarize the Israeli view for me? Because I have read everything above but I still don't get it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
@sol; "no other agency buys the argument"? very nice, since you just said no govt agency buys the official policy of the govt. I give up. what brought this whole discussion on? was it edit-warring? you guys are so busy parsing here and playing with semantics that i don't know if we can make any progress here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No other government (US,UK,EU,etc.) accepts the argument and believes them legal and no legal body (ICJ) does either. Not the internal government agencies. They can (and do) propose their own takes on the situation but, after all of the PR posturing is over, declared military necessity is the key requirement for settlement legality according to the High Court. Sol (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sm8900, I'm citing published sources which say these were landmark or precedent setting cases. You are not citing anything but your personal opinion. I'm saying that the government of Israel has always attempted to justify the legality of its settlements by claiming that they are NOT permanent and that their status is a final settlement issue that is still negotiable.
Kretzmer explained that the Elon Moreh case was the landmark HCJ decision which prohibited the establishment of settlements on Palestinian private property and established that the "military necessity" of settlements could not be invoked as an after-thought. The Court cited the Hague Convention and said the decision to establish the settlement met: "an insuperable legal obstacle, because no military government may create in its area facts for its military purposes that are intended from the very start to exist even after the termination of military rule in that area, when the fate of the territory after the termination of the military rule is unknown." [45]
The cite I supplied in the "Accidental Empire" contains published analysis of the Gaza case that supports what I'm saying too. The Gaza case was in-line with the Hague Convention and the precedent of the Elon Moreh ruling. It said that the military commander could not establish settlements on state-owned land that would outlast the occupation regime. The HCJ itself cited the Gaza case as part of its discussion of "the Supreme Court's caselaw regarding the military commander's authority, according to the law of belligerent occupation" and claimed that "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation." The Court said "that caselaw was developed by this Court in scores of judgments it has handed down since the Six Day War." See the discussion starting on page 8 in Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel case [46] That case said the land needed for the barrier was a temporary taking: "the military commander is not authorized to order the construction of the separation fence if his reasons are political. The separation fence cannot be motivated by a desire to “annex” territories in the area to the state of Israel. The purpose of the separation fence cannot be to draw a political border. . . . the authority of the military commander is inherently temporary, as belligerent occupation is inherently temporary. Permanent arrangements are not the affair of the military commander. True, the belligerent occupation of the area has gone on for many years. This fact affects the scope of the military commander’s authority. . . . The passage of time, however, cannot expand the authority of the military commander and allow him to take into account considerations beyond the proper administration of the area under belligerent occupation" (pages 9 & 10)
After Israel adopted the 1981 Golan Heights law, the United States UN representative insisted that sanctions were not needed because Israel had provided a written guarantee that the status of that territory was still unconditionally negotiable.[47] harlan (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
hmmm. ok, thanks for your reply. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's "negotiable," then that means that some of the settlements can or will remain in existence, even after a negotiated settlement is reached. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Since SD wants to shove pre-packaged language down our throats on over two-hundred wikipedia articles, I propose the following: Anytime Hamas, Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is mentioned in any article, it should be accompanied or rather prefaced by "the terrorist group," since much of the free world recognizes them as such. Similarly, anytime the UNHRC is noted, it should be accompanied by "a body dominated by Muslim states and their allies," or words to that effect. The point I'm trying to make here is that what SD is proposing on this thread represents a dangerous slippery slope that will necessary lead to pre-packaged language in hundreds if not thousands more articles. What SD is proposing represents a dangerous precedent that will result in taking us down a path that none of us wish to take.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Why would we do that? 1. Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist by the international community, so why would we lable them by this false claim of "terrorist"?, 2. Why would we in every single article that mentions Hamas and Hezbollah insert the false text that "they are terrorist"? Here we do not want to ad the accurate information about that the IC considers Israeli settlements illegal and that Israel disputes this in all articles that mentions Israeli settlements, but in the actual Israeli settlement articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, there aren't two hundred Wikipedia articles on Israeli settlements. There might be one day, but there aren't currently. Having a boilerplate solution to avoid edit wars on each of those articles will be helpful. I know you're trying to prove a point, but I'm in favor of adding "much of the free world considers (Hezbollah/Hamas/the IRGC) a terrorist organization" if that's what reliable sources say. You should find the sources for it and go and open a new discuss on that if that's your goal. ← George talk 05:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
ok, almost 200... Your terrorist org analogy should suit my personal POV, but even looking at it that way makes the line seem like WP judgement. --Shuki (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it's currently at a little under a hundred, but I guess that that's rather besides the point. The biggest problem with that line is that you'll be hard-pressed to find reliable sources that support it. Why your personal viewpoint may not line up with what reliable sources say is an entirely different matter. ← George talk 07:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
SD. First, nearly every single Western country designates Hamas and Hezbollah as terror organizations. Second, it’s no secret that the UNHRC is a body that is dominated by Islamic countries and their “non-aligned” allies who hold 27 of its 47 seats.[48] A qualification is always necessary when the UNHRC is noted, especially in the context of its notoriously anti-Israel resolutions. Also SD, as I explained to you before, the “internationally recognized” nonsense that you insist on shoving down our throats is simply false and your attempt to rebut facts with a blog citing the notoriously partisan Norman Finkelstein is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I counted at least seven editors who oppose your proposals. You have zero consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep on repeating the same things over and over? As you have already been told, the minority countries who regard Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist are in the lead of those articles. If you have a reliable source about who controls UNHRC, then ad it to that article. I'm not insisting on shoving anything down anyone's throat, the majority here support the sentence that includes "international community", and not one intelligent argument has been made to not have it. What seven editors oppose "my proposal"? If you are talking about Proposal 2, then only two oppose it. And consensus is based on the arguments, not on votes. And you have already been told that besides Norman Finkelstin we have the UN resolution that debunks your NYT article by Ethan Bronner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times is an RS and to my knowledge, thay have yet to print a retraction. Your argument is without merit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
So its one person named Ethan Bronner, against the official view of Japan at the United Nations. I think Japan is a pretty reliable source for how Japan sees things. I don't think Japan has printed a retraction of their vote that the settlements are illegal. But it doesn't really matter how Japan sees things, the "International community" is not one country, its the vast majority of all countries and organs, and so far there isn't one single valid source proving that any country sees them as legal accept Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, you might have a point if we were discussing adding the line "the illegal settlement" every time one of these settlements is mentioned in any article. We arent discussing that though and your comparison fails because of that. The Hamas and Hezbollah articles include that certain western states view those groups as "terrorist groups". That is, the article about the group that you want to say is considered a terrorist organization already says that it is considered a terrorist organization. The comparison here is between the the actual articles about each settlement and the actual articles about those organizations. One of those sets of articles includes an international designation, a designation that has much less consensus across the globe than the one about the illegality of each and every settlement. Why exactly should the other set of articles not include the same type of information? Or, alternatively, would you like to removed the views of the states that views Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist groups from those articles? Clearly you oppose including international designations in the articles on such subjects, is that a position you extend beyond where that international designation is critical of Israeli policies? nableezy - 17:36, 3 November 2010 (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.

Review of discussion and proposed template, above

Conversation continues at #Settlement illegality text

The following discussion 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.

Following a request at the Administrators' Noticeboard and my subsequent reply, I have reviewed the discussion in the two sections above, and am willing to give my thoughts as regard what consensus I found, and in what manner there appears to be consensus, make a couple of points, and a suggestion, which I trust will lead to a swift conclusion to this matter and adoption of a process going forward. I anticipate that there needs to be further discussion on a couple of points I will raise, so I am not prepared to say that my review is definitive; but that it should be regarded as a basis for a consensus of the agreed text between the various parties to the editing of articles relating to certain settlements in Israeli occupied territories.
Firstly, and likely most importantly, {{highlight|I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles. I shall return to this point momentarily.
I do not yet see consensus for the manner of its incorporation over the differing qualities of applicable articles. There is sufficient agreement on its placement in the lede of an article, where the legality issue is further discussed in the body of the article, and also some agreement where it is the only reference to the legality issue in stub type articles. It has not found sufficient support for it to be used in the lede of a short article, where it is either repeated in the body or not mentioned again. I find that all of the agreements and disagreements over the application of the wording dependent on the status of the subject article to be well founded in policy, so I am inclined to offer a suggestion that may allow the wording to be used in those articles where there is presently remaining issues. I will make that suggestion at the conclusion of my comments.
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.
Whilst there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard, there is not yet any agreement on how to incorporate it in an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section. The unresolved issue is apparently whether the text in the lede is repeated in the body but presently not expanded, or that the text in the lede is not otherwise mentioned in the article, or that the text is incorporated in the body of the article but not noted in the lede (this last has no support, but is noted for later comment). Much of the dispute resolves to WP:LEDE and its application, that important information concisely noted in the first few paragraphs should be expanded upon within the body of the article; and the difficulty to applying that criteria to some articles using the proposed wording but without any further discussion of the question. There has been a couple of suggestions, which did not gain much traction, of WP:IAR and use of a "See Also" link to another page. Presently, however, no solution has been found and despite much agreement in the proper use of the wording in most cases there is not consensus. I will return to this, with my suggestion, at the close of my comments.
I was, in truth, reluctant to take the effort to even look over this matter, since I have previously found adminning in areas of recognised partisan editing and divergent and even belligerent viewpoints time consuming and frustrating (although also of great satisfaction when able to make progress). I should comment that I found the discussion on this page at times both exhilarating and despair making - how editors with opposing viewpoints were able to work together to find a way of creating a common understanding under which they may proceed, and then casually accuse the others of bad faith and partisan interests. I am glad I was able to review these exchanges at the close, rather than be a bystander or - worse - attempting to mediate between those editors. Ultimately, though, I am grateful for allowing myself to be provided with the opportunity to conduct this review, and hope that it will lead to a satisfactory conclusion to these issues.
To that end, I strongly suggest that any attempt to diminish or deprecate my comments regarding my view of the existing consensus that is not referenced by policy or in the context of my misunderstanding of what has been said be rejected, and rejected forcibly. It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct. In other regards, I am of course open to be questioned about my comments above.
To conclude these words, I will now put forward a suggestion that may satisfy the agreed need to include the form of words that has consensus into articles where there has been a perceived issue - as discussed above. My solution is to place the agreed wording into the main body, and in the lede of the article to use the wording, "(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof). WP:LEDE is satisfied because the agreed wording, found in all other relevant articles, expands upon that note when placed in the main body, and the lede condenses that content while retaining its meaning. I hope that this finds favour among the readers.
Okay. That is it - let her rip! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could conclude that there is consensus for the line. Several editors provided reasoning for not using it. If your conclusion does lead to implementation, editors should probably figure out the best way to do it or if it can simply be popped in. (For example: can anyone make the change, what happens if people start reverting the change, should the objections be dismissed, and so on.)Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Your lack of understanding is probably due to you not reading what he wrote: 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. I intend to start adding the line to the lead of articles, this "discussion" has gone on long enough. nableezy - 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm just happy that you won't be edit warring over this anymore. I did notice that you ignored his suggestion for the lead, though. Curious to see what happens. I anticipate a trainwreck but hope I am not correctCptnono (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not ignore anything, please stop making demonstrably false accusations. nableezy - 19:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not demonstrably false. He made a suggestion about lead and body use and you disregarded it. I don't think it matters too much. Just happy that you have had a change of heart on this process. It was a long time coming so hopefully it works. We'll see.Cptnono (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not had a "change of heart". And it is demonstrably false. LHvU's suggestion was for a specific set of articles, a set that I have not yet touched. See if you cant make the effort to carefully read the statement again and figure out what set of articles that suggestion was made for. nableezy - 19:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"My solution is to place the agreed wording into the main body, and in the lede of the article to use the wording, "(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof)." Was an excellent suggestion. But of course: CHOO CHOO. Any thoughts on how to stop this from blowing up? Brewcrewer is right to resist a change that does not exactly have consensus (lead wording and body wording) while Nableezy is correct that the admin did deem there was enough consensus to include the information. Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Carefully was the word you must have missed in my last response. He also wrote the following: Whilst there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard, there is not yet any agreement on how to incorporate it in an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section. He followed with a suggestion for the articles that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section. That suggestion was for those articles that are not a stub with no sections and not longer articles with many, but rather have a lead and a single section after that. Ariel is not such an article, neither is Psagot, or any of the other articles I have added this line to. nableezy - 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, contrary to what you claim, there was never any final consensus. No agreed upon wording or placement either. Consensus was building, but never finalized. If you really want to collaborate, prepare another RfC but don't publish yet. I suggest that the first stage is only to prepare a list of options, with no discussion. Only when that list is finalized, it is published for discussion. Usually, like here, a discussion started and evolved but the original people got tired and left or though they had done their part. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong, there is consensus for the sentence in proposal 2. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It was close to that. But the discussion moved beyond that point; even the opinion above doesn't strictly follow the proposal. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification:' I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles. Only in those instances where there appeared to be an introductory paragraph and a main section (or two) was there some difficulty, owing to the fact that the phrase should not be repeated or left unsupported per WP:LEDE but expanding it would not be appropriate; it was in that specific circumstance I proposed that the wording should be included within the article body and my suggested form of words be used in the article lede. I trust that my thinking is now clearer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ma'ale Adumim is the second independent discussion started on this in the last couple of hours. This one also disregarded the suggestion by the closing admin. So two conversations that are not achieving consensus together with the main one here. It isn't working. And this is exactly why the centralized discussion was proposed in the first place.Cptnono (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC) And now Psagot was reverted. That makes 3. I would prefer it if those reverting weren't but they may not have felt the need to if Nableezy had followed the suggestion from the admin. Could be wrong since they might disagree with the admin's conclusion but that is exactly why my request for how implementation was going to be handled should have been addressed. Deja vu.Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank all of you for proving why I was right about this being a complete waste of time. Between a mix of editors who demand that these colonies be described as "Israeli cities in Judea and Samaria", ones who are content to simply bury the information as far down and dilute its meaning as much as possible, and those who clearly cannot understand simple English, there is no way to actually get supposed encyclopedia articles about Israeli settlements to include what is perhaps the most notable thing about them, that they are nearly universally regarded as illegally constructed colonies in occupied territory, in their leads. Even when an uninvolved admin agrees that there is consensus for this, which I must admit I did not see ever happening regardless of how clear the sources were, those sets of editors will again remove the material on the most spurious of grounds, with the style over substance crowd more concerned about how the proper process was not implemented and how we should spend another three months discussing whether we should form an advisory council to determine the causes of the failure of this process and make recommendations on a future process that may or may not be carried out at the discretion of another group set up to determine where we are in the process of developing a suitable process to resolve the problems we had with this process. I thank you all, from the bottom of my heart. I only hope that this will finally convince me that this is "project", and not just this discussion, is a complete waste of time and energy. Happy Thanksgiving. nableezy - 23:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I stopped supporting after you made it clear that you did not believe implementation was not possible. Then when we were so close you screwed messed it up. So we proved a couple things here.
Still might be possible, though. Does anyone object to the admin's suggestion (which was completely ignored int he recent edits)?Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You still dont know what you are talking about. LHvU's suggestion was for articles that do not already discuss the material in a developed body so that the material in the lead is expanded on in the body, as in articles that have a lead and a single section that does not have the detail seen in articles like Maale Admumim or Ariel. But I guess a dogged refusal to actually read what is written is to be expected from you. nableezy - 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea how you can interpret it that way. I pulled the exact wording he mentioned and it does not say at all what you are saying. Good thing we asked for clarification, huh?Cptnono (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
LessHeard, I appreciate your comments but they are not easy to follow and some have seemed to jumped at the opportunity to waste Thanksgiving evening and taken your assumptions for actual approval. --Shuki (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Ill try to explain this once more. LHvU wrote the following:

Firstly, and likely most importantly, I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles. I shall return to this point momentarily.
I do not yet see consensus for the manner of its incorporation over the differing qualities of applicable articles. There is sufficient agreement on its placement in the lede of an article, where the legality issue is further discussed in the body of the article, and also some agreement where it is the only reference to the legality issue in stub type articles. It has not found sufficient support for it to be used in the lede of a short article, where it is either repeated in the body or not mentioned again. I find that all of the agreements and disagreements over the application of the wording dependent on the status of the subject article to be well founded in policy, so I am inclined to offer a suggestion that may allow the wording to be used in those articles where there is presently remaining issues. I will make that suggestion at the conclusion of my comments.

That pretty plainly says that for articles in which "the legality issue is further discussed in the body of the article" there is "sufficient agreement on its placement in the lede" with it being a reference to "the wording per Proposal 2". What you keep referencing is the suggestion "in those articles where there is presently remaining issues", with those articles being a reference to where "It has not found sufficient support for it to be used in the lede of a short article, where it is either repeated in the body or not mentioned again" with it again being a reference to "the wording per Proposal 2". nableezy - 00:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has rightfully pointed out that you did not use the wording that the admin said there was consensus for. Please do not do that again. he wording was suppose do be "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" not "Like other settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Ariel is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Pedantry is not a virtue. If you or anybody else would rather insert the line from here you or any other editor is free to do so. The other "editor" (I struggle to use that word to describe him) is simply engaging in disruptive wikilawyering. nableezy - 18:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Placement

There was not clear consensus for where the agreed upon sentence should be added, so I suggested different suggestions at the settlement articles, in some settlements for example I suggested that it be placed at the end of the articles, in some articles it was at the end of the lead, etc, my suggestions were based on a case by case depending on the length of the article and how it is built up. Does anyone have another suggestion? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it is if there is a section on history or legality that the full line can fit in then it should. The lead would then simply say ""(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof)." as suggested by the admin. It looks like others still object that there was consensus (which is why I asked "the objections should be dismissed" before Nableezy pulled the trigger) but I wouldn't personally be reverting (I haven't reverted at all) based on that.Cptnono (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No Golan articles have an illegality section. And adding a sentence in the lead for another one single sentence after is inappropriate and saying that its "of disputed legality" is not presenting it correctly when we are talking about 1 country against the entire world. How about I ad the sentences, and then after if there is a problem with any of the placements we can discuss them at the talkpages? Of course they object to that there was consensus, they didn't bring any good arguments when they wanted the worldview kept out, so now they are continuing to say "no", in hope of forcibly stop the consensus sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I was talking specifically about Ma'ale Adumim, Psagot, and Ariel (city). Those and others have sections where the full line could be added. And I would not say they did not bring any good arguments. You simply do not agree with them and it looks like the admin felt they were insufficient to not form a consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Lets talk about the stubs first, end of the lead or at the end of the articles was where I had planned to ad it, does anyone disagree? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the not stubs are of concern right now wit the edits, multiple conversations, and recent reverts. For stubs, I thought I saw more than one editor mentioning to just easily pop it in at the end of it but will need to reread the page to find it again. Not sure if that had consensus or not or how many discussed it.Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I think one or two suggested at the end of the lead, and I agree with this and I did not see any objections, if I don't get any views here about this until tomorrow I'm gonna ad suggestions to the rest of the Golan articles and then carry them out if no one disagrees. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for showing some patience with it. I know you have been itching to get this done.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
SD, go ahead and you will probably be reverted again. I've tried to attract a few people to comment here and frankly, they have all resisted since it really is not clear what is happening here. This whole discussion should be an example of how not to get consensus. Discussions that are fast moving, intolerant of people who log in once a day, and take up hundreds of lines, including interspaced personal replies to form a anti-chronological mess is not a way to build a strong consensus, let alone any consensus. SD and Cptnono, it really is unclear what is going on here. --Shuki (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed my support for any of the proposals but am fine with it if an uninvolved admin judged one way. We could of course throw his conclusion out since he didn't understand the conversation enough to clearly express placement. After looking at it, I see where Nableezy is coming from. The admin did word it in a way that said the line is OK. However, is it acceptable to be duplicated? How about what SD is getting at with placement even though it looks like the admin attempted to address placement? It is a trainwreck. I truly believe this could work out but when someone as bold with it as SD hesitates and someone as problematic as Nableezy starts the change while people are confused about placement and others are shying away from the conversation altogether I do now understand why Nableezy was originally against such a conversation. That is why I went from supporting to not. However, it isn't that complicated. Editors could have made proposals. I made a proposal. Another editor (was it George?) made one for someone else. The discussion is unreadable, though. It was so unreadable that the admin could not even make a readable conclusion (was it an official close? What article has a lead + body but not the line or a very similar one in the body already?). So maybe editors should have started chiming in in a more organized fashion. I think we have a good base here. I still disagree with the admin's conclusion on acceptance to a certain extent but I certainly disagree with him not being abole to nail down placement or implementation. What is the point if we can;t do it completely?Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

<- Perhaps it's better to wait for the admin to rewrite/clarify the (partial) closure so that it's more readable and less ambiguous is some people's eyes. However, accepting that the following statement by LessHeard is a reasonable assessment by an uninvolved person is the key to the success of this process in my opinion

  • "It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct."

This argument has been going on for years. At some point it has to stop and an agreement has to be reached so that reliably sourced information can be included and given its due weight in the articles in line with the policies of this project. As far as I'm concerned the approach is overcomplicated. The argument that inclusion/placement for a given article depends on that article's content has no merit and has nothing to do with policy. It's a distraction that diverts efforts to build the project. The objective is to include notable information, probably the most notable information as far as RS are concerned, in a way that complies with policy. That's it. There is no policy based dependency on existing content. An elaborate set of rules to decide if, when and where certain statements can be added to an article isn't required by policy and discussing it at length is very likely to result in this effort failing. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the emphasis.[49]I was so focussed on the last paragraph that it was not clear to me. That still raises an issue unfortunately. Are we duplicating the line in the lead and the body as Nableezy did?

Also, do you have any suggestions on implementation. There are several editors who disagree with your conclusion about consensus (and vs another several it appears that consensus is not met) and plan on reverting. Simple blocks or is there an opportunity for ongoign discussion even if the line is changed now.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy did not do that, please stop making false accusations. Ma'ale Adumim#Legal status covers the information in greater detail, the sentence is not duplicated. Same for Ariel (city)#Political status. Psagot doesn't have anything in the body, which was an oversight on my part as I forgot that the material in the body had been disruptively removed in the past. But there is not any duplication for the edits made yesterday. Finally, having editors disagree does not mean there is not consensus. This is covered above, with the operative line in the close being 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. nableezy - 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes you did. Apologies for not understanding the conclusion, though. Looks like it was worded in a way that was not clear to SD as well. And like I said, I disagree with the conclusion of consensus as do others not based on votes but based on arguments. For example, there is no way that the admin saw consensus on placement even if he asserts he did. Other editors expressed concern with how the Israel rebuttal was in. This was mostly ignored. I won't be reverting over it like they are, though, since I am happy to see some progress and you edit warring less.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You dont understand much more than the close, but Im tired of trying to explain simple things to you. Ill leave it to you to figure out why you are, again, wrong. nableezy - 07:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not taking a position in regards to the discussion at hand. However this whole thing is a mess and hard to follow -- it spans several sections in an extended timeframe. Perhaps an uninvolved admin should be the person to place the sentences in the articles or at least an uninvolved admin declare what consensus is, since right now there appears to be mixed views amongst editors over what is and isnt consensus. As it is right now, SD is putting a notice on talk pages that he intends to make the change and then 24 hours later he institutes the change in the article. He may very well be following a consensus viewpoint; but given the controversial nature of this discussion, an Admin should declare what the consensus clearly is first & its placement, followed by editors making the needed changes. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 01:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin has already taken a look at it. And for the stubs its uncontroversial locations, for many it is the last sentence or end of the lead, and I asked above and at the talkpages if anyone disagreed about the sentence location in stubs, and no one did, I'm not adding the sentence into longer articles with sections now but will open a new discussion here about it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not express any opinion about phrasing so far, though maybe clarification about the fact that residents of illegal settlement are still civilians as International Law goes might be appropriate, since I guess this could be misread. My concern is hate related crimes generally, see WP:TERRORIST approach as example of Wiki making an effort to avoid tagging groups of people generally. I still have a feeling a significant effort was directed at phrasing and that placement was not discussed seriously. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It is cool to see that you are taking it easy still, SD. Good form making a mention on all of those stubs' talk pages. One thing I noticed is that the line will take up half of those articles. It would be appreciated (doubt it is necessary) if editors would put in some efort on at least a little bit of expansion. Doesn't need to be C class or anything. Just a couple more lines.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuing on from above, some of the settlements in Golan articles are larger articles with sections but no legality section, some are larger start but without any sections, so where should the sentence be? We are talking about one single sentence that most likely will never be expanded, so to create a separate "illegal" section for this one sentence and then adding a sentence in the lead for this one single sentence after is inappropriate. My suggestion is to just ad the one sentence at the end of the lead and for the articles without sections around the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Compilation of sources

Here is a compiliation of sources discussing the legality issue. Some sources are from the discussions on this page, some are already in use in various articles and some are new sources that I've found. Please add more if it will help. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Settlements on occupied territory are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

But it is built on land claimed by the Palestinians for a future state and, like all settlements, is considered illegal under international law - although Israel disputes this.

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"

It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal.

p. 17: annexations, expulsions and the creation of settlements are specifically prohibited by international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention, in Article 47, proscribes the annexation of occupied territory, and the United Nations has repeatedly condemned Israel's precipitous annexation of East Jerusalem and a wide belt of surrounding suburbs, villages and towns. Article 49 of the same convention prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of residents from an occupied area, regardless of motive. And yet thousands of Palestinians have been expelled (see Lesch, 1979:113-130, for a partial list of the "officially deported" ones) while many more have been, through measures to be described below, "pressured" to leave. The same Article expressly forbids the transfer by an occupying power of any of its civilian population into occupied areas. And yet, at most recent count, over 90,000 Israeli Jews have been officially "settled" within the illegally- annexed Jerusalem district, and more than 30,000 others have been "settled" in some 100 nahals (military forts), villages and even towns that the Israeli government has authorized, planned, financed and built in unannexed zones beyond the 1949 cease-fire line that Israelis refer to not as a border, but euphemistically as a "green line."

p. 17: Article 49 has been interpreted as prohibiting both forced deportations of Palestinians and population transfers of the sort associated with the establishment and continuous expansion of Israeli settlements

p. 85: The settlements program is quite simply contrary to international law. However, it is now so far advanced, and so plainly in violation of the Geneva Convention, that it actually creates a powerful reason for Israel's continuing refusal to accept that the Convention is applicable in the occupied territories on a de jure basis.

  • ICRC (Israeli position on legality of settlements not in source)

It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.

12. The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof. They recall the need to safeguard and guarantee the rights and access of all in-habitants to the Holy Places.

It first observes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80 percent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Recalling that the Security Council described Israel's policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law.

Virtually the entire international community opposes the settlements. The vast majority of governments accept what the United Nations and the International Court of Justice in The Hague have declared — that the settlements violate international law. Israel says they are lawful because the Palestinians were not sovereign in the West Bank when it was conquered from Jordan in 1967.

But the Palestinians and much of the world consider it and similar Jewish developments across the 1967 lines as illegal settlements on occupied land.

  • New York Times (Israeli position on legality of settlements not in source)

Much of the world regards all Israeli settlement in the West Bank as illegal under international law.

The international community, including the United States, considers the Jewish settlements illegal.

  • The Independent (Israeli position on legality of settlements not in source)

Some 300,000 Israelis live in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, all of them illegal under international law.

The EU position on settlements is clear. Settlements are illegal

the EU "recalls that settlements are illegal under international law and calls for an extension of the moratorium decided by Israel," read the declaration which was adopted by foreign ministers.

settlements are illegal under international law.

  • The Guardian (Israeli position on legality of settlements not in source)

All settlements on occupied territory are illegal under international law.

The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, to be illegal.

The United Nations, World Court and European Union have all deemed both the official settlements and the outposts to be illegal under international laws, including the Geneva Conventions, which set out the basis for international humanitarian law.

Israel considers the official settlements to be legal and provides them with amenities.

Israel does consider the so-called outposts illegal as they have not been granted planning permission by the Israeli state.

Approximately 500,000 Jews now reside in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The housing settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this claim.

The international community has long recognized the unlawfulness of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. UN Security Council Resolution 465 (of 1 March 1980) called 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".

Israel’s continuing settlement activity is a violation of international humanitarian law (IHL), United Nations Security Council resolutions, and Israel’s own commitments under the U.S.-sponsored Road Map of April 2003.

No one but Israel disputes the fact that its settlement policy violates IHL.

  • B'tselem (Israeli position on legality of settlements not in source)

The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation.

..and for Agada

The illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements.

  • China Daily (Israeli position on legality of authorized settlements not in source)

The international community views all the settlements as illegal. The outposts are unauthorized even by Israel.

Settlements in the West Bank and Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem are considered illegal by the international community.

The Israeli settlement activity is illegal under the international law.

My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Roughly three months later, a top secret - and quite embarrassing - legal opinion by the foreign minister's legal counsel stated that civilian settlements in the "administered territories" contravened international law. The counsel, Theodor Meron, was unequivocal: according to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, an occupying country shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Meron quoted an authoritative interpretation of the clause, which reinforced his opinion that Israel could not settle its citizens in the territories. He concluded that settlements should be implemented by the army, in camps that were - at least in appearance - temporary. Military camps could not be set up just anywhere, and ownership titles had to be respected. These restrictions, the opinion went on, applied first of all to the Golan Heights, which undoubtedly constituted an occupied territory. According to Israel, the final status of the West Bank had never been determined, and its annexation to the Hashemite Kingdom had not been carried out legally. And hence Israel claimed that the West Bank was not an occupied territory, which meant that it was not prevented from settling its citizens there. Meron did not refute this argument, but noted that it was disputed by the international community. Furthermore, Meron noted with embarrassment, Israel itself had recognized the status of the West Bank as an occupied territory by publishing military decrees declaring explicitly that it would respect the Geneva Conventions.

The World Court deems settlements illegal but Israel disputes this.

  • Mail & Guardian (Israeli position on legality of authorized settlements not in source)

All settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law.

Settlement construction is considered illegal under international law.

The settlements are on territory captured by Israeli forces from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war and are deemed by the World Court to be illegal, a finding disputed by Israel.

Some 450,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

  • The Punch (Israeli position on legality of settlements not in source)

All settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law.

The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including annexed east Jerusalem, to be illegal.

Commentary about compilation of sources

From my understanding, the issue isn't the sources for the most part. It looks like some editors are opposed to Israel's position being overly disregarded in the line. The sources are there and adding "strenuously denies" might be a little much. I'll let others speak for themselves, though. Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Israels position is in the sentence, it is not overly disregarded, and this exact issue was brought up and discussed in the main discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
My main point is that illegal settlement might sound like illegal residents. There was significant objection to mentioning civilian status of residents in the past as war law goes. We need to clarify this point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the views of editors who object to statements that are supported by sources or who want to describe things in ways that are inconsistent with sources matter. There was a decision provided by an uninvolved admin although I would like other admins (at AE) to review it and either enforce it (or parts of it with topic ban hammers at the ready for disruption if necessary) or say that it's invalid and why. The consensus statement is consistent with the general approach of the sources and it isn't controversial policy-wise as far as I can tell. I've added the list of sources here primarily as a resource for people (including admins at AE) who want to compare LessHeard vanU's findings with the sources and assess the legitimacy of editor's statements and actions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Sean, and I promise I wont sue you for copying unattributed comments made by me. I offer any comment I have made that you wish to use to the public domain. nableezy - 15:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you put the consensus statement in box or under a separate section or something. Hard to find. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I highlighted it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
And I would like to emphasis how problematic "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Psagot is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." was. That says something different. It is similar but it says that they are illegal. That was disputed and part of the reason this was so hard to hammer out. Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it says it is considered illegal under international law, exactly as the proposal that has consensus says. My wording just omits "by the international community". But no matter, I dont have a problem using the exact wording from here and further I consider such nitpicking to be pedantry designed to obfuscate a relatively clear close of a long discussion. Ill use the phrasing from here, that I didnt earlier was an example of laziness, not malice. Im not used to typing what I consider to be poor wording, and I didnt pay too much attention to what the exact words used here were. But, again, that doesnt matter as I will just use the wording from here. nableezy - 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure

I just want to note that LHvU's closure has been endorsed at Wikipedia:AE#Result_concerning_Shuki. I suggest strongly we let any further discussion take place in a new section (which I'm creating below), and perhaps we let this lie for a short while.--Carwil (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (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.

Concluding Israeli settlement legality issue

Conversation continues at #Settlement illegality text

The following discussion 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.

I'm creating a new section for this in the hopes that we don't all drown in jibber-jabber. Based on the discussion above, I would say we have some consensus for adding the sentence "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." I would say there's also some wiggle room on the specific wording, but if those variations become a matter of contention, we can fall back on the most agreed upon version above. We don't have a definitive consensus, however, on where in the lead to include it, which will probably have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. ← George talk 05:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the latest version I'm attempting to use at Psagot. I think it deals with Synth charges (even though I think they're misplaced), and respects one dissenter's concern about the Israeli response:
Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including [name of X settlement],[1,2] are considered illegal under international law by the international community; the Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument.[3,4]
Citations:
  1. Citation describing X as illegal, or all settlements as illegal in the context of discussing X
  2. ditto, if available
  3. BBC citation used above
  4. 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.
This did not go through a proposal consensus process above, but reflects the best of the discussion. The past day's chatter has brought in the private land issue, which I must stress, applies to a minority of settlements, and is disputed by experts in international law (and does not reflect a different view of "the international community" on legality). A second sentence addressing the argument around it could well be added. Can we try to run this sentence (no placement issues) through a proposal process?--Carwil (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Process question: Assuming a real consensus is reached on any issue, I assume all we can do is bring to the talk page the comment that this was the sentiment among discussants on the "WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues" talk page? Or would we give it some more formal description? Taking a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration there doesn't seem to be any formal description of such a process, but if we do agree on what that process might be, we could add it to the main page, perhaps under "Purpose." CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - can we leave out words that measure work, effort, emotion etc like 'strenuously' and words like that ? They aren't necessary, they're subjective and it makes little sense to measure one side and not the other. Also, illegal under international law is what they a considered to be so it is better to explicitly state that and remove ambiguity about the scope of statement rather than try to implicitly convey meaning via the name of the target article in a piped link (although of course the link to International law and Israeli settlements should be there). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Revised per Sean:
Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including [name of X settlement],[1,2] are considered illegal under international law by the international community; the Israeli government has consistently challenged this argument.[3,4]
Citations:
  1. Citation describing X as illegal, or all settlements as illegal in the context of discussing X
  2. ditto, if available
  3. BBC citation used above
  4. 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.
Strenuously is subjective; consistently is verifiable.--Carwil (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The source you use do not use the settlement names, therefore there is gonna be a huge fuss about adding it, "including [name of X settlement]" is not gonna work out. Why are you even suggesting your proposal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that Carwil is suggesting that we can add the name of the specific settlement when we have additional sources which specifically state that that settlement is illegal under international law (sources 1 & 2). If sources naming the settlement explicitly don't exist, then I would say we remove that portion of it, leaving us something more similar to Proposal 2, but with a different wording for the Israeli perspective. ← George talk 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
A few comments Carwil. First, I think the version you're working on is probably superior to Proposal 2, but we'll see if we can get some consensus for it. Second, I would put the "international community" at the beginning of the sentence, to avoid the redundancy of "under international law by the international community" - the same change I made in Proposal 2 itself. Third, while strenuously is a poor word, I'm not sure that sources support "consistently", and I'm sure that's going to be argued about. The first part of the sentence states the international community's current viewpoint - why not do the same with the Israeli viewpoint? I'm thinking something like: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the West Bank/the Golan Heights/East Jerusalem), including [name of X settlement],[1,2] illegal under international law; the Israeli government challenges this argument."[3,4] Additionally, I would consider replacing the word "argument" with "assertion" or similar. The source that word comes from talks about the international community "arguing" the illegality, whereas the first part of our sentence only says they "consider" it illegal. Glad to see the effort to continue to improve on this wording though. Cheers. ← George talk 18:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wedgewood on p. 90 says "[the Supreme Court of Israel] steadfastly refused to rule on the legality of settlements under Article 49(6), even when government counsel expressly invited the Court to "confirm to the authorities that also from the aspect of the Geneva Convention there is nothing wrong in transferring land to settlers for their settlement needs... by holding that the prohibition in Article 49(6) did not reflect customary international law, and would therefore not be enforced by the domes- tic courts since it had not been incorporated by parliamentary legislation."" and "The government of Israel has consistently contested the formal application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, although it has declared that Israeli forces would respect its humanitarian provisions." I think "consistently" is justified by the sources.--Carwil (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The context of those is a bit different though. That is, it's a bit different to say "the court consistently refuses to rule on the matter" (consistently being agnostic) or "the government has consistently contested the law being applied" (consistently arguing legal jurisdiction) than it is to say "the government consistently challenges the argument" (consistently arguing the conclusion). It may prove a minor point though. I'm just not sure I see what's gained by adding the word "consistently". Does anything in the sentence imply that Israeli's role is somehow inconsistent that we would need to clarify? I'm not completely opposed to something like "the Israeli government has consistently contested (the assertion/the label/the argument/such assertions)", but I'm just not sure that "has consistently contested/challenged" is adds anything beyond just saying "contests/challenges". ← George talk 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am reluctant to bring this up now at this late date, but the phrase "the international community" implies that ever individual member, whether nation or intergovernmental body, considers every such instance to be illegal. I do not follow this issue, so I do not know whether this isn fact the case? If not, the phrase needs modification to "the international community generally considers" or "Most of the i.c. considers .... " or almost all of the i.c. ...". DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources use just "the international community", and I don't think it implies that every member agrees, just that there is near unanimous consensus, but I'll mull it over a bit. ← George talk 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with George. However, I continue to offer "virtually the entire international community" as Plan B. It's used in the law review article above; coincides with the NYT discussed above as well (although that has a factual error, so best to not include it), and is consistent with the Guardian's vague "the rest of the world." No one who has made this objection has expressed whether they would prefer this phrasing, but you can let me know.--Carwil (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to the current phrasing, but I would be okay with "virtually the entire international community" too. It might sound a bit too grandiose though. In some ways "virtually the entire internationally community" sounds bigger than just saying "the international community". ← George talk 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is "consistently" used? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Per concerns (by Shuki among others) that "Israel disputes this" gives a sense of unbalance, because it feels short and/or weak compared to the main clause. Stylistic, not necessary for me, but factually true and possibly helpful for agreement.--Carwil (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Any input on Slim's infobox idea, from nor discussion? We could craft See also International law and Israeli settlements on new shiny infobox template, or alternatively use the lede wording of International law and Israeli settlements article per WP:SUMMARIZE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It would be not encyclopedic to place the (il)legality information into them just because we can't find a proper place. However, if we feel that boilerplate solution does not fit the discussed articles en masse, infobox is the right place for such a general preformatted statement, while the article itself is free to deal with the information and sources more specific to the article subject. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
At least the latest AE festival stopped the edit warring. However, are there editors willing to comment on Carwil proposal and the infobox idea? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
We have a proper place for the sentence, see proposal 2 that the majority support. Why would we have an "infobox" when we already have a sentence that the majority support? Why do we need an "infobox"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There are understandable concerns about placing a boilerplate sentence into many articles. I guess there are some articles where it will not fit organically into the existing style. The problem is even worse in the articles that already address (il)legality. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Majority support proposal 2, so the majority of people see no concern. Who are those who have concerns and what are they're arguments? At what articles does proposal 2 not fit? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I disliked the infobox idea too, but after thinking a bit I have changed my mind. My point is: adding a predefined statement to any text creates style difficulties. Articles are not supposed to be a heap of sentences, but a well-written English text. Infobox is better place for a predefined stuff. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I was pretty happy to see so many people chime in over the boiler plate discussion. Unfortunately, I do not believe it will be possible based on the comments of some editors. Placement, wording, and sourcing were pretty close to being nailed down but it was easy to unravel. I expect the worst without a secondary proposal on how to implement it being discussed. And I doubt such a discussion could realistically take place. I think the infobox idea is little more than a flimsy band-aid at this time but could see it working out if editors put forth enough effort.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So is this proposal dead now or were we waiting on something? Sol (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The consensus in this discussion says that there is agreement to have proposal 2 in all settlement articles, we just need someone to close the discussion as that, and then carry out the consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Shrug, I still view it as achieving some consensus on the wording (in the usual 80% range associated with consensus), but less agreement on where in the lead specifically to place it. I'm not opposed to other editors inserting the sentence at the end of the leads of these articles, and they can point to this discussion if content disputes arise on its inclusion. Some issues will have to be hammered out on a per-article basis. The only problem I saw with this discussion was that towards the end it approached the too many cooks pitfall discussed in the consensus policy page. ← George talk 03:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess we have enough consensus to place the wording in the Legal status of the settlements and the lede of the Israeli Settlements article. See also International law and Israeli settlements wikilink is already there and welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not complete yet at all. I have objected to minimal 'but Israel disputes this' and no one has provided a reason not to expand it further, including SD's emotional replies. --Shuki (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, one thing you have to understand Shuki is that consensus can be achieved even if you disagree, or if some of your concerns go unaddressed. No single editor can hold a discussion hostage until they get their way. I'll try to address your specific suggestion elsewhere. ← George talk 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, cool, so your above versions were: "Many countries consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law but the Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument, claiming that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal and it considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention." or
"The Israeli government claims that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal and it considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, though many countries consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law. " Was this the jumping off point on the issue? Sol (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this Shukis proposed sentences? besides that they have inaccuracies in them, pov issues, and that they are unsourced, how many people are supporting them? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think so, just trying to get this back on track. Sol (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Sol. SD, when I first put forth those sentences, I said it was food for thought. This is not a formal proposal and you actually were the first to comment on them. I know it is very hard for you to collaborate and cooperate but please make an effort. How do address my concern to expand on 'but Israel disputes this' or 'but Israel strenuously disputes this'? The ball is in your hands. I'm challenging you to modify them fairly.

"Many countries consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law but the Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument, claiming that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal and it considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention."

or from a different angle:

"The Israeli government claims that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal and it considers its settlement policy to be consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, though many countries consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law. "

--Shuki (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Both your suggestions have more text of the Israeli pov then the entire rest of the world pov, that alone is unacceptable as 1 country can not be given more space as hundreds of countries and international organs. The second sentence of yours even has the fringe minority Israeli pov before the entire rest of the world view. And then about the inaccuracy: the vast majority of all countries on earth with not one single confirmed objection and all international organs are not "some countries", this makes both your proposals factually incorrect, then you claim: "The Israeli government claims that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal" this looks like completely made up by you, what source are you using for this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, your proposed text is just wrong. Israel doesnt claim that the settlements program complies with GCIV, and they dont claim that "prior and current Jewish" ownership is the reason it is legal. The Israeli government's position is that the WB is not occupied territory as they say it was not legally part of another sovereign at the time Israel took control of the territory in 1967. That argument doesnt apply to the Golan and I havent yet seen any real argument from them that the Golan is not occupied. But the claim is that GCIV does not apply, not that the settlement program complies with the requirements of GCIV. nableezy - 22:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're both proving my point. Instead of trying to cooperate, you're merely picking apart my concerns and delegitimizing. SD, you know the way it works here, first come up with a line, then look for the source to back it up. Anyway, let me say again, how would you strengthen the wording of the Israeli opposition to this claim beyond - 'but Israel strenuously disputes this'? --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Your sentences pics apart themselves as they are pov and factually incorrect and not backed up by any sources, and you yourself are delegitimizing them buy not providing a source to confirm them as I had asked for. Israeli position is enough in proposal 2, that's why I and the majority of others here supported it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you define the term "deliegitimizing"? Does it mean showing what you write is factually incorrect? I dont think we need to "strengthen" Israel's position, unless of course you would like to include the rebuttal. Something like "though Israel disputes that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in 1967. The International Court of Justice however unanimously agreed that Israel's position is without basis in international law". nableezy - 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The following text: "claiming that both prior and current Jewish (landholding/land ownership) in the region makes the (registered?) settlements legal" does not, as I have noted previously, apply to most settlements (and none in the Golan, I suspect. Nab's text is correct that Israel has consistently disputed "that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in 1967." Israel also argues that the intent of the FGC was not to prevent such settlement activity, on two grounds, that "[the FGC] was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens" and "The Fourth Geneva Convention was certainly not intended to prevent individuals from living on their ancestral lands or on property that had been illegally taken from them. Many present-day Israeli settlements have been established on sites that were home to Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land."(MFA, [50]).
Now, as Nab's remaining suggested text indicates, the more specific we get here, the more specific we need to get about the argument for illegality. And the international community view remains the majority view deserving greater weight (so cast aside the Israeli-view-first version).
Still we can try:
The international community considers Israeli settlements in the [West Bank OR Gaza Strip OR East Jerusalem], including [name of X settlement],[1,2] to be in violation of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force under the UN Charter, and the violation of UN Security Council resolutions.[3,4] The Israeli government has consistently disputed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in 1967, and argues that the Convention was not intended to prevent voluntary settlements or settlements in ancestral lands or on formerly confiscated property.[5] International bodies related to the Convention (or: The Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Convention, the International Court of Justice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross) have rejected these arguments.
too long right? So we need to balance more succinctly perhaps.
The international community considers Israeli settlements in the [West Bank OR Gaza Strip OR East Jerusalem], including [name of X settlement],[1,2] to be in violation of international law, although the Israeli government claims the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable and was not intended to prevent settlement activity of the kind it has carried out. International bodies related to the Convention have rejected these arguments.
Maybe a little better, but still long. Shuki, do these work for you? If not, pretty please, suggest a phrase you are happy with. It seems like a phrase might fit best into these articles.--Carwil (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
p.s., As best I can tell, Israel simply doesn't have an argument to respond to the binding nature of UN Security Council resolutions, and claims that "inadmissibility" only applies to the side that started a war. I think we're putting Israel's best foot forward by focusing on Geneva here.--Carwil (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
One more thing Many countries vs. the international community. Is the objection to the very well cited "international community" grounded in policy? 'Cause several of us have stated clear reasons for using it (notably international organizations are part of the latter phrase). And it's better sourced.--Carwil (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
What about: ""The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government argues that such laws are being applied incorrectly." I wouldn't mention the Fourth Geneva Conventions (long term), and I would focus more on the Israeli argument that the law is being applied in cases that it wasn't intended to cover. ← George talk 01:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, there are a couple problems with the versions you're suggestion. First, the international view should go first, and the Israeli view should go last. It is often the case that the defendant in a trial is given the right to speak last in their trial. While we don't have a trial here, we do have an accusation, so the accused (Israel) should have the right to speak last (having their view at the end). Second, both your versions have significant detail on Israel's defense. The factual accuracy or inaccuracy of that aside (something other editors have addressed), having more detail on the Israeli viewpoint than on the global viewpoint is a violation of undue weight. Most of the world considers Israeli settlements illegal. Most reliable sources describe them as illegal. We should, therefore, dedicate most of the sentence to the majority view. I agree that "Israeli disputes this" is too weak, and think that "the Israeli government disputes this" is more accurate, but we need to find a way to strengthen Israel's viewpoint without making the sentence long and unintelligible. I think the best way to do this will be to replace the word "dispute" with something stronger but equally accurate. For instance, "condemns" is a stronger word (but wouldn't be accurate). Can editors think of a stronger word for "disputes" that doesn't require adding adverbs like "strenuously"? ← George talk 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
"rejects"--Carwil (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"WikiProject Israeli Settlements"? (or just project page?)

Looking at Category:Israeli settlements and various sub-categories and articles, I can see that some may be using Wikipedia to legitimatize what the international community believe to be illegal settlements. So I do think a solution to the problem of how to provide how much information on the illegality issue is needed in which articles. (Though a temporary measure might be putting a link to the "International law and Israeli settlements" article in the See Also section of all relevant articles.) The above lengthy discussion does show the various complicated issues when dealing with individual articles. And the lack of a good process in this wikiproject for dealing with issues that span a large number of issues. While I had some more specific thoughts on how to do that which I may propose at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration, it just occurred to me that unless it is totally inappropriate, a Wikiproject on this might be the best way to proceed. (Other than an arbitration that clearly set boundaries; but it might need such a wikiproject to get to that point anyway.) Thoughts? Anyone want to take the lead? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by Wikiproject? And what is an arbitration gonna do for us and this sentence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Carol, a separate wikiproject for Israeli settlements would be cool!!! Would suit some people who want that area to be a new micronation or something. Ah, about the second part of your first sentence, and next sentence, you are a bit unclear. Do you have a problem with geography articles? And what is the 'information problem' you mention? --Shuki (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Supreme Deliciousness: As you noticed the last comment before I mentioned wikiproject was: Placement, wording, and sourcing were pretty close to being nailed down but it was easy to unravel. I expect the worst without a secondary proposal on how to implement it being discussed. And I doubt such a discussion could realistically take place. I agree this is a problem and one that will be utilized to squash mention of illegality on an article by article basis unless there is is more formal process and steps for implementing a plan. My idea for a Wikiproject was an easy way of coming up with a process for dealing with the issue over a number of articles, rather than possibly creating a new process/page within this Wikiproject. Maybe it's better, however, to keep any such effort within this project, on a separate page dedicated to it. I'll see what others think over next few days.
User:Shuki: I tried to make "information problem" clearer, but don't exactly understand your questions or comments. Settlements tend to be political entities that are part of a governmental political project of land confiscation, so they're not just neutral geographical entities. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Carol, that's just it, I don't believe it has been unraveled, I believe there is still consensus for the agreed sentence and placement, consensus is based on arguments, and I dont see where Shuki and Jijutsigy have brought any good arguments against proposal 2 that the majority support. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, SD, you've contributed nothing substantial to the discussion except bleacher cheering repetative 'can we insert it now' so disregarding any opposing comments as nothing 'good', is expected from you. Carol, I had thought you were trying to take the middle but must have been mistaken. I suggest that you read up on the whole subject before assuming that this is some government conspiracy project, but that probably won't change your mind anyway. If you do, you'll find that the Israeli government, often opposed various settlement ideas and did not give free reign to everyone, whether they were Labour or Likud led governments. Since they were/are applying sovreignty in the area, they applied the same rules more or less for starting communities like in the rest of Israel. The typical pattern was 1) a group forms with a want to form a new community, chooses a general area, and makes efforts to get the governmetn to set aside some state lands. In many cases, the groups originally did pitch tents on a parcel of land, and were forced to move by the government or the supreme court when the land was proven Arab owned. In rare cases, land was expropriated for building public entities like military bases (many since abandoned) and public roads opened to all. I'm not aware of any case in which the government itself initiated settlements by encouraging the formation of the original core groups. Once the group was formed and either state land or Jewish owned land was formally allocated, the government might have supported the new municipal entity like any other in the rest of Israel. --Shuki (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Supreme Deliciousness - If you can create something solid that people can use where most appropriate without having to re-invent the wheel, great. Which is why I changed subject header to "(or just project page)." The simple proposal being that when issues are resolved (or at least options offered for resolution) across a number of pages, there should be a page that would include end result(s) of discussion on top, and all discussion below. The Project idea was just frustrtion with mass of info and desire for clearer process that might emerge with separate project.
User:Shuki: mocking peoples' contributions and making accusations that people think something ("government conspiracy project") not helpful to collaboration efforts. (Which government, anyway?) As for your version of history, I find some (maybe much) of it dubious and all of it non-sourced. Finally, seeking a good process does not mean you are in the middle, only looking for a resolution that may be supportable and workable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As for 'my version of history', really, don't just accept the superficial tidbits you've read without context in newspapers, read about the history of settlements, Gush Emunim, Benny Katzover, Rabbi Menachem Felix, Rabbi Kook, Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, etc... Read some books about the people going to live on bare hilltops, the Supreme Court cases, and the Israeli government sometimes denying and sometimes compromising with them. In the middle means, I thought you were part of the editors looking for NPOV, not part of the group pushing POV. --Shuki (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed current draft

The international community considers Israeli settlements in the [West Bank OR Gaza Strip OR East Jerusalem], including [name of X settlement],[1,2] illegal under international law;[3,4] the Israeli government has consistently challenged this argument.[4]
Citations:
  1. Citation describing X as illegal, or all settlements as illegal in the context of discussing X
  2. ditto, if available
  3. BBC citation used above
  4. 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.

Shuki, you haven't responded to this text. What do you think? If you don't like its final clause, what do you propose?

Agada seems to be concerned about "boilerplate" text. This doesn't seem to be a policy concern, so Agada if you can elaborate that would be helpful.

Everyone, sorry I stepped away for a bit. We have a proposed text above, which I will put through a formal proposal process after any modifications needed with Shuki. I think we can reach consensus on that text meeting all aspects of policy (including RS, NPOV, SYNTH) in the article on X settlement. I propose we come to that agreement and have a separate conversation trying to resolve placement (lead, infobox, etc.).--Carwil (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Proposal for sub-project page on Israeli Settlements

We've been fairly informal in creating such pages before so I doubt it's a major problem. I'd suggest following format:
1. Main page with advice on how to deal with various issues that come up with various kinds of related articles and list of WP:RS for the issue.
2. Talk page which would have a) proposals for wording , discussions, consensed wording to be added to page and b) discussion of which articles people would like others to look at or need advice on the article from Collaborative editors.
3. Archives. All above discussion would be there for first week or so then archived.
Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that you're proposing an Israeli Settlement task force? I think that's a good idea. ← George talk 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know there were official ones but just discovered Wikipedia:Taskforce. If people think that's appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
So we ignore this IP Collaboration? Why do you want to create a new wheel? --Shuki (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, what was needed here, and what I had hoped you to do, was to close this discussion and coming to a conclusion, I dont really see what your suggestion about a sub-project has to do with that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
My point was to make a permanent page as part of this project a) so that people looking to deal with this issue in various articles would see this past discussion (linked from main page) and the final consensed proposals. And should other proposals arise to deal with other situations in other types of relevant articles, that could be dealt with on that page in the future. If you have some other way to make it clear to people this discussion happened and some consensus was reached, do tell. Otherwise it just seems it disappears into the vapor of archiving. Or maybe I missed how you intend to implement this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why it was needed. IP collaboration should work just fine. Of course, a sub project might be a decent idea if the intent is to have less eyes on it. The legality line probably could have had consensus with less people speaking up but then implementing it would have been a disaster. Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm just confused about how any consensus can be ongoing if it's not put somewhere permanently besides an archive. Or is it just for a couple of articles now? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, we don't need to do anything complicated here, the only thing that is needed is for someone to read through everything, come to a conclusion, and then close it. It doesn't really matter if its in an archive or a sub page. When its closed people can point to this conversation wherever its located. And don't you think the conclusion of this discussion should be dealt with before if we should put it in a sub page or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean like Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Settlement text? That shouldn't be a problem.--Carwil (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • User:Cptnono: I assume people would announce here any new proposals to a subpage.
  • Reponse to User:Supreme Deliciousness: With all the different threads it's hard to figure out if anything has been decided.
  • Response to User:Carwil: Or "Settlement text options"? Looks like there may be different ones for different articles.
  • Overall, I don't see overwhelming support for this idea so have to assume a subpage is not of sufficient interest to enough people to be created. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2010 (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.

International Law vs. Municipal Law

The following discussion 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.

The discussion about the status of all the settlements according to international law has constantly been disrupted by unsourced speculation and misleading information based upon the arguments employed by the government of Israel on that subject, e.g. the failure of the Knesset to incorporate the Fourth Geneva Convention into the municipal laws of Israel, & etc. See for example Annex I, paragraph 3 of the "Summary legal position of the Government of Israel" in the 2004 Wall case.[51]

Here is some background information for the project to clarify the meaning of the terms international law, international community, who decides what is illegal, and Israel's "defense" of the legality of the settlements.

  • Judge Hersh Lauterpacht explained on a number of occasions that it is a self-evident principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its international obligations. See for example Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court, page 262 [52]
  • Furthermore, invoking a dualist legal system is never an affirmative defense in international law: "There exists in international law a universally recognized principle that a gap or deficiency in a state's municipal law or lack of national legislation does not relieve a state of its international obligations. Any attempt to excuse non-fulfilment of an obligation on the basis of municipal law constitutes a breach of those obligations." See André Klip, Göran Sluiter, Annotated leading cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 1997-1999, Intersentia nv, 2001, ISBN 9050951414, page 134 [53] That principle is reflected in the article on Monism and dualism in international law.
  • The Status of International law in the domestic courts of Israel: The Supreme Court of Israel has adopted all three of these legal principles.

1. Parliament (the Knesset) is supreme in the field of legislation. Hence, any law enacted by parliament is valid, even if it is incompatible with the state's international law obligations. 2. Customary international law is part and parcel of the common law of the land, and will be enforced by the domestic courts unless it is incompatible with parliamentary legislation (e.g. Basic Law Jerusalem). 3. International treaties that were duly ratified by the state and bind it in international law will not be enforced by the domestic courts unless their provisions have been incorporated in domestic law through parliamentary legislation. See Kretzmer, David, Israel Chapter for Book Entitled 'The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study' (October 27, 2008), David Sloss and Derek Jinks, eds., Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1290714

  • "International law" is the law of "the international community of states" and "their international intergovernmental organizations", including the "United Nations". See "The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States", American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380, Volume 1, page 16. The Security Council has "decided" that the Basic Law Jerusalem violates international law and that the Golan Heights law is null an void. It has also "determined" that all the provisions of the Geneva Conventions are applicable to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. See for example SC Resolution 478, 20 August 1980 and Resolution 497, 17 December 1981.
  • In 1993 the Security Council adopted a Chapter VII resolution which endorsed the conclusions of a panel of experts that beyond all doubt the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 had passed into the body of customary international law. See Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 808 (1993), 3 May 1993 (S/25704), paragraph 35 page 9 [54] As of 2009 the MFA acknowledges that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are customary international law that applies to the occupied territory. See paragraph 31 [55]
  • Article 25 of the UN Charter says that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the "decisions" of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, a UN legal publication, says that during the United Nations Conference on International Organization which met in San Francisco in 1945, attempts to limit obligations of Members under Article 25 of the Charter to those decisions taken by the Council in the exercise of its specific powers under Chapter VII of the Charter failed. It was stated at the time that those obligations also flowed from the authority conferred on the Council under Article 24(1) to act on the behalf of the members while exercising its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. See page 5, The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 25 [56] It also says "Article 24, interpreted in this sense, becomes a source of authority which can be drawn upon to meet situations which are not covered by the more detailed provisions in the succeeding articles of Chapter VI, VII, and VIII." and "The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16).

In the Namibia case the ICJ had said "It would be an untenable interpretation to maintain that, once such a declaration had been made by the Security Council under Article 24 of the Charter, on behalf of all member States, those Members would be free to act in disregard of such illegality or even to recognize violations of law resulting from it." In the Wall case, Judge Higgins said "It follows from a finding of an unlawful situation by the Security Council, in accordance with Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter entails "decisions [that] are consequently binding on all States Members of the United Nations, which are thus under obligation to accept and carry them out" [57]

The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Article 24, Supplement No 6 (1979 - 1984), volume 3 indicates the Council was acting on behalf of the members IAW article 24 when it formally "declared illegal legislative and administrative measures invalid" in resolution 478 (Basic Law Jerusalem). See Note 2 on Page 1 and page listings on pages 12,19,24,25,26,29,and 30 [58] Similar listings for the Article 24 decisions contained in resolution 497 (Golan Heights Law) are shown on pages 28, 36, 38, and 43. It would be more accurate to say that Israel simply ignores Security Council resolutions and international law, e.g. See Kretzmer (above) and Israel ignores Security Council resolutions [59] harlan (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2010 (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.

Settlement illegality text

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements

Through a long process above, the following text has been approved for use:

  • The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.

We also have the following guidance on its use.

  • From LHvU: "there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard"
  • According to LHvU's clarification: "I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles."
  • According to LHvU at Arbitration enforcement: "Only in some articles, those which had a brief introduction and then a body of one or two sections, was there disagreement on how it was to be incorporated - but not if.
  • From T. Canens at Arbitration enforcement: "As the objection has been made clear, I expect Nableezy [and presumably others—C] to either conform their future edits to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, or obtain consensus for their new version."

I'm writing this here not as an administrator, but to provide a summary. The above can be edited if there are any mistakes. I'm putting it here so we can finally archive some of this very, very long talk page. Some effort above has been made to compile sources to footnote this sentence, and we could complete that below. Cptnono has also suggested further discussion may be in order, and this seems like the place.--Carwil (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Finalizing sources for the text

Centralized discussion of changes to the text

May I suggest an alternative format: "While Israel administers [name of settlement], the IC does not recognise it as being part of Israel." Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Extremely bad idea, your sentence does not say that they are regarded as illegal, which is the most important aspect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"Illegal under international law" goes much further, including prohibiting construction in occupied territories. See International law and Israeli settlements.--Carwil (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That statement is inconsistent with the way sources describe it (see compilation). As the closing admin LHvU said at AE, "the wiki editing method allows consensus to change upon presentation of better or different interpretation of policy that deprecates that existing". Proposed alternatives need to remain consistent with the way sources present this information. Changes (other than rewordings for style) need to either increase the degree of compliance with policy or leave it at the existing high level of compliance achieved by the consensus statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think an ongoing conversation is a excellent idea. Should we throw a box around the previous discussions and funnel anything new here?
I do not think your proposed wording address the issues several editors wanted to see (legality) although I do not think it is a poor suggestion by any means.
I mentioned this at yet another discussion (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Additions to Golan Height pages)so I will try to paraphrase it correctly. It looks like one issue is the inclusion of "under international law" since it unnecessarily lengthens the sentence and is repetitive ("International community considers it illegal" should be sufficient and is clear enough, IMO). However, the rebuttal to that is that it may actually not be clear enough if those three words are removed (ie is it illegal under Israeli law?). I think we should remove those three words if it fosters an even broader consensus. I would not support that change and will be happy with what we have now if that is not something that would get the detractors in agreement with the line.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to this solution, although I doubt it meets Sean's "clear improvement" standard. I'm also comfortable with this potential text (proposed above), with (preferably) or without "under international law". For what it's worth, it seems tha LHvU may have closed the discussion without reading the lower section, although I can't say for sure.
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 argumentjudgement [—C, 30Nov].[3]
  1. Citation describing X as illegal, or all settlements as illegal in the context of discussing X
  2. BBC citation used above
  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.
Also, to be clear, I'm fine with the existing text, even though I think this text will avoid a certain number of silly arguments (about OR/SYNTH) as its placed in various articles.--Carwil (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to raise the concern about applying a boilerplate solution to multiple articles. From the style point of view it looks wrong to me. Can we instead agree on what and where have to be covered, and let the editors decide how. I don't think we can expect from the editors to become a policy copy-paste machines and deny, so to speak, their freedom of writing. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Short answer, you can raise it, but to propose splitting this discussion into 200+ separate discussions is to create an enormous and needless delay. Now if you could provide one reason why this text doesn't apply to all settlements, that would be the basis for a discussion.
However, your "style point of view" argument isn't about what is needed for a particular settlement, it's about improving the sentence, which you are welcome to seek consensus to do here. I think that "freedom of writing" must yield to the tremendous effort that it has taken to give people the freedom to write anything at all about this issue, rather than to spend three months debating over a single sentence.
I see two ways of accomodating your desires: (1) this page could reach consensus on more than one sentence; (2) we could insert the sentence as approved by administrator-closed consensus at any given page, and then, people at those pages could agree by consensus to modify it. From my "side" of this debate, that would remove the seemingly quite justified doubt that these arguments are just ways of keeping the illegality of settlements out of settlement articles.--Carwil (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with a boiler plate like solution. I feel that it is a shame since there are aspects of every article that are different but it has been proven that not having a boilerplate is more of a problem. We cannot continue to have separate discussions that do not point to eachother since it causes reverting and inconsistency. If a boilerplate is the best solution it is unfortunate but still the best way.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, was my closing the previos discussions acceptable to everyone?Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Cptn's closing and Carwil's summary have returned this page to a readable state, thank you both. On boilerplate solution: it's ok with me to have a boilerplate solution (per Proposal2 or any derivative), if a reasonable modification of its wording will not result in people being automatically dragged to WP:AE. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As to Carwil's proposed text, I have some problems. The wording the Israeli government has consistently challenged this argument is not exactly accurate. It isn't an argument that the settlements are illegal, it is a judgment. In my opinion the words that should be excised are "by the international community", but I can accept that staying. The problem with that is that it diminishes the near consensus on this question to the ill-defined "international community" and disregards the huge amount of sources from academia that say the settlements violate GCIV. I also have a problem with the idea that the Israeli government's objection needs to be given any more weight than it already has. Israel disputing this can be expanded on in the body, as can the rebuttal to that. I do think that "international law" needs to be included, that or saying "violates the Fourth Geneva Convention" instead. nableezy - 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate Carwil's effort on going deep into sources. While at this stage we have a shaky consensus on the phrasing, boilerplate solution appears awkward when applied at some places, but at least it reduces edit warring. Maybe this way editors could also expand on what articles and laws exactly the Israeli government violating by building and settling on the occupied territories, Nab is thinking in the right direction for a change. Following controversies around Ariel "university" and "theater" at appears many Israelis oppose the government in settlement legality issue, so maybe as suggestion for improving wording maybe we should say "Israeli government" instead of just "Israel" and drop IC, since the violation of settling is factual. Placement should be discussed more seriously than "don't hide the crime" point. Nono clarification for closing helps a lot. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Saying "Israeli government" rather than "Israel" is part of the current consensus statement and I don't think anyone has made a suggestion for changing that yet that is based on policy and by referring to what sources have to say on the matter, if anything. As a matter of process I think all non-stylistic suggestions for change that don't cite policy based reasons for change or don't provide source based evidence to support the change should simply be rejected so as to avoid discussions becoming defocused and drifting away from the sources and policy. For example, all of us liking something isn't a policy based reason to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Despite the compilation of sources section being closed and the page looking nice and tidy now I may add to it if I come across more sources, and I think it would be helpful if people add any sources and the specific quotes to that list that they cite with their arguments for change if they aren't there already. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed "argument" to "judgment," which is more considered; thanks Nab. And I agree with Sean's suggestion that policy-based improvements should drive discussion.

Nab, your concern about the "ill-defined" nature of the international community needs to be balanced against (1) "international community" is used by the sources; (2) no other short phrase incorporates internatonal organizations like the UN, ICJ, Red Cross etc.; (3) its questionable whether scholars have the same degree of consensus (given the international consensus, there's surely a publication bias in that pro-Israel scholars feel obligated to make a wide variety of arguments, but in any case they exist). Also, a good side project would be to improve international community.

My version is not policy-preferrable, but is probably "perceived policy"-preferrable. It is also stylistically different which may address ECC's desire for alternatives. I would be happy to add it to a list of usable, consensus-certified sentences if we can go through the process here. Can people state for now if they find it worse in any way than the current text?--Carwil (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying Israeli government should be perfectly acceptable.
I completely disagree with removing "international community" as discussed by both AgadaUrbanit and Carwil. This came up waaaay above and I still feel the same way. Both Israel and the intl community rely on their interpretations of intl law. It is simplest and NPOV to not assign one as being right. If we were to flat out say "it is illegal", the shaky consensus would have been even shakier. It might be a little bit of ambiguity but it completely works. We give the issue weight and the sources should be clear. Also, it can always be expanded in the body.
Not sure about "judgement". I don't hate it or anything but it implies actual courtroom battles while most of the viewpoint was settled or voted on by the intl community outside of any legal proceedings. "View" might work but that doesn't seem right either for some reason.
Some editors were not happy with adding a modifier (continuously, strenuously, and so on). I don;t recall why but it might be best to double check to be polite.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Clarifying: I don't want to eliminate the "international community" from the text.--Carwil (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Already understood.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are parts of the proposed changes that I like, such as applying the topic of illegality to the specific settlement by saying "including X", but I do not see why the end of the line needs to be changed at all. Yes, Israel's position is not given all that much weight, but it is the sources that determine how much weight that position should be given, proportional to what is given to the dominant view. Sean's collection of sources about this issue demonstrates that sources invariably give much less weight to Israel's position as opposed to the near consensus view of the rest of the world. Many of the sources dont even mention that Israel disputes that the settlements violate international law, and ones that do simply say "though Israel disputes this." (Oh, and the use of "government" is superfluous, whenever a position of a state is given it is assumed that is the position of the government; for example, member states are recorded as voting for or against resolutions, not "representatives of the government of X member state".) Can somebody explain why there needs to be anything more than "though Israel disputes this" for the line in the lead? nableezy - 05:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you noticed I've been going through sources adding the Israeli position if it's present in the source or explicitly stating that it's absent from the source. As you indicate, the absence of information describing the Israeli position from a source impacts on objective source based due weight evaluations just as much as the presence of the information. Obviously we are not allowed by policy to give it more weight than the set of sources that address the issue of legality so we need RS-based empirical data to support decisions rather than just make stuff up. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As for Israel vs Israeli government that change seems to have originated at the point where the following statement was made.
Yes, I also think that, since Israeli organisation and people such as the Supreme Court and government legal advisors have expressed opinions which, in aspects, are in line with what is considered the international view, it would be necessary to specify who in Israel holds the counter view; attributing it to Israel as a whole is not precise enough.
Since it's now consensus there need to be policy/source based reasons to change it rather than justifications for why it's the case. I say this because pedantry is a virtue in these matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A legal adviser does not speak for the state, neither does the judiciary. The policy based reason? How about WP:LETSNOTWRITEBADSENTENCES. Saying that a state has a position does not mean that this position is agreed upon by everybody in the state, it always, and I mean always, means the government of a state has a position. nableezy - 14:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the sources so far either say Israel or they say nothing. We have to not write bad sentences ? Bugger, I'm out. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We finally got it settled, and AFAIK all settlements were tagged in the lede, though we should consider the result template for the lede of IS X: "X is IS, IS considered illegal, Y people live there". When we relate the meaning and facts of sources the questions of style should be also considered seriously. What exactly do we say about Y people who live there, especially in case of stub which does not provide much more information about the settlement. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)
  1. Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, or two-thirds. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for descriptions of icebergs; the small portion evident conveys the substance without gilding the lily...
So maybe we could replace "illegal" with "in violation of GC" or something even more specific revolving about transfer of population. Current replicated placement pattern should be discussed without "don't hide the crime" kind of points. Your thoughts are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Agada, I don't think the cited policy applies. "Illegal" is about as dispassionate as it gets without losing the semantic meaning involved (compare: criminal, outlaw, lawbreaking, null and void). Also, as discussed above, the violation is not being specified in the one sentence because there are several violations. The GC, yes, but also the ICERD, the "admissibility of the acquisition of territory by force" as stated in the UN Charter, and most unambiguously, the binding nature of UN Security Council resolutions on member states. To be more specific on each settlement page would constitute belaboring the point, rather than moving us towards NPOV.--Carwil (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It is cool of you to answer, Carwil. Honestly I did not know that Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is relevant in IS context. I re-read International law and Israeli settlements, which we wikilink, my impression the main issue is Fourth Geneva Convention, which has very good reasons. I'm not a legal expert though, so I might be wrong. Let's continue to ignore the fate of stubs and why IS general info should be replicated. While I applied this positive edit warring reducing consensus I've noticed the pattern for well developed articles, see Gilo for instance. First we say legal status, next sentence: Gilo has a population of 40,000. I'm talking strictly from style point of view. There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care. Very reliable sources use illegal to describe the subject, thus we use in-text attribution to preserve neutrality and balance. However in violation is OK, per provided very reliable sources above as well (see ICJ, American Society of International Law, ICRC, list continues... ). My impression of WP:WORDS is that we could do even better and use direct, literal expressions. This is my opinion on WP:WORDS application. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"admissibility of the acquisition of territory by force as stated in the UN Charter".. There must have been an exception to the rule. Did not Israel come into being by aquiring territory by force in 1948? Chesdovi (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi - No Israel came into being by Declaration, in which it enshrined UNGA res 181 and avowed to adhere to the principals of the UN Charter. It has since acquired territories by war, i.e., territories not sovereign to Israel, never annexed and illegally annexed (UNSC Res 252 and five reminders) (UNSC res 497 on the Golan) ... talknic (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e "The Geneva Convention". BBC.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements&oldid=1079451474"