Talk:Israeli settler violence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What about Palestinian violence?

Why is there no mention of Palestinian attacks on settlers? The shootings, the suicide bombings of past, the vandalism, etc.? This is indeed propaganda.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be covered elsewhere (Palestinian political violence would be a starting point to look). In any case, perhaps you've heard how Wikipedia works: if you think something needs changing, change it. Add an appropriate sourced section, for example. Disembrangler (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate call,you shouldn't compare "settler=occupying" violence to "Palestinian = occupied" violence ,simple logic !. Cutedoctor (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Palestinian attacks against settlers? Because this is an article about "Israeli settler violence". Poyani (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

therefore your'e saying yourself that this is a one-sidded article, which is therfore disputed. there should be one article about violence in Yeudia and Sameria (also known as the west bank). the article will covere violnce from all sides and therefore won't be one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.30.86 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Very misleading title - Israeli settler violence

3/4 of the article needs to be removed since it has little to do with the new title besides the fact that most of the rest is misleading. --Shuki (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's simply untrue, Shuki. Point out the sections that you feel are not relevant. Factsontheground (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel's settlement policy - not directly relevant here.

Differing legal status and treatment of Israeli settlers and Palestinians - what does this have to do with settler violence?

Israeli army mutinies - entirely irrelevant.

The POV article was/is currently some sort of human rights article, but your name change the purpose to one specific aspect of that. Please remove the above sections, or revert the name change. --Shuki (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that all 3 sections are directly relevant to the topic of settler violence. Israel's settlement policy has directly led to skirmishes between settlers and the IDF, for example, when the Gaza withdrawal took place. The differing legal status between Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied territories is relevant because it explains why settler violence may not be punished as severely as Palestinian violence. Israeli army mutinies are also important since there has been much violence between settlers and the IDF.

All 3 sections existed when the article was originally named "Settler violence". I find your claim that they have nothing to do with setttler violence to be perplexing and disingenuous. Factsontheground (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Commnet: There's certainly a very large synthesis problem in this article. I figure Factsontheground (I'd use 'Mushrooms' instead of 'Facts', btw) should give a serious examination to what could really amount to violence and what is fluff that is, possibly, relevant to other articles but not here. Articles about a few religious folk that are unhappy with removing Jews from their homes don't belong here, that's for sure. Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jaakobou, but I really cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Factsontheground (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts, all 3 sections existed? Big deal, WP is meant to be edited. The three sections do not mention violence whatsoever. You are protecting the article with little logic and it is you who refuse to discuss the content itself. How is Israeli army mutiny related exactly? --Shuki (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article states, the Israeli army is relied on as a means of last resort to control the settlers. If members of the IDF refuse to fight the settlers and they are allowed to run rampant, surely you can see that is relevant to the topic? Factsontheground (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And someone with your understanding of the English language can understand that nothing in that section refers to Israeli soldiers refusing to control Jewish violence but rather an entirely different subject of refusing to evict Jews. If you cannot find anything to relate Israeli soldiers to 'settler/civilian violence' then the section is irrelevant to this article and has to be dropped. --Shuki (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the many sentences (as opposed to blanking the whole section) that are not directly relevant to violence and no relation is stated to relate either. The problem with the content is that the article was about human rights and the UN and has since then had a name change which changes the scope of the article. If you want to readd that information, please change the name back to the human rights name. --Shuki (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am similarly curious why an article named Israeli settler violence that "refers both to acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers against Palestinians and Israeli security forces, predominantly in the West Bank" includes Israel's settlement policy and Differing legal status and treatment of Israeli settlers and Palestinians.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Top Picture

Why is the picture labelled "Olive tree in the village of Burin which was allegedly vandalized by settlers from Yitzhar" included if its authenticity is questionable. Why is the ISM Palestine considered a reputable source for this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Removed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nassiriya, would you please elaborate on how and about what you disagree? -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Captions for images

The captions on the images in the article appear to unreliably sourced if sourced at all. I will be removing all the images shortly unless someone can present a policy compliant argument in favor of keeping them in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Personal accounts by ISM activists are not reliable sources, and an image displaying hebrew graffiti bears little connection to Israeli settler violence. Images need to be relevant, reliably sourced and appropriately captioned, and representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Images do not need be reliably sourced, if that was true there would be no images anywhere on Wikipedia because reliable sources dont give FREE images, whihc is what Wikipedia wants. You are just whitewashing despicable acts by those you support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am whitewashing despicable acts by those who I support, but alas there is nothing you can do at this instant save for finding some sources. Everything has to be reliably sourced, including what an image is purported to represent.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Captions aside, how is the 2nd image related to the article? What evidence do we have who wrote it? Jeff Song (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked NoCal100 sockpuppet

The source of one image, Christian Peacemaker Teams, attributes the graffiti to the settlers. Is there anything to suggest this is an unreliable source? Nightw 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How about the fact it is signed JDL, which therefore means it cannot be said to represent general Settler violence but rather a core extreme faction. Obvious infringement of WEIGHT. This in addition to RS concerns
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? Which RS concerns? Again, is there something wrong with Christian Peacemaker Teams? Nightw 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. WP:SOURCES
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is also used in an article in The Jerusalem Post, which reads: "Anti-Arab graffiti such as this 'gas the Arabs' one scrawled across the doorway of a Palestinian home in Hebron is common." It's also directly attributed to settlers in articles from National Catholic Reporter, Voltaire Network, The Guardian. The fact that the Jewish Defense League is a small extremist faction isn't a reason for removing the image. As one of the most notorious perpetrators of settler violence, their notability to this topic is unquestionable. Nightw 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How is the article in The Jerusalem Post relevant. It does not assert that this is the act of Settler Violence. The JDL is not one of the most notorious perpetrators of settler violence. They are a wholly distinct body who's targets occasionally converge with that of the Settler group. The group was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City in 1968 and bears no connection with the settler body that consists of Jewish civilians living in community built on land that was captured by Israel. Overlapping common causes does not constitute synonymity. Please avoid using inflammatory terms such as asserting their notablity is "unquestionable" when it is clear that I am questioning it. Such terminology entirely disregards my views.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork - "The JDL is not one of the most notorious perpetrators of settler violence. They are a wholly distinct body who's targets occasionally converge with that of the Settler group." I doubt that: Shoah.org French far-right recruits join Israeli settlers in West Bank

The graffiti is clearly notable and reliable sources attribute to the actions of settlers. CPT's photo's of the graffiti are discussed by Antony Loewenstein in My Israel Question. Here is another source. I think this can therefore be treated as a case where the issue is simply deciding which articles could include this or related images, what the caption should say, and which sources to cite to support the caption. Since Israeli settler redirects to Israeli settlement, that article is one option. Hebron is another. This article is another, although I suppose violence and incitement are not the same thing. The article already seems to contain things that are not acts of violence so I guess either the article needs to be renamed or the acts that don't include violence need to be moved elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job trying to support your argument by linking to an anti-Semitic hate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehud8d (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about www.shoah.org.uk or another source ? Either way, take it up with the editor who posted it and address your comments clearly. Editors don't always sign their comments and the bot doesn't sign them automatically after they have made a certain number of edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoylandCan you address my concerns that this image is not representative of general settler violence but instead an act of violence committed by JDL, which have no connection with the settler body. Why are your sources considered reliable,they appear to be personal accounts.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I will return in a minute return with 10+ links to different but very similar graffiti sprayed all over the occupied territories. Some of them proven top be sprayed by IDF soldiers. This is not a haphazard incident. This unfortunately is commonplace in the area. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, I would rather not respond to statements like "an act of violence committed by JDL, which have no connection with the settler body" because it's your personal opinion and I see no reason to draw the distinctions you are attempting to draw. What matters is what the sources say about this graffiti and they attribute it to the actions of settlers. If you have concerns about the reliability of any of the sources provided here we can take them to the reliable sources noticeboard to check their reliability for the statements they make over the next day or so. There's no hurry. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies but actions of IDF soldiers cannot be said to be relevant to an article discussing settler violence which relates to the settler body that consists of Jewish civilians living in community built on land that was captured by Israel.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Any notion that this graffiti is just a one-off, should be easily dispelled by this set of links: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

As for IDF soldiers and proof that settlers spray this kind of graffiti: [14]: "The Israeli daily, Haaretz, reported Friday that an Israeli soldier and two young female settlers were arrested by the Israeli Police for writing anti-Arab, Anti-Islam graffiti in the Al-Lubban Ash-Sharqiyya Palestinian village [...] the soldier is a resident of the Itamar illegal settlement, near Nablus. The soldier and two young female setters were caught on tape by a surveillance camera infiltrating into the Palestinian village last Tuesday at 1:30 A.M. [...] Later on, the three sprayed graffiti including “Death to Arabs”, “Mohammad is a pig”, and “Price Tag” in the village. [...] The District Court in Jerusalem decided to remand the soldier under interrogation until Monday; he admitted to the vandalism act, while the two young women, Orien Nizri, from Jerusalem, and Sarah Goldberg from Tapuach illegal settlement, will remain in detention, until Tuesday, pending further legal action. Price Tag attacks carried out by extremist settlers, including Israeli soldiers who are also settlers, are continuously being carried out against the Palestinians, their property, their orchards and farmlands, and against holy sites;"

_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The introduction states "Israeli settler violence refers both to acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers...".
2. Israeli settlers are defined as members of a "Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community" according to Wiki.
3. The JDL is an organisation whose membership is not based on being "Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community". It has international chapters and its membership is open to anyone including non-Jews according to the JDL website.
4. Ergo, the organisations are different
5. The activities of JDL are not representative of that of Israeli Settlers
6. Please remove the picture of JDL grafitti

Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Settlers do not cease to be settlers if they join the JDL. RolandR (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we so the pic is mentioned in sources as graffiti to denigrate Arabs. Thanks for the research folks. We have now resolved step one and we can move onto step two. Do reliable sources connect this pic with both "settlers" and "violence", per the subject of the article? The lack of source connecting the pic to the subject of the article means out introduction would violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Violence "is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. [2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces." _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 03:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see the tail end of my comment above, specifically just before my signature. Taking the above definition of violence and using that as the standard for which pictures will or will not be allowed into this article, is actually the classic WP:SYNTH, and of course not in compliance with our polices. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What? It's a dictionary definition of a word. I think you'd better look at WP:IC. Are you arguing that graffiti saying "GAS THE ARABS" does not immediately allude to an act of violence? Nightw 04:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Settlers do not cease to be settlers if they join the JDL. RolandR (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Agreed but acts perpetrated by settlers that belong to an unrelated fringe extreme organisation (and have been performed in that capacity) are not representative of settler violence, like they are not representative of Caucasian or Male or Jewish activity. To assert otherwise is original research. You are attaching undue weight to a viewpoint that is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority. Surely, there are other suitable pictures?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen several good sources that attribute the graffiti to settlers. Some of the graffiti is signed JDL, which good sources then sometimes mention as well, but I've not yet found a good source stating for a fact that any of this racist / death-threat graffiti is left by JDL. I've found several good sources that describe that these kind of racist comments are found in abundance in the area. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 13:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We have no reliable source linking this graffiti with a specific perpetrator. While the attribution to of this racist graffiti to extremist settlers is plausible, we have no way for known that for certain, and therefore the current caption is original research. Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For any picture to be introduced into this article we need a reliable source that provides the picture as an example of "Israeli settler violence." This is not "instruction creep", but basic compliance with WP:OR.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Marokwitz, there are sources that attribute the graffiti to settlers and the graffiti appears to be notable. I think captions should cite and follow an RS so I think the image qualifies for inclusion with a WP:V compliant caption somewhere. But, assuming the image (or a similar one) belongs somewhere, which article do you think that should be ? This article already has a title that seems overly restrictive to me. There are hundreds of thousands of settlers. Of course some will be extremist, and we should describe that, but what about settlers that use other methods, demonstrations etc ? Where does that content go ? The article already includes content that isn't violence strictly speaking so the scope appears to be drifting already. I'm wondering whether the scope and title of the article is the issue that needs to be addressed so that these issues can be described in a broader way. "Israeli settler" redirects to the settlement article and I don't know where other content about settlers is going. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In an official report to the UN, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, specifically mentioned graffiti in the section of his report on "settler violence". The worst settler violence is to be found in the city of Hebron, where settlers occupy key buildings within the centre of the old city. From these settlements they terrorize the few Palestinians that have not left the old city and assault and traumatize children on the way to school.16 Obscene, racist graffiti (for example, “Gas the Arabs”) adorns the walls of the old city of Hebron. The Israel Defense Forces patrol the city, but make little attempt to protect Palestinians from the settlers and fail to remove racist graffiti. In short, the Israel Defense Forces have made themselves a party to the crimes of the settlers.[15] Dlv999 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to attributing graffiti to settlers. It is the inclusion of a specific image that is undersigned JDL that I disapprove. The picture itself serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members. Other reliable sources attribute it to Israeli settlers. Consequently, the graffiti has been verified as having been perpetrated by Israeli settlers that are JDL members, and as such, it is not representative of Israeli Settler violence.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer is breakign the Wikipedia Rules. The image is its own source. The Wikipedia Rules say that images do not need reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMAGE#Image_description_pages says "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken." Brewcrewer is breaking the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, was there anything wrong with the multitude of sources produced here? Particularly the article from Voltaire Network that shows the exact same graffiti and attributes it to settlers? Nightw 21:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which article? Link please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Above at 17:11, 12 February 2012. Nightw 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha you mean this . Thank you. There are two problems:

1. The Voltaire Network is an organization with an agenda. Not a reliable source. See WP:RS.
2. The article you link does not provide this as an example of "Israeli settler violence. See WP:OR.

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nightw Please address, "I have no objection to attributing graffiti to settlers. It is the inclusion of a specific image that is undersigned JDL that I disapprove. The picture itself serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members. Other reliable sources attribute it to Israeli settlers. Consequently, the graffiti has been verified as having been perpetrated by Israeli settlers that are JDL members, and as such, it is not representative of Israeli Settler violence."
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"The picture itself serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members.": could you please come and plead this at Talk:Jewish Defense League#The "Gas_the_Arabs" pic signed with JDL - revisited? Thanks, _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 00:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The picture serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members, _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) himself argues this point vociferously at Talk:Jewish Defense League#The "Gas_the_Arabs" pic signed with JDL - revisited. An excerpt:

• • 1. The picture is in itself a reliable source
    2. It's not disputed anywhere that this picture (or one of the many other similar pictures of similar graffiti signed JDL) is a true, unaltered depiction of graffiti sprayed in Hebron
    3. There are several pictures available on the web, showing similar expressions, so it's not a one-off
    4. This and similar pictures are regularly described and/or displayed by reliable source and even in official reports (e.g. UN Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, chapter 4)
    5. The graffiti itself is signed JDL, which (until and unless disputed OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA, by reliable sources), means that the perpetrator claims to be part of and/or representing JDL
    6. Any claim here on Wikipedia that the graffiti was (take your pick) not likely, probably not, certainly not, absolutely not sprayed by or on behalf of JDL, without proper sourcing of such statement is original research and thus not a valid argument

As such, it is not an iconic representation of Israeli settler violence. Secondly, offensive graffiti cannot be described as "violence"
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you have removed it ? Do you have consensus to remove it ? To me it looks like the image was in the article and being discussed. The discussion is clearly still ongoing given that you have just made a comment. Generally speaking, editors in the topic area who make a comment, then assume their comment is right and the final word, and then make an edit to implement their view in the middle of a discussion, don't last very long in the topic area. Just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As a new editor, I am still unknowledgeable of relevant Wikipedia policy and occasionally err. Can you direct me to the policy that discusses long standing contentious material and recommended behaviour. I assumed, possibly inaccurately, that the justification of its inclusion had to be established in line with WP:BRD. Another reason for my edit was that the person responsible for the previous reversion previously claimed above that "I've not yet found a good source stating for a fact that any of this racist / death-threat graffiti is left by JDL" to justify the picture's inclusion. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me claimed elsewhere that "the picture serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members...the picture is in itself a reliable source... The graffiti itself is signed JDL, which (until and unless disputed OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA, by reliable sources), means that the perpetrator claims to be part of and/or representing JDL...Any claim here on Wikipedia that the graffiti was (take your pick) not likely, probably not, certainly not, absolutely not sprayed by or on behalf of JDL, without proper sourcing of such statement is original research and thus not a valid argument". These contradictory and possibly tendentious edits are surely not binding on further editors.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ank, it seems you have advanced a theory that because the graffiti has a reference to the JDL it cannot be a representative image included in an article on settler violence. I have to say, personally I do not follow the reasoning of this argument, it appears to my mind to be illogical. More to the point you have not provided any supporting evidence for your theory and from what I can tell it has not been accepted by any other editors on Wikipedia. What we do know is that the image of this particular piece of Graffiti has been used by RS as a representative image in articles on settler violence (e.g. see this Jerusalem Post article on Settler Violence[16]). Given we have RS linking the image of this graffiti to settler violence and using it as an example in articles on settler violence, I don't think your own personal opinions and theories (especially when unsupported by evidence or other editors) should carry much weight. Dlv999 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to view any pictures on the link you have provided. Moreover, the caption cited does not make reference to the perpetrators of that individual photo. You have not addressed my contention that graffiti does not constitute violence. Note that a news article may include indirectly related material and has different editorial standards to that of a Wiki article.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The section of the article that included this image was "attacks on Palestinian agriculture and Property", so attacks on Palestinian property (as shown in the image) is clearly relevant. Also gassing Arabs is a violent act - so graffiti inciting the gassing of Arabs is clearly relevant to the article as a whole. In the cited Jpost article on settler violence the caption states " ANTI-ARAB graffiti such as this 'gas the Arabs' one scrawled across the doorway of a Palestinian home in Hebron is common." - so in a section of the article on "attacks on Palestinian agriculture and property" - this is clearly relevant per RS. I honestly don't know what could be a more clear cut justification for inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename the article

I note that Palestinian political violence is defined as acts of violence undertaken to further the Palestinian cause. Consequently, all information therein is relevant and representative, as it does not assert claims against a particular group of people, but rather describes 'acts'. The title Israeli settler violence refers "to acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers against Palestinians." Although the proviso of "restricted number of Israeli settlers" is included, the title serves as a mass indictment of the settler body. Is there a precedent for this sweeping vilification of a group because of acts committed by extremists within? Why isn't this problem avoided by either, a more precise and reflective title such as Israeli settler extremist violence if it is consensually acknowledged that the violence is committed by a select few, or a definition that explains the title to be referring to specific actions, without mention of ethnic identity.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Is there a precedent for this sweeping vilification of a group because of acts committed by extremists within?" Yes, there is. It's the article Palestinian political violence both the title and the article fail to mention that those acts are committed by a restricted number of extremists within the group of Palestinians. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence is defined as acts promoting the Palestinian cause and avoids mention of the perpetrators' identity. This is not the case with Israeli settler violence which is defined as "acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers". As such, the title should reflect this.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course Palestinian political violence is also committed by a restricted number of Palestinians. As such both the title and the article should reflect that. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 13:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims of staged vandalism

The source for the allegations about the burned sheep is an opinion piece. As per WP:IRS if this information is relevant for inclusion it should be attributed as the opinion of the author. Dlv999 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only have have you attributed the opinion to its author but you have made additional unexplained changes. [17] I have presented another source.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ank, referenced additions to Wikipedia do not require explanations. I added that the accusations of the farmer were reported by Haaretz and cited the Haaretz report. You have removed the citation of the Haaretz article and the mention of the Haaretz article without explanation. Please explain why you have removed this referenced information to make it appear that the story was only reported by the Ma'an News agency. Secondly I corrected your innaccurate statement. Your edit claims that the Farmers accusations were "supported" by Ma'an news agency. They were not. I have read the Ma'an news report - it simply reports that the farmer made the allegations. Representing a factual news report of the allegation as "support" for the allegation is egregious POV pushing. Also your use of the term "initially" is your own synth. The story was reported differently by different sources. Neither Ma'an nor Haaretz later reported the farmer's alleged admission, nor did any other RS as far as I am aware.

Further the Arutz Sheva story was your original source. It seems you replaced the Arutz Sheva reference with the Jpost Oped when it was reverted by another editor.[18] Arutz Sheva by the way is described as by RS as the "the voice of the Israeli settlement movement." Arutz Sheva is not exactly an impartial source in my opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I shall amend to reflect your concerns
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dlv99, I have removed your Yesh Din statistics on law enforcement because they are already quoted in the Law Enforcement paragraph (incidentally, where they are actually relevant.) Why do you think they are at all pertinent to staged settler violence? Being printed in the same Haaretz article is not the criteria for relevancy.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The RS, Haaretz included this to balance statements of the Police. The Police comments should be seen in light of their general failure to bring anyone to justice for acts of settler violence. If the police comments are added the balancing evidence must also be added. Otherwise you are just cherrypicking the parts of the report that suit your POV. Dlv999 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The lack of police prosecution is already mentioned in this article. Please stop repeating information.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop making dishonest edit summaries.[19]. Deleting content is very different from moving it. If you feel that content is repetitive and should be removed say so, do not claim you are "moving" it in the edit summary. Also the Haaretz article specifically refers to the main reason for the lack of convictions, "perpetrators not being found", this is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Your last edit removed this referenced piece of information from the article, dishonestly claiming that it had only been "moved". Dlv999 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for misleading summary. I intended to relocate the material to the relevant paragraph but was then surprised to find that you had simply been rehashing already stated material. Since I am a new inexperienced editor, I do not know how to amend my edit summary to reflect this. The law enforcement paragraph states, "According to Yesh Din's study, which was conducted in 2005, more than 90% of complaints against Israelis were closed without indictments, 96% of trespassing cases (including sabotage of trees) against Israelis led to no indictment, 100% of property offenses against Israelis led to no indictment and 5% of complaints against Israelis were lost and never investigated."

You now wish to include, "...human rights group Yesh Din which found that 90-92% of cases involving settler violence were closed without charge, mainly due to perpetrators not being found. In cases of vandalism and destruction of property the figure rose to 100% of cases closed without charge."

Do you not see how this is repetitive? Secondly, what do you mean by, "In relation to the incident...Haaretz reported a study." Are you simply making a frivolous editorial comment that these two stories happen to be mentioned in the same Haaretz article or are you suggesting this case typifies the Israeli police response? Can you make yourself clearer?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view the RS, Haaretz, frames the police statements with the report that found the Police had failed to prosecute 100% of cases of vandalism and destruction of property. In my view it is clear POV to cherrypick the police quotes from the report without the context of general police failure to respond to settler violence. Secondly the Haaretz report introduces a new piece of information not already covered in the stats section; namely that the main reason for the police's failure to prosecute is "due to perpetrators not being found". Dlv999 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"In my view"- precisely. Your linking of the two by "In relation to the incident...Haaretz reported a study.", is classic original research as you have admitted. The source makes no such connection between the two. Why is the fact that the "Haaretz report introduces a new piece of information not already covered in the stats section" justification for a repetition of the entirety of the same information. Why is it not in law enforcement? Stop giving evasive fatuous explanations.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion your edits selectively quote the source to push your own POV. I am giving you my view on how to accurately and fairly represent the source. You may disagree with me, but it is not OR for me to give my opinion on how to accurately represent the RS. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to address the issue that the law enforcement paragraph states, "According to Yesh Din's study, which was conducted in 2005, more than 90% of complaints against Israelis were closed without indictments, 96% of trespassing cases (including sabotage of trees) against Israelis led to no indictment, 100% of property offenses against Israelis led to no indictment and 5% of complaints against Israelis were lost and never investigated." You now wish to include in a separate paragraph, "...human rights group Yesh Din which found that 90-92% of cases involving settler violence were closed without charge, mainly due to perpetrators not being found. In cases of vandalism and destruction of property the figure rose to 100% of cases closed without charge." Why is the fact that the "Haaretz report introduces a new piece of information not already covered in the stats section" justification for a repetition of the entirety of the same information. Why is it not placed in law enforcement?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ank, you have made some valid points here. I am happy for you to suggest or make a revision to address your concerns. The issue with your previous edit was that you claimed to move the material, but in fact deleted it. There was in fact a sourced piece of information that you removed that is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. As long as you can fit that information into the article somewhere I shall not quibble. Dlv999 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I have amended in a satisfactory manner and I await your feedback.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Two reports detailing the developments in 2011 have recently been covered in RS and probably merit inclusion:-

1. UN survey documenting settler use of "acts of intimidation, threats and violence" to prevent Palestinians accessing water supplies in the West Bank. [20], [21], [22], [23].
2. EU heads of Mission report documenting "massive increase" in settler violence during 2011. Israeli authorities critisised in the report for having "failed to effectively protect the Palestinian population". [24], [25]. Dlv999 (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Further clarity required

The lead states, "In 2007 Israeli prosecutors determined that of 515 criminal suits in that year, 502 related to right wing Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories." This statistic needs further information and contextualisation as it is absurd if it is to be taken on face value.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The passage in the source can be viewed on google books here if anyone wants to take a look. Dlv999 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that within the Occupied Territories, 502 of the 515 criminal suits that year related to right wing Jewish settlers, or within Israel at large, 502 of the 515 criminal suits that year related to right wing Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This may help and apparently there is a Nov.2008 Ynet article if anyone can track it down. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Settlers, law abiding?

The vast majority of world opinion is that "all settlement activity is illegal under international law" [26]. The minority Israeli position is that some of the settlements are "official" and thus legal while others are unofficial, and thus illegal. Saying in the lead that the vast majority of the settlers are law abiding even when supported by an Israeli source is a violation of NPOV as it is presenting the minority opinion and ignoring the majority opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is OR that contradicts what a source states. However, as an explanation, when settlements activity is described as being illegal under international law, this applies to a state or country, not individuals that reside in this annexed land.

RolandR, The BBC source states, "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent", please do not misattribute this to an IDF officer.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank has not been annexed. It is not part of Israel, even according to Israel's (minority) opinion.Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't; I attributed to the Israeli officer the assertion that most (not "the vast majority") are law-abiding. This is a hotly contested assessment, and should certainly not be reported in Wikipedia's neutral voice. RolandR (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, "According to a senior Israeli army officer, "most West Bank settlers are law abiding" and non-violent citizens..." This implies that the view that they are "non-violent citizens" is the officer's when in fact, the source stated without attributing to IDF personnel that "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There had been a mini edit-war (in which I did not take part) over the phrase "the vast majority... are law-abiding". Eventually, Shrike added a citation, immediately after "law-abiding", in which a senior army officer used the phrase to describe "most" settlers. The citation was thus evidently added in order to verify the use of this phrase. Since it was clearly the view of this officer, and not a neutral statement, we should not have added the term in Wikipedia's neutral language. I decided not to continue the edit-war by reverting this edit; instead, I clarified that this was the view of the officer. The source says nothing at all about non-violence, and does not use the phrase "the vast majority". RolandR (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source also said "Both sides are as stupid as the other," i.e. the side we are discussing here are stupid according to an Israeli commanding office. Let's not include that because cherry picking statements to make some kind of point doesn't improve the content. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case if we are going to quote the Israeli security services in the lead, for balance we need to add that Israel's security policies have been regarded as discriminatory, failing to deal with the problem of settler violence and protecting the Palestinian population. The comments that they believe most of the settlers are law abiding should be seen in the light of them failing to deal with the vast majority of settler violence. Dlv999 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a novel point. The vast majority of settlers are non-violent and this must be stated when discussing settler violence. I am not seeking to include an offhand jocular comment opined by an IDF officer as Sean analogises to, this is a statement of fact asserted by the BBC that recognise the importance of accuracy when indicting large groups of people.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then remove the "law-abiding" bullshit and we can all get back to work. Nightw 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with removing an individual's statements of the "law-abiding" nature if it is clearly expressed that "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent", without the misplaced attribution that RolandR has decided to introduce.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not introduced any attribution, misplaced or not. I simply clarified Shrike's citation, which left in Wikipedia's neutral tone the misstatement that "the vast majority of settlers are law-abiding". RolandR (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually think that RolandR edit is good.I have missed that it was the words of the IDF--Shrike (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as attribution is given in the text (BBC). Nightw 11:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is source specification necessary? Shrike - That most settlers are "law-abiding" is the IDF officer's views, that the "vast majority are non-violent" is not; it is stated as fact by the BBC source. RolandR's edit puts these two things together and attributes both of them to the IDF officer.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that's how Wikipedia works. If the statement is contentious, it needs to be attributed to the source within the text. See WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. Nightw 09:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it contentious? Do you have a source that contests the view that the "vast majority are non-violent"?Ankh.Morpork 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the BBC statement is necessarily contentious but I would be interested to see a source that contests the view that the vast majority of any set of around half a million civilians are non-violent. Do we need to take the possibility of domestic violence into account though given that it's quite common around the world ? A tendentious editor trolling the page could probably carry on raising issues like that making it impossible for you to make progress on this content issue. Just so I can be clear on this point for future reference, can you confirm that here in this article, your argument is that it is "a statement of fact asserted by the BBC [a source that qualifies as an RS in Wikipedia] that recognise[s] the importance of accuracy when indicting large groups of people" and that in your view inclusion is consistent with the requirements of NPOV to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (as opposed to say, something the Palestinian BDS National Committee, CAMERA, Electronic Intifada or NGO Monitor published on their sites about this issue) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that my interlocutors are not the tendentious editors that you describe and will not engage in this petty caviling. Since I am not omniscient and cognisant with "all significant views" on this subject matter, I am unable to asseverate that all standpoints are being fairly represented, and is for this reason that I have requested the provision of further sourcing that challenge the BBC assertions. Ankh.Morpork 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

that pic

I {{fact}}-tagged that picture's caption, as it can currently be read as though the article's editorial voice is doing the alledging. If there's an alledging source meeting Wikipedia's standards, it should be cited. If not, the caption should be re-worded ("Graffiti of unknown origin"?), or outright removed. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm boldly removing the photo. Kindly reconsider the caption when you revert. 24.177.122.56 (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. You should implement the outcome of the deletion discussion that you were involved with (commons:Deletion_requests/File:05_04_21_Gas_the_Arabs.jpg), including citing the sources that were provided that discuss this graffiti. If there is something preventing you from doing that, I will do it. You asked for sources. They were provided. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The outcome of the deletion discussion had nothing to do with the picture's inclusion in this article. Those sources don't back up the picture's caption. You really shouldn't be removing {{rs}} or {{fv}} inline tags without discussion, either. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I already did. Don't tag things without a legitimate reason. It's disruptive. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is legitimate to suggest that CPT isn't a reliable source. Sorry, but that's fact. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS/N is thataway. nableezy - 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have fun over there. CPT fails WP:RS in all sorts of way; it's on you to show they're reliable for information on any topic other than themselves. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge the reliability of a source, by means other than proof by assertion, RS/N is the place to do it. Otherwise, go troll elsewhere. nableezy - 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to continue discussing this (or anything else) with you unless/until your withdraw your repeated ad-hominem attacks, and apologize for them. I continue to hold that CPT is prima facie unreliable on this subject per Wikipolicy. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hold what you like, an assertion made without evidence will be given the consideration it deserves. nableezy - 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This has probably already been discussed here but the first appearance of 'that pic' appears to have been on the International Solidarity Movement website with a date of April 23, 2006 [27], the pic being taken by an Ann Detwiler. The characterization of the graffiti as being done by settlers makes it original appearance there. Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes I just realized that the date of the one pic (with a child) on the CPT website is May 11, 2005 with their first reporting of the pic to be May 2, 2005. The first attribution of a photographer for a similar photo (with no people) is on the ISM website and dated April 2006. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

there are no RS that say that this pic is what it is. Soosim (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

reliability of ref 47

Per WP:RS/N consensus, CPT is "probably not" reliable for the claim made in the picture's caption. As such, I'm going to {{rs}} tag it. Unless a consensus develops in the next few days over there that CPT is, in fact, a reliable source for this claim, I will be removing the citation entirely. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

in my research now on the internet, i don't see CPT as being reliable for any facts - they are not a news service or editorial board, etc. Soosim (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this reference entirely. Suckily, that changes the number of all the subsequent refs, rendering the following section headers inaccurate. C'est la vie? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that this was not the RSN consensus at all: in fact, the consensus was in favor of using the CPT source backed up by the Loewenstein source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

problems with ref 48

Antony Loewenstein, in My Israel Question describes and quotes the graffiti published by CPT. Two problems:

1. If the facts asserted aren't reliable on their face (see RS/N), why are they more reliable when being quoted with attribution?
2. The source-text asserts the existence of some graffiti, and photographs of that graffiti. Isn't it synthetic to claim that this photograph is an example of such, when the source is text-only?

I'm going to challenge the reference with some inline tag tomorrow, if not convinced otherwise. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

and again, it is based on a CPT report which isn't sourced or reliable. Soosim (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, RSN determined pretty much exactly the opposite of what you claim it did. It's not that Loewenstein's book - an academic text from Melbourne University Press - becomes unreliable when it believes a source that wouldn't be reliable on its own - instead, it's that we can use the latter when it's endorsed by the former. Loewenstein describes a photo released by CPT of graffiti on a house in Hebron that says "Gas the Arabs." CPT's photo is of a house in Hebron with graffiti that says "Gas the Arabs." There is no synthesis here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be true if Loewenstein said "there was settler graffiti that CPT photographed." He didn't. He described a photograph, and asserted that CPT had described it as settler vandalism. It's synthetic to make the leap that this is such a photograph, and it's outright untrue to state that CPT's claims were "endorsed" by Loewenstein. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that's just incorrect. He states that the CPT released photographs that show settler attitudes, not that "CPT described" as anything, cites the web gallery in which the photograph is found, and then provided examples of the photographs' content. What is this bizarre original analysis of the source you're trying to do? How many knots are you going to tie yourself in in this weird attempt to deny that a source says what it says? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

correctness of ref 49

I think it's wrong, for two reasons:

1. The book is a compendium of photos and essays. The appropriate attribution for this section, which is called New Europe: Eyes Wide Shut, is to Katarzyna Marciniak. The title of the book is, I think, "Streets of Crocodiles: Photography, Media, and Postcolonialist Landscapes in Poland". I don't know who Maeve Connoly is.
2. The book shows a different photograph of what appears to be the same door, at an earlier point in time. The title of the photograph is "West Bank". The text does not make the assertion that this graffiti was sprayed by settlers, nor that the door is located in Hebron.24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

it is definitely a different photograph and hence, can not be used as is. Soosim (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

also

Regardless of the above, I think we should switch the pic to the one without the boy. The purpose of the image is to illustrate the graffiti, right? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus at the WP:RSN discussion[28] (which you initiated) that the photo in question is reliably sourced. You appear to be flogging a dead horse with this one. Dlv999 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was that CPT is unreliable. Anyway, it's beside the point. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not beside the point at all. You raised the issue of the photo at WP:RSN. A consensus was reached at RSN that the photo is reliably sourced. You have ignored that consensus and sought to misrepresent the comments of RSN contributors to support your position. Dlv999 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you missed it. The sourcing is at issue above. But that aside, the boy serves no purpose, and the image without the boy is more appropriate. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture is of a Palestinian home, thus there is nothing inappropriate about a Palestinian standing in the picture. Dlv999 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

do we know where this palestinian home is? and do we know who spray painted it? we really have no RS on it. Soosim (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There was consensus at RSN among uninvolved editors that the sourcing for the photo is appropriate for what it is being used for. Dlv999 (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just misrepresenting what went on. RS/N adjudicates source reliability, not whether a photo is appropriate in-context. The boy distracts from the point of the image: the graffiti. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

what counts

There has been a bit of a distortion on what is required and what determines what may be used. This is an image provided by a non-profit organization. Barring a reason not to, we can assume that they are accurately describing the contents of their picture. The very idea that a reliable source is needed for a picture would be the end of most every article in Wikipedia being illustrated. Attribution to CPT is the most that can be granted here. I am restoring the source because the source is the author of the picture. nableezy - 05:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

there is much reason to disbelieve the non-profit since they have a particular agenda. i would say that since there are many pictures of spray-painted slogans reportedly done by settlers, why not use one from an RS? here is one, i remember: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4123160,00.html Soosim (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Every non-profit has an agenda. News agencies have an agenda. That alone is not a reason to disbelieve them when they say this is a picture of a door in Hebron. Especially when that same door appears in any number of other sources. nableezy - 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can get the rights to that one. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons we dont require reliable sources for images. nableezy - 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This[29] image used in the article is photoshopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Says who? nableezy - 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My eyes, there are obvious giveaways on the image. The rust being the most blatant as it is over the graffiti, another rust stain appears from behind the graffiti but has come form nowhere as there is no rust patch above it and the red wash is both over and under the graffiti. Certainly looks like a shopped image to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"the rust is over the graffiti"...the words of someone who has never seen a painted metal door decay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank your eyes for us. I mean, it isn't as though we can find this same image from any number of angles across the internet. I mean, surely, as your eyesight is the determining factor here, and as you surely are not mistaken, one should be unable to find such a door anywhere else, shouldn't he? nableezy - 16:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In those results we see the same graffiti (I don't mean the same words, I mean actually the same graffiti) in at least two clearly different locations. As you point out, there are a number of different angles and depths, meaning that a number of people would have had to independently be shopping the images very convincingly, but I do wonder what the explanation for this is - the simplest explanation seems to be that at some point the doors were moved from one place to another. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Darkness Shines: Just to put your mind at rest. Here is a later pic of the same gate. Compare it to the one in the article and you will notice it has considerably more rust over the letters, so much more in fact that it looks like someone was throwing rocks at the gate. I guess the white paint is flaking off. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And now another editor is parroting claims that do not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Almost all pictures on Wikipedia come from things other than "reliable sources". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. I'll take seriously the objections to using a well-known instance of the racist graffiti brought to us by the generally law-abiding settlers when I see these same people removing any picture the IDF releases. The sources are unequivocally reliable for this being a picture of graffiti left on a door in Hebron that was signed by the JDL. Attempts to twist WP policy in to removing an uncomfortable fact will not end well. nableezy - 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to examine the history of this graffito and door over the years. I have looked at some 30 pictures of it and some of other graffiti as well as a lot of text. It appears that this phrase only appears twice on widely photographed and uploaded objects, but has become (in particular this version) iconic, and widely reported - often described as widespread. Possibly graffiti in English is more noticed, and certainly this has impact. In July 1998 an amount of graffiti was painted out or sandblasted. Even in the earliest pictures this graffito seems old, so it possibly dates from not long after. The consensus seems to be that it is a school gate, in both its locations. It does seem a leap of faith to assume anything about authorship of this particular document, therefore care should be taken with the caption. Rich Farmbrough, 06:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC).

Do you see any problem with the current caption? nableezy - 15:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

In its current form this article is very far from any objectivity, which is very much needed in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This article is using numerous one sided sources with questionable objectivity and unverified pictures from self published political activist sites, which has racist and blood liable sounding . This article lacks any attempt to present other side of the story, any attempt to balance opinions and any attempt to in force minimal degree of encyclopedia objectivity. Tritomex (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides you not liking the blood liable from self published political activist sites, what exactly is non-neutral about this article? nableezy - 23:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The title for starters. It is only a fringe of the settler movement, yet this is called "settler violence". Also, the remit of this article; can you explain how graffiti amount to "violence"? Ankh.Morpork 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, you asked this question back in March, and it has already been answered: "The section of the article that included this image was "attacks on Palestinian agriculture and Property", so attacks on Palestinian property (as shown in the image) is clearly relevant. Also gassing Arabs is a violent act - so graffiti inciting the gassing of Arabs is clearly relevant to the article as a whole." Dlv999 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources call it settler violence, it is not our fault that the extremists among the generally law-abiding settlers commit such actions. And incitement to violence is certainly relevant to the article. nableezy - 13:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Since we are in agreement that sources call it settler violence, I propose we retitle the article to that and solve this area of dispute. Ankh.Morpork 15:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, because it is specific to Israeli settlers. When a news article is about Israeli settlers and says that Israeli settlers in the West Bank did such and such and then later says that this is an example of settler violence the article has already made clear that they are Israeli settlers. This is not about any random resident of a human settlement, it is specifically about Israeli settlers. Trying to purposely obfuscate that wont fly. nableezy - 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And lets not pretend that sources dont also include Israeli in the description, see for example [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. nableezy - 15:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This are not just about alleged graffiti.

1.What a Palestinian child photographed together with this graphite is doing in this picture?Was there any purpose to make such a picture in order to enhance hatred, racism or just emotional eruptions, or we can assume that the child photographed on picture was accidentally there? What kind of scientific artickle use this language? I will quote "The Christian Peacemaker Teams released a series of photographs taken in Hebron in recent years that showed the attitudes of many settlers to the Palestinians. Some of the graffiti in English included: 'Die Arab Sand Niggers'; 'Exterminate the Muslims'; 'Watch out Fatima, we will rape all Arab Women'; 'Kill All Arabs' 'White Power: Kill Niggers'; 'Gas the Arabs' and 'Arabs to the Gas Chambers'"

2.Than again we have "Christian peacemakers" "On 9 December 2007, members of Christian Peacemaker Teams, an American NGO, reported to have observed a group of Israelis stop next to a cistern in Humra Valley, open the lid, and raise the bucket. The water was later found to be contaminated.[65] Oxfam, a British NGO, has reported that settlers deliberately poisoned the only well in Madama, a village near Nablus, by dumping used diapers into it; and that they shot aid workers who came to clean the well.[66][67] -Both links are unusable.Also this is given as universal truth, without quotes and proper attribution of claims.

3.In March 2010, International Solidarity Movement reported that settlers sabotaged a natural spring used by Palestinians in the village of Qarawat Bani Hassan by pouring in a mixture of cement and sand. The settlers were protected by the Israeli Defence Forces as they destroyed the springs." and the source given is You Tube video (this can not be used as a source for any such claim)

4.Claims like this are left without any source

"Extremist groups associated with the settler movement include Gush Emunim Underground that existed from 1979 to 1984 as a militant organization linked to the settler activist group Gush Emunim. They carried out attacks against Jewish students and Palestinian officials, attempted to bomb a bus and planned an attack on the Dome on the Rock. The Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa) (HSRC) a statutory research agency released an exhaustive study indicating that Israel practices both colonialism and apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The study was conducted by an international team of scholars and practitioners of international public law from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and the West Bank. The study reviewed Israel's practices in the territories according to definitions of colonialism and apartheid provided by international law. The project was suggested by the January 2007 report by South African jurist John Dugard, in his capacity as Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Human Rights Council. He said that the practices of Israel had assumed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid and that an advisory opinion on the legal consequences should be sought from the International Court of Justice.

5.What is NPOV?

Main page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

NPOV stands for Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts.

This article does not adhere to NPOV!Tritomex (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I cant honestly understand what it is you are saying. Something about a child causing hatred and racism and a quote that describes the actions of Israeli settlers as being a Bad Thing. Sorry, but including what verifiable sources say about the topic is not "non-neutral", it is actually required for an article to be neutral. Your personal distaste for the inclusion of this content (though curiously no word said about the actual slogans used by settlers) is not relevant to whether the content should be included.

2. reported to observed is rather clear. It is not Wikipedia that is saying these things occurred, it is Wikipedia saying that CPT is saying these things occurred. This is properly attributed.

3. There is an extra source there (though dead, I'll work on correcting that), and an ISM video is fine for an attributed view from ISM.

4. I'll get you sources for those statements. Though after edits like this I wonder why you feel the need for sourcing for that material. But no matter, that material will be sourced soonish. (looks like Roland already provided those sources. The question regarding your rather obvious inconsistency on sourcing however still stands. nableezy - 14:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

5. No, you have only made an assertion, one that I can just as easily deny. You disliking the topic of an article does not make an article non-neutral. What viewpoint is not given its due weight in this article? Tell us exactly and bring sources espousing that viewpoint. Until then, just claiming the article this article does not adhere to NPOV! is worthless. nableezy - 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My problem with this article is not in the topic. I do not deny Israeli settler violence against the Palestinians. I do not live in that area of world, nor I have any connection with the conflict, beside my personal curiosity with the region. My problem is with the unbalanced picture this article is creating. For example you again restored a very serious claim against one side in the conflict without absolutely any source. Second many of your editions lack any attribution and are presented as well known facts. Third your editions are full of death links, unreliable videos and the fact that those videos came from ISM, or from any other political interest group, do NOT validate those claims. It is very good if you are looking to find sources, yet you should not edit the page with such serious claims UNTIL you do not have a reliable source. Considering the picture, it remains problematic, both regarding of its content and its source. It comes from self published article of one political organization which is directly taking sides in this conflict. Therefore the source of that picture is unreliable. Considering the content it is again problematic, I already explained above why. Best regards Tritomex (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image

Putting aside for now the fact that there was clearly no consensus to delete the image and the closing admin blatantly cast a supervote - Commons is a separate area and we can't always control what goes on there - it was used to convey information in the article and is now gone. Unless the image is restored, which it should be, we should put the information about graffiti in as text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

the image that was deleted was the one with the Palestinian child in the foreground, is the image without the child still available on commons? Dlv999 (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh good call, there are two (as well as some other lovely specimens). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored it with the last text that was there and dropped the CPT cite although it could be used since it is the same graffiti, I don't care either way. I still favor combining all the refs into a single citation as shown here per WP:CITEBUNDLE rather than having the clutter of 3 or 4 individual citations. I've also put this article back on my watchlist for the time being. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)