Jump to content

Talk:Migron (Israeli settlement)

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


The quote is from the Sasson Report

[edit]

The quote is from the Sasson Report where it is said "המידע שלהלן נמסר לי על ידי מי שכיהן אותו זמן כמח"ט בנימין." - The information below was given to me by the person who was the Binyamin Brigade commander at the time. Then comes the part that is in quotes, since it is taken from the report. Hence sentence "According to the Sasson Report, based on the brigade commander of the area, and then the quote from the report. Writing "The Sasson Report claims that the brigade commander of the area related that" belittles the Sasson report. While the terms "claim" does not always carry a negative connotation, in this instance it clearly does and hence my phrasing is superior. Mashkin (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think this is about winning: 'my phrasing is superior'. We are looking for NPOV and the most exact way to convey the content of the report and its credibility. Yes, I suppose that it might be adding doubt to the report ever since the main protagonist of the report, Talia Sasson, made her true subjectiveness known when you ran for the 2009 Knesset elections for the Meretz party. In a sense, it's as if this report was prepared by Peace Now. --Shuki (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have just exposed the POV is your phrasing. Sasson's running on Meretz may be mentioned but it is certainly not a reason to make this into claimed. Your phrasing has serious POV and judgmental overtone. Mashkin (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the phrasing. There would also be no problem with saying - the "New York Times claims...". Please stop getting emotional over your edits. --Shuki (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the reprot says that the material is based on the what someone says and you label it as the reprot claims that it is based on that person testimony, then you are casting doubt on whether it is faithful. Mashkin (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am casting doubt. For such a controversial claim of facts on the ground, I would expect a better source than paraphrasing of an officer. --Shuki (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just cast doubt. The issue has to be controversial, e.g. the brigadier denied that he said it. Ow, putting the term "claim" for such a simple factual statement is a serious POV. Mashkin (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to court ruling

[edit]

I'm not sure how much prominence we want to give the new section relative to the rest of the article, in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling. Reactions to it have been extensive, made even more pronounced because of all the protests in the country against the government's economic policy. I added reactions critical of the ruling from three high-profile figures but have also come across statements applauding it. There is also this reaction from Avi Roeh, head of the Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, accusing the Supreme Court of exploiting Migron in order to divert attention from an investigation into the conduct of one of its judges and to score PR points. He also insists that the land Migron is on belongs to Metah Binyamin. I'll hold off on any more additions for now, though, to see where other editors take the section.—Biosketch (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, when I was drawn here by an IP editor's accidental removal of the references yesterday and drawn into editing the article a bit, I deliberately left out all reactions including the courts reactions and statements to avoid the normal opinion/mudslinging "settlerist" vs "human rights group=terrorist organization" festival. I see you have gone for a fairly minimalist approach which seems sensible. I suppose the obvious ones missing in that case are Peace Now, the PNA/Palestinian reactions. I do however think it's important to make sure that the section doesn't become a soapbox for all sorts of partisan nonsense just because the media reported it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is Arutz Sheva a reliable source for reporting what living people have said ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the question's addressed to me, yes, they're as reliable as Ynetnews or Nrg Maariv as far as quoting living people goes. Their articles sometimes mix objective reporting with political editorializing, but in the case of Hotoveli and Feiglin my edits were based on the quotes themselves.—Biosketch (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that given that they can be legitimately and neutrally described as a settler propaganda publication. There's nothing wrong with that but I think it limits the scope of what would be considered wiki-reliable with and without attribution especially when it comes to living people. Propaganda by it's very nature isn't constrained by veracity. I think they fit into the Wikipedia:Rs#Questionable_sources category. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article completely lacks context. Please see 8 30 2011 Jerusalem post article.

[edit]

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=236048. 216.207.189.2 (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized or illegal?

[edit]

The following sections refer to this settlement being built on private PAlestinian land. The references to the Sassoon report, And the Land ownership section, And the evacuation orders section, and the supreme court section. Therefore the article refers to this settlement being illegal under Israeli law. The phrase unauthorized is therfore not accurate, and the phrase illegal must be used.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am still awaiting a response on this issue.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we don't give undue weight to legality aspects beyond what the consensus at WP:Legality of Israeli settlements already established is appropriate. If what you wish to change is "unauthorized"→"illegal," that wouldn't be consistent with WP:Legality. If all you want to do is take out the word unauthorized as potentially misleading, I don't think that would be a problem, although it is an unauthorized outpost (as opposed to Ramat Gilad, which isn't unauthorized anymore).—Biosketch (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have misunderstood the issue. WP:Legality of Israeli settlements refers to this agreement '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.' This is not relevant to my proposed change. The point here is that Israeli sources in this article state that at least part of this settlement is built on private Palestinian land. Therefore it is illegal under Israeli law, as stated in the article. undue weight can not apply as in this case it is Israeli law that is being referred to. As both the International community and Israeli law state that this settlement is illegal, than what is being given undue weight? The correct phrase therefore is that this settlement is 'illegal.' Do you want me to add in the words 'under Israeli law' to follow?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one's disputing that the United Nations considers these outposts illegal. That's already in the article per WP:Legality, in boilerplate format per the consensus established with respect to legality aspects in articles of this nature. Israel considers the outpost unauthorized, but as in the case of Ramat Gilad it can change the outpost's status to authorized if it considers the circumstances appropriate. It sounds as though you're drawing a conclusion based on a subjective interpretation of the sources instead of simply following the language used by the sources themselves. Do the sources say that Israel considers the outpost illegal? If they do, your argument may indeed be valid. If they don't, and all they say is that part of the outpost is built on privately-owned Palestinian property, that isn't enough to go on in making a determination as to what status the outpost has from Israel's perspective.—Biosketch (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you have not checked the sources earlier. The sasson report and the supreme court state that Migron is illegal. Where do you get the word unauthorised from? I do not see it in any of the sources. You appear to have withdrawn the claim of Wp:undue and WP:illegality, is this correct? We now appear to be discussing what is meant by Israel. In that case I suggest that we remove the word unauthorised, and add in at each instance that the Supreme Court and Sassoon report use the word illegal.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the Sasson Report? I did. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a secondary source that says "Talia Sasson's report on West Bank outposts states that Migron was established illegally on private Palestinian land, and without official clearance."[1] Another says that it is an "unauthorised settlement outpost" and that Supreme Court president Dorit Beinisch said in the ruling that "[t]here is no doubt that according to the law a settlement cannot be built on land privately owned by Palestinians"[2] So, I guess there are several options given that it is certainly "unauthorised", a "settlement", "an outpost" and "illegal" under Israeli law according to the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these normally RS have decided to interpret the report as their worldview sees it. With regard to real estate, law does not usually make blanket statements as left-wing activist Talia Sasson did with regard to localities that were mostly build with government assistance from different ministries. Property issues occur and are usually settled in court. Until now, the attitude had been to follow the Peace Now wishes to destroy the homes on other wise barren land, but lately some rationality is sinking in, and a new attitude is saying, 'wait, it is possible to compensate the Arab owners (if they even exist)'. This is a current issue in Israel right now and one that might be decided this coming Sunday. --Shuki (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not see the point to your comment. Did I miss something? -asad (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of this discussion? That the settlement is illegal for Wikipedia's purposes isn't in dispute, and that's already covered with the WP:Legality boilerplate text. Writing that it's an "illegal Israeli settlement," which is what the Dalai Lama was initially proposing, would therefore be redundant and undue.—Biosketch (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point was how to say that it is also illegal under Israeli law, a state of affairs that isn't covered by the boilerplate text. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If people were doing something illegal, e.g. breaking the law, they'd be taken to court and put in jail. There are policemen and army officers living in Migron that have not been booted out of their jobs. Migron was established and continues to be supported partially by the Government of Israel, ministries and utilities as any other locality in Israel. The courts have not sued anyone yet for doing anything illegal. The courts are simply being used in a very narrow way, to remove Jews from their homes. In direct comparison, there is this article Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel which has the word illegal mentioned once. To show you how illegal they are, we have the simple fact that they are ineligible for municipal services. --Shuki (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki, settle down, it's just about the words used by sources to describe the legal status of the site. Unauthorized and illegal appear to mean the same thing in this context. I have no preference, I don't think it matters, and my role here was simply to clarify the 'what the sources say' issue which appeared to be getting confused. I think the only thing that is required from a policy perspective is content with a reference to justify the categorization. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite there yet...

[edit]

...summarizing the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court ruling story in the JPost source in a balanced way.

  • The first attempt only presented the settler's narrative.
  • The second attempt (below) presents the settler lawyer's version as fact in Wikipedia's voice and the Palestinian's lawyer's+NGO's statement that the court’s decision included “There is no basis to the claim that the plaintiff’s lack evidence to prove their rights to the land.” as just a claim.
    • "In a 2012 January decision, an Israeli court accepted the decision of Palestinian plaintiffs to withdraw a civil suit that had been filed in 2008 claiming ownership of the land and ordered them to compensate Migron residents and the State for court costs. The Palestinians who claimed ownership of the land did not provide any evidence, but their lawyer claimed the suit was redundant since the higher court had already decided to destroy the outpost." (my bold)

I think it needs a bit more balancing to present both versions in the same way. Perhaps some more sources will turn up too. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC) ...and Shuki, you can rewrite it without it being a 1RR as long as no one else edits it first. I can't. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of land ownership

[edit]

User:Dalai lama ding dong reverted an edit arguing that the claim that the Palestinians failed to provide proof of ownership isn't in the RS cited. The claim is there in the 4th, 12th and 13th paragraphs of the article: "... the Palestinians withdrew their claim at the moment in the process when they had to provide proof of land ownership." "The fact that it came at the point in the legal process where proof of ownership was required was coincidental, he said." "Proof of ownership had to be given to the court when the civil suit was first filed, Zachary added." Is it the attribution to Zachary that's the problem?—Biosketch (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined your section with the related one above since we are talking about the same content. I've had a go at balancing the text here. Yes, in a nutshell, the problem was that a claim was presented as a fact. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the claim that the Palestinian litigants failed to provide ownership of the land was not in the RS. The RS only stated that they had not provided proof of ownership at this hearing. It does not state that they had not provided earlier proof. That is why the revert was made. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

despite lack of evidence

[edit]

Here is what the court said, according to JPost: There is no basis to the claim that the plaintiff’s lack evidence to prove their rights to the land. Again, no basis for the claim that the plaintiff's lack evidence. Saying in the article that the plaintiff's lakc evidence directly contradicts what the court said. nableezy - 20:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC) The court merely ruled that the absence of proof brought before court was not a proof that no evidence existed (in my opinion extremely dubious, but I understand why you wouldn't want to doubt the court's ruling on wikipedia). Even the court did not rule over proof of ownership (the high court doesn't deal with this as mentioned), but told the government that since it was their position that the land belonged to Arabs and therefore illegal, they must destroy it. All of this is clear even from the article in Haaretz, not exactly known for right-wing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.28.228 (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Migron, Mateh Binyamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Migron, Mateh Binyamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Migron_(Israeli_settlement)&oldid=1209051821"