Category talk:Israeli settlers

Description unnecessary??
It seems given the various different interpretations of this category different people might create, it's best to just remove any description and avoid an edit war. It's now on a couple of noticeboards. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Underpopulated categories"
Can someone remove the "Underpopulated categories" ? The cat contains many people now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

cat scope
This category could include notable residents of evacuated settlements in both Gaza and Sinai. Additionally, it is just dishonest to say  lands captured by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967: the West Bank and Golan Heights. as it implies those were the only lands occupied by Israel in 67.  nableezy  - 00:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The introduction you reintroduced fails our V and BLP policies, besides that its factually incorrect. Please provide the sourcing for the introduction. Thanks.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You want someone to provide sourcing to show that Israeli civilians who were living in settlements in the Gaza Strip before the withdrawal were Israeli settlers, people who were murdered by militants for example, like Tali Hatuel and her girls ? Why ? I don't understand. Please explain. It's not factually incorrect to categorize people and objects according to an attribute that applied to them at some point in the past or at the time of their death. GHcool says "there are no settlers in Gaza or the Sinai. If one wants to include former settlers, one may create a new category called Category:Former settlers or something." This makes no sense to me because I'm not going to create a category for former abstract painters who are unfortunately no longer with us. There's no difference between a settler and an abstract painter in this regard. Even if I were to create a category like former settlers that including people who were in the Gaza Strip I would still need to amend the scope of this category so that there isn't a mismatch in the spatial scope between the categories. This is the parent category for Israeli settlers past and present. This category is already a subcategory of Israeli settlements which is logical. The Israeli settlements category already includes former settlements in Gaza and Sinai which is logical. There are spatial mismatchs between how we deal with settlers and settlements that need to be rectified. An article like Murder of Tali Hatuel and her four daughters is logically a member of this category or a subcategory of this category. Either way, the spatial scope needs fixing either by adding Gaza and Sinai or by just removing all of the names of the spatial objects. Please allow heartless bastards like me who can make these decisions in a cold, logical, detached way to just do it.


 * Also, just out of curiosity, what is the BLP violation ? A BLP violation requires the presence of information not absence. So, what specific information is present that would constitute a BLP violation right now if the cat said "Residents of Israeli settlements in lands captured by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967: West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula".  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sean. Thanks for coming to Nableezy's assistance again. It's much appreciated. It's really very simple. We need reliable sources supporting the claim that all those who once lived or are currently living in Gaza, Sinai, Judea and Samaria, and Golan Heights. Until such sources are proffered there is little to discuss. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How the hell does it violate BLP, much less V or any other policy brewcrewer? Your response is unintelligible. Anyway, Ill just change it to Israeli-occupied territories.  nableezy  - 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The abstract painters thing is a false analogy. An analogy that actually applies would be a category like "Category:People who live in London" and applying it to someone who once lived in London, but now lives in Paris.  Certainly, with this analogy it is clear that applying the category of "Israeli settlers" to someone who isn't an Israeli settler would be inappropriate.  --GHcool (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Brewcrewer, you've got your event sequence a bit muddled but it doesn't matter. Try to see this from my perspective. It's a simple practical problem. There is an article. It's about a settler who was murdered along with her children in the Gaza Strip. They lived in an Israeli settlement. They were Israeli settlers. There are sources that say so. I can't put the article in this category because of the mismatch with the current description. What to do ? Change the description seems to be the solution either by addition or removal of items so that people who are referred to as settlers who lived in the Gaza Strip for example can be included (just like settlements in the Gaza Strip are categorized as settlements although via a subcat in that case). That's what I did. I added the Gaza Strip (and Sinai for completeness). There may be more cases like this. We don't need reliable sources supporting claims that all X are Y. It is enough to have reliable sources supporting the claim that a specific instance of X is Y so that the specific instance can be categorized in a way that is consistent with the stated inclusion criteria. We don't have to have a stated inclusion criteria but at the moment we do. It's preventing me from categorizing an article for reasons that don't make sense to me. Try to imagine you are dealing with a rules based machine.
 * I'm at a loss as to why one simple request can be complied with. Please just one source that anyone who ever lived in these four areas is considered a settler for eternity. Nothing fancy or weird. Just WP:V.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * GHcool, it is very clear to me that applying the category of "Israeli settlers" to someone who isn't an Israeli settler would be inappropriate. I'm not sure I understand why the analogy is false. I think I haven't made myself clear. I'm not talking about living people. An abstract painter remains classified that way after they die. We continue to classify them that way. In the specific case that led me to amend the description, the people were settlers when they died. Classifying living people who perhaps once lived in settlements in Gaza and now live in Bali is another story. It's a story I'm not interested in because it has nothing to do with the very specific issue I encountered. That kind of issue to do with living people who once lived in a settlement applies equally to all of the terms in the description whether or not Gaza/Sinai are included. These things should always be case by case anyway.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I now see your point.  Your specific case seems to apply under the current wording ("Residents of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories").  I have no problem including deceased settlers in this category so long as they were settlers at the time of their death.  I am concerned about malicious editors who purposefully stain a living former Gaza resident with the category.  I'll add a note in the category description.  --GHcool (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll hold off on doing anything until things calm down and the inclusion criteria stabilizes. Your conflict-free responses are appreciated.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an unacceptable agreement. If someone is an artist for ten years and then become an axe-murderer, we do not remove them from the artist category. If a biography has settled on land captured by Israel sicne 1967, they are a settler and belong in this category.--TM 20:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * TM's argument is essentially the same false analogy I exposed earlier. I'll restate what I said earlier and I hope that it will satisfy everyone: "An analogy that actually applies would be a category like 'Category:People who live in London' and applying it to someone who once lived in London, but now lives in Paris.  Certainly, with this analogy it is clear that applying the category of "Israeli settlers" to someone who isn't an Israeli settler would be inappropriate." --GHcool (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone settles in an area defined as a settlement, how are they not then and always a settler? According Israeli settlement, "An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community." Therefore, logically, if a Jewish civilian moves to an Israeli settlement, how can they ever be considered something other than an Israeli settler? If you moved to a settlement in Gaza but then moved to Nahariya, you were, in the eyes of Wikipedia, a settler just as if you were an artist and now you do something else.--TM 22:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite, the analogy would be to a category Cat:Chicagoans and applying that to people who had lived in Chicago and left. It isnt quite the same as Cat:People who live in Chicago. The present tense verb in the name makes all the difference. If this category were Cat:People who live in Israeli settlements that would be one thing. Anyway, the former sentence was simply dishonest, as it implied that the places that Israel captured in 67 are limited to the West Bank and the Golan. That is simply untrue, and I dont know why people would return that false statement repeatedly.  nableezy  - 22:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, that's a great analogy. If you go toCategory:Chicagoans, you will be redirected to Category:People from Chicago, Illinois.  This, I imagine, was to avoid the very confusion we are facing here.  I don't mind changing the category to something like Category:People from the West Bank or Gaza Strip to avoid the same confusion.  --GHcool (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the category is meant only for people currently living in settlements the name should reflect that. I wouldnt oppose that. However, the analogy still does not support the position, as the redirect is not to People living in Chicago but to People from Chicago, a category that could include people born in Chicago who moved, people who grew up in Chicago and moved, or people who moved to Chicago for a substantial portion of their life and are identified as being from Chicago. Finally, as a tip for everybody, when linking to a category precede the word Category with a colon. This will link to the category instead of including the page within the category.  nableezy  - 03:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I a New Yorker if I just moved there from Bangladesh? What if I grew up there and now live in LA?  The real one is: Born in Bangladesh, moved to New York for a few years, and now live in LA.  Am I a New Yorker?  I don't know the answer.  Maybe there is also an element of self-identity to be considered.  Or number of years spent in New York.  Is there a place on WP that we can take this question to for broad consideration?  It seems to be a question much larger than just this cat. Joe407 (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Broad issues may be involved here, — see the new section immediately below =P64 2012-05-07
 * As it is written now, the category denotes current Israeli settlers, i.e. those Israeli citizens who currently reside or died while residing in the West Bank, died while residing in the Gaza Strip prior to the 2005 disengagement, or died while residing in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the peace treaty with Egypt. In that sense Category:Israeli settlers is analogous to Category:Chicagoans.  --GHcool (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Broad issues
Joe407 (07:34, 14 November 2011) asked about some broad issues that may be involved here. They may, but some narrow definitions of the category may exclude them. The same will be true of other particular categories. For example, definition of Category: British fantasy novels in terms of first publication in the United Kingdom of GB & NI (a counterfactual definition) would exclude many broad issues concerning British, Britain, etc. It would raise some new issues, at least in cases of co- and simultaneous publication, but those would be narrow issues.

For some particular places —not "the place on WP" that Joe407 seeks— where I have today commented and inquired about his broader issues, see my linked cross-references at Category talk: American fantasy novels.

Here are some more general categories, perhaps usefully listed here —but Category talk will disappoint, for there has been little or no discussion. Category: Categories by geographical location, its child Cat by country, and grandchild Category: Categories by nationality. Also Category: People by place. --P64 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
There's no actual Wikipedia article for Israeli settler, so the scope of that expression should be defined here.
 * 1) Is an Israeli settler an Israeli who at any time lived on a settlement, or one who lives there now?
 * 2) Are Israeli settlements only those localities specifically designated as such in sources or do properties acquired and populated by Israelis in other places like Israeli-controlled Hebron or East Jerusalem also qualify?—Biosketch (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)