Talk:Efrat (Israeli settlement)

Status under international law
Ynhockey, you removed a section in the body and a line in the lead on the illegality of this settlement under international law on the basis that it was "undue". Could you please explain? A consensus was established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements that said, in part, that articles with multiple sections, if they contain a section on the legality in the body, should also contain a sentence in the lead. You removed the section in the body without any basis at all. Keep in mind that similar editing has brought other users extended topic bans. Please self-revert your edit in a timely fashion as it is made against an established consensus.  nableezy  - 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's if they contain a section on the legality in the body. Seeing as how you added the section, which should not be there in the first place, there is no problem to remove it. Moreover, if you continue threatening other editors on Wikipedia with bans, you will be reported. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is if. That if does not entitle you to remove a section so that you can remove the sentence from the lead. What is your justification for completely removing a well-sourced section? You cite WP:UNDUE. What position was not given its due weight in that section. But that aside, how exactly can you claim that such a section should not be included. I am not "threatening" you, but please feel free to report me. I am informing you that similar biased, and baseless, editing by other users has resulted in topic bans. I'll quote a line from the close of the discussion on the inclusion of such material: there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct. Your above comment on such a section not being included pretty clearly puts in you in "the body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted". You are entitled to feel that way, you are not however entitled to edit in such a manner. Absent actual evidence that WP:UNDUE justifies the wholesale removal of a well-sourced section on the illegality of this settlement under international law I will be restoring it.  nableezy  - 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ynhockey regarding the UNDUE nature of the overemphasis on the claimed illegality. Just going around to add the claimed illegal nature of the entities without adding anything else of substantive is the classic sign of a pov-pusher. If this continues it should be brought up to AE.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't a "classic sign of a pov-pusher". AE is for reporting violations of the discretionary sanctions rather than reporting people for implementing policy and an established consensus. I think there are a bunch of articles about settlements in the West Bank in the Religious Israeli settlements category where the legality information hasn't been added yet. Editors should be able to add the information to those without being accused of anything apart from helping to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and established consensus.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "classic sign of a pov-pusher" in a comment that contains the following: "the claimed illegality", "the claimed illegal nature of the entities". That was just funny.  nableezy  - 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Two people have now claimed that UNDUE allows for the removal of a section on the legal status of this colony. What in UNDUE supports this position? A simple statement that it just does is not a valid statement. I would rather not take this to AE, but, if you all have not noticed, I am not exactly shy and will do so if there continues to be such disruptive actions that disregards the consensus established on this issue.  nableezy  - 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am restoring the section, as nobody has given any indication of showing how it violated UNDUE. If it is removed again, well, we'll see what happens. There is a clear consensus, in the WT link above, for the inclusion of this material.  nableezy  - 12:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, the burden of proof is on you why the section belongs, because you wanted to add it (it had not existed before your edits). Please show us why this section should be there, and a simple sentence is not enough. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. When discussing a controversial edit, it's generally good form to give other editors sufficient time to reply before making the edit. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:BURDEN? The burden for inclusion is having verifiable sources, that is more than met. But I will, strictly to appease you, expand on why such a section should be included. The status of Efrat, indeed all settlements, under international law is one of the most notable aspects. Many sources, when even just mentioning a settlement such as Efrat, will say that settlements are illegal. For example this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Im sure you know I can go on like this for a while. WP:UNDUE says the following: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. The determination of due weight is based on the prominence of views in relation to each other. It means that a section should not include only one view and disregard another prominent one. It does not mean that you can reduce a section on the basis that the topic it covers has too much "weight". And even if it did, it does not allow for the wholesale removal of a reliably sourced section on grounds that there is an "overemphasis on the claimed illegality" of the settlement. WP:UNDUE would allow you, if there where an actual issue here (there is not), to add additional material from the viewpoint of those that dispute that the settlement is illegal, so long as you do not give that viewpoint a disproportionate amount of weight compared to the super-majority view that the settlement is illegal. But that due weight was already there, the sentence in the lead said Israel disputes the judgment and the section in the body gave a more detailed explanation of Israel's objection. Finally, there is an additional reason for the inclusion of the material. A consensus was established that said that this material should be covered in articles. That consensus stipulated that multi-section articles with a section on legality should include the line in the lead. A new game is apparently being played in which to remove the line from the lead the section from the body is also removed. That is not amusing, and very obviously goes against the consensus established in a months-long discussion. If you, or brewcrewer, do not like the fact that such a consensus was established you are free to attempt to establish a new one. However, you are not free to disregard what is the current consensus. Regarding your P.S, this is not a "controversial" edit. This is an edit that has the backing of an explicit consensus. You can also blame your pal's spurious removal of the NPOV tag for the restoration of the section. Yall dont get to violate NPOV and also remove a tag alerting others to the issue.  nableezy  - 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One last point. The close of the discussion that established the consensus for the inclusion of this material reads as follows:"I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles"This article is a "multi section article" and thus the single sentence belongs in the lead and it should be expanded upon in the body. The linked to discussion very clearly establishes a consensus for the inclusion of this line in the lead of this article and for the expansion of that material in the body. I await an actual reason as to why either UNDUE prohibits the inclusion of the section in the body or why the very clear close of that discussion does not apply here.  nableezy  - 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The following changes should be made for completeness and balance: "for the following reasons: * The Fourth Geneva Convention was intended to prohibit forcible deportations and mass transfers of peoples, like those perpetrated by Nazi Germany during World War II, not to restrict the voluntary decisions of individuals to move into occupied territories.   * In any event, the West Bank had not been legally held by a sovereign prior to Israel taking control of it, so it should be considered disputed territory rather than occupied territory." Nhcohen (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In the sentence "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Efrat is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this," the word "considered" should be replaced by "widely considered", since Israel does not consider them illegal and the United States policy on their legality has varied with different administrations.
 * In "Israel disputes that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Palestinian territories", replace "Palestinian Territories" with "West Bank" so as not to prejudge the resolution of a political dispute (and change "them" to "it" accordingly).
 * Change the description of Israel's rationale from "as they had not been legally held by a sovereign prior to Israel taking control of them" to the following more complete description of Israel's rationale:
 * In "This view has been rejected by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross. ," change "by the International Court of Justice" to "in an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice", move the reference to just after "International Court of Justice" (since the citation does not refer to the Red Cross), and add after "International Committee of the Red Cross".

Selfstudier, you undid all the edits I made. Could you explain please? The previous version was quite unbalanced and biased towards Israel. Also, it's not clear to me that there is a benefit in having a whole section that questions the right for a whole Israeli town, with a population of roughly 10,000, to exist. The town already exists. The general position of the international community is that those towns are illegal under International law, and it is the position of Israel that those towns are legal under international law. That is a balanced way to present the topic, and I do not believe anything more should be added on the page on the town of Efrat, which is not exactly focused on the legality of Israeli settlements. I believe that there is a separate Wikipedia article discussing the legality of Israeli settlements under international law.

Palestinian land claims
Both sides of the story should be presented. Add the following at the end of the section: "According to CAMERA, Efrat was built on state land and some private Jewish land, following a thorough review of land registries during Ottoman, British, and Jordanian control of the territory, which determined that there was no private Palestinian land in the area." Nhcohen (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2020
TEXT TO CHANGE: The second paragraph of the introduction states, "Considered the capital of Gush Etzion,[6] it had a population of 10,088 in 2018. Although geographically located within Gush Etzion, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council, and Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."

CHANGE TO: "Efrat it had a population of 11,800 in the start of 2020[1] and is geographically located within the Gush Etzion Block. However, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council and is defined as a Local Authority with its own independent municipal status and jurisdiction.[2] The Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."

[1] "Statistical Data of Efrat" (Hebrew), National Insurance Institute of Israel. [2] "Table I/2 - Area of Jurisdiction, Municipal Status and Geographic Location in Jerusalem, Cities with Population Greater than 200,000 and Jerusalem's Surrounding Local Authorities, 2008," Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research.

XXXX  REASONING   XXXX While the current reference stating that Efrat is "considered the capital of Gush Etzion" is an article in the NYT from March, 2015, there is NO ONE in Efrat or Gush Etzion who considers Efrat part of Gush Etzion in any way! The municipalities, local elections, schools, libraries, sports centers, municipal departments etc. are entirely separate! Very few people in Israel would even consider Gush Etzion to have a a capital!! (I say this as a resident of Israel and a resident of Gush Etzion.) Sholhur (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "i live ther and this is my opinion" is not, unfortunately, recognized as a reliable source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have too strong of an opinion on whether or not Efrat is considered the capital of Gush Etzion, but I think it's very hard to prove a negative.
 * Efrat is the largest town in Gush etzion, so in that sense I suppose it could be argued that it is valid to consider it the capital of Gush Etzion.
 * However, beyond this aspect, I am not sure what else can be said to support such a statement. It is true that residents of Efrat do not consider Efrat to be a "capital" of the area. I happen to know, because I have frequented this town on many occasions.
 * I think the main consideration would be the concentration of business and educational facilities in the area of Gush etzion. Up until recently, Efrat was not serviced by many shops, and the Gush etzion junction had most of the commercial stores. Today, with the opening of a mall in Efrat, this has changed. However, I am still not sure whether this is enough to consider Efrat the capital. Efrat is roughly 10,000 people, but the whole region is easily over 80,000, if one includes Beitar Illit. Overall, I think there is little evidence to label Efrat as the capital of the region. Meirtt123 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no point in responding to a four year old discussion. I will set up archiving on this page. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Material  Works   (contribs)  15:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Efrat → Efrat (Israeli settlement)
 * Efrat (disambiguation) → Efrat

"Efrat" is the name for many things, including many people and at least one organization. The settlement is by no means the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and this page should be moved to make way for the disambiguation page to move to the base name. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support In ictu oculi (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pr nom, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, less ambiguous and more informative. Zerotalk 02:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breach of Consensus
WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements covers the way this issue should be handled.

Recent edits by are attempting to alter this consensus, and when reverted, instead of discussion, rereverted. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In fact, this editor appears to be on a mission to do this at other Israeli settlement articles as well, obvious POV editing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing but am a longtime reader. I have noticed that many of the pages on Israeli towns in the West Bank appear unbalanced and seem to delegitimize existing towns, which I believe is not the purpose of these Wikipedia entries. Meirtt123 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did actually post a discussion, in the section under "Status under international law". I wouldn't regard a biased and half-baked paragraph on the status of Efrat under international law, as having "consensus". I actually also did not detract any content from the paragraph, but simply reworded it to maintain neutrality. Please let me know what is wrong with my amendment in this subsection. Meirtt123 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See the long term consensus linked above, currently stable in many if not all Israeli settlement articles. Your original contributions (and personal opinions about whether articles are "unbalanced") don't carry much weight in the face of this consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. In this case I may have been wrong. So the following statement cannot be altered on Wikipedia pages with regard to settlements?
 * "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."
 * What about any other additional statements on top of this? Because the paragraph which I edited on the status under international law, on the Efrat page, had more content than just this consensus statement. The stable statement actually is not so bad, but the whole paragraph together I felt was quite unbalanced. Meirtt123 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that we do not need to have a discussion about this on every Israeli settlement page, the facts are well known and don't need elucidation other than by way of wikilink. In this regard when I added a "main" link to Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967, you removed it. You should be aware that the Israeli theories in this regard are viewed as virtually fringe by the international academic and legal community, worth mentioning in passing and nothing more, although they can be dealt with in more detail at that wikilinked article if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not need a discussion about neutrality on this subject on every page. I would hope not! However, in these cases, it seems necessary. I have frequented these pages many times, and unfortunately, they are quite biased.
 * I would be happy to have the stable statement, as you've mentioned, included. Additionally, there could be more elaboration about the legality of the specific town in question. I don't believe we can say that the "facts are well known and don't need elucidation" because the previous version was blatantly biased, stating that Efrat is simply illegal under international law. This was the original statement. That statement is not in line with the generally agreed-upon stable statement you kindly pointed out to me. Surprisingly, similar statements, which unequivocally state that settlements are illegal, can be found on many settlement town Wikipedia pages.
 * I think the stable statement, if it is agreed upon, should be maintained as the basis. Additional elaboration can be added to provide a more balanced and comprehensive view of the subject. Meirtt123 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether you personally think the articles are biased, is just your opinion. Ditto what you "believe". If you make POV edits to these articles, they will be reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be happy for you to revert the paragraph again at some point in the future, and I will then point out, and seek to edit, where the content of such paragraphs, go beyond what is beyond the consensus view. Or, alternatively, you can paste the original version here now, and I can point out where it goes beyond the consensus view. Meirtt123 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your editing may be reviewed elsewhere before then. Administrators%27 noticeboard. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)