Talk:Halamish

Settlers and other fun
Edit summaries with explanation points, heated rhetoric, and caps is not helping anything. Edit warring is bad. Per the recent closure of the RfC and in accordance with NPOV, the IPs edits need to be reverted. They can be discussed more but this article started out one way and has had words inserted into it to change the tone. Settlement even receives prominence in the lead so the additional pointing isn't even needed. Enough is enough. Any objections? I am within the standard set forth in the recent decision to revert but would prefer not to kick something off.Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no standard there and even Sandstein says in his close that there is nothing binding in what he wrote.  nableezy  - 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone already fixed it but if you feel like edit warring it would serve some purpose.Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are removing valid sources. "Illegal settlement of Halamish" is not taken from Suleiman, that is written in the narrative voice by Goldenberg.  nableezy  - 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are edit warring needlessly. "Like other settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Halamish is illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this" is not verified here. The additional source is sufficient so the original is not even needed.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That source backs up that this settlement is illegal. Why did you remove it? You are incorrect on saying that line comes from Suleiman.  nableezy  - 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree obviously so removing the failed verification template then reverting is edit warring. Again. And to make it worse, it was pointless and trivial. You consider it being a narrative from the author and it appears to me to be a paraphrase of the one guy's comment.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The failed verification tag was removed because another source, which you just admitted was fine, was inserted, so the sentence does not fail verification. Reverting your removal is hardly edit-warring.  nableezy  - 00:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not addressing the failed verification tag by keeping in the questionable source then reverting after that is surely not collaborative editing and I believe most would consider it the start of an edit war. You not understanding that may be the problem but hopefully you will get it sooner or later. Like I said, this was a trivial issue and you have decided to hit the revert button. That is surely not appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You decided to remove a perfectly valid source. And even after you say that the other source verifies the sentence you are whining about a failed verification tag? You just said that the other source verifies the sentence, why on earth should I leave the tag when I add another source? And I get it, you want to be able to remove whatever you wish, revert any edit that you wish. But if I revert you then I am edit-warring. I get it, I just refuse to recognize such an inane argument as having any basis.  nableezy  - 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But it being a perfectly valid source is disputed by another editor so you should not be removing templates then hitting the revert button again without seeking the talk page. I was typing up something quick here when you made that revert so maybe in the future you should slow down with it since it has been a problem made aware to you by numerous editors. If you wish to deflect that is all fine and good but maybe we need to see if other editors want to weigh in on the validity of that citation since it is clear neither of us is convinced of the other's argument.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I made 1 revert while you made two. Sorry to try to squeeze in the last word but there is clearly no double standard here.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read this carefully. The template you used, Failed verification, is for sentences that are not verified by the sources cited. You just said that the second source that I added when I removed the tag verifies the sentence. That being the case, you have no cause whatsoever to complain about that tag. I doubt that would even be considered a revert, it is the same thing as providing a citation and removing a citation needed tag. Next, you dispute that the first source is valid. Why does that give you the right to remove it when another editor has said that it is perfectly valid. For some reason I doubt you were coming here to write something as I both reverted your removal and made a comment here about that in the five minuted after your removal.  nableezy  - 00:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ec) list my 2 reverts. If you want to claim that providing a source that you admit verifies the sentence and removing the failed verification template is a revert, all I can say is good luck.  nableezy  - 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(Intended)I did a search for the word "illegal" and could not find it in Guardian ref. In other ref I could not find neither the word "illegal" nor the word "Halamish".--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1, that is an unacceptable edit. The prior name for Halamis was "Neveh Tzuf". The second source, discussing Neveh Tzuf, says "Although the settlements are illegal under international law". The first source says "he was transported in a lorry to the illegal settlement of Halamish, along with dozens of detainees." You are quite plainly wrong that the word "illegal" is not in the sources. Revert your edit. If you I dont I will, but I would rather not have my opinion of you degraded.  nableezy  - 01:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The term is used. Did you have match case on or something like that? The first one does not say anything about it being illegal under intl law but either the author paraphrasing a member of the Palestinian security forces or editorializing does say "illegal settlement of Halamish". Too many redflags and not clear enough. The other source has a presumably now Israeli lawyer considering it "illegal under international law". I thought her thoughts on it might be acceptable since she is on the other side of the dispute so admitting that is nice and she is a lawyer. The other name for the place is used in that source. Both have there problems but the second is not bad even though it could be better. Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I misspelled, so I did add it back, but I changed the language a bit. After all, if this animal, who murdered innocent children, is described as "often referred to as a terrorist", the neutrality of the statement in the discussed article is in question.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is quite a difference there. Describing a person as a terrorist is not as clear cut as describing an act as a terrorist act. Or describing murder as illegal. Or saying a settlement is illegal under international law. Every settlement in occupied territory is illegal under international law, this is not a matter of "some" sources saying this. This well documented fact.  nableezy  - 02:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you have failed with your RfC, you try another front. FWIW, BLP does not exist for localities, but maybe it should. Calling a place illegal should be sourced to a source that specifically mentions a ruling in a court of law and not just some mention in passing per someone's personal reasoning. There are a few places that have been called illegal by courts, you should bring sources from them. --Shuki (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue removing sourced content I will be asking that you be topic-banned. A reliable source calling the settlement illegal is all the proof Wikipedia needs. Stop being disruptive. I did not fail with the RFC, I think Sandstein was wrong, but no matter. I will start one for each settlement. This is a separate issue. Sources saying these are illegal under international law have been provided, you have no cause to remove that information.  nableezy  - 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources need to show how each one is illegal, not boilerplate random mention, 'like all settlements, X is ...' I have issues about Sandstein as well, but he also said get consensus. --Shuki (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put, that is nonsense. If a reliable source says X we can say X, the reliable source is not required to prove X. You are attempting to force a standard here that has no basis in policy.  nableezy  - 06:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OR could apply here since it is pretty standard to not add in sources that don't discuss the actual topic. Even if that can be forgiven (which it could be in this instance), the sourcing and wording is still questioned and that needs to be addressed more than anything else. Find some better sourcing and word it better. If it is contentious consider if there is a reason instead of ignoring it and continuing to make contentious edits on multiple pages.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

halamish is considered as illegal under the international law because it is built by the occupiers on a stolen and confiscated land.

its legal name is colony/settlement, not a village. its residents are settlers.--213.6.2.136 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You really can't get anymore NPOV than "people". And saying that Israel disputes the illegality shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. Cptnono (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

they are not ordinary people, they live in illegal settlements built on a stolen and occupied land, therefore they are settlers. then they are not civilians, they r armed to teeth.--213.6.46.197 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to stop edit warring and soapboxing. They are "people". That is completely NPOV.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. The RFC did not conclude that we are to use only "settler"-centric terminology. It did not even conclude that we should in general usually or even primarily use it in contexts unrelated to that specific issue. It doesn't matter if they're armed and are settling in disputed areas, even regardless of how lopsided that dispute may be. If we're talking about them in issues related to settling, then fine, "settlers" is specifically appropriate. If we're just talking about them as people living somewhere doing...whatever people do....then there's definitely no reason (other than editorial WP:POV) to keep harping on their "settler" status. And definitely RFC did not give blessing to blanket editing to slant every settlement article's wording either one way or another. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

settlers
the residents of these illegal settlements are called settlers, they are armed to teeth and violent,,,, they are not ordinary people.... they live on a stolen and occupied land that is not theirs... and they are considered illegal under the international law... and the international community as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.11.49 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed up above.
 * Your comments could be considered soapboxing
 * Attacking living people on Wikipedia is not acceptable
 * Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in those comments that can be construed as a BLP violation and even pretending that it is shows you do not understand that policy.  nableezy  - 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "they are armed to teeth and violent,,,, they are not ordinary people...." is not appropriate. And I did not site BLP so please do not sling mud around.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Cptnono. Any attempt to dehumanize living people on Wikipedia is not appropriate, whether it's done in mainspace or on talk. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Attacking living people" is an unambiguous reference to BLP. No identifiable person is named so there is no issue with BLP. But they are not "ordinary people" they are settlers living in illegal settlements on occupied land.  nableezy  - 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As Ynhockey points out: "Any attempt to dehumanize living people on Wikipedia is not appropriate". Are all of them violent? And what bis ordinary? That can be taken multiple ways. I did not point to BLP since it is not a violation to the word. Why are you arguing about this anyways? And why are you manipulating it in some weird defense of the inappropriate comments? What about the other points listed? This is the kind of disruption that shows that the IP should not have made the comments. The IP needs to know that such disruption will not be tolerated and the comments might be best removed. He is welcome to amend them into a version that is less inflammatory.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ynhockey has a clear POV and has repeatedly attempted to portray illegal settlements in occupied territory as anything but that, even removing easily sourced lines as "unsourced" from articles without a single source. He has also misuses the rollback function to revert edits that are decidedly not vandalism. I dont take his views on this topic too seriously. Yours either for that matter. "Dehumanize" has become a term used by certain people attempting to portray settlers living in illegal settlements on occupied territory as something other than that but it remains as meaningless today as it was when it was first argued that calling settlers "settlers" is "dehumanizing".  nableezy  - 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The concern is not over "settler" but his comments. This has gone on too long. I will make a mention at his talk page and I ask that he is notified of the possible sanctions. End of story.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is about style. Putting the word "settlers" into every sentence related to Halamish population doesn't make the article more readable or informative. Also, there is no consensus regarding it's neutrality. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is also being discussed above. I was not trying to dismiss the issue just that the comments were so inappropriate that it needed mention. I have already mentioned it on their talk page and the conversation can stay there. Should the settler issue be discussed here or above? I think the first step is pointing out each particular use and if a synonym would be better.Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go: 1) needless qualifier: "On 16 October 1977, two gar'ins, ... each with 25 settler families moved into"; proposal: "25 families". 2) the source notes only the victim Jewish nationality: "after the murder of a settler at the entrance to the settlement"; proposal: "murder of a Jewish person at the entrance" or "murder at the entrance". 3) this one is ok: "official name ... was rejected by the settlers". 4) the source says both "seizure" and "confiscate": "confiscation of their land by the settlers of Halamish"; proposal: seizure of their land by the people of Halamish --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Obvious concur with ElComandanteChe...blatant POV to continually harp on them being settlers in every mention of them. They are people, who have many identities. If you don't think there is something that matters about them other than their being settlers (i.e., as evidenced by the 213.6.x.x IP folks lately), then that's a pretty clear sign you might be unable to even recognize how hopelessly biased you are at this time. Those users are regularly blocked for failing to contribute anything except poor content and wasting discussion time. DMacks (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where the relevant aspect of their "identity" is settler that term should be used. For example, the "seizure" of Palestinian land is something that is done by "settlers".  nableezy  - 21:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about this one, but will not object. Also, could you please comment here? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nableezy, please expand on that logic, because I don't seem to agree at all. If you can prove that it is Palestinian land, then they are squaters, not settlers. But if it is state land, a term used in the Jordanian land laws still in effect, then they are actually just regular owners and residents. If it is land that has never been lived on, then they are actually pioneers. --Shuki (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

ARIJ
Appears to call this settlement Hamich in the village profile of Deir Nidham. Maybe that is why Icewhiz thought the source does not contain this material.  nableezy  - 16:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides being unreliable and UNDUE, with the text being SYNTH from a number of sources - Hamich is indeed not Halamish (and if it is - well that just points to the non-reliable nature of ARIJ). Furthermore, the OCHAOPT map (page 16) says nothing that supports the content. There are problems with other bits as well. - misrepresenting sources in this manner is not acceptable, and you should self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hamish is indeed another name for Halamish...Halamish is between Deir Nidham and Nabi Saleh; look at the ARIJ map, or google map, or any other map. If you want to  find  ARIJ  unreliable; then start another RfC; the last one found  ARIJ  to be a RS, Huldra (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Found it reliable? Link please - I don't recall such a consensus. Regardless - ARIJ itself says "Hamich" - saying Hamich is Halamish (not even a reasonable spelling or phonetic mistake) - is WP:OR - particularly when in the other ref from ARIJ you've got "Hallamish" (at least a plausible spelling mistake). The map from OCHAOPT (page 16) does not support in any way shape or form the text "and the rest from Nabi Salih". The ensemble - is a blatant misrepresentation. Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Jabel Mukaber, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Does not support reliability - merely use as an external link. Regardless - ARIJ itself - with "Hamich" - does not support this. The OCHAOPT doesn't support the text it is reffing either. Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if you insist, I will start another RfC, about its suitability as RS (with attribution), alas, I will ask about the suitability as RS  about a heap of pro−settlers web sites at the same time. Also, the  OCHAOPT  repros clearly mention Halamish taking over the springs from An Nabi Salih and Beitilu (presently part of Al-Ittihad), so please tell me what part "doesn't support the text it is reffing either", Huldra (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ARIJ is reliable for what ARIJ says (with attribution) - you don't need a RfC for attributed use (just about any source is reliable for what that source says) - it's simply UNDUE. OCHAOPT possibly supports a spring (in the text, not the map) - it does not support "and the rest from Nabi Salih". And you still haven't answered how we got from "Hamich" to Halamish. Icewhiz (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Its attributed to ARIJ, you want to challenge it then go ahead. I agree on the OCHA map, Ill remove that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * UNDUE opinion - however as ARIJ says "Hamich" - it is simply off-topic and WP:OR to connect that to this article. Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * UNDUE?????...when the theft of this spring by Halamish settlers has caused the death of several people in Nabi Sahleh?
 * And sorry, Nableezy, I completely disagree with that removal. Search How dispassion happen for "Halamish" and you will find  An Nabi Salih and Beitilu  as the nearby villages. There must be in a zillion RS that the old spring of Nabi Salih is today used by Israeli settlers of Halamish: take this piece by Amira Hass: In Nabi Saleh, the Palestinians Aren’t Legally Blonde, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we should use one of those sources. The OCHA source didnt explicitly support it, better to have something that is explicit so that er the more pedantic objections arent brought up as though there is reason to wholly wipe out that this colony is built on stolen land. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, if you feel it is UNDUE to include what ARIJ says then WP:NPOVN is thataway. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to residents of Halamish as well. WP:ONUS for inclusion on you. At present - you are failing WP:V and misrepresenting ARIJ - "Hamich"? How are we getting from "Hamich" to Halamish? Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? What are you talking about BLP applies to the residents of Halamish? As far as what connects them, cmon be serious. It says "The public water system passes through the Israeli settlement of Hamich and settlers sometimes break the line, leading to water shortages for the village." Later it says: "Wastewater from the Hamich settlement is discharged on the village’s agricultural lands". You know full well it is referring to Halamish. Saying otherwise is just dishonest, and you know it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to assertions of "theft" and "death" above. As for the ARIJ document - if what you are saying is true, it shows a rather serious flaw in the document itself (as this is not a reasonable spelling or transliteration from Hebrew nor Arabic). It might be likely that ARIJ is referring to Halamish (and made a rather serious mistake throughout their document, while in the other document - on Al-Itihad - they do use a reasonable name - "Hallamish") - however this is WP:OR on our part to determine this in a conclusive fashion without a source specifying that Hamich is Halamish. If the connection is based on hand waving and claiming other editors "know full well" what ARIJ meant to say (but didn't) - well - that's WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless there is an identifiable person being called a thief then no, BLP has no relevance here. As far as the claim it is OR, reading a source does not require us to suspend common sense. We both know that it is referring to what we call Halamish here. No hand-waving, just common sense. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...do you do deny that several villagers in Nabi Saleh have been killed during the protests there? As for "theft": google Halamish and theft and you will easily find many sources for that. If you don't want to be called a thief: then don't steal, Huldra (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Amira Hass writing in Haaretz is a reliable source. ARIJ is clearly referring to Halamish throughout that document. Please stop making such disruptive edits. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When Hass writes an opinion piece - which this one is marked as - it is not appropriate for unattributed use. As for ARIJ - even if we were to accept that Hamich=Halamish that would be a sign of incompetence of the source. Regardless this is WP:OR - and you clearly do not have consensus (or any policy based rarionale) to include this. Absent a source specifying Hamich is a variant pf Halamish (hint - it is not, in any way shape or form) - you can not insert this.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, she is an expert on the topic. And if you feel that way you could have, I dont know, attributed the use. There is no OR here, saying that is just silly, but Im fine going to WP:ORN and letting them judge that. Reason to include it? I dont know, NPOV demands it? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hass is not a RS. Haaretz is. When Hass writes an oped (as opposed to reporting) - it is merely her opinion and should be attributed at the very least. A partisan think tank is very much UNDUE - and in this case is pure OR - there is no policy based arguement through which we could turn Hamich into Halamish absent a source saying this is a variant spelling.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No_original_research/Noticeboard. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace Now
- you inserted diff. I checked the source. I was unable to find Halamish. I was unable to find 34.35%. In fact - I was unable to find anything related to the text inserted in the source you linked to. Please provide a quote supporting the content you inserted as well as a clear page number. Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are right, I put in the wrong link. Will correct in a sec. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Better - it does at least contain 34.35% (in an rather long data table). Interestingly, Peace Now is only claiming 261 dunams - as opposed to 604 Dunams by ARIJ (all be it to "Hamich" which may be something else). The data table supports "private land", it does not support "privately owned Palestinian property". Icewhiz (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Earlier in the report: The “privately owned land” to which this report refers is: A. Land that was registered and recognized as private property before 1968, at a time when the process of land registration was still open and available to Palestinians, or B. Cultivated land which is recognized by Israel as private land according to the Ottoman law. Also later The data from the Civil Administration divides the land into four categories: 1. State Land – land that has been declared as land managed by the State; 2. Private Palestinian Land – registered land recognized by the State of Israel as the private property of Palestinian residents and cultivated agricultural land that was not declared "State Land" and was not purchased by Jews; 3. Survey Land – land whose ownership is still being examined and whose standing still has to be determined. By law, such land cannot be developed; and 4. Jewish Land – land purchased by Jews. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Name Change
Israel officially changed the name of the community from Halamish (חַלָּמִישׁ) to Neve Tsuf (נווה צוף ) in October 1998. The wiki entry and information should be changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsurigadasi (talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so obvious - as most NEWSORGs keep on using Halamish - e.g. contrast a google news search for "Halamish stabbing" vs. ""Neve Tzuf" stabbing" or ""Neve Tsuf" stabbing" (z beats out the s) - it isn't even close. So WP:COMMONNAME seems to favor Halamish. In any event both names need to be mentioned in the lede, and we need a redirect from one to the other. Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2022
Nissimm (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC) The new Official Name of the settlement is Neve Zuf / Neve Tsuf


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aidan9382 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)