Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 5

POV sentence moved to Talk:
Colourinthemeaning, now that you have taken a brief break from interminably edit-warring the term "Israeli settlement" into the lede of all sorts of articles,,, , etc. you have inserted this paragraph into the lede again: These settlements are considered to be illegal under international law by the International Community and many international bodies including the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the European Union as well as by many International Human Rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While some legal scholars disagree with this assessment, the issue remains one of the most debated in International Law (See Legal background). To begin with, it uses the nebulous term "the International Community", which is entirely unsourced. Rest assured, both Israel and the United States are part of the international community, and they both dissent from the view that the settlements are illegal - the current official U.S. position is that they are an "obstacle to peace", but it studiously avoids the term "illegal". Second, the General Assembly has nothing whatsoever to do with international law; it's a political voting body, and the votes in question in any event were not unanimous. Third, you again inserted the unsourced phrase "as well as by many International Human Rights organizations", when, in fact, the only ones who appear to have opined on the matter are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Finally, you have again inserted the claim that "the issue remains one of the most debated in International Law" - who, besides Colouringthemeaning, makes this claim? Please recall that edits must comply with WP:V and WP:NOR. I'll re-word again so that the sentence complies with both policy and good writing. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the purpose of the General Assembly, political voting body or not, it has voted that the majority of its members view these as Settlements and illegal, which is where the term International Community comes from - Granted, perhaps a better way of wording it would have been 'the majority of the International community'. I fail to see how it can't be the view of "many international human rights organizations" yet with a few sources it can be "a number of international legal scholars who disagree with this assessment". It is hardly just AI and HRW who see it as a settlement, but these are simply the most well known. In fact, i can't think of one Human Rights organization who disagrees with the assessment that the settlements are illegal. If you pick up any international legal journal you will see that this is one of the most debated issues in international law - there is no source listed for these settlements being one of the most contentious issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict, there are some things that are just obvious to anyone and everyone! Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "International Community" does not come from General Assembly resolutions; it's pretty much a meaningless phrase thrown around to give more weight to unsubstantiated claims. A vote in the General Assembly is just that, a vote in the General Assembly. Most of the ones regarding Israel are just ritualistic exercises in partisan politics, signifying absolutely nothing. The Security Council can affect or even create international law, not the General Assembly. Regarding various unnamed international Human Rights organizations and "one of the most debated issues in international law", your opinions are all well and good, but WP:V requires sources for claims. Please provide sources for these claims before attempting to re-insert them. Jayjg (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So given the WP:V policy you would have no problem if i edited out the sentence about settlements being one of the most contentious issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict? I don't want to edit that out at all, because I think we can all agree it is true - but there is no verifiability provided for that. A vote in the General Assembly is more than just a vote, it is indicative of the views of the worlds governments, and in fact, the General Assembly is more than equipped to create, modify and extend international law, especially where the SC fails - resolutions enacted by the GA are said by legal scholars to be the view of the 'international community' time and time again, so while this GA resolution may not label it as such, any decision passed by the GA is said by legal and political professionals to be the view of the international community. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement about the settlements being one of the most contentious issues in the conflict is likely easily verifiable, but I would have no problem with you taking it out. As for your claims about the General Assembly, do you have any sources for them? Jayjg (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, thanks for your edit - i agree your changes to that sentence now reflect a more NPOV stance - i only had a problem with there being no mention of the 'legal scholars' on the 'other side,' so to speak. I don't have any sources off the top of my head, and it is not from internet sources I have picked this up but rather legal/political journals and textbooks - so I will attempt to hunt these sources down for you and will reply here when I have found some for you. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, we need to take into account WP:UNDUE. Pretty much every nation except Israel considers the settlements illegal. Thus, it's entirely appropriate that the fringe view of settlement legality should be given short shrift. I'd like to see some justification for the claim that the U.S. believes the settlements are not illegal; I am not aware of any U.S. administration saying any such thing, and consistent U.S. policy for quite some time has been that the settlements will probably have to be removed as part of a comprehensive peace plan. *** Crotalus *** 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unclear exactly what you are responding to. However, it's well known that during the Reagan era the official policy of the U.S. Administration changed from saying the settlements were "inconsistent with international law":
 * "'In a dramatic shift in official American policy on the settlements, on 2 February 1981 Reagan declared during an interview with a group of reporters in the Oval office that 'I disagreed when the previous administration referred to the settlements as illegal. They are not illegal.'' Laham, Nicholas. Crossing the Rubicon: Ronald Reagan and US Policy in the Middle East, Ashgate Publishing, 2004 p. 61."::Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I was not aware the Reagan administration made a specific statement on this matter. That, then, means that the U.S. and Israel disagree with most of the rest of the world about the settlements. (The magnitude of this disagreement should not be overstated; various U.S. &mdash; and Israeli &mdash; administrations have considered the settlements to be something that would be gotten rid of as part of a comprehensive peace deal.) *** Crotalus *** 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's unclear why you've removed the material about Chapter VI resolutions; it's entirely relevant to whether or not the resolutions are binding on Israel, and why it has not chosen to follow them. I'm fine with you removing it from the various Security Council resolution articles; I was only correcting Boccacio70s rather brutal misrepresentation of both the sources and the legal consensus on this matter - indeed, it would have been better had you removed his material two months ago, when he spammed it into a half dozen articles. However, it is obviously relevant here: please return it. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's more relevant here than in the articles on individual security council resolutions. I do think the length was a bit too long and possibly in violation of WP:UNDUE. If you put in a shorter version of it, that would be acceptable. I'm going to eat dinner soon and afterward I'll try to work on something that can be agreed on. I don't think Boccacio70's material belongs in those other articles either. *** Crotalus *** 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was already reverted. I'm going to look over this later and see if it's possible to slim down the section a bit, since the primary subject of the article is Israeli settlements, not the binding force or lack thereof of UN resolutions. Jayjg, do you have an official Israeli source that cites the non-binding nature of these resolutions as a justification for maintaining the settlements? That would definitely be relevant here. *** Crotalus *** 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, all the section really needs is a statement saying "The Security Council resolutions regarding Israel were carried out under Chapter VI of the Charter; as such, they have no enforcement mechanisms, and are generally not considered binding, and Israel has chosen not to heed them." with one good source. The problem is, that's what the article used to have, but then someone came along and removed it, insisting one source wasn't enough, so then another 6 sources were brought, but then it was removed because the sources were all newspapers, magazines, statements by politicians. So then another half dozen sources from legal textbooks were brought, which calmed things down for a while. Then Bocaccio70s came along, didn't like what he saw, so he inserted the ICJ's Namibia decision up front as "international law", and relegated everything else to Many politicians and legal scholars, whose opinions have no legal value, have argued that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII of the Charter only. I'm not kidding, that's the exact sentence he stuck into almost ten articles. So then I had to go and find two dozen more views of legal scholars, including experts who have written whole books on this exact topic, and who have specifically refuted the Namibia claims of the ICJ and pointed out that the UNSC had to carry out the Namibia decision under Chapter VII despite the ICJ's obfuscation regarding this. I even brought the opinion of a member of the very ICJ that made the Namibia decision, pointing out in no uncertain terms that it was incorrect. And then you come along and delete the whole thing as spam. I find this time and again with articles related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict; an impossible level of verification is demanded for the most obvious facts - then, when provided, people object to huge footnotes. As you can imagine, it is quite frustrating. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern here. On controversial articles, we obviously need to take special care to meet WP:V and other content policies, but, at the same time, we need to remember that the readers probably don't want to see 5 footnotes every sentence (they make things very hard to scan quickly). Obviously, it was inappropriate for Bocaccio70 to insert a POV statement like the one you mention above. What we need to do is to sequester the debate about the scope of UN resolutions onto appropriate pages &mdash; which it looks like you already started to do. For this particular article, I don't have a problem with briefly stating that the resolutions are generally considered non-binding. But I do have some issues with the way it is currently structured; for instance, I think the lengthy block quote from Erika De Wet, who, as you can see does not even have a Wikipedia article, may constitute undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for a short sentence, outlining the fact that those who argue the settlements are legal (e.g. ) point to the fact that the UNSC Resolutions regarding them were carried out under Chapter VI, and thus are generally considered to be non-binding. The only other footnote required would be this one:
 * "'The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of 'the powers under Art. 25'. It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: 'If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make al decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous'. In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here.' Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN 3540230238, p. 58."
 * It deals with all of the ICJ arguments about the Namibia decision as well, and in fact, lays out what UNSC practice actually is. But what happens when someone comes along and starts inserting additional arguments about the ICJ etc., or tries to delete the material as a "minority opinion" because it has only one source? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then those individuals should be pointed to the United Nations resolution page and told to discuss it there. This article is on Israeli settlements, and it's not a good idea to stray from that subject with lengthy digressions on a tangentially related issue. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Building a Successful Palestinian State, a peer-reviewed 2005 study put out by the Rand Corporation, The construction of large numbers of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories has made the construction of a contiguous and viable new independent state vastly more difficult. The US government and the larger international community view these settlements as "illegal" under international law. Certainly the expansion of settlements helped undermine the Oslo peace process and made the already distant prospect of good governance in Palestine even more remote.

In a footnote, the study's authors describe how the United States' "political language has softened over time" without "official policy" being changed at all: Official US policy holds that these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and are "inconsistent with international law." Excerpts from the State Department's legal finding may be found at http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html. While political language has softened over time (eg, settlements as "an obstacle to peace"), the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal and, indeed, has reconfirmed it on a number of occasions at the United Nations. President Bush's April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon indicated that a final negotiated peace would likely leave in place some Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but did not renounce the official legal opinion set out above. The State Department's legal finding is titled, "Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, Declaring that Israeli Settlements are Inconsistent with International Law, April 21, 1978."

References to the "international community" are ordinary, indeed ubiquitous, in reliable sources across the spectrum from popular to scholarly. Of course it doesn't refer to any specific official body (such as the UN General Assembly or the Security Council). But it's an accepted term when discussing matters of broad international consensus. The fact that the international community regards Israeli settlements as illegal can, in any case, be cited to dozens of excellent sources.--G-Dett (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Did those sources take a survey of all seven billion (or whatever) people living on the Earth?  Oh, maybe your definition of "international community" is something different... but since the U.S. government apparently does not regard the "settlements" as being illegal, maybe your definition of "international community" excludes the United States.  (As for your source on the U.S. position, from 1978, based on the sources mentioned above, the U.S. position has changed, so that source is out of date.)   6SJ7 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually - Regan's position is no longer indicitive of the US position on the settlements either/.. While the term 'International Community' can be used in circumstances where the US does not agree - for instance, when it is the International Community Vs The U.S., this is not one of those circumstances. The sources would not take a survey of the worlds populations: first and foremost, the 'opposition' to these settlements being illegal is not based on any survey of the worlds population but on the position of One Government, a handful of organizations and a few (in the sense that they are not a majority of) legal scholars, many of which, and whom, have close ties to that government. Secondly, many of these nations who voted in the Security Council (and some of those in the General Assembly) are democratic nations, which means their policies could be said to be a natural reflection of the views of the majority of their nation. If you really asked all 6 billion or so people in the world what their view was, what do you really think the answer would be? Given that most of them would get their views from what the mainstream media tells them, and also that anti-semitism is so prevelent - I highly doubt the majority of people would see them as legal. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * just to add to that - check out United Nations Security Resolution 1322, from 2000 - which I think you will find more indicative of the United States Governments position, given that it could not have been adopted if the US had vetoed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, you don't appear to have read my post; the official U.S. position is that the settlements are illegal, and that position has remained unchanged since 1978. Reagan's opinion as expressed in a press gaggle is interesting, as is the drift in the U.S.'s diplomatic language; both are well-sourced, as is the fact that the official U.S. position is still that the settlements are illegal.

As far as I know, references to the consensus opinion of the "international community" are not based on polls of planet Earth's seven billion people, but reflect rather the official positions of individual governments as well as collective bodies such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, and so on.

Colourinthemeaning, we don't need to infer the U.S. position from a UN resolution the U.S. didn't veto. We have the official position of the United States, as well as excellent secondary sources confirming that it's still in effect.--G-Dett (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we don't have "the official position of the United States", and there are other "excellent secondary sources" that disagree with your claim. The document on FMEP (which is already referenced in the article is indeed titled, "Opinion of the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, Declaring that Israeli Settlements are Inconsistent with International Law, April 21, 1978." - but of course, that's the FMEP's title on its webpage, we don't know what the actual title of the document was. In addition, it was an opinion of the legal advisor of the State Department given to Congress, it was not an official proclamation of the U.S. position. And, of course, that was in 1978, and the U.S. position subsequently changed:
 * "In a dramatic shift in official American policy on the settlements, on 2 February 1981 Reagan declared during an interview with a group of reporters in the Oval office that 'I disagreed when the previous administration referred to the settlements as illegal. They are not illegal.'" Laham, Nicholas. Crossing the Rubicon: Ronald Reagan and US Policy in the Middle East, Ashgate Publishing, 2004 p. 61.
 * "All American administrations since 1967 have held that the settlements in these areas were obstacles to peace. Initially they were considered contrary to international law under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own population into occupied territories. That position changed under Reagan, and since the early 1980s no American president has said that the settlements are illegal." William B. Quandt, Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967, University of California Press, 2001, p. 409.
 * Now, the Rand Corporation is all well and good, but its pronouncements aren't holy writ, and WP:NPOV really doesn't permit us treating them as such. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of your observation that "the General Assembly has nothing whatsoever to do with international law; it's a political voting body," I gather you understand the distinction between an official political statement or diplomatic policy on the one hand and a legal position on the other; and I presume you're not prepared to maintain that UN resolutions have no legal implications but presidential remarks to reporters somehow do. More on that distinction in a moment, but to keep this discussion on point: with regards to NPOV, what we're presently debating is not how to represent U.S. diplomatic policy and/or legal positions on the settlements. What we're discussing, remember, is what you're calling the "POV sentence moved to Talk," a sentence in which the United States doesn't even figure: These settlements are considered to be illegal under international law by the International Community and many international bodies including the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the European Union as well as by many International Human Rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While some legal scholars disagree with this assessment, the issue remains one of the most debated in International Law (See Legal background). Your three objections to this sentence are as follows: (1) "international community" is vague and unsourced, but Israel and the US are surely part of it, and they don't agree, so the claim is dubious; (2) the UN General Assembly is a political body and does not create international law, and their votes were not unanimous; and (3) Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are only two of the world's human rights organizations, and they don't constitute "many."

One at a time.

(1) That the "international community" regards the settlements as illegal can be cited to any number of excellent sources, using exactly that language. Do you have any sources arguing otherwise? It's not enough to say that you find the term "international community" vague or impressionistic, or to point to dissenting views on the legality of the settlements as evidence that in your view the "international community" is divided; that is, as you know, original research. What you'd need are good sources saying the "international community" is divided.

(2) This is a red herring. The sentence in question is citing opinions of the international community and various international bodies regarding the legality of the settlements. The sentence does not imply that the GA is a body of international jurisprudence. UN resolutions don't require unanimity to be passed.

(3) More research is needed. What is B'Tselem's position on the legality of the settlements, for example? Amnesty and HRW are the major international human-rights groups. Nevertheless, if it's true that only they have weighed in on the illegality of the settlements and/or there is significant dissent from groups of comparable stature, the sentence should be rewritten to reflect that.

Now, regarding the distinction between an official political statement/diplomatic policy and a legal position. Your sources do not contradict the Rand Corporation's study. Your sources describe a shift in the political language and diplomatic stance of American administrations since Reagan's. The Rand study observes this very shift, and notes that it has not been backed by any revised formal legal finding and so not does not alter that of 1978: "the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal." (emphasis added).

It may help to take a closer look at your two sources. The Nicholas Laham book cites its information about the "dramatic shift in official American policy" signaled by Reagan's comments to Madiha Rashid Al Madfai's Jordan, the United States and the Middle East Peace Process, 1974-1991 and Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle.  The cited passage in Al Madfai describes a shift in the American "attitude" towards the settlements and notes that "if something is initially condemned as illegal, it cannot later be considered legal unless the law itself has changed." The phrasing of the cited passage in Chomsky – "This reversal of US government policy (at least at the rhetorical level) set in motion a huge "land grab" operation on the West Bank under a deceitful guise of legality" – is careful about the distinction between a legal position and a political statement, the very distinction underscored by the Rand study. (emph. added)

Elsewhere in Crossing the Rubicon, your source is even clearer about the distinction between Reagan's views (with their consequences in diplomatic policy) on the one hand and a legal finding on the other: Though Reagan pledged to continue official American policy, which maintained that the settlements were an 'obstacle to peace,' he expressed his view that they were not 'illegal,' despite the fact that they were under any reasonable interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (147)

And in your second source, Peace Process: American Diplomacy, the author points out that while Reagan told a journalist the settlements weren't illegal in a press gaggle, he had written elsewhere that the settlements were "in continued violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242." Your source attributes Reagan's idiosyncratic and contradictory opinions on the matter to "his lack of care with details in discussing the Middle East."

I'm willing to discuss this further, both because it's interesting and because it might certainly have a place in the body of the article. But the question of America's tangled legal and diplomatic positions on the settlements is separate from the question of whether we can state, in the lead, that the settlements are regarded as illegal by the "international community." That statement is very well-sourced, and you haven't provided any source that challenges it.--G-Dett (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, I don't understand why you keep using original research to try to counter what reliable sources explicitly say. They both explicitly state that the American government changed it's policy regarding the settlements; one specifically says it was a dramatic shift in official American policy. Here's another source:
 * "However, the Reagan administration quickly reversed this long standing position with regard to settlements in the West Bank". Juliana S. Peck, The Reagan Administration and the Palestinian Question: The First Thousand Days, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984, p. 32.
 * Regarding the "international community", which sources were you referring to? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, you've shown your familiarity with the WP:NOR policy in the past; I take it you do understand that it applies to material in the article itself, not to general discussion on the talk page? I was discussing with you the issue of America's legal position vs. its diplomatic position on the settlements because you seemed interested, but it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the lead can point out the extremely well-sourced fact that the "international community" regards the settlements as illegal.  I am all for discussing all these things on talk pages, because (in an ideal world) wide-ranging and intelligent discussions lead to more intelligent editing of articles.  But let's be very clear, any original research involved in debating the American position(s) on the settlements is entirely yours: you introduced the matter as an attempt to argue with the sources when they generalize about the position of the "international community."--G-Dett (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding NOR on the Talk: page, please see WP:TALK: The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. Now, where were the sources behind the "well-sourced fact that the "international community" regards the settlements as illegal."? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite usual to evaluate and scrutinize sources and statements on talk pages in ways that would constitute original research if carried out in article space; I assume you know this because you do it all the time, including on this page and in this very section. In my view, this is usually a good thing, and is absolutely consistent with what you've cited from WP:TALK.  If you think it's a bad thing and violates policy, then you should take care to stop doing it.  Now, regarding sources for the international communities view that the settlements are illegal, how many would you like?--G-Dett (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, it's best not to speculate about other editors - in fact, it's best to restrict Talk: page comments to discussions of article content. Now, regarding the "international community", what, do you feel, would the insertion of this vague phrase add to the already explicit list at the beginning of this article? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be worth taking a step back and look at the reality of the situation. As a political matter, a large majority of the world's governments and several NGOs that follow the matter view the establishment of these settlements are hugely problematic. From time to time, resolutions will pass in various fora that characterize them as being in violation of international law due to provisions in the Geneva Conventions, etc. Just where the distinction is between making a political argument with legal terms, or making a legal argument with legal concepts goes, is hard to ascertain. I think it is entirely accurate that to say that there is widespread opposition to the settlements among the world's governments, and objections are raised based on legal criteria; but it is not necessarily true that the objections first and foremost are legalistic, and secondarily political. It is not for us to draw that distinction, but it is clear to me that the world's governments in all earnestness have put themselves in the role of judge and jury to convict Israel. It just doesn't work that way, to begin with. And another matter is that virtually every country in the world has some kind of territorial dispute, some kind of practice, that is debatable in international law. Even Norway does. --Leifern (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Just where the distinction is between making a political argument with legal terms, or making a legal argument with legal concepts goes, is hard to ascertain." &mdash; Quite simply, it's not our job to ascertain this. That would be a clear violation of WP:NOR. Our job is to relay, in the most neutral manner possible, what is said about the issue in reliable sources. I think the sources are fairly clear that most nations consider the settlements to be in violation of international law. If the preponderance of the sources attribute this view to the "international community," then that is what should be in the article. The U.S. position is somewhat more ambiguous, but I'm not really convinced that an off-the-cuff statement by Reagan at a press conference constitutes official U.S. policy. Again, we need to find the most reliable sources, preferably academic in nature, and describe what they say. Speculation from either side should be right out. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But we have provided academic sources that interpret Reagan's statement as an official change in policy; and, from Reagan on, not one American administration has ever described the settlements as "illegal" - deliberately so. As for the rest, it's not enough that a source says that the settlements are "illegal" or not; the source itself has to be a relevant one. Finally, regarding the "proponderance of sources attribut[ing] this view to the "international community"," I'm still waiting to see them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Except we can probably find an equal number of academic sources that will interpret Regans move entirely differently. I think, in this case, it is important to note that the United States has, also deliberately, refrained from saying the settlements aren't illegal. A simple google search for "Israeli Settlements+International Community" will yield plenty of results that you are after Jayjg, if you are willing to search for them. and and  and  and also  - and this is only from my first page of search results. Admittedly not 'academic sources,' most of them at least - globalsecurity.org however is often given as a source to Politics students  and is a respected source, as is The BBC, The Age and SBS. 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs)
 * I've tried to source contentious material to multiple academic sources. By the way, aside from its other issues, the Globalsecurity article is merely a collection of quotes from op-ed pieces in newspapers. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shulman quote
User:Nishidani has added this quotation to the lead of the section on "Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights": David Shulman, an Israeli peace activist, has described settlement in the Palestinian territories, in the following way:-

"'Israel, like any other society, has violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades in Israel is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise. Here, in places like Chavat Maon, Itamar, Tapuach, and Hebron, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Jews' exclusive right to it.". Why would we want to quote David Shulman? Why this particular quote from the tens of thousands of pages that have been written on the topic? And what does it have to do "Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The page is full of material not bearing on the reality of the settlements but legal issues. From my printout over half (14 pages of 27, same font size) deal with legal aspects. Large chunks of this material have been lifted holus bolus from the Wiki United Nations Resolution  page and plunked, undigested in here. I.e. on this crucial issue, there exists a template in someone's office which is thumped into articles at convenience. We read of the amiable Kim Beasley (qualified as a philosopher at Oxford, not an expert on International Law) from the Opposition Benches of the Australian Parliament, querying ex-PM Mr Howard's position on Iraq: we have learned disquisitions on Namibia duly footnoted from a German text, (Frowein) translated no one knows by whom (?), lifted like much else from another Wiki page. We have everything, but very little on life on the ground in the Occupied territories, unless right down the page, where the average browser never gets after his eyes suffer the extenuating exhaustion of reading intricate legal briefs for an hour.


 * So I put David Shulman's conclusion in, and it is questioned. Who is he, User:Jayjg asks why of the tens of thousands of screeds written about this aspect, do we have to have him, a mere Peace Activist, here? (Tens of thousands of pages have been written on the legal aspect, and the literature is given an extraordinary importance, violating WP:Undue Weight, if not WP:Boredom, compared to the reality on the ground, as that is lived by settlers and the dispossessed).


 * Well, is he a reliable source? Is he relevant? David Shulman is professor of Sanskrit and Indian Studies at Hebrew University, so he can't be relevant. He just happens to be a world-ranking scholar of Tamil, Telugu and Dravidian linguistics, so really, irrelevant. Except for the fact that, in his Indian field work, he became interested in Tamil Islam, (the Tamils have terrorist groups, and in India he learnt about the interactions of Tamil Islam with Gandhi's pacifist tradition. He then began to reapply his knowledge of this aspect (Islam/pacificism) to his own country, and, fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, and the Palestinian dialect, moved for four years throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories, concentrating in particular in the South Hebrons hill area, as pacifist, first aid medico(learnt during his years in the IDF), and then wrote a book about it. He is therefore deeply relevant, as an American-Israeli, with splendid academic credentials, who has devoted years to the issues of Israeli settlement, knows both key languages as very few activists do, has comparative experience of Islam/terrorism and pacifism. He is relevant because Avishai Margalit, a distinguished professorial fellow widely published in eminent newspapers and journals, considers Shulman's memoir a 'powerful and memorable book'. He is relevant because books by peaceniks on this issue rarely get a University imprint, but one of the top-ranking academic presses in the United States, the University of Chicago Press, had the book vetted in peer review, and the decision of anonymous experts was that the book qualified in every sense as worthy of the University's imprint. He is relevant because the New York Review of Books at = Avishai Margalit,'A Moral Witness to the 'Intricate Machine' gave it a four page spread. It is relevant because, unlike many people cited in this Wikipage, Shulman has a rare, intimate knowledge and experience of the on-the-ground issues the page must refer to.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * this is crazy. If Shulman has some significant findings, then quote those. don't just quote his own individual opinions. I removed it as a statement of dissent with this one-sided edit. Please feel free to add material which has encyclopedic significance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Since this looks like a long haul I'd better document what is going on, for convenience.We once more have a problem with bad faith editing.


 * (a)The quote from Shulman's book (via the New York Review of Books) was excised by User:Jayjg as 'original research'. He made the same charge several months ago to edit out disagreeable information from a book by Ian Lustik. It's getting to be a bad habit of his.


 * 02:59, 15 February 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (95,715 bytes) (remove inserted original research, move quotation to Talk: for discussion, add


 * WP:OR does not apply, naturally, to citing verbatim a passage in the New York Times, quoted by Avishai Margalit, from a book on settlements in the West Bank written by a distinguished academic with deep experience of the area concerned and published by the University of Chicago Press. Once more User:Jayjg confounds verbatim citation of a WP:RS as a violation of WP:OR.


 * (b)My remarks above prove that the text I inserted fits all wiki criteria. I then reedit it in. Immediately User:6SJ7 erased it. This time the pretext is WP:Undue Weight


 * 16:25, 15 February 2008 6SJ7 (Talk | contribs) (96,266 bytes) (→Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights: Remove paragraph based on discussion on talk page; seems like undue weight)


 * There has been no discussion on the Talk Page. A query was made by User:Jayjg. It was fully answered. Silence ensued, and User:6SJ7 makes several errors. He changes, while confirming Jayjg's judgement, the ostensible grounds for removing the passage. It is clearly not, as User:Jayjg suggested, 'Original research': original research here seems to mean reading the New York Review of Books and citing from it. So we get 'undue weight' thrown up. For User:6SJ7 it only 'seems' to violate 'Undue Weight', for he adduces no proof. Secondly, 'removed paragraph based on discussion on talk page' is inadequate even as a pretext, given its ambiguity. The sentence either means:'removed as per the discussion', as if a conclusion had been arrived at. Or, 'removed a paragraph which is based on a discussion on the talk page': again, this would be inadequate. The paragraph, were this intended, was not 'based on a discussion'. It was, on specious grounds, removed for discussion. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I not entitled to my own opinion, and my own interpretation of Wikipedia policies? I read Jay's comment, which although phrased as a question contained an implied comment, and I thought the issue was more of an undue weight issue than an OR issue.  I don't think you help your argument by throwing around accusations of "bad faith", "pretext", etc.  6SJ7 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody has an opinion. If they want it to be heard, they do well to reason it out, otherwise it remains just that, an opinion. Jayjg says it is OR, which it is not. You have an opinion about 'Undue Weight'. Give the reason for your opinion. I would note in the meantime that no one worried about undue weight has looked at the huge swathe of material injected into here from United Nations Resolution. I don't mind you having an opinion, but you owe me the courtesy to explain it, with reasoned arguments. Merely citing a Wiki rule, without grounding it contextually, is meaningless and, I repeat, in bad faith.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That paragraph clearly belongs. It is clearly being quoted from a RS, it is clearly relevant, it is clearly not undue weight. The arguments being made for its removal are absurd. It meets every test for a WP edit, and it improves the article. It should be re-added immediately with one change: the comma after "Palestinian territories" should not be there. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I was looking at it, I fixed some of the refs, and added a quote to the same section from an existing Amnesty International reference. The section was VERY poorly written to imply that the only downside for Palestinians is that they have to sit at road blocks - that is of course only the tip of the iceberg, and I think the paragraph I added and the one that Nishidani will add back certainly improve this. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, to begin with, other material I removed in that edit was WP:NOR (specifically, the recently inserted phrase "Jewish Israelis"), and that is what I was referring to. Second, as is obvious, a professor of Tamil studies is not any sort of expert on the settlements, and in particular is not any sort of expert on the psychology of the settlers, about which he appears to be commenting, even going so far as to making a diagnosis about their psychological conditions. His extraordinary claim that the settlers have an unusually high number of sociopaths would require some extraordinary sourcing - certainly not the opinion of a professor of Tamil studies. This lengthy, pejorative quote from a non-expert is about as blatant a violation of WP:V and WP:UNDUE as I've seen in a long time. Third, the material itself has nothing to do with the section it was in anyway (even if it belonged in the article, which it does not). Fourth, the material about the legality of the settlements was actually here first, and "lifted holus bolus" from this page and "plunked" in the United Nations Resolution  page. Fifth, my "lack of response" was because I was away from Wikipedia for a couple of days; rest assured, I was not specifically ignoring your responses. Finally, I'm astonished that you admit that you have been engaging in "bad faith editing", but I commend you for this admission, and, based on your new self-awareness, request that you desist from doing so in the future. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1.You write:'a professor of Tamil studies is not any sort of expert on the settlements'


 * You didn't appear to know who Shulman was. You originally wrote:
 * "'Why would we want to quote David Shulman? Why this particular quote from the tens of thousands of pages that have been written on the topic?"
 * This highlights Shulman's lack of status as someone not having a Wiki page dedicated to him. I simply noted, en passant, that he is considered one of the most brilliant scholars in his specialized field, as opposed to general interests. My quote comes from one of Israel's best and brightest, a somebody whom you qualified as simply one of many 'peace activists'.


 * An Israeli professor whose Tamil/Islam studies led him to research Islam/Palestinian studies, master Arabic, do four years of fieldwork among Palestinians and settlers, is more of an expert than most sources on this page (Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen on Ottoman law; Gershom Gorenberg, with a background in religious studies and education, no expert; Ray Hanania, a Palestinian-American comic and writer for Chicago newspapers; Moshe Dann, a journalist; Kim Beazley, Australian ex-parliamentarian with a philosopher's degree from Oxford; Nicholas Kristof, with a degree in political science, and some expertise in oriental languages, now a NYT columnist; Bill Emmott, who, when I last heard of him, was editor at the Economist, and something of an expert on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, (wrote a good book on Japan of course); Dore Gold, well he knows Arabic, has a Phd, and was Sharon's advisor, but he is not an expert on settlements;Tovah Lazaroff, a Jerusalem Post columnist, no expert on Palestinians and settlers). Against all of these people, duly cited, without objection throughout the article on issues that they have no technical or formally qualified expertise upon, people with, what's more, a stronger POV, than Shulman, Shulman has mastery of Arabic and Hebrew, field experience in the area, and ethnographic competence. You take exception to him alone, presumably because of the content of his remarks.


 * You cite, as a possible future gambit, Exceptional claims. The Wiki page on this remarks that 'Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources'. David Shulman fits this, as per above. His work on the settlements is published by Chicago University Press, which has quite severe tests for quality. It has been proposed by a senior editor at Slate magazine, Emily Bazelon, as one of the best books of 2007. Secondly there is nothing exceptional about his claim. Had you read Margalitìs review, you would have noted that Avishai Margalit, a highly authoritative Israeli professor, underwrites that remark, and substantiates by cross-reference to his student Assaf Sharon's experience and work in the area Shulamn studied. It is Avishai Margalit who writes:
 * "'In my own experience, I have found among the second generation a lethal combination of attitudes: a conviction that they have the right to dominate Palestinians and a sense that they are themselves victims. They share the historic megalomania of their parents, seeing themselves, with no small degree of self-righteousness, as a misunderstood avant-garde of a messianic vision. But they have not benefited from the civilizing effect of rabbinic learning as some of their parents did. . .It is a generation saturated with intense hostility toward the Arabs, and ferociously tribalistic'"


 * Further, Assaf Sharon, now of Stanford, was a peace activist on Shulman's team, and was, nota bene, raised on a yeshiva near Hebron, as the son of settlers. I.e. Shulman's sidekick happens to be a settler's son, raised in the area, the South Hebron Hills, where Shulman did his research, Avishai Margalit and Assaf Sharon both confirm the authenticity of Shulman's reportage.


 * You write: 'This lengthy, pejorative quote from a non-expert is about as blatant a violation of WP:V and WP:UNDUE as I've seen in a long time.'


 * Incomprehensible. It is not lengthy (compare the huge amount of material on the legality of the settlements crammed into this page. I note you have no objections so far to the huge length (WP:Undue Weight) there. Secondly, wiki is not concerned with editing out 'pejorative' judgements. It is concerned with reliable verifiably sources by qualified experts. Please refrain from calling Shulman a 'non-expert'. A top-ranking Israeli linguist with mastery of Arabic, who has applied his academic gifts in the ethnography of Islam, and peace movements, to a particular area of the Occupied Territories, and has on his team a local settler's son, raised there, as assistant and friend, over four years, is as 'expert' as you get. That he makes a judgement is neither here nor there. Most authorities on this area make strong judgements.


 * You write: 'Third, the material itself has nothing to do with the section it was in anyway (even if it belonged in the article, which it does not).'


 * You're perfectly entitled to that view. It's to do with settlements and human rights, precisely the subject of Shulman's book.


 * 'Fourth, the material about the legality of the settlements was actually here first, and "lifted holus bolus" from this page and "plunked" in the United Nations Resolution  page.'


 * Here I have learnt something from you. So, it should not be on the United Nations Resolution page, where it 'Zionizes' an article that ought to deal with a topic of far greater generality than Israel's claims to Palestine. Secondly, if you are so keen on the rules, what is the mess of material, looking either like Original Research, or a copy from some external source's template, doing in here?


 * As to your ironic reference to my remarks on your 'bad faith editing', as reflectiìng my own style, take it as you will. I judge your style on these questions from your unscrupulous behaviour in an earlier clash, where you erased impeccably sourced material from Ian Lustik on spurious grounds, because you disliked it. It fitted every criteria required by Wiki, but you erased it because it was not, according to you 'truthful'. Since when has Wiki, or many of its editors, been worried about 'truth'?  Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Nishidani and Jgui here. Shulman is a reliable, expert source and the material is directly attributed to his voice. Per WP:NPOV, his point of view should be included, and not arbitrarily disqualified by invoking WP:UNDUE (which does not apply given the brevity and direct relevance of the quote to the subject under the discussion) and WP:V (???? not at all applicable - his work on the subject is published, peer-reviewed, properly attributed, and can be accessed by anyone wanting to verify the accuracy of the quote). This seems to be a rather straightforward case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  T i a m u t talk 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wrong. sorry, jayjg. Sorry, I agree with Timaut and Nishidani here. Some clearly-written material from valid sources, which is from clearly good-faith editors, should simply be included. the way to address this is by adding balancing material of one's own. I don't feel it is beneficial in the long run to find fault with other editors' sources, if those sources meet all normal standards. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * why are such virulent, unencylopedic viewws being quoted here. We should only quote material which has some encyclopedic significance, not one person's opinionated tirades. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You misuse the word 'unencyclopedic', in a way that makes it mean 'not politically corrrect' or 'unlaundered'. It is not a tirade: the book is noted for its pacific tenor in an ambiance marked by high hostility. Academic descriptions of areas of extreme tension, in colonial situations, or where degradation occurs, often resort to strong language. When Oscar Lewis writes of the 'high tolerance for psychological pathology of all sorts' in his classic study of a Mexican family in lurid terms (see The Children of Sanchez 1961), no one takes him to task with being 'unencyclopedic'. When Octave Mannoni wrote vividly in his classic Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization in 1950 of the weird dynamics by which, in a famous phrasing, Le Nègre, c'est la peur que le Blanc a de lui-même, he was vigorously criticized, by all sides, but no one, for that, thought he was being 'virulently' 'unencyclopedic'.  If Weston La Barre, in summing up a lifetime of scholarly pondering on the shamanic roots of civilisation (The Ghost Dance 1970), writes inter alia that Ezekiel is schizophrenic, Isaiah psychotic, 'The Priestly Code is one of the earliest of pious "modernist" ethnography-fakings, completely obtuse to the reality of culture and history', and giving us a picture of a 'people driven hither and thither by the  same inner and outer compulsions, with everything that happens depending on the seesaw of Jehovah's favor and wrath as interpreted by the priests, in a crazy alternation of absolute peace and utter affliction', no one thinks this strong interpretative language unworthy of an academic. It follows from the theory he subscribed to, one once in vogue, and descending from Freud. If Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Palestine, whose teachings, and those of his son, inspire and inflame the colonists of the West Bank once wrote that, 'The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews ...is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle,' is it to be kept off Wiki's encyclopedia simply because its implications are 'virulent', in that Palestinians, by this rabbinical judgement, turn out to be less than human, and therefore not protected by the severe sanctions of law and religious piety elsewhere acclaimed and preached in Jewish tradition? I could give another 100 instances, but, the point is obvious. High quality academic writing on tense social realities does not exclude strong judgements, of which Shulman's is one. Shulman is not alone: there is a considerable literature on this, and the sobriety of his work is endorsed by academics not known for 'anti-Zionist' leanings. All we do is register these views, when they come from authoritative sources, as this one does. Not to do this is to blind the reader, and make Wiki far less comprehensive than what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. For this and many other reasons, I have restored the quote Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If those are the general findings, then describe the general findings. Don't just quote one vehenment, virulent staement of opinion from one source. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Does your writing 'Don't just quote one vehement, virulent statement of opinion from one source' mean that you, personally, will endorse my editing in several other descriptions from reliable sources on settler violence? This is what you are asking me to do, and I will be happy to oblige, but only on condition that I have your express support for the material you request, and that in any further challenges, you will back my multiple material.


 * It is a sign, in my book, of bad faith editing, that one does not fully engage with other editors. I wrote a long justification, and have yet to see any substantial reply from you, other than the repetition of your judgement 'virulent, vehement'. On this last point, you are mischaracterising the style of the statement. It is no such thing, and I will parse the statement, before asking you to desist from cheap caricature of the passage.


 * "'Israel, like any other society, has violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades in Israel is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise. Here, in places like Chavat Maon, Itamar, Tapuach, and Hebron, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Jews' exclusive right to it."


 * (a)Israel is normal in having a problem with a sociopathic minority.
 * (b)What is distinctive in Israel's variation on a universal theme is that, over the Occupation, such destructive people, which all societies harbour, have found a haven in settlements on Palestinian territory.
 * (c)This enmity finds an ideological justification (in messianic religion, which gives them a charter for expropriation the land because it was sacred to Jews 2000 years ago)
 * (d)The behaviour one observes in several places is one of freedom to terrorize, attack, shoot, injure and kill, all justified on Biblical rights of exclusive possession.


 * Nothing virulent in this. It is, rather, objective. Settlers who harass, terrorize shoot at, injure and kill Arabs have often gotten off with the lightest of sentences, if ever charged. (All of this is irrelevant of course, since Shulman is a reliable source)


 * To anticipate a mass of material Ian Lustick, who holds the Professor, Bess W. Heyman Chair at Pennsylvania University,writing of fundamentalist terrorism on the West Bank, can write:'Taken out of context, both these murderous acts would appear as the deeds of madmen. Indeed in his first reaction to the Hebron mosque massacre, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin accompanied his expressions of shock and shame, and of condolences to relatives of the victims, by echoing Yitzhak Shamir's characterization of the perpetrator as a "deranged person." But perhaps the most shocking and least well understood aspect of these massacres is that they were not the acts of deranged persons, but of psychologically normal individuals-individuals acting, however; in the context of a fundamentalist belief system so radically different from the liberal-humanitarian ethos shared by most Israelis and Americans that it can transform even the slaughter of defenseless people into a virtuous act. ' He happens to be writing of settlers in the very area Shulman studied. But before I paste in this as well(I myself would prefer just one of many quotes of this kind from academic monographs, but you appear to require more of the same), I would appreciate your replying at length, with valid reasonings on purely Wiki criteria, on the Shulman quote. So far you have simply followed WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Shulman quote 2

 * I aprpeciate your reply. To try to answer your question, I object to any material being presented as a definitive, comprehensive critique of a highly sensitive issue, when that material is just a single quote from a single person's opinion. Obviously, some criticism of settlers might belong here, if it is presented as representative of one school of thought, not as constituting some mythical academic or societal consensus.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, a noticeable amount of such overall criticism is already in the article. i don't object to that; all i object to is highly opinionated quotes which don't add much to the article, and simply constuitue a single opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From the tenor of your remarks, I gather you have no knowledge of the academic literature on the settlements. Ian Lustick's work, For the land and the Lord : Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. New York, N.Y. : Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, is available on line. If you are near a library Peter Bouckaert's Centre of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District 2001 Human Rights Watch, New York London, is also indispensable. It is unwise to contribute to articles one lacks background knowledge of. 'Encyclopedias are supposed to be written by the well-informed for those less au courant. It is otiose to edit while failing to inform oneself about the subject, and certainly the encyclopedia quality you appeal to is not honoured if you refuse to read background material while insisting on editing. Everything Shulman recounts can be found amply documented in those two volumes for a start. This is a minimum requirement for editing here, and familiarity will allow an intelligible conversation, hopefully informed by an equal fluency in Wiki criteria, rather than, what you have given till now, a number of personal objections based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the Shulman quote is biased, and not representative of any objective academic view, and you know it. it protrays settlers as outright criminals. Whether they are is not the issue; the point is an encylcopeida should not provide quote which appear to settle a controversial issue in favor of one side or the other. I could equally well find quotes which depict palestinians as having an unfettered right to "kill and attack," but I would not do that either. Your statements are growing patronizing. i think it's reasonable for me to ask you not to instruct me as to the "requirements for editing here", and to not cast aspersions on my "fluency in Wiki criteria." Please try to address people's concerns, and not issue these condescending statements. Wikipedia is full of amateurs. Sorry you find this so taxing. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not taxing: boring, since it is evident all this chitchat posing as feedback is a formality and word has gone out to block the quote, and you have assumed that praetorian function. Still I will persist, because I believe in the integrity of rules, despite all evidence to the contrary. Shulman's book portrays some settlers as criminals, as indeed a good few of them are. Moshe Levinger is a powerful foundational settler, and he is a criminal. To note the criminal aspect is to comply with Wiki requirements for thoroughness of coverage. To elide it, as you and Jayjg consistently have, is to edit, to censor, out what is unpalatable in the record because it looks 'bad' for the settlers. Israelis are generally well-informed of this: I fail to see why the wider world should be denied the same knowledge. To repeat, read up on the subject before editing. Ignorance is not a useful point of departure for writing articles. Secondly please base your remarks on wiki editing procedures, which do not exclude quotations reflecting POV ('bias') but merely insist on superb quality and verifiability.  Since you do are clearly not familiar with the academic literature, please don't make silly remarks about 'objective academic views', as if that were all that one could edit. Karl Popper's book on The Open Society and its Enemies (Plato and Hegel) (1944), or Ernest Gellner's on Wittgenstein (1959), or Marshall Sahlins's on How 'Natives' Think, are classics of their kind and are highly motivated by a polemical, but scrupulously analytical intent. No one, within academia, finds this odd. People unfamiliar with academic life have this curious belief that academics are all about 'objectivity'. In persisting to edit this article while labouring under this and other amateurish illusions about what constitutes 'academic' writing (and for wiki the rule is quality of source, and Shulman fits all these requirements), you are damaging the article. My statements are patronizing because I find it offensive to be confronted by editors who refuse to do a minimal amount of serious homework. Which means reading serious books, and not limiting oneself to trawling the internet for newspaper articles, and official government handout sheets, as if that were adequate for composing an article for an encyclopedia.  As for amateurs, wiki is full of them, and a good many are embued with a profound knowledge of the subject which honours them, and this encyclopedia. They work their arses off to provide the global readership with penetrating and comprehensive articles of a standard an academic specialist himself can commend. I have jumped in to help several, in fields I know well, and have found their 'amateur' knowledge and equanimity before often difficult material, which may counter their own leanings, consoling. This area of Wiki shows scant trace of quality, and it shames the rest of the encyclopedia, precisely because people are editing according to politics and national interests, and not according to the thick mass of informed academic material available out there, which, when it is harvested, is usually wrapped up and stifled with the usual cunctatorial arts of infinite wikilawyering. Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting). Shulman is a professor of Tamil studies. He is not an expert in Israeli settlers, nor in psychology, and certainly not in the psychological makeup of Israeli settlers. Quoting from WP:V - exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim that Israeli settlers are sociopaths is an exceptional claim; a professor of Tamil studies will not cut it as an exceptional source. And, by the way, the entirely predictable lining up of Jgui and Tiamut on your side in this does not indicate a "majority of editors" - if nothing else, SM8900 and 6SJ7 have objected. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Objections should be policy-based, and not rooted in whether or not editor finds the material in question to be offensive. 6SJ7 and Steve haven't made any convincing policy-based arguments. Your own, as I pointed out above, while invoking WP:V, ignore that Shluman's life experience and the fact that his work on this subject was peer-reviewed make him a reliable, expert source on the subject. While we should strive to gain consensus, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. I would submit that your continued refusal to acknowledge Shulman's expert credentials (diligently researched and provided by Nishidani), constitutes just such a refusal. Further, your implication that I and Jgui would predictably support this material's inclusion is unwarranted, and a violation of WP:AGF. I have stuck to discussing the material with regard to policy and guidelines, please do the same.  T i a m u t talk 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where WP:V discusses a person's "life experience", and how "life experience" makes someone an expert in Israeli settler psychology? I fully acknowledge Shulman's expert credentials in the area in which he is an expert, Dravidian languages. However, while we should strive to gain consensus, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. I would submit that your continued refusal to acknowledge that Shulman has no expert credentials when it comes to the psychology of Israeli settlers, constitutes just such a refusal. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. From what I can tell, you all are beginning to repeat your (counter-)arguments and not making much progress. You might try to see if you all can agree on the criteria for inclusion/exclusion, or you might try to see if there's some middle ground (e.g., to mention Shulman in a qualified manner, or to find a mutually acceptable source who addresses the same question, etc). Alternatively, have you tried submitting this to the sources' noticeboard? Or for an RfC? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * G'day HG. I will repeat myself because the thread is long, the objections incomprehensible, and the implications of User:Jayjg's interpretation so manifestly parlous for the encyclopedia that I think the issue requires close examination. To mediate on what looks like an extremely idiosyncratic and rather unheralded interpretation of a well known Wiki rule strikes me as neglectful of common sense. My reasons are as follows:-


 * User:Jayjg has raised several distinct complaints about the Shulman quote. The other two editors have varied their reasons, Steve, Sm8900 disapproved, approved, and disapproved with metamorphic volatility in the space of one day. His/her objections have not been grounded in Wiki references to guidelines but reflect distaste for the comment. 6SJ7 only thinks WP:Undue  has been infringed; Jayjg is trying to adduce several different reasons. It is premature (as was the edit block, since there was no edit-warring I am aware of) to refer to arbitration. I suggest the proper proecedure is to go through the several claims and test them against Wiki guidelines, one by one. User:Jayjg's most serious claim is, first and foremost, WP:RS. Since this is not a difficult issue to resolve, a vast archive of discussion and precedents exist that allows experienced editors and administrators to make a quick and rational call on a simple dispute like WP:RS, I suggest we deal with this, and, once resolved move on to other objections.


 * The gravamen of User:Jayjg's challenge on RS is that Shulman, as primarily an expert in Dravidian linguistics, cannot be cited on Israeli settlers in the West Bank or their psychology.


 * Nota bene:The assumption here, if generalized, is as follows. Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable Sources disallow content which has not been written by an academically qualified expert in the specific area it deals with.


 * In the present instance, Shulman, an expert in Dravidian linguistics, an outstanding Israeli academic, who has a professional interest in Islamic culture, studied comparatively in Indian (Tamils) and Palestine, who has mastered the two relevant languages, Arabic and Hebrew, and spent 4 years of fieldwork, as scholar and peace activist in the Occupied Territories, assisted by a doctoral fellow at Stanford who happens to have, as a settler's son, the benefit of a fundamentalist upbringing in a Hebron yeshiva, and an intimate knowledge of the people in the area Shulman studied, wrote a book on Settler and Palestinian conflict which, submitted to one of the highest quality University Presses in the world, the Chicago University Press, was vetted by peer review by specialists in the area, passed for publication, then reviewed in the New York Review of Books, one of the most prestigious review mags in the world by Avishai Margalit, an internationally reknowned Israeli academic with a long record of study in Israeli-Palestinian issues, who judged it an important and memorable book, and interleaved his glosses with his own material on settler psychology and generational conflict. Shulman's book was nominated subsequently by a senior editor at Slate magazine as one of the best books of 2007. Jayjg says this is immaterial, because in the quoted remark, Shulman, as a Dravidian language expert, has no qualifications that allow him to have an opinion on the 'psychology', not of settlers, but of that small group of militant fundamentalist settlers whose activities he describes in his book. In Jayjg's view, Wiki cannot allow anyone to be cited on this unless they have a qualification in psychology, and Israeli settler sociology.


 * Now, if this extraordinary claim about the implications of WP:RS made by User:Jayjg is true, then we shall all have to roll up our sleeves and blank virtually every article in the encyclopedia. Starting, I suggest, with the quotation from Mark Twain, often adduced in this area in Wiki, which uses an American humourist as an expert on the demographics and economics of Palestine under Ottoman administration in the 19th century.


 * "'Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. Palestine is desolate and unlovely -- Palestine is no more of this workday world. It is sacred to poetry and tradition, it is dreamland.'(Chapter 56)[147] 'There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country'. (Chapter 52)[148] 'A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely. We never saw a human being on the whole route'. (Chapter 49)[149] 'There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for thirty miles in either direction. ...One may ride ten miles (16 km) hereabouts and not see ten human beings.' ...these unpeopled deserts, these rusty mounds of barrenness...'(Chapter 46)[150]'"


 * We shall have to blank all references to Alan Dershowitz external to his biographical page, since he is widely quoted on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but is not technically or professionally qualified on these issues, but in criminal appellate law. We shall have to blanket out Albert Einstein's remarks about the Herut party's similarities with Nazi and Fascist movements, because he was a physicist, and not a specialist in the history of Israeli political parties. We will have to elide virtually all journalistic comment and sources in Wiki unless, article by article, we can prove that the various journalists and source adduced have a specific technical qualification in the academic fields their commentaries on everything from demographics to politics to sociological causes, historical grounds and psychological elements,presume. As I have noted, Jayjg's exceptional attitude to Shulman's material is not accompanied by a rigorous application of the same implicit criterion to many other people cited as Reliable Sources in the article, i.e.(Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen, Gershom Gorenberg, Ray Hanania, Moshe Dann Kim Beazley, Nicholas Kristof, Bill Emmott Dore Gold, Tovah Lazaroff.


 * This is, indeed, a relatively easy call, and should not engender a futile request for vast arbitration mechanisms. It is simply a matter of what constitutes a RS on Wiki, and whether Jayjg's use of that argument is valid or not. If valid, Wikipedia will collapse. I await your input, and that of any other interested editor or administrator. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Twain quote is a first-hand eyewitness account of historical conditions. The Shulman quote is just somebody's opinion.


 * Ok. If we do include the Shulman quote, do I have your permission to add the following (hypothetical, so far) quote about Palestinians? I'm sure I could find some real-life quote which would be quite similar from an israeli.


 * David S______, an Israeli right-winger, has described Palestinian terrorism in the Israeli cities, in the following way: Palestinians, like any other society, have violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades among Palestinians is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the extremnist enterprise. Here, in places like Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the Israeli population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Palestinians' exclusive right to it.'ref:Avishai Margalit, 'A Moral Witness to the "Intricate Machine",' New York Review of Books


 * I would not include such a quote. so why are you including this one on an issue of great sensitivity, controversy, and importance to both sides? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Steve, I don't think your analogy is a correct one. Shulman is an Israeli, and he is describing members of his own society. If you can find a quote from a Palestinian who has expertise in the field (i.e. wrote a work on Palestinian "terrorism" that was peer-reviewed and met with praise by other experts in the field, and who had members of his family who were Palestinian "terrorists") and you feel it is relevant to an article on Palestinian "terrorism", by all means, make your case for inclusion and I will be happy to back you up. In any case, this is tangential to the discussion here. But I thought I would point out where your analogy fails to be exact. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don'rt think it is tangential, but I do understand your point, and i appreciate your reply. let's try to keep our comments simple, brief, direct, and to the point, shall we? Just a suggestion (for all of us). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, Sm8900. I'm asking for a simple technical call. Let's do this in order. Is Shulman a reliable source in Wiki terms, according to you? If not, dissent duly registered, but I hope it will examine policy, and not just express a personal impression. If so, then let us examine other objections, in logical order. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, yes, I think he is basically a valid source. I don't see that as an issue right now. ("reliability" is a separate issue which does not affect one's validity in Wikipedia.)--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am in no hurry over this. It is an issue right now, because before one can proceed, one must determine if the contentious material fits Wiki criteria for reliable sources. If Shulman is not an RS, then all discussion on other grounds is pointless. Unless we establish this, which Jayjg denies, we cannot even discuss whether it is appropriate to use the statement, undue weight, exceptional claim etc etc., or not. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very important to distinguish between Jay's objection and Steve's. Jay's amounts to saying that despite the prominence of Shulman's book, its publication by an eminent peer-review university press, and its glowing critical reception (including by one of the most prestigious review publications in the world), the book is not an appropriate source because Shulman had, in Jay's view, inadequate formal scholarly preparation for the subject he chose to write about. This lack-of-formal-educational-credentials-specific-to-the-topic-at-hand line of RS-objection is one Jay regularly invokes with sources he's ideologically opposed to (Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, et al), and discards with sources he's ideologically aligned with (Chip Berlet, Bernard Lewis, et al). I'm fairly certain that no one here takes it seriously; the academic stature and pertinence of a particular work is obviously a function of its academic reception and influence, not its author's educational resumé as evaluated by Wikipedians.

Steve's argument is entirely different, and in my view quite compelling. He's saying, as I understand him, that this particular passage adds more heat than light, at least in the context of an encyclopedia article, and constitutes an unnecessary infusion of well-poisoning rhetoric. Steve has a point. To concede this is not to take a shot at Shulman. Swelling moral rhetoric may have a proper place in certain kinds of work – even scholarly work like Shulman's, and prestigious critical reviews like Margalit's – that it doesn't have in an encyclopedia article. Surely we can find a more detailed and substantive passage from Shulman's book to use for this article. Such a passage wouldn't need to be "neutral," of course; it could certainly be about the violence, vandalism, and vigilantism many settlements have come to be known for in their relationships with local Palestinians. But why not look for a passage richer in data than rhetoric?

Incidentally, Steve, though I'm with you in your main point, you are on weak ground when you write that "The Twain quote is a first-hand eyewitness account of historical conditions. The Shulman quote is just somebody's opinion." Both accounts are first-hand and eye-witness. The former is a popular travelogue by a great American humorist on package holiday in the holy land; the latter is a "diary of four years of political activity in Israel and the Palestinian territories" by an Israeli scholar.--G-Dett (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, stop violating WP:CIVIL - see also Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Stop following me to Talk: pages in which I am involved in a dispute in order to slag me. Focus on edits, not editors. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Focus on edits, not editors. Indeed.--G-Dett (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, focus on edits, not editors. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed,G-Dett. That is commendably lucid, fair and a forceful restatement of some objections raised. I gather then that the WP:RS objection is, in your view as well, wholly unfounded. I hope others chip in on this, for it is a radical, indeed pretextual, misreading of the guideline that I too associate with far too many of User:Jayjg's edits. As for the rest, I will suspend my replies because I think dealing with these objections one by one is the sensible way to proceed. I would however in the meantime appreciate a ref to the appropriate Wiki guidelines for the gist of your objection about 'Swelling moral rhetoric'. Dinner beckons, but thanks and regards Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, you too; focus on edits, not editors. As for Shulman, he's not an "eyewitness" regarding the psychological makeup of settlers; that kind of diagnosis requires clinical study by actual experts in the subject. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline would be, obviously, WP:NPOV. i think that's rather clear, from the text of G-Dett's comment.


 * By the way, what do you have for dinner? The bones of poorly-worded WP proposals? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I had to pick a policy, NPOV. But mainly I just think better-selected material from Shulman will both improve the article and satisfy Steve's valid objections.  I don't think the paragraph you picked is absolutely and self-evidently inappropriate per any particular policy.  I just think there's a good case to be made against it, and that Steve has offered one.--G-Dett (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note before I retire. On NPOV. If I were to clip from my files a remark like: ‘The closures, blockades, and curfews have had a devastating impact on all aspects of Palestinian life. Some 12,000 Palestinian students living in the H2 area of Hebron have been effectively prevented from continuing their education as their schools have been forced to closeunder curfew.’ (Peter Bouckaert, Centre of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District, Human Rights Watch, New York London 2001 p.7) would it be required in Wiki to find a counter perspective from the settlers of the kind:- 'Thousands of settler have been prevented from attending yeshiva because of Palestinian terrorism'? Tongue in cheek of course, but the allusion is to the covert supposition in several posts above that in a Hegelian Herr/Knecht situation, of which colonization is one of the classical modern instances, any Wiki article describing occupier and occupied must parry what is said against the former, by finding ammo of equal quality to aim against the latter. This is a very peculiar construction of neutral point of view. Just a reflection. Regards and Goodnight Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of my overall answer to that yet, but the example which you cited is much more factual-based than the Shulman quote. So that's one thing to think about. have a very good night. Hope Wikipedia thoughts don't disturb your sleep. :-) thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * DearSteve, Sm8900. Well, we can deal with that eventually in our exchanges. I will point out that the facts elicited and presented selectively contitute a theory, a subjective take, and that it is a standard war-cry of one particular party to these disputes that the facts, duly marshalled in sites andfact sheets, correct 'propatganda' and 'lies' from the other side. I am unaware of academic work of quality that is constituted by facts. Facts are like tesserae or bits of a puzzle. On their own they make no sense, and the artisan who makes mosaics, or the maker of puzzles, is someone who constructs a particular pattern out of them. In themselves the painted pieces, or elements of a puzzle can be recombined to make a variety of pictures. Thanks for the augury: I sleep like the blessed, even if I think like the cursed!. All historical and academic work is interpretative. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this. you really need to stop characterizing the Israeli side in any way. you're saying the Israelis are the ones who ignore facts? Amazing. Fatah claimed there was never a jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Fatah agencies took $1 billion from their own people. Are you not aware of these things? There are numerous other examples. I suggest we not try to find ways to characterize or indict the Israeli side. let's just focus on writing an encyclopedia which is fair and balanced. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look I am well aware that all sources, Arab, Western and Israeli whatever need close scrutiny. I am fasmiliar with several governments which invest heavily in monitoring foreign comment and mustering responses via semi-official hand out fact sheets. I have actually done a lengthy study of this in Japan. That Fatah has in its propaganda made absurd claims is obvious. I am not saying, I repeat, that Israelis are exceptional. Israel, via its various mministries, hands out an organizes, like many governments, fact sheets (I recognize the stuff when I see it here) that volunteers and journalists and interviewees customarily quote from. Is there any scandal in saying that? Nations have interests and spin their takes on everything to defend those interests, and Wiki worki on these areas is one of those areas where volunteers get the Israeli perspective over, or militate against counter-claims. As for Israel, I've worked there, enjoyed the place. I am, in this area of Wiki, interested exclusively in seeing that Palestinian realities, and the people in a non-state who don't hang round Wiki editing much, have their views and perspectives adequately heard on a level of parity with the views and perspectives of the power occupying their territory. Fatah took $1 bil from their people? That is 'fact sheet' material, Fine. What has that to do with the price of fish? Need I cite Finkelstein's book on what happens to money paid, ostensibly to the victims of the Holocaust, but ending up in other hands? Come now, balance is what I am all for, and I see very little of it here. One identifiably Palestinian editor, Tiamut, and several dozen Israeli/Jewish editors. If in redressing that balance in numbers, I am seen by you as 'anti-Israeli', prego. And finally, in talking so much about 'encyclopedias' please read up the relevant literature on settlers. Ehud Sprinzak's work is pertinent to this page as well. Factsheets are just that, slective quotes for a POV, not informed by a comprehensive neutral assaying of all that we know on whatever Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of your post seems very reasonable and helpful. thanks. I understand, based on what you said, that you are not trying at all to paint one side as the "bad" one. I can accept that. re my allegations about Fatah, I believe the $1 billion one is true; however, i am not trying to outmatch allegations here. i was simply trying to point out there is blame on both sides, when it seemed like you might not be accepting that; if you do accept that, fine, and I do appreciate your comments. I don't feel the need to scrutinize every one of your views. However, re the Holocaust survivors, not sure that I agree; I will hear your point, but I won't try to make this another issue, and perhaps it is too sensitive to go into here too much. however, I don't think the two things are analogous, given that one relates to use of public funds by a government agency, while the other relates to disposition of funds meant for private hands. Anyway, there's no reason to argue over this. i think much of your post is very helpful and constructive, and responds directly to the concerns which I was trying to raise, and does so in a fairly constructive way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)