Talk:Susya/Archive 2

Regavim source
This removal of information is an attempt to hide the Israeli narrative of Khirbet Susya history. (It was done before here.) Regavim is a side to the legal proceedings currently taking place in Israeli high-court (and the winning side so far). Their document is full with references and copies of documents which can be verified. RHR on the other hand, make an empty, unsupported claim and couldn't provide the evidence when asked for it. Mention one but not the other is politically motivated. Settleman (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are again confusing WP:RS. Reliability is always in context. The RHR source is simply used to attest that written records about the village existed since 1830 at least, and this is also supported by the book source (published by Routledge). The succeeding paragraphs expand upon this matter, with sources from ynet and Haaretz. Against this, you add a statement stating that it is the "Israeli narrative", by a party to the conflict, one of whose main aims is to prosecute "illegal Arab construction". That is not good enough. This is not pomo Wikipedia. You need to find multiple independent sources which support this "narrative". By the way, one can never cite Arutz Sheva for anything Palestinian-related, especially if it involves settlers. Their bias and inaccuracy is simply too large. They can perhaps be cited for internal settler matters, that's it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't have it both ways. If Regavim goes, then RHR should go as well. They represent the Palestinians in court. There are other devoted activists and organizations that should not be in the article then such as B'tselem and David Shulman. Settleman (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * E.M. Gregory first started out trying to frame Palestinian rock-throwing as a criminal act not only in Israeli military law but in international law after User:ShulMaven created that article. He did so by creating a parallel article Criminal rock throwing, and then linking it into the other article. The same has just happened here. Regavim is a pro-settler ethnic purification pushing 'NGO' set up by a functionary in the Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, and fails every criterion for WP:RS, since it has an extreme activist ethnic cleansing agenda. But by creating 3 days ago Regavim, the idea appears to be that a wiki article can then cite it, as was done here. That article as drafted is by the way a POV farce ('is an Israeli NGO dedicated to ensuring the legal, responsible, and environmentally friendly use of land. . .' Ha!Ha!Ha! ). Equating a rabbinical movement to defend human rights, with a settler NGO body whose purpose is to demolish human rights, except when they are defined as 'Jewish', will get you nowhere. Regavim's POV on Susya is demonstrably counterfactual, since it insists against the Civil Administration's own internal documentation that Palestinians have no historic right there.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nish you are a fool who has obviously never had a rock thrown through your windshield. It is scary as hell. True, it happened to me in Providence, Rhode Island, but it sure as hell made me change how I understood that thing Palestinian "kids" do when they throw rocks at Israeli cars.  It is beyond horrifying to be in a car when a rock hits the windshield, the car swerves out of control, and you.....  I can't believe I'm having to explain this to an idiot who thinks I am "framing" this horror by calling it criminal!!!  I survived.  Many people do not.  Or they are maimed for life.  I worked out some of the horror at Interstate 80 rock throwing, Darmstadt American rock-throwing incident,  Death of Chris Currie, Criminal rock throwing  - because it is a CRIME!!!  People get killed!!!  Then you go around bowdlerizing articles and pretending that it is some sort of non-violent political statement.  If you think those kids on that Providence street corner were anything other than dangerous hooligans committing a crime when they hurled that rock at me you are out of your mind.  Hooligans who throw rocks at moving cars should be locked up.  Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. As mentioned already, please read WP:RS. Reliability is always in context, and this information is supported, in various ways, by various independent sources. This kind of tit-for-tat removal/addition which you suggest has no basis in policy. If you can find reliable independent sources which support this "narrative" which you think should be included, you are free to add it. While you are of course not responsible for this, I remind you that the other material which you point to, was added by a sock of serial offender . It does not even require any justification to remove it, per WP:BLOCKED. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , the regavim source doesn't even make up any facts. It points to historical documents that can be viewed by everybody. You pointed Regavim is a side to the legal conflict but the same is true for RHR. Coloring them with flowers and calling them 'human right NGO' is nice but doesn't change the facts. They both stood before Israeli High Court and the court sided with Regavim. Pretending the Palestinians and NGOs are peaceful is false. Example. The article is cleaned systematically of the Israeli position. That is not OK.
 * Shabbat Shalom. Settleman (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regavim's procedural strategy is identical to Yehuda Glick's on access to the Temple Mount. Glick says denying Jewish access is a violation of human rights: he casts this in a general issue of human rights. Behind it all, his supporters use this front to take over majority control of the site, and almost all are known deniers of Palestinian rights. As I added to the Regavim article, Regavim is noted for coming up with a copy-cat human rights argument, 'legality' and mirroring everything that Human Rights NGOs did, reversing only the terms. Thus Palestinians are 'settlers', and their villages are 'outposts' built without permission on 'Jewish land', and thus infringe Jewish rights. when David Dean Shulman, or Arik Ascherman go out of their way to write books, draw up legal documents, and represent Palestinian rights under the conventions of international law, they are not doing so to defend a personal interest. Personally, it makes no difference to their material lives how cases work out. When Regavim et al. draw up legal documents, they do so for an express political and community interest, to nab more land, and drive Palestinians off. To equate the two is as absurd as saying Human Rights Watch is a lobby like any other NGO, say Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah). It is striking how closely your approach, your handle, and reasoning follow the Regavim/settler template. Settler bodies and their wiki reps have a WP:COI issue which obviously does not apply to the numerous NGOs that have a verifiable record for independent human rights monitoring. We no more allow regavim that we do Arutz Sheva, for that reason. Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my final reply, because I do not see any purpose in simply repeating my points over and over again. I will simply give one example. The RHR source is not used for any controversial facts. They are primarily used to provide marginal details, to flesh out the situation. For instance, nobody disputes that Israel expelled the residents in 1986, but that is not what the RHR source is used for: it is simply used for the statement the Palestinians moved to what is called "Rujum al-Hamri". This is a straightforward, trivial, and wholly appropriate use. If RHR is used for a non-marginal claim, it is easy to find reliable, independent third party sources, like the UN, the book, or Haaretz stating the same thing. This is in no way identical to using the Regavim source for a very contrafactual and not widely supported claim. I suggest that you take the Regavim source to WP:RSN, if you really wish to include it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One final comment: the version is so well-documented, that even if you removed RHR totally, the article would barely change. You might want to review the section Talk:Susya, where two sockpuppets, now both banned (I am not accusing you of anything) tried to WP:wikilawyer a Mondoweiss and Haaretz reference, using the same arguments as you. With 2 minutes Googling, I was able to find other WP:RS sources, without changing an iota of the article. I am pretty sure an editor who is good faith interested in improving sources can do the same here, if they wish. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like you suggested, I'm taking it to WP:RSN.
 * A note about RHR, it referenced 7 times in the article.
 * And, what do you think about this source. It isn't an opinion piece and it was publish in Maariv (newspaper). Settleman (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, I cannot read Hebrew, so I don't know what it says. I did a quick Google Translate, but I don't know what it adds which is not already present. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regavim is referred to by NYTimes, Jewishpress, dailymail and is very common in Israeli reporting. It is unquestionally biased and therefore attribution is required. But beyond that, by default they are RS and if someone claims they aren't, they need to prove it, not the other way around. Settleman (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regavim is not usable for facts, because many of its critics consistently affirm that it ignores the factual record or uses it in a highly selective fashion to make distorted generalizations that, in their view, are blatantly counterfactual. One example is the Bedouin of the Negev: the Zionist survey of 1920 stated quite clearly that Bedouins had significant and widespread title, and purchased from Bedouins land according to Ottoman laws. As soon as Israel became a state, this was forgotten except by historians, and the state starting asserting a different principle, denying what the Zionist founders accepted. That the NYTs cites it does not automatically qualify it as RS for facts. This is elementary. Reread WP:RS.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that Regavim is quoted by the NYT does not mean that they are WP:RS. NYT is WP:RS, this just means that Regavim actually said whatever is written there. It says nothing about the reliability of Regavim. Also, one has to see what the NYT is quoting them for. In this case, it is just quoting them on their opinion of some deal with the Bedouins. It is not quoting them on historical matters. Actually, it is not even quoting them for facts, just a political matter. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RHR is also very selective. Do you see them talk about the census or the fact no traveler has a record about the place? About Havakook who lived in the area for years they just say, we don't agree. All the facts I took from their report are verifaiable (I linked the primary sources they refer to). Their bias is obvious and thus an attribution is due but beyond that. I challenge you to bring an objective source who claims Regavim isn't credible. Settleman (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RHR has set forth detailed arguments about where Regavim gets things arse about. It is a considered argument. If you wish, find a Regavim document that responds to those criticisms. Asserting that there are two sides, one is biased, therefore the other is biased by disagreeing is puerile. Here we look at RS, and paraphrase their arguments, with attribution, collating them in thematically  relevant sections. That is all we do. I might add that both this article and the Susya are becoming rapidly unmanageable because of edit-warring in which all reasoned policy based approaches are ignored. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like other NGOs, Regavim can be cited on facts as long as we say, "According to the NGO Regavim..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regavim is not going to answer any argument a pro-Palestinian organization is putting out there. If you have certain concerns I can try to answer those. The 5.4 figure for Bedouins are pure playing with numbers. Each side crunch them is a way that look better. The indigenous argument of RHR is completely stupid - they were there 150 years ago. Just like the Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans, right? The Bnei Shimon Regional Council area is a manipulation since the villages don't own or even control much of the area. The Bedouins claim OWNERSHIP. A clear oranges to apples misleading argument by RHR.
 * For Susya, you keep repeating the internal opinion of Moshe Meiri about ownership. Regavim doesn't speak about ownership but permanent village and indicates the land is for agricultural purposes so a new village requires permits.
 * As I presented, both sides color reality in the color that fits the side they chose. You identify with RHR, I'm sure it makes you feel like you are a good person. So far, in court, Regavim is winning RHR is losing so making the later RS but not the former, is BS. Settleman (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ottoman land law granted usufruct rights that confuse individuals like Arik Ascherman who grew up in common law countries.  Under Ottoman law, land use rights can expire if the land is not put into continuous use for the purpose for which the rights were granted, and the right to use a piece of land for a specified purpose such as seasonal grazing or running an inn, ceases when the specified use lapses.  Nor does the right to use a piece of land  to plant gain confer the right to use that land to build a town or an inn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For the nth time
'since the 1830s, seasonally for part of the time, down to'

(a) 'seasonally+for part of the time' is plethoric, since seasonally by definition is part of the time (of any one year). Horrible phrasing. (b)We know as yet nothing substantial about Susya's community before 1948. A lot of things happened in the 1830s, since us the Egyptian invasion which had massive effects on the area around Hebron. We have no authrority to justify retrojecting the 'seasonal' (transhumance) livelihood observed in the 1970s-80s back to those early periods,(1830/1881 when for some reason they acquired title by formal purchase of land/1948 etc.) writing that they have been seasonal since 1830s is WP:OR. All one can say so far is that the modern communities engaged in seasonal habitation.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So find a phrase that you are fine with. How about "only seasonal for an unknown period of time". Try to be part of the solution instead of just deleting it. Settleman (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So let's write something like: "Although 19th century settlement patterns in the southern Heron hill country is poorly documented, it is clear that in recent decades Arab habitation of this site has been seasonal."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this as a yes. Settleman (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

'permanent' in 'permanent village' "According to the NGO Regavim, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986." looks like WP:OR. Regavim is in any case making a counterfactual claim.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you lost me, what counterfactual claim?15:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to explain. Nishidani believes an office clerk like Albeck who probably visited the site once, which might happened during the winter, is more reliable than Havakook who lived in the area for years and hang out with the locals. Go figure! Settleman (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, Havakook is quite specific about the fact the different Khirbahs were satellites of the mother towns. The specifically says the cave dwellers were NOT Bedouins. The part about "system of transhumance" is defiantly not havakook. Settleman (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass tagging by EM Gregory
I had ignored your first 1RR violation, but you did it again. You cannot randomly remove sources like this and this the latter is a partial revert of this, making it 3 reverts now in the last 24 hours. Please desist and discuss on the talk page first. The first source is for an undisputed fact, which nobody denies. You can find it in a UN factsheet here. There is no rule that 972mag must be removed on sight, especially for claims which nobody disputes. WP:1RR exists for a reason: in contentious areas, one cannot behave like a bull in a China shop. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * sigh. Those were not reversions, mere removal of a political blog being used to source facts, and tagging of NGO statements as primary sources.  And while I don't know what "mass tagging" is, I looked at every citation and tagged the ones with NGOs used at primary sources.  Not all of them.  This debate grows tedious and I gave up after a while.  The useful action ot take her is to find better sourcing form the article.  I just added a couple of article from broadcast and paper mews media.  I don't know who added the bad sources and I don't care; in articles about controversial topics, you have to find multiple, preferably reliable - sources for volatile assertions. Some of the personal essays and books published by very small presses should probably also be tagged, removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * KingsIndian, i don't know what "undisputed" fact you refer to and I don't much care.  What WP requires are reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do not recognize that you performed a revert, I am afraid you will have a lot of problems in the future. Let me spell it out for you: if you undo another edit, even partially (here you removed a reference), you are performing a revert. Please read WP:REVERT. Secondly, the undisputed fact is exactly the part for which it is cited: that Israel expelled the villagers from the "archaelogical site" in 1986 and they settled a few hundred meters away. This is given in the UN factsheet I linked to, and nobody, not even Israel disputes it. Thirdly, there is no rule that 972mag must be reverted on sight. Reliability is always in context, your attitude that "I don't care about the facts, I don't like this source, it must go" is not grounded in any policy. All I am asking is you to slow down and follow the rules as we all are forced to follow. It is not fair that you can go around merrily without care for WP:1RR, while others have to tread carefully. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following "primary source" tags.
 * The expulsion in 1990. This is mentioned in the NYRB source, Shulman cites RHR here. I have added "According to David Shulman".
 * B'Tselem source for " by 2010 settlers were cultivating roughly 40 hectares". I have no idea why it was tagged, the UN factsheet which talks about settler violence and denial of Palestinian grazing area, it actually gives higher figures (they might be talking about different categories, or slightly different time periods). In any case, there is no obvious reason to doubt the source here.
 * Expulsion in 2001. Added the UN factsheet here.
 * Local villager to Amnesty International. This is direct testimony to a reputable human rights org. This is precisely the place where primary sources are useful. The tag makes no sense.
 * "Palestinians live in tents" sourced to B'Tselem. Is there any doubt about this? This is uncontroversial and plainly true. It is attributed to B'Tselem.

I have left the tags for: Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "centuries old village" sourced to RHR.
 * "Dahlia farm" stuff. It is plausible, but I couldn't find any alternate source.
 * another place where jfjfp is used.

I don't see any of the "non-primary source needed" tags as appropriate. There is no rule against the use of primary sources. If you want to claim a source is unreliable for a claim, this is not the right tag. Zerotalk 13:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yuval Yoaz
This source needs to be checked.Yuval Yoaz,'Court: Palestinian homes in southern Hebron Hills can stay,' Haaretz, 08/09/2004. The link is to Ta'ayush, and is dead. Some of the details re Ayala Procaccia seem to date to 2009.
 * Here is the link to the wayback machine archive of the page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fanks. Done.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RHR and b'tselem as RS
I called RHR to ask them about their source for the 1830/early 19th century claim. They pointed me to a book by David Grossman (not the writer) named הכפר הערבי ובנותיו page 226. I want to the libarary and here are photos of the 225 & 226. It may come as shocking to some of you (some will say 'we told you so') but the page mentions Susya, mentions 19th century but doesn't say Susya is since the 19th century. It mentions Susya in 1986 and Khirbet Zanuta from early 19th century.

Regavim give sources to each of the sentence I took from their report which were confirmed but somehow aren't RS, not even with attribution. RHR (and the rest of the 'humaniterians') provide a source that doesn't support their statement. But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic. Settleman (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing those photos. Too few editors these days will take the trouble to visit libraries. Personally I think Regavim can be cited with attribution, provided they are identified as an organisation associated with the settlers. But I don't agree with your view of their document. It has "propaganda" written all over it. The fact that some claims are sourced means little to the propagandist because they know that only a tiny fraction of readers will check for missing context.  For example, they say that Tristram described Susieh as a "town of ruins", which is true, but they don't mention that Tristram only "rode rapidly" through it.  If there were people living in caves, in those times when strangers were often dangerous, how many people should Tristram have seen?  None, actually.  So far I don't recall seeing any 19th century textual source which unequivocally states that Susieh was inhabited or not. Similarly the absence of Susieh in British censuses is negative evidence but if it was seen as a seasonal outpost of a nearby village, or if the census was made in a season when the occupants were elsewhere, it would not have been listed.  Bedouin encampments, even large long-term ones, are not listed either. Of course we will never get such information from Regavim. Zerotalk 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. The maps you found a few days ago are proof that something was there. This is why I wrote "a permanent village" though Regavim write village b/c for them seasonal means nothing. It might be considered Original Research but it does justice and keeps it objective. I don't wish to make the case for either side but brings the narratives of both sides which is why I add Plia Albeck on Khirbet Susya which was imported to Susya later.
 * Can you participate in the RfC about spliting the articles and making Susya a redirect? Settleman (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is not allowed whatever the cause or reason. I'd be writing hundreds of edits I think correct but can't source were I to follow the logic above ('It might be considered Original Research but it does justice and keeps it objective.') The increase in our knowledge is directly proportion to an increased awareness of our ignorance, and we cannot assume to fill in the obscurities by guesses or original research. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regavim doesn't dispute the fact there were some seasonal inhibitation for some years but they call it 'there was no village'. Your claim about it being contrafactual is really silly b/c Albeck stated what she saw at a certain visit or maybe a few visits, while Regavim (based on Havakook) say it was not permenant. Albeck's testimony IMO is more important when writing about the land ownership but there is no way her testimony overweight that of Havakook who lived there for years (and got bitten by a flea in an abandoned cave in Susya, contracted 'dalam' for which the local advised him of drink his own pee. p.146) Settleman (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is good work by Settleman but unfortunately WP:OR, so can't be used directly. I agree with Zero's comments in general. I note that the current text in the article citing Regavim does not use attribution, which is one of the main sticking points in this whole discussion. I do not consider Regavim WP:RS, but there seems to be a dearth of research on this topic, so the only available sources are partisan. Just using them with attribution seems an ok compromise. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I made attribution that clearly present Regavin bias and I hope it works for everyone. Now for the 1830 claim, none of the sources directly cite where it comes from and my phone call resulted in a source that was cites wrongfully. I don't want to delete it without an agreement but I believe none of the sources that make this claim can be considered RS for historic claims without their primary source. It looks like one involved organization made the claim and everybody copied it. Zero's map finding is very interesting and convinced me there was something going on there in the 19th century but the question is, can we use it somehow?
 * Any suggestions? Settleman (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what you write, citing directly Havakook's book:
 * According to a 1985 study by Yaakov Havakook, the community was seasonal and didn't live in Khirbet Susya year-round. Families of shepherds arrived after the first rain (October–November), stayed during the grazing season and left in April end or beginning of May.(Havakook and the alike will discover, that every year, during grazing time, families of shepherds visit the caves in these ruins, with every shepherd family returning to and living in the same cave in which that family lived in the prior season. At the end of the rainy season, the shepherds abandon the caves which they used during the grazing months, and return to their village, or may visit other grazing areas.)


 * I.e. Havakook's book implicitly asserts they arrived in October-November and left in April/May, that is 5-7 months.
 * This is how Ari Briggs cites Havakook's book.
 * "Anthropologist Yaacov Havakook researched the area the 1980s when he lived there for several years. As an expert witness he stated: “The Arabs never lived permanently in these caves... the caves have been used only as temporary dwellings by shepherds for two weeks to a month a year during the grazing season.” 'Comment: The invention of the village of Susiya,' Jerusalem Post 22 July 2015".
 * Given that you translated with page numeration the precise section in Havakook, and given that Ari Briggs has asserted, on the same authority, that Havakook's 5-7 months is nothing more than 2 weeks or a month, the latter is lying. Or did you falsify the book source. There are no other alternatives. I'm I nclined to believe you got the translation right, and Ari Briggs is simply demonstrating the unreliability of Regavim for anything to do with a factual nature regarding Palestinian villages.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a good thing opinion columns aren't considered RS on wikipedia as poeple are less careful and this is indeed a stupid thing of him to write. The report they released is very detailed and supported with documents.
 * As I have stated on the noticeboard, I have no problem with both or niether being considered RS but the fact you don't like one (to say the least) and admire the other, doesn't make a difference. They are both biased.
 * Another issue is "Susya al-Qadima" and "Rujum al-Hamri" which I couldn't kind anywhere but activist materials and websites. The reason in clear as Khirba refers to seasonallity which the activists try to eliminate. Please find completely uninvolved sources to support those names (David Shulman is of course a devoted activist for Susya so he is no good). I looked for a bit and failed to find much. Regardless, it is defiantly not widely used and until a month ago the article didn't mention khirbet susya in the modern era section. Seems like someone knew exactly what they were hiding. Settleman (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Ari Briggs is the director of this 'research organization' and is not even familiar with his own outfits' work? There are any number of other conclusions one could make, that he engages in deliberate public misrepresentation: the margin of error here is enormous.
 * (2)That David Dean Shulman actively helps poor people being dispossessed of what little they have, or from being chased off their land, or that he takes time off his Indology interests, where he is acknowledged to be one of the finest scholars of our time, in order to scrabble with herders in the Hebron Hills to remove the toxic pellets spread there by settlers to poison Palestinian livestock, etc.etc.etc., does not invalidate him. To the contrary, like many other scholars at Hebrew University, he brings critical intelligence to the analysis of the area's issues, and for that reason is published by Chicago University Press and regularly by The New York Times Book Review. It's like arguing Einstein can't be cited for his views on World Peace or the Irgun, because he was a social activist and working outside of his area of competence.
 * (3)"Susya al-Qadima" and "Rujum al-Hamri". Again you insist that we avoid all use of sources that come from standard organizations, B'tselem, RHR, that have long field experience of working in this area. This is completely off-the-point. Those organizations do close interviews with most of the victims of violence, to document their stories. Regavim does not have any reputation, indeed it would be against their principles, to actually get to know the people whose histories and experiences the article documents, and suggestions that any source which accomplishes this field-work, being activist, is therefore unusable, are, by the looks of it, little more than flanking efforts to erase from the record anything coming, not from British or Israeli colonial paperwork and rules, but the natives. This is patently absurd, indeed hysterically silly. It's Keith Windschuttle recycled into the IP area. Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Settleman: "Rujm al Hamri" is what appears on old maps for the hilltop at the north-west edge of the Susya settlement. I didn't try to search for its history yet. About khirba, that article is a problem as it presents a view that goes against a vast literature which takes Khirba to mean ruin.  I can see now that it even contradicts its main source, which says that the use of khirba to mean a satellite village is a modern development and in general "a khirba can be almost anything, including a ruin". In any case it definitely does not imply seasonality in practice, even if that was the origin of the word.  There are tons of sites called Khirbet Something which were normal villages for centuries, and many were not near any village that could have originally spawned them. Zerotalk 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding (without hard evidence) is that "Susya al-Qadima" (old Susya) is the name given to the place by the villagers after being expelled from there, to distinguish it from the new location that they also called Susya. It's a pretty normal naming phenomenon and I don't see what the fuss is about. Zerotalk 01:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Zero, this makes total sense. Yet, somehow it was in and Khirbet Susya, a much more common name, was out.
 * Nishidani, I'm really not interested in your opinion about the conflict or what narratives are right or wrong. No point of keep repeating our points, we don't agree on much.
 * Your last edit attributing to Havakook the 1830s thing is horseshit. I have read on the pages Susya is mentioned on and none say it. If you try to highlight the fact b'tselem is not reliable, you have made your point. Moving regavim to the bottom is making the section fractured, going from origins and seasonality to ownership and back. I think breaking it into sections will make it more clear. It also expand on 'Israeli stance' on the issue.
 * The complexity of the situation is exactly the reason to split it off. Having the article read as "the zionist expeled them again and again" is nice but only as a blog post on Mondoweiss, not on wikipedia. Settleman (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good that people read books, and check. But when you say from reading one, that my 'last edit attributing to Havakook the 1830s thing is horseshit' you are assuming that what the source writer stated came from those pages, an assumption no editor is permitted to make. You are placing your personal judgement above those of the sources. Regavim's position, which your editing shows you follow to the word - almost proxy like - is fringe. It should not preface an argument or position, but be noted after views shared by several organizations and scholars are outlined. The problem here, as often, is that we do not know enough, sources don't tell us what we would like to know, and your attempt to prejudice our ignorance by inferential certainties is not tolerated on Wikipedia. There is no reason to split this article. No one save yourself has fussed so intensely over this for several years.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit, you cannot but know by now, is a fragrant violation of WP:OR protocols. We have a source, the Jerusalem Post, not RHR or B'tselem, making a claim about Havakook, not about the one book by that author you have read, and you assume the source is referring to that book. The writer did not mention where he found that information. Obey the rules, like the rest of us.Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I might add re seasonal that there is a remark from a contiguous, and related clan group which, while not in Susiya, mentions their lifestyle. They have the same pastoral mode as the Susiyans, and the source states:-
 * "The administration said cave dwellers were seasonal farmers who lived in the caves a few months a year when they were cultivating their land and grazing flocks, while actually maintaining houses in the neighboring town of Yatta. They were allowed into the firing zone 90 days a year and on weekends and Jewish holidays, when the army does not train, to cultivate their lands in season, an administration spokesman said. But Mr. Hamamdeh and neighbors at Al Mufaqara said they were part of a core group that lived there year-round, joined by others who arrived in the rainy farming season. Some people have relatives living in family homes in Yatta, residents said, but the houses are full and cannot accommodate the displaced who are now living in tents and empty buildings in other communities."
 * Joel Greenberg, 'Cave Dwellers Resent Evictions,' New York Times 22: February, 2000.
 * Here ther 'seasonal thesis' is stated as the view of the Civil (sic)Administration, contradicted by a local informant, who asserts they have a core/transhumant culture. This cannot be used for Susiya (and Huldra we do not appear to have an article on Al Mufaqara?). But it underlines the caution one must exercise in confusing partisan views with objective realities.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is really tiring. Havakook have one book on the area and the index shows all pages where Susya is mentioned. Move on!
 * As for the transhumant-culture, I think it should be included and I can possibly translate part of grossman book on it (But remember, they aren't Bedouins. They are attached to the main town, in this case, Yatta). I think it will enrich the reader to understand the complexity. Why haven't you done so until now? I don't try to hide info and I brought to the table Plia Albeck. You try to simplify the issue to "Zionists expel Palestinians". Settleman (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is tiring perhaps because you (a) did not understand my point, and (b) do not understand wiki policy, which forbids us to succumb to temptations to second guess sources. Example. There is a substantial literature on (a) false claims made by Palestinian political parties assuming responsibility for some 'terroristic' act or uprising (b) there are a notable number of sources saying this is done to compete for the sympathies of various constituencies (c) there is proof that the PLO was haemorhaging after the failur eof Camp David, losing many factions to Hamas and Islamic Jihad (d) many PLO reps claimed they plotted the Al Aqsa uprising. I don't know the truth, but with an historian's eyes I can perceive the possibility that several of those statements reflected attempts to claim  leadership of an uprising and win back defectors from the PLO cause. But I have no source for this legitimate and I think informed suspicion, and therefore I cannot influence the text by inserting that deduction (WP:OR) because no source I am familiar with connect the dots.  So what do I do? I add further details documenting Palestinian insiders saying the PLO planned it, though it is the official Israeli POV, and I find it techn ically problematical. One is morally and technically obliged to edit in things one does not believe or even trust, if they are impeccably sourced. You connect the dots, and it is not allowed. Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * About the name "Khirbet Susieh", it appears on Mandate-era maps, and it also appears in the 1860s book of Guerin. But other 19th century sources (I didn't try to survey carefully) and maps including the PEF map call it just Susieh. Zerotalk 09:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A slight correction to Nishidani's edit here. I agree that Settleman's edit is WP:OR and incorrect, however, it is not correct to state that "JPost said X". It is an op-ed by B'Tselem staffer, and not generally reliable for facts. I am generally leery of quoting newspapers on historical matters anyway. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. The point is, however, the Eyal Hareuveni, a researcher from B'tselem, can be cited, with attribution. on Havakook. Settleman cannot cite his personal views regarding the same writer. I concur generally that historical facts are best not cited from newspapers, but is quoting Hareuveni's impressions of reading Havakook's book a matter of asserting a historical fact? I do not think so. Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is any problem with attributing this view to B'Tselem, since they talk elsewhere about the 1830's stuff. I thought this was decided above, that we would use both sources with attribution? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw, there is a lack of clarity about number of expulsions. Shulman mentions this briefly in his article, he says 3 or 4 expulsions depending on how you count. The B'Tselem and the UN source give 3 expulsions, in 1986, 2001 and 2011. The 1990 one is not mentioned. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) For the expulsions, RHR also mentions 1990. (2) For the 1830s, it seems to be a myth going on in the activists circles. There are several sources in Hebrew mentioning that but none give a reference to a book or specific documents. I went out of my way to get the source and was handed falsification. IMO, even with attribution, when the source was checked by an editor and was found false, contradicts commonsense which is highlighted on many wikipedia policy pages. The best we can do is mention Grossman saying the tradition of migrating during part of the year in S. Hebron mountain area was documented since 1830. (Here I removed a comment about Yoram Shkolnik b/c we know his name is Yoram and reporters do mistakes. None of those source are of the highest reliability and it seems they all recycle the same number like Kumbaya). Maybe we should take it to the noticeboard. Settleman (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know my reasoning can violate OR. We can say what we want or believe in. I believe the 1830s should fall under WP:REDFLAG b/c they are (a) "apparently important claims" (b) "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Settleman (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your editing consistently violates WP:OR for the reason often indicated: you go way beyond what sources say in order to draw skeptical conclusions about their reliability and use this 'reasoning' to excise matter. No one is happy that, to date, we cannot find a comprehensive scholarly history of the Susiya area, by a scholar fluent in Arabic, English and Hebrew. But that is no reason to second guess what we have. It is true that memes circulate, but then again, most of Zionism, like any ideology (Communism, liberalism, pan-Arabism, etc), is based on memes, and not for that do we eliminate well-attested talking points on sight, unless we can get a scholarly source that disposes of the myth as deployed in a given article. Don't mention WP:REDFLAG. It is scraping the barrel for removalist pretexts, and is inappropriate to an often cited datation. You must exercise patience, as we are all obliged to do, rather than impatiently remove or challenge what neither you nor anyone else has good RS grounds to elide so far.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will mention whatever I think is reasonable. Thanks you! This is obviouslt important!
 * The link you added is dead and regardless, Taayush is not very reliable as it is extremely biased. If you can get the quote from it will be helpful. RHR is completely bogus since their source doesn't say it. Please come up with the goodies or the text will have to go. Settleman (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. There is a thing called WP:CONSENSUS. Read it. It means one doesn't just go ahead and edit, on whatever convictions one entertains re 'reasonableness'. Concretely, specify what links are dead. I am using an old file where I downloaded the texts of a very large number of articles I collected several years ago.Don't harp on 'bogus' organizations because you dislike them, with no evidence that they have a history of deception. Regavim's own research indicates over a IsraeliJewish thousand homes are built on Palestinian land, and it has yet to demand their demolition, as opposed to its incessant recourse to Israeli courts to demand the demolition of anything Palestinian built without the permit Israel's bureaucracy denies Palestinians. That translates into  'bogus' 'hypocrisy' and 'double think' whose only rationnale is racist criteria as the seminal determinant of legality.
 * I see the one you cannot read. Oren Yiftachel/Neve Gordon. I've provided a link to enable it to be accessed. The article is mentioned in several books.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * About Khirba, I believe sometimes the name stuck from the time it was seasonal. It is like Kfar Saba in Israel or Green Village etc'. Havakook also writes about Khirbah being only seasonal but then he writes Khirbat at-Tuwani is permanent. Settleman (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR again.Settleman
'only during grazing season for an unknown period of time,' This is unacceptable.
 * Only is not neutral.
 * The source you introduced (Havakook) is specific about the period of time he attributes to their transhumant presence, and hence it is 'known'. You seem to be trying, furthermore to reconcile the Ari Briggs' a few weeks, with Havakook's several months.
 * It is a generalization for which we have a source for the period 1977-1982, not before that, and cannot be attached to a statement about Susiya Palestinian herder/farmers whose presence, according to some sources, goes back to the 1830s.
 * The lead cannot contradict, as your edit did, the relevant section where Havakook's views are set forth.
 * For these reasons, and the fact that it is ungrammatical, the sentence is unacceptable, and WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are a big boy. Make a constructive suggestion!
 * I believe it is pretty clear the unknown period of time refers to the years while seasonal refers to the the period within the year. HAvakook lived there for certain years but he writes generally about what they were doing. You Ta'ayush source about 19th century is also OR. It doesn't specify the period about Susya. It is basically exactly what Grossman wrote in his book, a general history of the region. It is easy to see how activists got it wrong. Settleman (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite WP:OR, since the article is quite explicit that the areas affected by the expulsions, which include Susiya, are all characterized by the one cave-dwelling lifestyle. I have adjusted. What you overlooked is the quote in Italian which confirms what now many sources say, re the 1830s, not least Oren Yiftachel/Neve Gordon. It runs:-
 * "'In the 1830s the poorest families of southern Hebron villages left their lands and bought plots of land up to 20 kilometres away on the outskirts. The families lived in the numerous large caves that were already present there, and drew their livelihood from the fields and grazing areas (now corresponding to the extreme southern zone of rthe West Bank) Successive genberations developed a lifestyle based on dry-land farming, in a terrain that is arid, with little rainfall, and on pastoral production."
 * Of course I would appreciate wider input on this.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit about 1830.
 * Except for strong POV, I can't see how an article which states 'we were rejected by Haaretz' is RS while Regavim or Arutz 7 (which I saw in history was rejected at sight) are not. The article is packed with those HR organizations. I'm not interested in getting into the argument here since we done plenty already and aparently RSN is already full of it. Is there another noticeboard for this? Something which is more mediation so it is not about number of editors or whoever is more stubborn. Settleman (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do we see by now? We have had several arguably valid refs removed (B'tselem, RHR etc.) referring to the 1830s, out of a consistent finicky dislike for those organizations, though they are RS. The thesis of Susiyans dwelling there earlier than 1986 is maintained by a fringe settler 'NGO', and no one else. Your argument is, if the fringe group cannot be cited on a historical thesis, neither can more mainstream groups. People went half way with you on this, and better sources were sought. My concern was meme reproduction, the possibility that good sources might simply copy one another to assert something lying there unchecked. The map evidence, just added, notes that several maps in scholarly works from the mid-nineteenth depict Susiya as a village; Nadia Abu Zahra, 'IDs and Territory: Control for Resource Expropriation,' in Deborah Cowen and Emil Gilbert (eds.),War, citizenship, territory , Routledge, 2008, pp-303-326, p.322 is already there as a book source for that period. Oren Yiftachel and Neve Gordon, the former a published expert on things like this since his discipline is that of political geography, contextually identify Susiya as one of many sites cave-dwellers inhabited from the mid-nineteenth century. Does the fact that the Yiftachel/Gordon piece was rejected by Haaretz constitute a judgement on its factual content or its politics? It appears to have been commissioned in February (26) and then found unacceptable for the paper's editorial line. This happens quite often,(with Richard Silverstein for example, a good investigative reporter with  many scoops to his credit). My view is that a newspaper's rejection of  what two scholars with a deep knowledge of a subject write for them does not constitute evidence that their expertise is challenged, as much as a disagreement with their views. What Yiftachel writes or underwrites on his own area of political geography is RS - the editorial board at Haaretz is in no position to judge the factual aspect of an expert's presentation.


 * The piece from Operazione Colomba which is a world-wide group active in social justice, and which has had a constant presence in this area, might be dismissed as being like B'tselem and RHR, but for the fact that its report indicates independent knowledge, for alone of the sources it asserts new historical material, by providing, probably on evidence from oral narratives, an origin for the cave-dwellers, as descending from a migration of the poorest in Southern Hebron hills to the (abandoned) periphery where they acquired the land and worked it from this period. Textually, that cannot have been copied from RHR or B'tselem, and thus constitutes an independent corroboration for what we find in maps.


 * In short, we have Regavim's thesis, which you identify with, and several sources, each of which might be vigorously challenged on various technical grounds, but which, in terms of their authorship and venue, together constitute fair evidence that Regavim's unique ideological dismissal goes no way towards addressing the complexity of accrued evidence summoned by these sources. Lastly, Regavim, to repeat, has a deep ideological investment in denying Palestinian residence in Palestinian lands. This is a wildly fringe thesis, equivalent to flatearth theories, because no reputable scholarship over a century has ever found any merit in such a profoundly contrafactual claim. It is WP:Fringe, and just one voice, against many sources which are not normatively regarded as making wild claims.  Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, if your tactic is to drawn you opposition with text, you are doing a great job. I specifically asked to not reopen this again. Labeling Regavim as 'fringe' and the rest as RS is POVPUSH and nothing else especially after I got RHR source which they distort. Is there another body on wikipedia that deals with these matters or not? Settleman (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The RSN discussion concluded that Regavim can be used with attribution, and Zero's additional note that it should be qualified as a 'settler organization ' (interested party) should be taken on board. That is a generous compromise, given that it is a fringe organization noted for its distortion of facts (Bedouin in the Negev) etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't a "tactic". You are dissatisfied and I replied to that discontent. That Regavim is fringe is obvious. Any movement that refuses to accept any historical fact other than the ones that suit its known agenda, and any movement which calls a population that has an attested presence in a country for millennia "squatters", lives in an Orwellian universe of distortions. None of this deliberate Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word,.. it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.") twisting of the received meaning of words is practiced by the scholars cited, or the organizations adduced. To put them on a hermeneutic par with a group espousing ethnic cleansing is, frankly, obtuse, morally and cognitively. The POVPUSH being practiced somewhat artfully here is to reproduce for Wikipedia the premise adopted by Regavim itself, i.e. to mirror the language of human rights groups while systematically inverting the natural meaning of terms. It is a rhetorical tactic that, analogically, is identical to someone putting Newspeak on a par with the texts that go down the memory hole because, though their contents are diametrically opposed, they are both written in English. I won't convince you of the obvious, but this is the kind of objection you will face in trying to put Regavim on a par with Human Rights groups, especially rabbinical ones that consider Judaism a humanistic religion, not a cover for reproducing the lethal logic of the Book of Joshua. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming Regavim is HR org. I'm claiming it is more accurate than most of the sources you brought. Every claim they make is supported by sources. They do ignore some facts but so do your sources. They don't speak about the ownership issue and they don't claim shepherds didn't use the caves on a seasonal basis. They do claim a village named Khirbet Susya never existed. Whether you call a seasonal community - village, is a definition that is not absolute. Now, is there another noticeboard to turn to? Settleman (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the sources Regavim never mentions, the yawning gap in their selective use of evidence, which is problematical. I gave you an example, Ari Briggs reducing to 2 weeks or a month what his own source Havakook said was 5-7 months. Claiming that 'Khirbet Susya' never existed at sight proves that they falsify known facts: Plia Albeck in 1982 determines that

"'The [ancient] synagogue is located in an area that is known as the lands of Khirbet Susya, and around an Arab village between the ancient ruins,"
 * and this authoritative testimony, there for 30 years, that between the ruins of the synagogue Khirbet Susya village exists, is denied by Regavim which continues to assert a documentable lie. They have never, to my knowledge, answered the detailed analysis by RHR showing their manipulation of statistics regarding Bedouin claims in the Negev. The blatantly assert in their documents the Bedouin are not native to the Negev when Zionist official records document their indigenous presence in detail, and historians document their presence there, in 3 waves, beginning  in the 7th century (Aref Abu Rabia, 'Displacement, Forced Settlement and Conservation,' in Dawn Chatty,Marcus Colchester (eds.) Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement, and Sustainable Development, Berghahn Books 2002 pp.202ff.).  This is just a small sample of the travesties of deliberate suppressio veri and misrepresentation chargeable to their account.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same speech again and again doesn't make you right, just obnoxious. RHR falsified Grossman and all other 'HR orgs' happily repeated the lie. Settleman (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Tampering with source language
Settleman this edit again is WP:OR. The IMEMC source says 'multiple' and you overwrite this as 'two' because you apparently infer that this must refer to the Jabur and Nawaj'ah clans' Ottoman-era tabus mentioned in the article. Until you have ethnographic evidence there is no way you can infer what the arrangements, intermarriage, land transactions are between these large Nawaj'ah and Jabur clans and other families among the 25 noted in 1986 such as the Balal, the Shiniran, the Shreiteh, the Abu Malesh, the Mur, the  Hushiya, the Abu Sabha,  the Halis (though they are now domiciled in Yatta) and the Misif families, to note just a few by way of example. So drop the guesswork, and stick to source language.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source also names two families (as does Haaretz) so two is more accurate then multiple.
 * While at it, putting the quote about the 'bible' is OR because you " combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". No doubt you are an artist. Settleman (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please slowly reread what I wrote. Parse it carefully, and then consult WP:OR for you haven't understood it. On both counts you fail to understand policy. Haaretz mentions the Jabur family's Ottoman document: Moshe Meiri then said examining it he found it covered land owned both by the Jabur and the Nawaj'ah. How Meiri included the Nawaj'ah here is not clear. Worse, he ruled that the orders against the Jabur (not the Nawaj'ah) were to be revoked on those grounds. Worse still, Ravid and Levinson then write:'Sussia residents claim ownership over the lands on which their village sits and have already presented deeds dating to the Ottoman period that cover an area of 3,000 dunams (741 acres).' They do not write '2 families'. One can make all sorts of deductions or inferences here, as I outlined, since Sussia residents is generic, and does not specify or limit the claim to 2 families, and, as I noted, what the title inheritance arrangements are between families there is totally obscure to us. So you were engaged in WP:OR, and going way beyond what we are allowed to do on wikipedia.
 * Tabu is mentioned in multiple sources on the land dispute in Susya. Nir Hasson's article is on Susya, and mentions both tabu and a settler's response. The article, dealing with both Palestinian claims and Jewish settler claims in the one area, rightly requires due weight to be given to the latter's viewpoint, hitherto lacking, and this is one piece of evidence. In it he mentions a local Jewish settler's dismissal of tabu documents. There is no conclusion drawn. It is the settler who responds to the issue by identifying the Bible as the Jewish tabu for taking over land. Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a gift of complicating a simple argument. We can write Jabor and Nawaje instead. Settleman (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove section as I expanded on it above. the way you created the sentence linking it to the 'bible statement is complete OR. Also, if this quote is not good enough, a random settler isn't either. Settleman (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR which your successive answers show you are incapable of understanding. Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

falsification of source
This edit added the info 'without compensation roughly 60 families'. When the link was finally fixed, it apparently speaks of "55 nuclear families, who have been living in this location for decades". (Only 28 in area C so even relevant. but that can be oversight). So 55 is current number and there no mention of compensation. Settleman (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about?
 * This edit added the info 'without compensation roughly 60 families'. This is your diff.
 * Click on the source and you read:
 * 'Susiya:At Imminent Risk of Forced Displacement,' OCHA March 2012. In 1986, the main residential area of the community was declared an archaeological site by the Israeli authorities and approximately 60 families were forcibly displaced, without any compensation according to residents.']
 * If OCHA2012 has been subsequently changed to the updated version OCHA2015, which drops the phrase 'without any compensation', this does not alter the validity of the 2012 entry. The error, if any, was in not adding 'according to residents'. That has to be added, since the non-compensation issue is what local informants mention (Nasser Nawaja, ‘Israel, Don’t Level My Village,' New York Times 25 July, 2015.) There has been no falsification of sources: the OCHA2012 document is as valid as the one replacing it.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I keep on getting 404 error message. Settleman (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * here is a copy which indeed states what you said. I retract my claim. Don't expect me to do your job for you. Settleman (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New edit
The narrative flow has been broken up by complete disregard for an orderly chronological development of the history of Khirbet Susiya. One cannot, for example, write of Havakook's thesis, and then jump to 1986 in the next paragraph. This is obvious. At the moment I'm forced to make a silly edit interleaving these arbitrary splotches with the data of the new influx from 1948. It doesn't make sense unless everything follows the same cogent rule of chronological discipline. All this will have to be rearranged in accordance with the logical exposition of the historical data. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding info about the Nawajas arriving (only) in 1948 though I saw it somewhere at 1952. Before we had nothing in between, did we? Settleman (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Incompetence
"A master plan was not approved and building permit were not given to Khirbet Susya because there was no sufficient proof of ownership as the documents lack geographic information and based on them, it was 'not possible to make unambiguous claims of ownership over the land in question'. The Jabor family supports a claim to land near Susya with Ottoman documents dated back to 1881 and the Nawaja family, who is originally from the Tel Arad area and moved to Susya in 1952,[84] has documents as well. Their documents are problematic since the boundaries mentioned were described in terms of geography features which are hard to identify in the field." This is a total travesty (apart from the stylistic and grammatical ineptness) of the source, rewriting it not-neutrally to recast POVs as facts, and asserting that the Ottoman documents are problematic when Moshe Meiri disposed of that by identifying the features. Are is regavim's viewpoint one assumes, but textually the source said he identified the features, and thus the verb 'to be (are)' must go into the past tense or historic present. It is as if Meiri's work does not change the Regavim 'facts'. Total mess.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked for a way to introduce the reader to the importance of land ownership and in light on the latest information, it plays for the Palestinians (and you) but not for Regavim. In my opinion I have made justice to the source. You show in a problem with specific words which I don't see as a huge issue. The Nawaja's don't have documents from 1881 so I couldn't place them in one sentence with the Jabors. The 1952 source is RS which give reference of time which is completely neutral. I have done my best to create an introduction paragraph to the matter and right now this article is closely watched by a few editors so it would be fine-tuned quickly. After your 'bible sentence' compiled of 3 different sources, I'm not sure if you are the right editor to criticize others. Settleman (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I.e. you have a persona view of what editing amounts to, which proceeds independently of what mastery of policy demands of the rest of us. You are arrogating to yourself liberties of free reinterpretation that other rule-compliant editors cannot exercise, making for an improper advantage. Your 'answers do not address the point made I.e.you talk past or over any objections others raise. The tabu material you removed was perfectly consonant with the rules an your inability to see that shows you still cannot grasp WP:R. It will be restored. Editors who consistently refuse to comply with policy burn up their credibility and end up with a very short wiki life. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have time right now to assess all the edits going on on this page, but the paragraph flagged is simply a violation of WP:OR. Israel almost never gives permits in Area C to build, or create master plans, with various reasons given. Is
 * Can someone translate the Al-Monitor article? It is in Hebrew. Google translate does an ok job, but I can't figure out whether the paragraph in the article is based on it or not. Does the article add anything new, which is not present in any English source? I do not have time to get into this matter now, but hopefully soon. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I didn't add the source. I hope this solve this. Settleman (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR infraction again
Regarding this, Does Havakook on p.25 mention this as the origin of Susya? I ask because it is what you get in Joel Greenberg, but I didn’t add that source because it does not mention Susya in that context. The argument that WP:RS dissallows taking two separate passages separated by 60 pages from the same book to synthesize an argument, as apparently you did here, was made some years ago (and the page distance was 3) here where the relevant argument is as follows. "Now, there is no doubt that the quote backs up the material; but where is the direct connection to Antisemitism in the New Testament, the topic of the article? The person inserting insists that the book in question does indeed mention antisemitism; not, however, on page 18, where this quote is from, but in 'n.16 p.228.' That's a pretty long distance away. Are these two insertions, in fact, Original Research?" A majority of editors maintained that this was a violation of WP:NOR. By that logic, you also violate the policy unless Susya is listed on the first cited page p.25. By this reasoning, you are combining 2 sections of a book, p.25 and p.85 to write the history of Susya when only one section p.85 mentions it. Clarify please.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The technical issue is that p.25 per Havakook suggests Susya was populated from Dura and Yatta, whereas the Colomba source says that the Susya inhabitants in the pre-1830s went as far as 20 kilometres, the periphery of the Hebron area they ostensibly hailed from. That conflicts with the Yatta thesis, because Yatta is 3 kilometres from Susiya.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is background about the begining of settlements in the area in Ottoman era. The area includes Susya and the map before the chapter has Susya in it.. It is very relevant and informative even if you don't like it. You write about the uniqueness of the place but refuse to give readers the facts. Settleman (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer the point. Does Havakook on p.25ff.in the context you paraphrase, instance Susiya as an example of the satellites of Yatta? Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't page 25 but pages 25 to 31. Susya is on the map proceeding the chapter and mentioned on a comment from page 28 appearing in comment section p.34 where Havakook specify Susya as seasonal. Background, is background. I know your prefer you RHR RS which distort the academic sources but if you take this out, there is nothing dating susya back to 19th century. I tried to take more from Grossman but he brushes through it and not very useful. Settleman (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't have time to go into this, but please read Verifiability. Non-English sources should be translated if requested, and one should make sure what exactly is quoted where. It is not easy to check what exactly is being used from Havakook to write this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian, I read Verifiability. Am I expected to translate 7 pages of text? Some paragraphs are summarized in a short sentence or even a few words. Havakook and Grossman are the only books (I know of so far) who wrote about the subject and their 'quality' surpasses by far any activist sources which are the main source of this article (and falsify them). I'm sure there are editors who can read Hebrew and confirm.
 * (Note: I do not support Regavim, the destruction of Susya or giving it permits. I'm questioning all sides. All I want is for this article (and others) to be neutral. I have brought Plia Albeck to the table which is a pro-Palestinian evidence and didn't oppose Zero using primary sources in a neutral way which support Palestinian claims. Who knows how many of those questionable sources wrote 1830 based on wikipedia where is has been sitting unquoted for years.) Settleman (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to justify one's presence here. Anyone, with any personal POV can edit without prejudice, as long as the rules are followed. I have a personal interest in this page for 2 reasons: I wrote the detailed history of the synagogue, which is perhaps as detailed as one gets on wiki. No objections. I then started to mention the Palestinian story, and the page has been under endless attack from that moment. Most nations like to cleanse their own history, and present a pretty picture. Here you get a pretty picture (the synagogue) and its aftermath in the tragic consequences its presence has created for the people who probably own the land it is situated on. In modern historical writing, such interwoven realities are, as distinct from nationalist histories, preferred, for their comprehensiveness and steely regard for the whole picture. My prejudice is in favour of showing all sides to what is essentially one long history. I have no sympathy for those who prefer to create comfort zones where half of reality is ignored or suppressed. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are not expected to translate everything. You should just translate the relevant portion which is being used to support the text in the article. This is what I understood Nishidani's objection to be. The basic idea is being able to check whatever is being written against the source. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants specifics, I can address that. The problem was the chapter might not be about Susya at all and as I said, Susya appears in the map and a note and the whole chapter is about South Mount Hebron where Susya is located.
 * Nishidani, your contribution about the old synagogue is great. No one can take it from you. The issue starts when you cramp info that belongs in different articles into one. There are no more 'interwoven realities' between settlement Susya and Khirbat Susya than with Itamar and surrounding villages. Why should it be different? because they share the name? And what continuous history? There is no source that supports people living there continuously but quite the opposite, that people started again to live the area in early 19th century. The edit history shows the article was started about the settlement and the rest was added later with resistance so obviously it is controversial. I understand the fight for who gets the prime 'real estate' of Susya which is why I proposed ambiguous redirect page. Settleman (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are virtually the only person who, after 7 years, has expressed dissatisfaction that the article includes all three realities on the same terrain. The analogies fail because Susiya's ruins formed part of a Palestinian hamlet. I see you admit that technically, you synthesized two distinct sections of Havakkuk. I personally am not worried by that content, but by the fact that it is, technically, as far as I understand, frowned on to conflate two distinct narratives from one book unless the link is made in the separate sections by the author. This Havakkuk may have implied, but unless you show otherwise, it does not appear to be, on your testimony explicit, and such inferences are usually disallowed.
 * What is it exactly that bothers you? What two narratives?? It is one chapter and then just the survey with specific numbers from another page. Settleman (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The elephant in the room
Both the archaeological reports and modern accounts indicate there was a mosque among the ruins. Since the population is Muslim and is said to have lived among the ruins, one would expect that the mosque retained, even if ruined, part of its historic function. Some sources I prefer not to use (Allison Deger( say the mosque was dismantled in 1986 to bring out the synagogue. This is worth pursuit, though it will be a long one, given the poverty of sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the elephant is hiding behind a needle but I just can't see it. There is a gap of several 100s of years between the Muslim community of the early previous millennium and the current Palestinians who live there. The synagogue is the mosque and in this recent event at Van Leer Jerusalem Institute a settler who gives tours of the site say he speaks about it with visitors. The synagogue/mosque was excavated recently so maybe we settle on 'the elephant is buried in the room'. Settleman (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about contemporary practices, not some presumed continuity between Muslims of 1000 C.E. and those that dwell there. Susiyans are Muslim, the site where they lived had a mosque with Arabic inscriptions, and it is natural to wonder whether that mosque played any role in the Susiyans life before they were expelled from the site. Be it noted that Susiyans are reportedly not allowed back to visit the mosque, even  if they pony up the visitors' fee. I.e. they are denied access to what is part of their cultural history.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I see any source that writes on the matter, I will bring it. Meanwhile, it might be useful to break section into two to highlight this fact. For the facts about entrance, it should be mentioned but here is where having one article is counterproductive b/c we need another section in modern history section. Here is what I suggested to finish the archeological site separete article which could be extend by this info
 * In Khirbet Susya, a Palestinian community of shepherds had lived in caves in and around the site during grazing time[45] until 1986, when the site was declared an archaeological site by Israel Civil Administration, and the Israeli army expelled the inhabitants.[46] A religious Israeli settlement, Susya, was established nearby in 1983.
 * I think it was balanced but only a 1st draft. Settleman (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'During grazing time' is still unsourced as a generalization for the period implied (1830s-1986): you are combining multiple sources. The statement must reflect the known period early 19th century to 1986, and one cannot for numerous reasons use Havakook's 1977s-81 observations to generalize retroactively for the long historical period that preceded this. Many things happened. I can't help but repeat what others also have said: you write in Wikipedia by transcribing data from successive soureces without combining data from separate sources (WP:SYNTH), which is the temptation you are succumbing to. I can't see any malice: to the contrary. But you do not grasp adequately the severe limitations under which idiots like myself are obliged to work if their contributions are to stick.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Havakook is an academic and his research is more extensive than everybody else. The wrote "Shulman is trained in scholarly methods of evaluating evidence..." but Havakook isn't? Why? B/c you don't like it? He doesn't put a period on it so neither should we. You conflict his words with either 'interpretation' of his own work by an activist in an editorial or RHR who falsify Grossman. This in absurd. I am removing the material and invite you to take it RSN. Settleman (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. You admit it is a conjecture from Havakkuk. Havakkuk's credentials are like those of Shulman (who has however longer experience of the area and, I expect, is familiar with Havakkuk's work). I've absolutely no objection to Havakkuk's work - as you can see I haven't removed it. Your private telephone calls to unidentified people in RHR re Grossman are not grounds for acting to remove what is a technically valid POV. The only other time someone tried this was when Jaakobou used to phone Kiryat Arba in 2007 to 'confirm' some vague report. It was not accepted then and isn't now. Your edits this morning are 'stupid'. Hasson has no more authority than RHR, and 'decades' is a choice from one of many sources that range from centuries to weeks (Ari Briggs). You are meddling to assert a POV where sources are in conflict, and therefore the edits will have to be reverted, as selective POV profiling.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * B'tselem activist is not a RS to tweak Havakook words. Not when Havakook is available to us. Not that I regard Shulman as an authority on the matter but has a reputation to protect so if he say Susya was there from 1830, you might have a case. But some random B'telem dude is not RS when academic sources contradict him. Take it to RSN.
 * None of the activist sources used here are RS for historical facts. My phone call revealed an actual RS which doesn't support their claim. Your story about Kiryat Arba is irrelevant. Find the actual RS which supports the 1830 myth and then we can keep this conversation. 1830 sat on the susya page for years unquoted and who knows how many of them just use wikipedia as their source. Settleman (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about According to Ari Briggs writing in the Jerusalem Post, Havakook also states they were there for only two weeks a year. Maybe Havakook say it somewhere else, no? I won't be able to keep straight face arguing that for very long b/c it is obviously absurd. It is almost the same as Eyal Hareuveni. Settleman (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yaakov Havakook is not wp:rs. See below. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Zahra. Good work
Settleman, this was good work. I was absolutely certain that I had asked for this ref to be checked, because I added it years ago, and found several days ago I couldn't revisit the exact page. Now that you have enabled us to access it, it turns out to not back the text which it has been used to substantiate. How this happened is beyond my recall but, whatever, I cannot find the section I can remember writing to request it be checked, so I must presume I failed to make the edit stick. You don't have to believe this. But the consequence is that the source must be removed from the text it putatively supported. On the other hand, what it does say is that (relying on two kibbutznik activists apparently) Susiya was ‘a village of permanent cave homes’. (Ehud Krinis and Erella Dunayevsky, ‘Transportation of school children from Susia to Tweni,’ 2006) Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like in the past it was used to support other claims.
 * Your comment about the kibbutzniks make me wonder if we understand each other. It is very clear to me by now Susya is permanent village (leaving the legal issues aside). The question is when it became that way. Havakook is very clear about the fact it wasn't permanent between 1977-1984 and with his description of the way the region evolved it seems like it was never before (this is my conjectures).
 * Now, can I ask you to reward me for it by inserting Havakook in the lead. You didn't like my wording and simply deleted it. Please take a shot at it and I will see if I agree. Settleman (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that I simply don't know most of what I either would like to know, or intuit might be the case, with regard to these places, whereas, I believe, you approach this as a passionate student of the issue who makes inferences from good sources that are interesting, but incomplete. On Wikipedia, many articles take years to get into some semblance of comprehensives, and one learns to wait. For example, after 1967 many Israeli archaeologists made preliminary investigations of the site, and then began several excavations. Being archaeologists, not ethnographers, they were interested in the past, not the present. Did they make notes, or refer to the situation? I don't know. We know that when the place was fenced off, Susiyans tried to get back under the fence to retrieve goods from their sites, homes in ruins etc., which implies some sort of sense of fixed use. What arrangements or decisions were made over the decade 1967-1977 regarding those people who had permanent or transitory use of the site, if any? Excavations are carried out in the summer period, when many Susiyans are in the farther slopes and hills predominantly, which does not mean they weren't in the contiguous caves. Any reader asks himself these questions, and finds no response. A wikipedian cannot infer from silence what might have been the case before Havakkuk's observations. My family's oral memories go back 2 2 and a half centuries, and oral memories among these populations are very strong, but appear not to have yet been the object of collection and analysis. Until that is done systematically, with the right questions asked, all this history will be obscure, and we cannot fill in the gaps by inferences or guesses from stray remarks even in good sources. It may well be that your inference is correct, but unless sources state explicitly what one is tempted to infer one cannot write it. It's frustrating, but the rule is basic to Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As to the specific request, I'm not the dominus here, with some unilateral right to determine what can and cannot be done, and things particularly in leads should reflect talk page consensus. Havakkuk probably shouldn't go into the lead for the simply reason that WP:LEDE, leads summarize the details in the main body of the article and should be lapidary. Details, esp. controversial ones or individual research perspectives, are kept for the appropriate section. Let's see what others think.Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The seasonality of the village is an important part of the current legal battle. You can't just bury it b/c you don't like it. Academic research is usually done with far less then 1st hand experience. Havakook uses both previous literature and his own experience. You contradict that with pimply activists who misrepresent his work and have the guts to call them RS. Settleman (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'pimply activists'. This translates as indicating you should not be editing this or related articles.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Look in the mirror brother -  the assumption that a non-existent God was a real-estate tycoon dispensing favours to non-historical figures like Moses and Joseph whose fairy6 tales. Settleman (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another 19th century reference
Charles William Meredith van de Velde published several editions of a very detailed map of Palestine in the mid-19th century. I have the editions of 1858 and 1865. Both show "Susieh". I've known that for months, but I only just realised that these maps use a different symbol for a village and a ruin. Villages are shown as solid circles and ruins as dotted circles. Ruins also have the notation "r." on them. There are many ruins shown in the Hebron hills region, but Susieh is shown as a village in both editions. You can view the 1858 map here. The legend is in Section 3 and Susieh is in Section 7. A summary of van de Velde's sources is in Section 1. It might be worth looking at the writings of the people mentioned there. Zerotalk 09:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

An 1850 map that also apparently shows Susieh as a village in distinction to a ruin is here. I have to say "apparently" as I can't find the legend to verify that the dark and light circles mean what they appear to mean. Zerotalk 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This 1859 map also shows it as a village rather than a ruin. (You need the Mr Sid version to see it properly.) I'm restricting my search to maps made by people claiming to have used their own observations in addition to those of others. Of course they don't indicate exactly which places they observed, but I want to exclude the many map makers who sat in London or Berlin and copied from other peoples' maps. Zerotalk 10:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is fascinating! I would look deeper into it.
 * I looked at the Palestine Exploration Fund map referenced on different Arab villages in the area (here) and if I read it correctly, the red color symbolize inhibited places and doesn't exist in Susya. Settleman (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The map legend (not at that site?) does not say what the red color means, but I always took it as indicating a living village. There are errors though and it is good to consult the text. In this case there is no mention of a population.  Thinking aloud: if the population was seasonal, what visitors saw would depend on the season. Zerotalk 11:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. But there is a strict resistance of including the seasonality. Settleman (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't access Zero's evidence, and it looks of a complexity that I'd only trust him to synthesize and edit in neutrally. I've no objection to 'seasonality'. It's attested. I objected to statements saying they have been 'seasonal' since 1830. Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit on Regavim (NGO) made it clear that you won't recognize neutral even if it stared you in the face. Putting opposing criticism in the first sentence is exactly what I got to expect from you. Settleman (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a look at your edit at Regavim. Examine the farcical text, a hilarious mockery of NPOV.
 * "Regavim (רגבים) is an Israeli NGO dedicated to ensuring the legal, responsible, and environmentally friendly use of land.Regavim monitors and reports on illegal construction,[2] and prosecuted cases of illegal construction through the judicial system"
 * That was a completely fraudulent statement and you found nothing objectionable. Regavim, as everyone knows and numerous reports clarify, run by people who live in outposts that are unauthorized or illegal, and it specializes in petitioning to destroy any Palestinian building that shows the same chutzpah Regavim people display, i.e. building illegally or petitioning Israeli courts not to demolish illegal Israeli construction in the West Bank. The page was a whitewash, and now, edited per sources, you see what Regavim claims to be, and what its critics claim it actually does. Two sides.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I simply added a few lines somewhere else. What is your problem? Settleman (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishdani, please do not fling about accusations ("completely fraudulent statement") when in fact an editor was using the self-description  found on this NGOs web site, it is neutral, carefully parsed wording.  This is, after all, an organization that has as its core mission such activities as filing lawsuits over illegal Arab construction on park lands and in forest reserves, and illegal Arab grazing of flocks in nature reserves.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to participate in here once, because I feel it is key to point out that, above, where EMG agrees with the statement, it's "self-description", and when he doesn't elsewhere, it's "a bio so rich in personal detail and laudatory that it cold only have been written by someone very close to the subject"? MSJapan (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:MSJAPAN is WP:HOUNDING me, I regret that a user's misbehavior has interrupted this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not, because I'm not mindlessly tracking all your contribs and trolling you. I have clearly indicated via links that you have strenuously removed content in another article for exactly the same reason that you are fighting to keep it here. The inconsistent position is a problem, because in both cases, the position you are taking suits your purposes, not those of the encyclopedia.  The fact that you have taken an inconsistent position with respect to such material does indeed directly affect this discussion, and I regret that you merely see it as "misbehavior."  MSJapan (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

, You mentioned the maps are based on personal observations so I finally looked at Velde's journal and apparently he skipped Susya. Took me awhile to figure out the brownish-red line is his path, and as you can see, it doesn't go through Susya. I'm adding a reference to it and would like to hear your opinion. Settleman (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that de Velde visited Susya. I said that the map derives from his own observations as well as those of others (some of them listed on the map). I don't know how Susya got to be shown on the map as it was, only that it was. That's why I wrote in the article that it was shown as a village and I didn't write that it was a village. If you want to insert something that casts doubt on the map, you'll need a source that casts doubt on it. Zerotalk 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you have and I didn't change the text. Just wondered if you have anything to say since you seem to be knowledgeable in the area. Settleman (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mondweiss and Youtube video useless to state facts
the usual IP problem:edit summary 'Anonymous Youtube video and opinion article in Mondoweiss are unreliable sources to state facts'.

Well one might question Allison Deger's article, which says Susiyans trying to buy tickets to enter the site were rebuffed. The problem is that the Youtube piece is a documentary filming Nawaj'ah père et fils, the latter in the Susiya ticket office, talking in Hebrew as he purchases tickets, walking over the site, as the father points out underground the cave where they were born and where they lived prior to the 1886 expulsion. Of course this may be all made up. But the documentary substantiates the Deger point, in that a military armoured vehicle appears, a soldier challenges them, and the father is seen walking out, as behind him the armoured vehicle keeps behind them,the engine roaring periodically when the old man slows down, stopping when he stops to rest, and then stopping when he finally gets to the outside of the village. If Deger refers to this some details are wrong: the visual documentary, professionally done by known cineastes, leaves little room for doubt that the Nawaj'ahs bought tickets and were, after a brief walk, accompanied out of the village. I can see absolutely no basis for challenging the documentary's removal because it is on Youtube. It is professional, and gives the reader a far more concrete visual sense of the area we are reading contradictory and often confusing descriptions about.?Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You might have forgot but numerous sources say the Nawaj'ah arrive to Susya from Arad after 1948. Settleman (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This comment has nothing to do with what I wrote. Try to be more focused on the talk page than your edits on the article, which are completely indifferent to the problem of cogent and coherent narrative flow. Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your 1886 instead of 1986 confused me. Sorry. Settleman (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's another, not IP, problem :)
 * See my "Nishidani, you managed to surprise me..." below. --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Maps
I propose to add a sentence: "A number of maps in the mid-19th century showed Susieh as a village" with citation to a few such maps. This is a plain report of sources without interpretation. Any objections or suggestions? Zerotalk 10:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me -- straightforward use of primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You gave the details above, but the edit looks complex enough, without oddbods like myself, who can't independently check what you have at your elbow. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is OR but I believe it can show the complexity. I would add others which don't which will highlight the seasonality and be neutral. Settleman (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not OR to report what a source says without interpreting it. I don't see a map as different from a text in that respect, though in the past more than one opinion has been expressed on that in the meta-pages. Zerotalk 21:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm adding map from British mandate era as well as censuses. No interpretation of course. If someone can find the 1917 map RHR refers to it should be added. I'll try to call them again. Settleman (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

1922, 1931, 1945 data
Presently the article has a sentence (unique on Wikipedia):

"1922 census of Palestine,[70] 1931 census of Palestine[71] and 1945 census of Palestine[72] do not mention Susya."

I propose we take this sentence out.


 * Firstly, it is simply not usual to mention that a place is *not* mentioned in a source (The above sentence could be entered into each and every Israeli settlement on the West Bank, for absurdity.)
 * Secondly, there are a lot of places which were mentioned in those censuses, which have not been identified (And I know: I have probably added more data from those 3 censuses to Wikipedia than any other editor.) Especially in the Hebron region: they went by their tribal name, and not the name of the place. (And in the 1945 data the tribal data are cut out altogether; they were simply not counted.) In the Jordanian 1961 census only places with more than 100 people were counted.
 * Thirdly, this area were semi-nomadic, they have a long tradition for taking their herds elsewhere when they heard that that tax-collectors, or census-collectors or military conscriptions were approaching; typically over the Jordan. (See e.g. Bani Na'im)


 * (Btw, it is interesting comparing Guerin and Socin (where Guerin is an explorer, not working for the Ottoman empire, while Socin published an official Ottoman list.) Guerins numbers are so much larger than Socin when it comes to the number of inhabitants at a place, look at :


 * Kudna: Guerin: 500, Socin: 40x2=80 (The Ottoman only counted the males, so you have to double the numbers)
 * Idhna: Guerin: almost 500, Socin: 108x2=216
 * Artas, Bethlehem: Guerin: ~300, Socin: 60x2=120
 * The numbers were collected within a decade, and there is no reason to believe that Guerin inflated numbers.)

Again; I propose we take the above mentioned sentence out: there is simply too much uncertainty, and it does not add any knowledge about Susya. Huldra (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the sources do not say that Susya is not mentioned, then those sources are not pertinent for saying that Susya is not mentioned. Doing so would be WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I should of course have mentioned WP:OR; I tried to get whoever put that into the article  to understand, how, well, useless that "info" is.  Huldra (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you point. Settleman (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yaakov Havakook
This man fails to comply with WP:RS. He is not a scholar nor a journalist but just got a MSc. At best he is a primary source for alledgely living in caves at Susya in the West Bank but given what he published (a book denouncing the terror of Islam - not Islamism...) and a book published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence, he is "hard" to define by other words than "an activist".

Who among the specialists and scholars on the topic (history of Arab settlements in Judea during Ottoman Empire area quote him) ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a new one :)


 * 1) You completely mistranslated the book name and it is "Terror by the name of Islam, Profile of the Hamas Movement". Considering Hamas Covenant at the time, I see no issues with it.
 * 2) Show me the policy where his credentials and publications aren't enough.
 * 3) Activist??? His book is used by B'tselem to prove at-Tuwani was a permanent village and thus be legalized. The book is over 200 pages and the sides reference a few paragraphs.
 * 4) His book is mentioned by the UN and B'tselem among others.
 * 5) The book about Hamas is part of the syllabus at Hebrew U, Bar-Ilan University, Beit Berl and a booklet by Haifa University (p.40).
 * Settleman (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, there is not a single specialist on the topic who quotes him.
 * That means he cannot be considered as WP:RS per WP:RS. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is his education? And from what University? The (thin) article does not say, Huldra (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huldra, I added a list of his degrees.
 * Pluto, his book was published by a major publication. If you unsatisfied, take it to RSN. Settleman (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No need. He is not wp:rs. I will delete any reference to him when not appropriate. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (or someone else who can read Hebrew) Can you translate the relevant portion where the UN source quotes Havakook? The B'Tselem source simply says that Israeli govt. relied on his research as part of their case, and says that even by this source, some of the villages are permanent communities. It does not endorse the research by Havakook in any way. Also, it is not talking about Ottoman-era status of the villages. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The paper isn't about Susya but Tuwani area (same as the B'tselem report you mentioned weeks ago). The text (pg.3) reads "Most harmed communities existed in the area before 1967" then comment 3 (pg.10) says "See for example Yaakov Havakook "life in Mt. Hebron caves". I hope this helps. Settleman (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In my opinion, Havakook can generally be used with attribution for the period of 1970s/80s when he conducted his research. Many people cite him for this, for instance the NYT and B'Tselem. I don't exactly know what he says, if anything, about the earlier Ottoman time period, so I can't say in general. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother pointing out academic books to the other editor for obvious reasons. Google books show him on some books by Mankind Quarterly, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum and Commission on Nomadic Peoples. Other spelling of his name will probably result in some more hits. Settleman (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Military body
This is a wrong revert. Read the article and you won't find anywhere it ways it is 'military body. You obviously confuse it with 'military law'. Please self revert. Settleman (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In English a civil administration does not imply a military-run organization, and the phrase, though standard, is a misnomer. To gloss the link, or add an explanation that this is not a civil society institution but an extension of a military government is quite unexceptional.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is not run by the military but by the ministry of defense thus it is wrong. Also, if Shulman shouldn't be mention as Ta'ayush activist where it is highly relevant (his book was originally called "Dark Hope: Journal of a Ta'ayush Activist") because it is in the article, it is true for this as well (and for Regavim on Susya article). Settleman (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Israeli civil administration is indeed a military body. See for instance, here ("the civil administration, the Israeli euphemism for military administration"), here. The matter is discussed in more detail here. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article before posting this? All your sources show is that you too confuse this with 'military law'. The lead says Israeli Defense Ministry's Civil Administration which is both accurate and make this repetition. Please delete. Settleman (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The civil administration is a military body that takes care of the civlian affairs in the occupied territories.
 * That's normal given else Israel would have to annex these territories to apply her own civil admnistration.
 * There's nothing bad with that. This is what Geneva Convention requires.
 * (By the way, the details of the 'chain of command' are given in the second source provided by Kingsindian.)
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is wikipedia a textbook for 3rd graders? It is not a military body. The military of Israel is the IDF and the civil administration isn't part of it. Why this takes so much time?
 * And why mention it again if it is already in the lead? Settleman (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neve Gordon, Israel's Occupation, University of California Press, 2008, p.107 disagrees with you.
 * Do you have sources showing he may be wrong ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going to state the obvious again. Regardless, it is extended in the lead so shouldn't be repeated or else we'll have David Shulman as activist whenever we reference him and same for the other orgs.Settleman (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The civil administration answers to the Defense Ministry, so technically it is not a military body. However its authority derives from a military order, and the local IDF commander retains a higher authority for creating legislation.  So a lot of the work of the civil administration consists of enforcing military orders. The ambiguity between civil and military affairs is an intentional part of the design. Zerotalk 10:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. This makes 'military body' inaccurate and duplicate of Israeli Defense Ministry's Civil Administration from lead. Settleman (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is already discussed in the last source I gave, which Pluto discussed in his comment as well. I quote from the Neve Gordon source: All the civil branches ... did not have to respond to military commanders. In reality however, the Civil Administration was subordinate to the military and GSS. This was true not only in the matter of appointments, but also in the matter relating to licenses and permits...Legislative powers to set policies continued to be held by the military. As Thomas Friedman says, accurately for once, it is just an euphemism for military administration. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Civil Administration sits under COGAT which sits under Minister of Defense. Is that the best way to describe it in a few word? It is inaccurate and non-NPOV. I suggest 'ministry of defense body'. Settleman (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That description adds nothing of any value. What is the reader expected to know about COGAT? NPOV is to reflect what reliable sources write on the topic. And they say that the Civil Administration is really an euphemism for military administration. Here is another source which says precisely this. I know of no source which contradicts this. There is nothing violating NPOV about describing a situation as it is. Perhaps one can phrase it as in the last source: "formally separated from the military, but subordinate to it", or something like that. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't argue it is completely incorrect (see Zero's comment). The sources are good and should probably be included in Civil Administration article. In fact, the guy who heads it is an army officer and there are many correlations. But the fact remains, the CA doesn't answer to the army (did not have to respond to military commanders) and is not part of it. If someone thinks Israeli built the system this way for a reason, well - maybe. A short description suppose to educate the reader and not plant some inaccurate info in his head, therefore should be as accurate as it come. If you can look me straight in the (virtual) eyes and say "this is the best I can come up with" for the description, I will just give up. Not agree, but give up. Settleman (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the exact phrasing "military body" is not important. The main thing to be made clear is that it is part of the military administration, and is linked to and subordinate to the military and GSS. I have provisionally added the qualifier I proposed to the lead and removed it from the body. Feel to discuss changes/revert etc. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Mondoweiss?
Mondoweiss is more akin to a personal blog than a news site, and doesn't seem to exhibit that much editorial control per http://mondoweiss.net/about-mondoweiss. -- Avi (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, some background on the edit-warring over this reference. This reference was deleted twice by socks of, one of whose main aims on wikipedia is to delete references to Mondoweiss on sight, even for totally uncontroversial material, which can easily be corroborated elsewhere. The basic tactic is to ensure that such information would then be unsourced, and then someone else would simply delete it. You are of course not responsible for the actions of the sock, and indeed socks make legitimate edits sometimes, but I'm just letting you know.


 * Now, to the specific case here. As WP:BIASED says, reliability is always in context. Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. There is nothing really controversial or disputed here. The fact that Israel declared this part a National Heritage site in 2010 is not controversial, it is even linked there. The remaining part is simply a short statement (Palestinians in 2010 who bought tickets to archaelogical site were denied entry). This is just direct testimony from Palestinians, and is about such a minor matter, that you are not going to find any WP:RS discussing this specifically. There is no reason at all to doubt such testimony, it is even consistent with past history, since nobody at all doubts the initial expulsion which took place in 1986 was when Israel declared the original Palestinian village an archaelogical site. If you wish I can add some attribution, "according to Palestinians interviewed by Mondoweiss", or some such thing. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Note I didn't change any text, assuming that the first reference is sufficient. Is the first reference sufficient on its own? If not, maybe some attribution is helpful, or perhaps better yet, a note inside a comment tag adjoining the reference, which would only be visible upon editing, to clarify what is special about this instance which allows the use of Mondoweiss as opposed to other places. Does that sound reasonable to you (and Huldra and everyone else?) -- Avi (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2015 :::(UTC)
 * The text on Mondoweiss which everybody agree should be used carefully is "Palestinians from Susiya have tried to purchase an admission ticket to now archeological Susya a handful of times. They say they have been denied entry each time." Then we have an example that it is not true. So instead of throwing it out, we add an exception. WHY??? The part about the armored truck is also OR. Settleman (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Philip Weiss seems to be notorious and his collaborators too (if this is right : ). But he describes himself as anti-Zionist.
 * I think :
 * no-controversial stuffs do not need to be attribuded;
 * controversial stuffs should be attributed if there are clues or arguments (even 1st sources) that could make doubt of his reports;
 * his analysis and opinions should be attributed.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Avi. We have extensive sources for Jewish/Israeli points of view, far more than for the P of I/P. Some of them, like the Algemeiner and several others, look rather pointy, but I don't challenge them, except of course if the specific article is obviously questionable. As to Mondoweiss, I've asked RSN twice about using it with attribution recently, for specific contexts. Unfortunately the usual line-up on each side (some socks) disenchanted external advice, but on each occasion, one independent editor or so would say that it can be used in context, depending on the quality of the article and its editor. The same holds for +972 magazine (Mairav Zonszein is published by the New York Times, most of the contributors have worked on desks at Haaretz and Jerusalem Post etc.,) As Kingsindian noted, the idea that there is an absolute veto, and that editors who (caught out twice in my memory) never examined the article they removed from that source, but see 'Mondoweiss' or '+972' and revert, is peculiar. I certainly don't think once should consider them automatically RS but in borderline areas, a courtesy note on the page discussing the article and editor, and crosschecking to see if the claim is exceptional, or merely one of those things underreported by the mainstream, but not in itself improbable, is what is required. At Skunk sometime back a now banned editor challenged the idea that that liquid was only used against Palestinians in the West Bank. He came up with an article in Hebrew in a non-RS source that had a photo that confirmed that Haredis had been at least once, in Israel (West Jerusalem) sprayed with it. So, I re-edited that source back in. It looked, whatever RS rigourism might say, a fair  documentation of a fact otherwise difficult to establish in mainstream sources. Commonsense should be the rule.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No arguments that common sense should be the rule, but that is often difficult in contentious areas. I am not averse to having these explanations for sources—which in general are not considered RS, but allowed in specific instances—regardless of provenance. My concern is that the next step is that Ali Abunimah or Meir Ettinger are considered reliable, unbiased sources for the general I/P conflict. If the consensus for now is that this is a far fetched concern, so be it. As long as we remain vigilant in upholding our policies and guidelines, in both spirit and letter. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Avi. I don't think we quite have consensus. All I suggest to editors is to look at the article, examine it to verify or challenge the utility of the information, and then discuss it, in these cases. All sources on both sides are, in my view, biased, or selective. It is advisable to use multiple sources, not just the first that turns up and, with these borderline sites, use them rarely, with talkpage discussion, when one cannot find mainstream sources for information that otherwise looks useful. I don't use most of the Pro-Palestinian sources I read, but at the same time, I expect less automatic reverting, and more querying on talk pages, as we have had here. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, you like policy so I dug some. The way I read WP:NOYT the video can be at most primary thus you truck comment is OR. It contradicts mondoweis which is so-so RS and I believe it is more then enough to dismiss it. The source reads "Palestinians from Susiya have tried to purchase an admission ticket to now archeological Susya a handful of times. They say they have been denied entry each time." and you brought an example that contradicts it. Here you removed material because of it. What is the difference? Settleman (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Palestinians Susyans have reportedly been turned back from visiting the archaeological site, even after trying to purchase admission tickets. One visit, with purchased tickets, featuring Muhammad Nawaj'ah and his son Nasser, had then accompanied from the park by an IDF armoured truck"
 * You have Allison Deger referring to Palestinians being turned back. You have a documentary of an identified Palestinian buying the tickets to the site, walking with his father round Susya's ruins, and a military truck/vehicle turning up, a soldier examining them, telling them not to talk to him, and the father then walking out of the site, with that vehicle driving behind him, stopping when he stopped, revving the engine regularly when he stopped or slowed down. I didn't write 'forced them out'. I said the 'truck' accompanied them. If 'truck' is the problem, then 'vehicle' can be used. Unless one does not wish to accept the evidence of one's own eyes, the video corroborates the report that a Palestinian buying tickets was turned back. Note that I say 'reportedly'. WP:NOYT has nothing to do with this: WP:OR neither, since I simply sum up the contents of two sources of information in two sentences. As I say, if 'truck' is not to your liking one can write 'vehicle'. It is a vehicle, isn't it? They are Israeli soldiers, aren't they? The vehicle does 'accompany' them (no mention of constraint) out of the park doesn't it? It does stop at the entrance as they move further away doesn't it? This is commonsense. And the only objection to using the video to independently gloss Deger's remark is that provides visual evidence for what she noted, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. By all means change 'truck' to 'vehicle'.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case. the original IP  edit summary removing the video was inproper.
 * the usual IP problem:edit summary 'Anonymous Youtube video and opinion article in Mondoweiss are unreliable sources to state facts'.
 * Gesher Multicultural Film Fund is devoted to healing rifts in Israeli society. It produces preofessional work on all sides.
 * That it cannot be dismissed as some ‘anonymous’ or partisan organization seems obvious from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s favourable comments on the work they do.
 * The soldier on the video says at 8:24 minutes into it, ‘I didn’t come to argue, just to say you are not allowed here,’ after which father and son move off, clearly accompanied by a military vehicle that follows them to the exit, stopping when the father does and moving when he does. That is direct visually and audially registered information from a reputable Israeli Fund documentary of the reliability of Allison Deger's remark.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOYT has nothing to do with this(YouTube video) - Are you serious? Can someone else please note on this? Settleman (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally avoid using YouTube as sources. WP:NOYT states that Youtube should not generally be used because people can manipulate the videos. However, videos from official youtube channels can be used. This does not seem to be the case here - it is uploaded by a random user. However, I also do not see any signs of manipulation in the video, which seems rather straightforward to me. (I am of course not an expert in detecting manipulation). If we assume that the documentary was made by a reputable organization, I do not see why it can't be used, just as a supporting reference, for (it seems to me) a rather minor point. There is also the matter of copyright: I don't know the status here. One of the makers of the video, Yoav Gross, is part of B'Tselem's camera team. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Settleman, WP:NOYT says generally, meaning there is no outright ban on youtube material. It sets conditions. In 9 years this is the first time I've used youtube. I did so because I happened on the video and found it filmed precisely the situation reported by Deger, and because the organization that produced it is highly regarded. There is, content wise, absolutely not a shadow of a doubt that what Deger says happened is clearly shown in that video. Only the ideologically purblind deny the evidence of their senses. The only issue is copyright, however note that it has all the appearances of being uploaded by yoav gross, one of its producers. If a producer puts his own material on youtube, I would not expect this to be a copyright violation. In any case, why not contact yoavxxx? or Dani Rosenberg? Kingsindian?Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please serve as a third opinion? - Does Nishidani's commentary about the video constitute of OR based on WP:NOYT? (1) I don't believe there are copyright issues though I'm not familiar with the rules. (2) How can it filmed precisely the situation reported where she says they are not allowed in and the movie shows them inside the site??? There is the interaction with the soldiers but the end of it, is edited out. (3) The part with the truck, I believe, is already outside of the archaeological park (note the stone wall) and thus is irrelevant. (4) I initially didn't oppose the part b/c I can see Palestinians being limited in entering the park the same way they are limited from entering settlements. But in truth, the source is bad (who on earth is Allison Deger??? another activist who published only on activists media.) and your OR make it worse. Settleman (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Allison Deger is a Mondoweiss assistant editor. As mentioned above, this is not technically WP:RS because Mondoweiss is not WP:RS automatically, like the NYT is. I generally find this whole matter to be minor, I only reverted the sock on this (per WP:BLOCKED), which I do on principle, except if the edit is unambiguously useful. Can we write the following, just dropping this "truck" business altogether? "According to Palestinians Susyans interviewed by Mondoweiss, they been turned back from visiting the archaeological site, even after trying to purchase admission tickets." I generally find the claim to be minor and not particularly controversial, so I don't know what the trouble is about. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as said, Mondoweiss is borderline. There I found the statement:-
 * "Palestinians from Susiya have tried to purchase an admission ticket to now archeological Susya a handful of times. They say they have been denied entry each time."
 * It struck me as worthy of note, people being denied access to Susya though born there. So I looked around and found the video, which is not some vagrant piece of activist propaganda, but a documentary financed by a major Israel NGO, and directed by well-known Israeli people. It corroborates what Deger said, visually and verbally. So, Deger is not using idle hearsay, but reporting something which is not only confirmed independently, but can be examined to assess the veracity of her statement. The video therefore lends credibility to the Mondoweiss source.
 * Nothing you say, Settleman, makes sense except as carping at my wording, rather than examining the two pieces of reportage serenely.
 * The video is in conflict with Deger's report in that she says they have been denied entry on each occasion. The video gives vivid direct visual evidence that on one occasion, Muhammad Nawaj'ah and his son Nasser managed to purchase tickets, visited the site, and were explicitly told during the visit by representatives of the IDF they were not allowed there.The vehicle accompanied them to the exit.  To state as Settleman does,
 * "(3) The part with the truck, I believe, is already outside of the archaeological park (note the stone wall) and thus is irrelevant."
 * is contrafactual. The video shows the vehicle arriving with the synagogue in view, before they are accompanied to the exit.
 * The film introduces itself by telling of the expulsion and that Muhammad Nawaj’ah and his son Nasser have not entered the village since that day. The film is dated 2010.
 * 1)The son buys tickets, and is recognized as a Susyan by the settler in the ticket shop.
 * 2) At 4:23 they tour the synagogue which is covered with a roof.
 * 3) At 5:06 you see the synagogue t behind the father as he enters their family home.
 * 4) As they enter the family cave at 5:55 a military vehicle appears.
 * 5) At 8:10 the soldiers are waiting for them as they emerge from the cave
 * 6) At 8:24 the soldiers says: ‘I didn’t come to argue, just to say you are not allowed here.’
 * Scepticism is unwarranted. Deger's report, and the video complement each other, and both were used because, despite differences, it is evident that Susyans have either been denied entry after trying to purchase tickets (Deger) or, on one occasion, purchased tickets, and were told halfway through their visit that: 'you are not allowed here' by a soldier. To lop off the video is to impoverish Deger's report, and possibly mislead the reader. To keep both out is to cancel a native Susyan Palestinian reality, enriched by the father's own brief narratives of their life before 1986. I have no problem with textual modifications that manage to correct Deger
 * Tweaking Kingsindian's suggestion suggests to me something like
 * "'Susyan Palestinians interviewed by Mondoweiss state they been turned back from visiting the archaeological site, even after trying to buy admission tickets. A video documents one such attempt to visit the site after tickets had been successfully purchased, when two Susyans were told by an IDF soldier they were not allowed there.'(Mondoweiss +video link)"
 * Readers can draw their own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a first step. As for the rest, like I wrote, it probably have some truth to it, so I am not gonna fight it thought the source, like you said, is not really RS. I just find it amazing that editors who embrace this kind of source with both hands will fight Arutz 7 with the same passion. There is nothing neutral about it! Settleman (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote the previous one then it contradicted with Nishidani's edit. I'm not skeptic about the facts but rather about the commentary on the movie. The video can stay as WP:CONVENIENCE link but anything else is against policy. Settleman (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no 'commentary on the movie'. It notifies the reader, for the reasons given, that one can judge the reliability of a borderline source (Deger) by examining a documentary funded by an Israeli NGO that is not regarded as partisan, and made by very competent Israeli cineastes. As to editing with a 'passion', I think I/P editing is a 'melancholy science', and both adjective and noun do not add up to 'passion'. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipdeia is not a notification service. How about you time stamp the video at whatever time you wish so if the reader is interested enough, s/he will see the relevant part. You are bloating info from sources Kingsindian agreed are not exactly up to the RS standard. Enough! Settleman (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The questions that you arise here have been answered on the noticeboard:
 * A7 is not wp:rs given its advocay purposes because to be reliable an information from there should be crossed with a more reliable source and therefore it is wiser to use that latest. But this doesn't prevent a "reknown journalist" who would edit on A7 to be quoted for an analysis but not for his reliability, just for his notoriaty. In any case, he wuold not be reliable, even if what he says is true.
 * Mondoweiss is a source of information without agenda but with a bias and a strong opinion. It is maintained by two journalists with notoriaty and reknown. The fall in the category of wp:rs with the necessity to attribute when what they reports is controversial (eg if another source would state the contrary).
 * As soon as we try to attribute reliability proportionnaly to notoriary and reknown, everything becomes much more simple. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can call it "advocay" or "mouthpiece" all you want. It is a large news org. Saying Mondoweiss does not have an agenda does not worth a response. Settleman (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have provided the source that explained why it is an advocacy and neo-zionist group.
 * If it hurts you and prevent you to edit a constructive way on wikipedia, eg because you would be a settler and because this newspaper reports what you have deep in your conviction, you may be unable to contribute to a collaborative project of developing a free encyclopaedia and should maybe find another hobby.
 * If you think Mondoweiss has an agenda, explain us why, based on sources, reknown, reputation or clear mistakes or false reports from them coming from sources with a higher standard. That's easy too (or primary sources in which they denounce themselves.) If the only argument is that they are on the left, like Ha'aretz, we cannot anything for you.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence is the right place to bring it up instead of senselessly repeat what was written in countless discussions. Settleman (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat : if you think Mondoweiss has an agenda, explain us why, based on sources, reknown, reputation or clear mistakes or false reports from them coming from sources with a higher standard.
 * If you don't answer this question, I think we should not try to discuss with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I will not go into too much into agendas and so forth - it is useless: people do not change their political opinions based on internet debates with strangers. But people can still write WP together. The basic point here, I reiterate, is that this is a rather minor detail in a much larger story. If Mondoweiss had made some big claim, like Israel killed someone, say, I would of course not use it without corroboration. Here, there is a simple testimony by Palestinians, about a rather minor matter. I just apply common sense here. A7 is typically used on WP to document some sensationalist claim about Palestinians. This is the same reason, for example, why the Daily Mail usually is not preferrred on WP: it is a trashy sensationalist tabloid, though it sometimes does good work. See the RSN discussion here, which is typical for the Daily Mail. I do not rule out Daily Mail totally, similarly, A7 can be used for minor claims in its area of focus, like internal settler matters. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sensible (I also was thinking actually of the Daily Mail's pallywood spin on the Nabi Salem incident, soldier and boy). It is getting to be a funnel for stuff it does not independently control. Deger interviewed in depth that same family. Though I won't use that interview, it shows area competence and field work vs. office editorial POV spinning, and yet Mondoweiss is probably generally regarded as less reliable.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mondoweiss and +972 are blogs and as such are not acceptable references for facts of any sort, although the independently notable bloggers on each site can be used as a source for their own statements of opinion. The difference between Mondoweiss, +972 and a highly political, opinionated publication like the Guardian or The National Review is that the latter exercise editorial control over their news pages (columnists are different) but you can cite a fact to an article (not to a column) in The Guardian and you cannot cite a fact (such as: Palestinians who tried to purchase tickets were turned away) to Mondoweiss. period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the criticism section on both those blogs. Nothing else should be said. Settleman (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)