Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian settlement


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If one discounts the "per X" opinion by Tomwsulcer, there are only two editors who support keeping the article. Although they make valid arguments about media usage of the term, they fail to convince the substantial majority on the "delete" side, who also make valid arguments according to which the sources do not establish the concept in the way the article presents it, which makes the article OR by synthesis. In response to a concern raised in the discussion, there is no basis in policy for taking any particular holidays into account when closing the discussion.  Sandstein  08:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian settlement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a term of common use, a bad attempt at equivalency. The article seems to be in response to Israeli settlement, but that is a topic well-covered by reliable sources, whereas this is not. A search on "Palestinian settlement" does get a large number of hits, but nearly all are about an "Israeli-Palestinian settlement", not supposedly illegally built localities in the West Bank. Nableezy 16:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy  16:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy  16:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as obviously invented by the article's creator. Failing that, delete and salt. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete what an absurdity; the only "Palestinian settlement"  "of note" was  the tent-camp Bab al-Shams...which existed for the whole of two days...... and has its own article, (with the same material added to multiple articles on Wikipedia). Sigh. Huldra (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis and soapboxing. Compare Palestinian law, which I created, or even Legal status of the State of Palestine, with this disaster. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. So, I read the article, and this discussion, and I admit that although there is an enormous amount of illegal (without building permits) Arab construction in the Palestinian territories and in Israel proper, I had not seen this term used.  But there's this great thing called google that lets you check assertions, including the assertion that the only settlement described in these terms is  Bab al-Shams, or the assertion that this term is "invented" by article creator.
 * A $1 billion bet on peace: Qatar funds huge Palestinian settlement in West Bank, NBC News
 * "Mockingly referred to by some as ″the first Palestinian settlement," Rawabi is...   Qantara.de,
 * "For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the.."Jerusalem Post opinion column by Caroline Glick
 * Building the first 'Palestinian settlement' BBC . "Some have called Rawabi the first 'Palestinian settlement'." (add quotation form article).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rawabi has made Masri a controversial figure. The city has been widely described by Palestinians and Israelis alike as a Palestinian settlement, because of its Israeli-style architecture. Masri responds that he has taken steps to avoid settlement associations. There will be no red roofs, for example." The Forward This article, in an American Jewish left -wing, anti-settlement newspaper,  describes Rawabi as a site purchased and funded by a highly political Palestinian-American  businessman, and casts the construction of Rawabi as a deliberate inversion of the Israeli settlement paradigm in which American businessmen purchase land and fund Israeli settlements.
 * This article in The Daily Telegraph also describes Rawabi as a Palesitnian settlement responding to Israeli settlements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Vice (magazine): Bab al-Shams: The Short Life of a Palestinian Settlement describes Bab al-Shams in much the way the articles cited above describe Rawabi: as a "Palestinian settlement" established as a political response to the construction of Israeli "settlements".E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Haaretz cites Israelis advocating removal of what they describe as "an illegal Palestinian settlement" in the Kidron Valley, .E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My searches found the term in use to describe a number of other instances of politically motivated Palestinian construction: "organizing haphazard Palestinian settlement across the territory... built without Israeli permission and contravene international law..." Aid or political meddling? Israel, EU spar over Palestinian buildings,, Times of Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Among the more interesting of these for our purposes this one, Fatah and Hamas laud activists for E1 tent village, "Fatah on Saturday called on its members to head to the hill (Bab a-Shams) and fight 'the monster and the cancer that devour Palestinian land through settlements' (by building a tent encampment)... PA dailies lauded the first Palestinian settlement drive as..."   In other words, in 2013 Palestinian settlements were being actively promoted by the Palestinian Authority.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Summing up: My searches make it clear that "Palestinian settlement" is in fact a term in the increasingly wide use by mainstream media to describe the political phenomenon of pro-Palestinian activists and funders responding to Israel settlements of disputed legality with Palestinian settlements of disputed legality.  The wide circulation and mainstream use of this term, and its notability as a phenomenon, ought not to be in dispute - because the sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You should read your sources. The first NBC article never once calls a Palestinian locality a settlement outside of the title. An opinion column by Caroline Glick is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of Caroline Glick. The Telegraph peace never once describes any Palestinian locality as a settlement. Bab al-Shams has been covered by Huldra and has an article. The Times of Israel attributes the idea that Palestinians are building settlements to Regavim (NGO), a pro-settler group that is not a reliable source. In sum, none of your articles support your claim. Not a single one.  nableezy  - 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to refrain from making sweeping accusations that are false. (See direct quotations above, in linked articles).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to actually read what you cite. I made no sweeping accusaitons [sic] that are false, I actually went through each article. Try doing that once in a while instead of googling "Palestinian settlement".  nableezy  - 16:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I urge editors to read the articles I cite; where I put "quotation marks" it is because I am quoting material that is in these articles.   The phrase is in use by major news agencies (replace with media: the phrase is in use by major news media).  The fact that you dislike Caroline Glick does not alter the fact that she is a notable figure in the IP conversation; her use of this term is therefore significant.  WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not in use by major news agencies, and you shouldnt mislead people like that. When an opinion writer says something its not a news article, sorry to tell you. When a news article quotes Regavim as calling something a Palestinian settlement, that is the news agency attributing that phrase to Regavim. We dont base our articles on fascist NGOs or op-eds sorry to say.  nableezy  - 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa. fascist?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG calls for reliable sources, while these certainly include headlines and use in the BBC and by NBC News, notability is not restricted to "major news agencies," an assertion I view as a form of WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Try reading the articles and not simply the headlines. Nowhere in either article does it call anything a Palestinian settlement. Once again, actually read wha you cite. And um, you are the one that claimed that the phrase is in use by major news agencies. I was responding to that blatantly false assertion.  nableezy  - 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I wrote of the "increasingly wide use by mainstream media." Not of "major new agencies, which worul refer more narrowly to Reuters, AP, AFP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ, your words are right here on this page. I have no idea why bs about what is still on this page. You wrote: The phrase is in use by major news agencies, which is not true.  nableezy  - 18:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of us find your language highly offensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And thats a response to your repeated false statements about what you wrote how?  nableezy  - 20:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see. I did what I perceive you as doing: typing while angry.  I knew that that is not the sort of assertion that I would have made,  I see now that I did write that, a case of typing while angry; a just anger caused by your failure to read the sources I provided - or to carry out a careful search before flinging accusations at me. It was not in my original comments.  I have now corrected it.  I do correct errors of both judgment and of fact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I havent failed to read the sources, you apparently however have. Keep your "perceptions" to yourself.  nableezy  - 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Laugh at myself, for apologizing. Articles are sourced to both the BBC, which operates both as a broadcaster and as a news agency, and to Agence France-Presse.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an Israeli diplomat writing in 2009 in the National Review, this is WP:RS for the use and notability of this term. "Recently announced plans for a new, upscale Palestinian settlement in the West Bank are impressive. The projected town, some six miles north of Ramallah, will one day house some 40,000 people, making it the same size as the Israeli settlement towns of Beitar and Modiin. The settlement is named Rawabi, and Qatar is a primary investor...." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Palestinian side of the political spectrum we have Palestine Monitor "its critics call it a 'Palestinian settlement' and say..." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an academic discussion of "the leftist critique of Rawabi as a 'Palestinian settlement' that is ubiquitous in the cafés and bars of Ramallah." Reimagining resilience; Urbanization and identity in Ramallah and Rawabi, Arpan Roy, City Journal Vol. 20, issue 3; July 2016  .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rawabi is a 'Palestinian settlement' currently under construction at a cost nearing US$1 billion. It is located..." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "A model of Rawabi, a proposed Palestinian settlement on the West Bank ..." The Daily Telegraph .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "This is a Palestinian settlement, not a city." Arutz Sheva .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Foreign Policy: "Some even describe it derisively as a "Palestinian settlement,..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: There's already an article for Rawabi, so most of the above links are useless; anyway they do not have anything to do with the subject of the article. "Settlements" in English can simply refer to a place where people live. Rawabi is simply a planned city in the West Bank - there's nothing really special about it. "Israeli settlement", on the other hand, is typically used for a specific kind of settlement, namely on occupied territories. This page is simply a not-too-subtle attempt at false equivalence with Israeli settlement. Some of the links above can potentially be used on the Rawabi page. There are some people who derisively call Rawabi a "Palestinian settlement" but that's simply a criticism connecting the two concepts and not a literal description. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because reading the article or the sources above shows that the term has been applied to a number of settlements built by and for Palestinian settlement, including, but not limited to, Bab al-Shams, and sources above describe these settlements and failed attempts to build settlements as a political response by Palestinian activists to the Israeli settlement movement. In other words, the use of this term in RS goes well beyond Rawabi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources do not do that. You take a single mention of a "settlement" from a caption in an article that repeatedly calls it a "suburb" and never once in the prose of the article says anything about a Palestinian "settlement". I really do not understand why bluster when anybody can check the links and see you are not being honest about their contents.  nableezy  - 18:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bab al-Shams stuff has nothing in common with Rawabi. The former was a temporary tent encampment, which lasted all of two days. The latter is a big planned city. The fact that you're Googling "Palestinian settlement" which returns results for two totally unrelated things is an indication of the uselessness of this page. Rawabi is not a "resistance village" set up by activists - its sponsors include Qatar and was promoted by Tony Blair. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Rawabi has in common with the several "resistance villages," beyond the shared label "Palestinian settlement," is reliably sourced goal of building new settlements as a direct, political response to the the building of Israeli settlements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 articles linked below from a guy at the University of Oslo say it does. Kingsindian, Nableezy, you need to run some searches, because there is a lot out there - much of it from anti-Israel activists and academics, some from Palestinian sources,  but you won't find it unless you look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting pro-Palestinian source (now added to article) describing these Palestinian settlements as resistance villages. "The resistance villages are a kind of Palestinian 'settlement' on Palestinian land occupied by Israel. Activists arrive in an area of the West Bank controlled by Israel and set up a tent camp and then start renovating the area and building simple infrastructure, such as paths,, latrines and sheds. They also set up a village council and assert their right to do this because the land is recognized to be Palestinian according to international law and UN resolutions. These villages are a way of asserting ownership of the land. The first one, Bab al-Shams, the Gate of the Sun, was established in an area east of Jerusalem that is slated for extensive illegal Israeli settlement building. The initiative was widely covered in the media and very popular, since it meant taking the initiative away from the Israeli state and turning the practice of settlements against them. Bab al-Shams in turn inspired four similar initiatives across the West Bank, including Ein Hijleh village outside Jericho in January–February 2014, where the activists managed to stay on the land for one week before they were forcibly evicted by the Israeli military. In all of these initiatives, political and ideological differences were put aside in order to concentrate on the common enemy.  Several young Fatah activists participated in the planning and execution of both Bab al-Shams and Ein Hijleh. Important features of these villages are...."  (scroll down to section subhead: Renewed Non-violent Activism)  British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A detailed look at the Bab al-Shams settlement here .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, please read what you cite. The only time it says anything about a Palestinian settlement is:"The independent youth are certainly well attuned to the culture around them. Their activism is simple, concrete and popular among Palestinians. One example is the recent ”settlements,” like Bab al-Shams, that establish Palestinian ”facts on the ground”. Another is the ”Open Shuhada Street” campaign, run by the Youth Against Settlements group, which each year gathers thousands of demonstrators to protest against the permanent closure of Shuhada Street in central Hebron as a result of the presence of Israeli settlers in the center of the city."Notice how it has "settlement" in quotes? Compare to when it discusses Israeli settlements:"On January 11, 2013, a group of about 200 Palestinian activists, most of them youths in their 20s and 30s, erected tents on a piece of land between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Maale Adummim."Notice how there are not any quotes around "settlement" there?  nableezy  - 20:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly I saw that; I cited it with precision. The use of quotations marks in this manner is a familiar style in academic articles.  It does not negate the fact that this young scholar discusses the phenomenon of Palestinian settlements in detail in two longish articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesnt actually, it uses the term once, and through quotes shows this is not a typical way of discussing the topic. Quotes are used to say this is not my word by the author.  nableezy  - 20:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In your nomination, you assert that "this is not" "well-covered by reliable sources," a not implausible nomination rationale.  Now you are arguing that... what, precisely are you arguing?  I have brought academic article that discuss this phenomenon in detail, and so many sources from RS media that I had actually begun to think that over sourcing would make this discussion so long that it would be off-putting to editors coming to the page, although, certainly, there are more RS I have not yet brought.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Youve done no such thing, the academic article does not in any way discuss this phenomenon in detail, please dont distort things. It is quite off-putting.  nableezy  - 21:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "The academic article"? As though I had brought only 1 article? There are are in fact 2 articles by Høigilt alone, both with substantive consideration of this phenomenon are 2 articles.   In addition to an interesting parsing of the concept by Arpan Roy in City Journal and a the detailed consideration in Foreign Policy all linked above.  That's quite a lot of scholarly consideration for a relatively new phenomenon.  I hope that editors will look at these, in addition to the numerous articles in the daily press linked above, to which I would like ot add an intelligent, reported article in the Daily Mail (yes, I know it prints lots of nude women - British papers do that) here:   Now I suggest that we both back off, and allow time for other editors to look at the sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Except they dont do that. The Foreign Policy article says that opponents to a specific localaity call it a Palestinian settlement. That is not in any way a detailed consideration of the supposed topic of this article. You cant take a throw-away mention or an article quoting somebody as something being a settlement and pretend that this is a "detailed consideration". That is quite dishonest.  nableezy  - 22:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your perspective. I read it too, it goes into great detail detail about the construction of a new city that, switching out "Israeli" for "Palestinian" could describe any of the larger Israeli settlements, right down to the internecine politics: "Fellow Palestinians have denounced it as a pet project of the Israelis and Americans. Some even describe it derisively as a 'Palestinian settlement'..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing editor. I now see that this article has been here since January 2103, but was only brought to AFD on the first day of Rosh Hashanah.  I wish to point out that many Israeli and Jewish editors do not log in for 48 hours over Rosh Hashanah, and that many will be too busy to log in between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which comes exactly 7 days later.  This is, in other words, probably the precise period when editors likely to do the work necessary to source and improve this page, editors with the local knowledge useful to assessing notability, and editors with the ability to search and bring Hebrew sources are least likely to be editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete discussion etiquette is to create one subsection for yourself and add your comments there. On this page you have created at least 10. Kindly desist. Zerotalk 23:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please give a policy based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I will vote for deletion? Actually the only thing that keeps me from voting to keep the article is your attempt to turn it into something that is not useful by adding irrelevant topics like Rawabi. Zerotalk 00:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete in its current form. There is in fact a phenomenon that could be the subject of a useful article, but it would not be called "Palestinian settlement" (an entirely phoney attempt at parallel with "Israeli settlement") and it won't include localities like Rawabi that are 100% different in size, in support, and legality under Palestinian, Israeli and international law. Some of the sources in the article, such as Høigilt's paper, could be used to create a small but useful article on the topic of Palestinian protest outposts, but this isn't it. Zerotalk 00:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Article has been revised to describe the dual usage of this term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no case for an article on uses of the term. Actually the appearance of the term is the worst thing about the existing article and the first thing that should disappear if a proper article is created. Zerotalk 03:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename - certainly passing WP:NOTABLE, though under current title the article is a stub, because there is only a minor organized "settler movement" among Palestinian Arabs. The phenomenon of land takeover and squatting is however an integral part of the Arab-Islamic culture in the region for centuries and took an organized style across the Arab League throughout the 20th century. We should consider a wider scope for the Palestinian land takeover under a slightly different title.GreyShark (dibra) 10:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Kingsindian or delete in current form as per Zero. E. M.Gregory just tried to define Rawabi, a newtown built in Area A, as a settlement built by Palestinians (sometimes with external support) in areas of the West Bank under Israeli rule and in violation of Israeli military or civilian law,' when in fact Rawabi is in Palestinian territory, built with a Palestinian permit, and Israel has no authority there. Worse, he had Regavim in mind, because he referred to Rawabi as Regavim (NGO), an organization dedicated to the destruction of any Palestinian housing that does not have an Israeli building permit. which is in Area C means virtually the whole of the Palestinian infrastructure. The article is clearly manipulating an encyclopedia to create a propaganda parity between Israeli settlement (moving from the state of Israel into an occupied territory to settle it) and Palestinian housing development (building on one's traditional land, without moving anywhere). Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Are we in a far-right Israeli bizarro world where Palestinians build "illegal outposts" and "settlements" on land that's not theirs? Even the heading of the article's only section ("Illegal Palestinian settlements") is pure propaganda. But while the article could be made more neutral in tone, it still lacks notability. What are "Palestinian settlements"? Protest-camps that get demolished in a week's time? Or Rawabi, which is a city being built on land that even Israel considers Palestinian, i.e. Area A of the West Bank?


 * I don't understand Greyshark's argument about the "phenomenon of land takeover and squatting" that's been an "integral part of the Arab-Islamic culture in the region for centuries" and which "took an organized style across the Arab League throughout the 20th century", or how that argument is relevant to this article; it looks like a political statement trying to link the medieval Arab-Muslim conquests and 20th-century Baathist Arabizaton efforts to a form of Palestinian non-violent activism. Meanwhile, E. M. Gregory's efforts to find whatever source containing the words "Palestinian" and "settlement" amounts to grasping at straws and border-line OR. If someone wants to create an article (or section) about the building of makeshift protest camps in the West Bank, which is apparently an embryonic form of non-violent Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation and settlement building in that territory, that's another story. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear - PLO's Palestinian nationalism and Ba'thism are pretty close ideologies, though of course differ among various branches. However, symbolism (flag etc.) and ideology are almost the same. Finally, when i created the article Palestinian settlement, the idea was to describe "building of makeshift protest camps in the West Bank", named "Palestinian settlements" by some, which is a sidelined but still notable phenomenon. If you have a better idea for proper naming i'm sure i will consider to support it (maybe Palestinian protest camps?).GreyShark (dibra) 08:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that article is now strongly sourced and tightly focused on what the According to the leftist, anti-settlement, aggressively British newspaper Peace News, describes as a movement "to create ‘facts on the ground’ by founding a Palestinian settlement on privately-owned Palestinian land."  Palestinian settlement was a term used and apparently coined  by the Palestinian anti-Israel activists who created ththe Palestinian settlement settlement movement as a means of anti-Zionist activism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note. Booth's article on Susya nowhere calls it a Palestinian settlement, and will have to be removed. All you need to do is read the page on it: it has been settled since the 1880s, Ruth Kark Israel's foremost authority on these issues, recognized their legal title to the land on which their dwellings were located, before they were blown up, bulldozed and destroyed by the IDF on several occasions. So this is Regavim POV pushing and WP:SYNTH. By the way, that nonsense that building in Area C violates the Oslo Accords is a pure fiction.  Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * EMG, please desist from making sections all over this page. Put all your comments in one place, except replies to others. This article has nothing to do with reality. Also you keep misrepresenting sources: the Peace News source (not an WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination, but let's leave that aside) says the following. The purpose of the Bab al-Shams (‘gate of the sun’) occupation was to create ‘facts on the ground’ by founding a Palestinian settlement on privately-owned Palestinian land (my emphasis). The sense of "settlement" here is the dictionary sense: "a place where people live". This is not equivalent to Israeli settlements in occupied territory. It is absurd to compare the two and blatantly violates WP:NPOV. If you want to describe construction in Area C, there is already an article for that: Area C (West Bank). There's also Regavim (NGO). Do it in those places in an encyclopedic manner, not like this. There's also no connection between Bab al-Shams (which was a tent encampment lasting two days) and Susya. It is pure WP:SYNTH. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - in line with Al Ameer's remark - perhaps we can settle on renaming the article to Palestinian protest camps and get done with it?GreyShark (dibra) 08:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a possible solution, but not a good one, imo. Firstly, the topic of the article is ill-defined: it keeps changing on whatever EMG manages to come up with using Google. Secondly, there are already articles on Susya and Bab al-Shams - the latter should be deleted, but oh well. Thirdly, the topic is WP:SYNTH. Mercifully, Rawabi has been removed from the article, but for some random reason Susya has been added. There is little connection between Bab al-Shams and Susya. The former was a protest camp lasting two days, while the latter is an already existing community. The whole framework is flawed and WP:TNT is the way to go. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I could go with "Palestinian protest camps" if Bab al-Shams is merged into it, since otherwise I don't think there would be enough material for an article. The topic would not include al-Bustan, or Susya, certainly not Rawabi, nor random houses built without permits. Zerotalk 12:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed Susya, which is patently absurd. That article was unbalanced by a sock assuming the role of spokesman for Regavim (it should re reverted to the state prior to his interference). The record is clear. It has been in continuous habitation since at least the 1880s, with title. They lived in the archaeological ruins, underground; they lived in local shepherd dwellings and caves; they have lived in tents and huts, and refused to budge, despite endless demolitions and being trucked at gunpoint away. Since I'm working north West Australian aboriginal articles, it would be the same as calling aboriginal dwelings 'settlements' because they were driven, shot, and harassed off their native land for a century by 'settlers'. In any case, some of the sources there, Booth, do not speak of 'Palestinian settlement' and had to go.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.