Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements

RfC question

 * Should the primary description of the localities Israel has built in the territories occupied in 1967 be "Israeli settlement" or "town" or "village" or some other description? Nableezy 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
The overwhelming majority of high quality sources consistently use the terminology "Israeli settlement" before, and often to the exclusion of, any other description. There is no reason that Wikipedia should place terminology used by a fringe sized minority ahead of internationally used phrases. International organizations such as the UN and each if its agencies, the ICRC, and the EU almost without exception call these places Israeli settlements almost exclusively. Human rights organizations such as AI, HRW, and B'tselem almost without exception call these places Israeli settlements almost exclusively. News organizations such as BBC, Reuters, AFP, and AP all call these places Israeli settlements almost exclusively. Even Israeli news organizations such as Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post often call these places settlements, though on occasion they do use "city" or "town", the JPost more so than Haaretz. There is no compelling reason why what the super-majority of sources call these places should be placed after the municipal status given by the occupying power.

(This added after 16 endorsements) To be clear, I am not advocating to remove "town", "city" or whatever, the status given by Israel should be included. But it should not be given greater weight over the international standard in describing these places. Shuki below argues that lead sentence should read "X is a town and an Israeli settlement", my argument is that the lead sentence should place greater weight on the term used by the overwhelming majority of sources, as in "X is an Israeli settlement and a town".  nableezy  - 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

 * 1)  nableezy  - 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) "Israeli settlements" is what they are called by all countries and international organs, so "Israeli settlements" are npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- RolandR (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)     ←   ZScarpia  00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) --harlan (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) I endorse this proposal with the reservation printed below. --GHcool (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) --FormerIP (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) -- Unomi (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) I believe this is the standard terminology.  Avoiding "settlement" would probably be indicative of POV pushing. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 14)  T i a m u t talk 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 15)  Misarxist (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) --Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Ian Pitchford (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) During the extended debate on this subject I have looked at not only English language sources but also French ones, where "colonie" was the term I found used and German where "Siedlung" was used.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) This is the standard term that WP:RS use and we should be consistent in using it as well. --Dailycare (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 20)  пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Support per nominator. I suggest to use "settlement", followed by the official Israeli status (such as City council in the case of Ariel).  Cs32en   Talk to me  19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) As mentioned above, "Israeli settlements" is the term used by international organs, which relates the on-going occupation (as recognized by the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and other bodies). Shoplifter (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Templar98 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC) comment by banned user stricken
 * 1) Israeli settlement is in both official and common use. It is not POV Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

 * 1) Goes without saying that I oppose the emphasis of the political term and support NPOV in the lead in which each locality is described first by municipal size (village, city, town, etc...) --Shuki (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Shuki, and as I explained below.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) For full rationale, see my comment in Shuki's proposal. In addition, calling every place a settlement before everything else, while not giving any information, automatically poisons the well. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As below. Per Shuki's proposal. I would believe that all who are endorsing Shuki's proposal would be opposed to this proposal as contradictory. Stellarkid (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And vice versa?  nableezy  - 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Obviously, since I support Shuki's proposal, I disagree with this one, for the same reasons mentioned below. Marokwitz (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--I support Shuki's alternative. DMacks (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per brewcrewer. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) AnOicheGhealai (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In almost all of the books and papers I have read on the topic, the communities are referred to as settlements. Wehatweet (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: The word settlement is clearly intended to be POV, and the number of supporters it has does not change that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redaktor (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However policy says that we give WP:DUE weight to any point of view. So, if the vast majority of reliabel sources regard the places status as settlements as the most importantfacts about them, then that is what Wikipedia policy says we should emphasise.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--I throw my full support behind Shuki's proposed alternative--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GHcool
I agree with Nableezy's argument above, but I would like to make it clear that Jewish areas/neighborhoods of East Jerusalem is not to be lumped together with the Jewish-Israeli populated areas in the heart of the West Bank. Jewish parts of East Jerusalem are not "Israeli settlements" nor are they regarded as such by non-ideologically driven reliable sources.

Editors endorsing this proposal

 * 1) --GHcool (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm fine with this, we already had a centralized discussion on the "ring neighborhoods" and while I am not a fan of the outcome I am not looking to change it.  nableezy  - 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree --lkitross (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

 * 1) --Whichever side of the Israeli imposed "municipal border" theyt fall, Israeli settlements in the territories occupied in 1967 are illegal under international law. RolandR (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) All Israeli settlements east of 1967 borders are Israeli settlements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per RolandR. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Attempts to unilaterally alter the legal status or demographics of the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 have no legitimacy. harlan (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't think there can be much doubt as to what constitutes a "settlement" in this context. --FormerIP (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Unomi (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) The definition of a settlement is clear and it includes those in East Jerusalem.  T i a m u t talk 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) East Jerusalem has exactly the same legal status as the rest of the illegal settlements. Misarxist (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) We have to be guided by international law; not WP:FRINGE. Ian Pitchford (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) --Peter cohen (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) What decides whether they're settlements is the 1967 line, not Israel's declarations. --Dailycare (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per harlan and Misarxist. Templar98 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC) comment by banned user stricken
 * 1) Oppose per harlan. Shoplifter (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Shuki
Is RfC a vote? I don't think that RfC is the right place for this issue at all, and the nominator hasn't really presented any options other than his, so he's only looking to back up his POV, not actually get comments. The scope of this vote is not clear, is it going to include every mention of Jewish localities, the lead of the articles, etc... The title chosen for the RfC automatically conveys the nominators POV, so what else is there to comment on here? --Shuki (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion, write down your counter proposal and see how many people agree with it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:PRACTICAL subsection at Consensus says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others. harlan (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Shuki
Description of geographical locations on WP should be NPOV. Populated places (Israeli, Palestinian, and Syrian) in the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the abandoned villages in the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula should be first described based on their size / municipal status in the leads of their separate articles. Additionally, in other articles, the political and general 'settlement' term can be used but not exclusively, and other relevant size (community, neighborhood, village, town, city, etc…) labels are legitimate.

The dispute is not about whether these localities are or are not 'settlements' or if that term can be used in the article or the lead for that matter even given the awkward syntax. The issue is what does Wikipedia use to describe a populated place and what is the essence of that populated place; whether to describe a locality by its municipal size and status or to use a generic political label, even one that might also be seen as a pejorative. Using the word 'settlement' as a primary descriptor generalizes different sized locations which include localities ranging in size from rural camps with a few people to urbanized cities with over 30 000 residents. The main use of the political term is POV and the deprecation of the municipal size, infers that the locality is primarily a disputed political location, and not a normal place where families live, work, study, shop, and play. The use of the municipal status as the lead term is NPOV and the most widely accepted standard for geographical locations in the WP encyclopedia and should not be changed uniquely here either.

Exs: X is a city and Israeli settlement... Y is a village and Israeli settlement...

Editors endorsing this proposal

 * 1) Shuki (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stellarkid (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Well and excellently worded.  It is clear you have put a lot of thought into this proposal.  Stellarkid (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Cptnono - Is the purpose of the original RfC to eliminate any mention of "city" or "town" even though the inhabited places are also "settlements"? Why is that necessary? What does the legality have to do with if a place is a "city" or not? Is it an attempt to make disclaimers whenever possible that there is a dispute? That seems hardly necessary.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Follow up: Nableezy mentioned that it was which description comes first. I think that is silly (more the bickering over it and not the proposal). I would go with whatever description fits the notability of the place. If it is a thriving city with some schools and sports teams and everything else that comes with higher population it is probably more notable for that then being a settlement. If it is a tiny place that made headlines for settler violence then I could see settlement being first.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Pantherskin (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC) obviously we should avoid political terms and opt for a neutral and factual description, and the use of the municipal status for a locale is in line with the commonly accepted standard in Wikipedia and reliable sources.
 * 4) --Gilisa (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC) UN decisions and votes not always reflect the opinion of many countries and sources. While UN decision may tell that the Golan heights are actually part of Syria, it may not reflect the opinion of many notable sources and countries. Let UN decisions a side. What more that there is a dispute over where is the line for what is a settlement and what isn't.
 * 5) Hmbr (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia articles should not take sides in political disputes. A municipal status of a location (for example - city, neighborhood) is a neutral term, whith neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. The word "settlement" is POV since it implies that a certain locality is illegal, and thus it disparages its subject and "takes sides". In case of international dispute regarding the status of a certain location, both sides of the dispute should be mentioned, per WP:LEAD. After presenting both arguments, Wikipedia should use a neutral terms from that point on (city/neighborhood etc.) Marokwitz (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) An international paper may feel the news point of interest to the public is the point of dispute -- as this is often the subject of the article, a dispute between Jews and Arabs on disputed territory (Hamas, btw, prompts to launch rockets from "disputed" into "undisputed" territory). However, Wiki is an encyclopaedic project and the interest of the reader is encyclopaedic. i.e. a descriptive for a town/village/city/outpost should lead the information. Not that I'm comparing, but similar MOS on Wiki is given to many !terrorists who are described first with their positional role before information about their more dubious activity is inserted and they are not referred to nearly exclusively as terrorists/similar even if this is a substantial viewpoint (example: Mohamed Atta "was an Egyptian  student"). I also fully agree with Cptnono's statement.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Using the general word "settlement" in the lead, besides from its political implications - however widespread that term may be used, does not define the nature of the settlement thorouhly enough. It is generally the size of a locale, normally described using the words city, town or village, which takes precedence on place name articles. Chesdovi (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi, so do you have a problem with both, for example: "Israeli settlement and town" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the legal status is mentioned, as in Famagusta, they may be no need to mention settlement. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The use of the word "settlement" is clearly POV, and that is not  changed by the fact that many organizations have that POV on their agenda. --Redaktor (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Organisations such as the UN Security Council, two permanent members of which are notoriously pro-Israel? --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 11:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Chesdovi (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I explicitly said the *Security Council*. *Not* the UN as a whole. Please do not misrepresent my statements. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) -- No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) The word "settlement", while it may be undisputed in most sources, is a generic descriptor that does not give the reader any real information about the locality. On the other hand, the municipal status makes it clear that it's a populated place recognized by its government (as opposed to a settlement, which is just any populated place), and the approximate size and demographic makeup of that locality. I frankly cannot understand any opposition to this proposal; is anyone saying that settlements are not also cities/local councils/communal settlements/etc.? If no one is saying that, then clearly the terms are not disputed, and therefore do not represent a specific POV. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) For the reasons articulated well by the editors above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Being a settlement is an important issue (as a key identifier term itself used by media and govt reports, and as a topic word that may introduce other major related content in the article). But it doesn't seem like the key neutral identifier for (at least many of) these places. Leading with "X is a settlement" reduces X to being primarily a settlement, that secondarily happens to have other attributes associated with it--size, governance, etc. Leading with "X is a city and settlement" makes the scope of the article at first a place with people that has a very important political attribute associated with it. I assume most of these articles are not nearly exclusively about settlement-related issues? DMacks (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) IZAK (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) --Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) AnOicheGhealai (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC) A City is a city, no matter what anyone else thinks.
 * Comment Would the editors here who are endorsing the proposal also make a note if they are also endorsing or opposing the original proposal above? (as offered by Nableezy?)  Stellarkid (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jiujitsuguy: Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view and the term "settlement" is a loaded gun filled with negative connotations. Shuki's proposal avoids POV pitfalls.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

 * 1) The proposal to use the municipal status as primary designator is not a neutral point-of-view. The municipal status is the status given by Israeli authorities. What this proposal actually says is that the Israeli point-of-view should be given precedence. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, not. Check virtually any locality in WP and the "municipal status" is given first (ie town, city, area, neighborhood, community) and only later is the location given.  The descriptor "settlement" really only defines location, and in WP it is almost always given after the municipal status.  This is not the Israeli POV but a neutral style within WP.  Stellarkid (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're compairing apples and oranges when comparing these articles with articles unrelated to the I-P conflict. If there is no dispute whether "settlement", "colony" or municipal status ("town"/"village") should be used then WP:NPOV does not come into play. Here it does. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  nableezy  - 03:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) RolandR (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) The majority of quality sources do not present the Israeli POV as the consensus position, nor should wikipedia. Unomi (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal has nothing to do with the Israeli POV. It is standard nomenclature for Wikipedia. Au contraire, it is the proposal to put locality and political status before municipal status that is POV.  Stellarkid (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) --Dailycare (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This proposal is not npov. Also agree with Unomi. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) per Frederico.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover whether something is a village, town or city is not an indication of size but is an arbitrary decision granted by the national authorities. In Britain there is a city with 1797 population, a number less than that of villages such as this one which had 2506 at the last census as indicated here. Giving the status which Israel assigns somewhere in the occupied territories before that which such authorities as the International Court, the High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Security Council etc. of illegal settlement would go against NPOV principles since it gives the minority view precedence.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It ought to be obvious why a statement beginning in such a way as "Ariel is an Israeli city..." is misleading and POV. --FormerIP (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to read the proposal more carefully as that is not at all what it suggests. "Israeli" implies locality.  If one planned to say that Ariel was in Israel, (based on this proposal) the wording would be "Ariel is a city in Israel" or, if agreed and with appropriate sources, "Ariel is a city, often referred to as a settlement" -- along that line, NOT as you suggest, with locality prior to status. You might want to rethink your disagreement. Stellarkid (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal doesn't appear to come packaged with the additional guidance you suggest. "Israeli" doesn't necessarily imply locality, it is ambiguous (hence the potential to be misleading). "Ariel is an Israeli city" would be a perfectly true statement. The non-misleading version would be "Ariel is an Israeli settlement". --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In other WP disputes, ambiguous is usually a good compromise, but some people what to have their cake and eat it too. It is entirely not standard to use 'Ariel is an Israeli city and Israeli settlement' or the Ariel University is an Israeli university in the West Bank. It does not imply 'in Israel', but still infers that it is an Israeli entity. For example, you won't find an English geography article starting like 'Manchester is an English city' --Shuki (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) " what does Wikipedia use to describe a populated place "? Answer - Whatever the majority of RS uses, regardless of whether the term might not be entirely appropriate or clear. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Failure to give due prominence (i.e., in the lead) to the fact that these are Israeli settlements would create the impression that there is no significant difference between cities/towns within the 1967 borders of Israel.  This approach would be inconsistent with WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same proposal? That is not AT ALL what was proposed . Marokwitz (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Reliable sources use "settlements" for all significant aggregations of houses inhabited by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories. For smaller aggregations, "outpost" is also being used, and WP must follow that usage.  Cs32en   Talk to me  17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of "city" or "town" we should say "Los Angeles is an aggregation of houses inhabited by American settlers in a state claimed by some as belonging to Mexico."  (Please make a note of the RS that says just that) Stellarkid (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If most sources describe Los Angeles in that way, then yes. However they don't, so no. --Dailycare (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I am not certain what Shuki means by "municipal status". Do you mean, "a settlement chartered by the Israeli military government, which is responsible for planning of land use since the region was occupied by Israel in the 1967 War"? That would be an accurate statement of the municipal status of Ariel, for example, but somehow I don't think that was what you meant. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can read Municipality for more inforamtion. --Shuki (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable to give Israeli POV precedence to entities in non-Israeli sovereign areas. Templar98 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC) comment by banned user stricken

Statement by Harlan
According to WP:YESPOV "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." In 1998 the International Law Commission (ILC) said that the range of human rights violated by population transfer and the implantation of settlers place this phenomenon in the category of systematic or mass violations of human rights. The Commission declared that these practices constitute criminal acts and crimes against humanity.

The Security Council, the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention have determined that Israel's settlements in the occupied Arab territories are illegal. That is a significant published viewpoint on the topic which may be included per WP:NPOV. harlan (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

 * 1)  nableezy  - 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC), but this is not what the RFC is actually about, we arent talking about legality but about naming conventions.
 * 2) I agree with this statement, but concur with Nableezy that it is not really what this RfC is about. RolandR (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree entirely w/ both RolandR &  nableezy  NickCT (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

 * 1) I agree that the status of the location according to the international bodies the SHOULD be noted, however since this is disputed by Israel, this viewpoint must be attributed to the international bodies and not to the "view of Wikipedia". According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not take a stance on which of the viewpoints is correct, rather present both sides of the argument. After presenting both arguments, Wikipedia should use a neutral terms from that point on (city/neighborhood etc.).  Marokwitz (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * International law does not determine naming conventions of an online encyclopedia. Again, the argument is not that the word "settlement" is to be avoided, it is that the political aspect comes after the the description of the municipality and is accompanied by a valid RS.  Stellarkid (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem is a final status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have formally agreed to resolve its status during negotiations, not through Wikipedia. During the Camp David and Taba talks both sides accepted that Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states. When Israel extended its municipal ordinances to the Golan Heights, the United States barely managed to head-off UN sanctions by obtaining a written guarantee from Israel that the status of that territory could only be settled through negotiations. harlan (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And until and unless those negotiations happen and are both agreed and followed up upon, Israel is in de facto control of both areas. It is not up to us to determine how the final status will turn out, perhaps the Palestinians will cede East Jerusalem to Israel in exchange for something else, perhaps Israel will cede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, perhaps there will be more bloodshed, who knows? The status of Jerusalem as a city is not in question however. The only question is who will finally control it, ie will the location finally be in Israel or in modern-day "Palestine?" Stellarkid (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Israel is an occupying power. That means that the "Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity" makes "eviction by armed attack or occupation" an offense that, in theory, can be prosecuted at any time. The International Law Commission classifies the forcible displacement of populations and the implantation of settlers as crimes against humanity  In addition, the provisions of customary international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties  would make it impossible for Israel to negotiate a final settlement that validated the deportation or displacement of Palestinians during a belligerent occupation. A treaty is void if its conclusion violates a jus cogens norm, or has been procured by the threat or use of force. See for example the section on resolution 242 in "The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions", Alexander Orakhelashvili, pages 22-25  harlan (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The RfC is not about this. If you want, open one about using the work 'illegal'. --Shuki (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Too much emphasis on the wording preferred by organizations considered to lean anti-Israel.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per brewcrewer. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Cohen
WP:NPOV does not state that an opinion that may seem disparaging should not be expressed or that neutral language must necessarilly be used. Rather it states that due weight should be given to varying points of view that appear in reliable sources. Whether or not people find the term "settlement" disparaging, it is the one used in the majority of reliable sources intermationally and therefore should be given primacy in Wikipedia, not only per NPOV but also per WP:NOTCENSORED.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

 * 1)  nableezy  - 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with this comment completely (and in fact the RFC question above is formulated in these terms) since what decides not only the terminology used but also the weight given to various viewpoints are the relative frequencies that the terms and viewpoints are expressed in WP:RS. Thus we should IMO plainly call them "Israeli settlements". --Dailycare (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) GHcool (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) As author of commen --Peter cohen (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Quite obviously correct. harlan (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with this statement of the obvious. RolandR (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with above, "settlement" is npov and following due weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Good explanation of Wikipedia policies. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree w/ Cohen's reading of policy. NickCT (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) NPOV does not mean taking the official stance of the Israeli government. Nor does it mean "making wikipedia as uncontroversial as possible. The fact is that these places are defined in reliable sources by their political status; a definition that wikipedia should reflect. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) --FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) I agree. Shoplifter (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Unomi (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors opposing this proposal

 * 1) We do not take sides in political arguments. Whether we agree or not, the Israeli official stance is that Gilo and Katzrin are not settlements. This is not WP:FRINGE, it is a official position of a state comprising  millions of people. The terminology used in the Gilo article is OK since it does not take sides: Gilo (Hebrew: גילֹה‎) is a large residential district on the southwestern outskirts of Jerusalem. The United Nations and the European Union consider it an illegal settlement, while Israel considers it a neighborhood within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. This is accurate, not censored, and neutral. Marokwitz (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But you seem to be advocating taking sides by giving precedence to the terminology used by Israel. I am saying that we should follow NPOV. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that these places are outside Israel and that it does not have a legitimate priveleged position to dictate the status of these settlements. Meanwhile the sources would consider the UNSC, the International Court, the collective view of the High Contraction parties of the Geneva Conventions etc. as supra-national authorites that do have a priveleged position in dictating the status of these settlements. Givign proority to the views of the organisations that most reliable sources regard as having a legitimate right to state the legal status of the settlements rather that that of a party which most reliable sources do not believe has the right to determine the status of the settlements accords with NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is certainly being abused here. The disputed aspect of these localities is not being questioned, only the mere lead descriptive term. Comparing apples and oranges here. --Shuki (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) To give primacy to the term "settlement" on all Israeli locales in the WB is to define them by their political status. The term is used nearly always by the various media outlets and organistaions mentioned above due to the polictical context of their reports and statements. But if wikipedia is to remain unpoliticised, then the various generic terms for populated places must be consistent with all other places. For instance, the illegal status of the Turkish settlement of Famagusta is not mentioned in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Famagusta has existed for 1700 years, since long before the Turkish military occupation and the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Nobody suggests that its existence is in any way illegal, and it is in no way analogous to the settlements established under Israeli occupation in areas occupied in 1967. And the lead does in fact state that "Since the 1974 Turkish invasion the city has resided in the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)". RolandR (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Turkish settlements are, AFAIB, analogous to the settlements established under Israeli occupation, just the circumstances and reactions of the vanquished are different. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem has existed for over 1700 years, long before Israeli occupation. Yet Jewish construction and presence in the old city is viewed as illegal! Why? Turkey has carried out construction in Northern Cyprus of previously uninhabited areas too. Their occupation is illegal and you state that their settlements and the massive Turkish population transfer into existing towns are legal? Chesdovi (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look again. Where did I make any comment on the legality, or otherwise, of Turkish settlement in Northern Cyprus? You have no idea what my view is, and it is in any case irrelevant.
 * What I stated, and I repeat, is that the legality of the establishment 1700 years ago of Famagusta is not in question, and in this sense it is different from, eg, Gilo and Katzrin, established since 1967 in territories under Israeli military occupation. I also pointed out that, contrary to your statement above, them lead does indeed mention the disputed status of the regime governing Famagusta. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "establishment" of Famagusta 1700 years ago was not illegal. Neither was the "establishment" of Jerusalem 3000 years ago. So why are some of the outlying suburbs of Jerusalem built since 1967 illegal while those of Famagusta built since 1974 are not? Please clarify. Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have said nothing about the legality or otherwise of Turkish settlement in Northern Cyprus. Stop trying to change the subject. RolandR (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not changing the subject. On the contrary, I am providing an example to back up my opinion. You, for your part, should acknowledge and concede that Famagusta, the port from where the Gaza flotilla set sail, is an illegal Turkish settlement, just as Katzrin is. Just because the Greeks have not managed to whip up adverse world opinion against their occupied settlements as the Arab block have is no reason to abscond from calling them what they are, illegal Turkish settlements on occupied land. I am surprised you are not willing to state this as clearly and loudly as you do when it comes to Israel. As maybe you have not come across non-Israeli illegal settlements before, I am happy to introduce you to them. I am sure you will campaign against these illegal Muslim settlements as robustly as you do against the Jewish ones. The hypocrisy of Turkey is shameful. Erogden now calls of the “annihilation” (not defeat) of the Kurdish separatists after proudly announcing the latest killing by his advanced army of 13 of them. If only he had as much compassion for them and the Greeks as he has for the Palestinians. Let him lead the way by granting the Kurds their rightful state and ending his illegal (not brutal – no Greeks left to brutalise) occupation of Cyprus. (Sorry if I misunderstood, but you did seem to imply that you were of the view that Famagusta has no legal status issue: “Nobody suggests that its existence is in any way illegal.”) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi, this discussions is about Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, not about whatever localities Turkey has established in Northern Cyprus. If you feel so strongly about the "hypocrisy" of Turkey get a blog. If you want to discuss the naming conventions about localities in Northern Cyprus start another RFC. None of this back and forth has anything to do with the question being posed in this RFC. Kindly try to stay on topic.  nableezy  - 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Chesdovi, you still don't seem to understand what I have already written twice above. Famagusta is not an "illegal Turkish settlement". Unlike Israeli settlements in the 1967-occupied territories, Famagusta was established many hundreds of years before military occupation, and its legality is beyond question. It may be analogous to Jerusalem; but not to Gilo. If there are any Wikipedia articles on Turkish settlements established by the occupying power since 1974 in areas around Famagusta, then they should of course be dealt with in the same way as Israeli settlements -- ie, by using the commonly-accepted international term. However, I am not aware of any such articles; nor indeed of any such settlements. Unless you have information to the contrary, please stop wasting your time and mine, and concentrate on the substantive issue here. RolandR (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do that illegal Israeli settlements do not just apply to new towns built in previously uninhabited areas; rather any place where Israelis live in the occupied territory are viewed as illegal settlements. Will you now view their Turkish counterparts as such as well? And if, as I stated in my fist post here and shown, they are not referred to by their political term as settlements, we too should stick to generic terms when mentioning Israeli inhabited areas in the West Bank. Chesdovi (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What the Geneva convention forbids is changing the demographic makeup of an occupied territory. If Jews lived in the Jewish quarter before the Six Day War, the same Jews can continue to live there during the occupation without contravening the 4th Geneva convention. What's forbidden is for Israel to change the makeup of the population by increasing the proportion of a certain demographic group living in the area. The status of West Jerusalem is rarely addressed by WP:RS, in detail Jewish habitations in W. Jerusalem aren't typically referred to as "settlements". --Dailycare (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not giving the term "settlements" primacy has nothing to do with WP:CENSORED since no one is suggesting it not be included where appropriate. Actually the more appropriate argument would be WP is not a crystal ball since we are not sure how final status negotiations are going to turn out.  "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it"  Stellarkid (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (that should be #4 but I don't know how to fix it??)
 * Aren't you concerned that these arguments are becoming so tenuously connected to simple policy compliance that they're beginning to resemble attempts to delegitimize mandatory wiki policy and dehumanize the people who describe settlements as settlements in reliable sources ? No, me neither, but I do think your argument and related arguments are becoming disconnected from simple policy compliance.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and you are entitled to think what you like, but your assertion is unsupported by any argument. I disagree with you and think that that view demonstrates that you are not clear on what constitutes 'simple policy compliance'.  Stellarkid (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. All viewpoints should be represented, but it's NPOV-violative when one POV is thrown into the face of a reader before s/he makes it past the first sentence.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why ? Jerusalem is a city, there are many viewpoints about its status and its article opens with "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", a perfectly reasonable, policy compliant, boiled down summary of the viewpoints for an opening sentence. Why is it okay for one location and not okay for others ? A compromise solution was reached for Jerusalem which employs an endnote. Is that something that could be employed for other locations ? Sean.hoyland  - talk 01:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because capital cities are an exception to standard style in WP and the article on Jerusalem is compliant with that style. See London and Paris for example.  Stellarkid (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the case. The article says what it says because of extensive discussions  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mabye, but the fact that it is managing to be an acceptable usage for both sides may have to do with the fact that that just happens to be WP style for capital cities. Other cities and towns have their description first and their location second. "Settlement" is a political term that implies a location, thereby should be second.  Stellarkid (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Jerusalem issue is another can of worms, but looking e.g. at Jeffrey Dahmer, the first sentence in the article says he was a serial killer and sex offender. Similarely Dachau states up front the place was a concentration camp. Now that' not a real argument since there is AFAIK no wiki policy according to which we should use wiki articles as guidelines how to write other wiki articles, but it serves as examples of how policy compliant articles can be produced. Capital city articles, by the way, are not any exception as far as I know. But do correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I am not the least surprised that you would compare Israeli cities and towns to first a serial killer and then concentration camp, but that speaks far more to your rather obvious POV than anything else. I suggest you check for yourself some cities to see the WP style in which they are written. Here is a random selection of non-capital cites you can use for comparison: Hamburg,Noubarya, Nag Hammadi, Medina, Toronto.  I put the capital cities above. You should really do your own homework. Stellarkid (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, look at the article on Macau, which starts by describing it as “one of the two special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China”, and doesn’t mention that it is a city until well into the body of the article. Hong Kong is treated similarly. Singapore is described as “an island country”; the fact that it is a city is not mentioned until the third sentence. Anomalous instances are not necessarily introduced in a standardised way.13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That you can find an occasional exception to the rule with respect to WP style does not mean that we should establish some blanket rule whereby various towns and cities in Israel or West Bank shall be subjected to a rule that does not hold for any other country or territory. Stellarkid (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What i'm saying is that a) there is no rule, and b) anomalous cases give anomalous results. RolandR (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the last time, nobody has said anything about any towns or cities in Israel. This is not about anything within the boundaries of Israel, this is about the localities Israel has established in occupied territory outside of Israel.  nableezy  - 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I used "West Bank" for a reason. Stellarkid (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I assume you used "in Israel" for a reason as well. Nobody is talking about anything that is "in Israel".  nableezy  - 04:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But you must remember that, for the Israeli government and some of its supporters, illegally-annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights actually are "in Israel". RolandR (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont worry, I remember. But much like the sources overwhelmingly use "Israeli settlement" the sources overwhelmingly say, to an even greater extent, that as a fact they are not.  nableezy  - 13:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - viewpoints should be presented, but they should be presented as such, and not as facts. Pantherskin (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Stellarkid (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like this ?
 * e.g. Israel
 * OLD: Israel, officially the State of Israel, is a country in Western Asia located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.
 * NEW: Israel, officially the State of Israel, is widely regarded as country in Western Asia located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea although this is disputed by a number of countries.
 * e.g. Mark Rothko
 * OLD: Mark Rothko, born Marcus Rothkowitz (September 25, 1903 – February 25, 1970), was a Latvian-born American painter.
 * NEW: Mark Rothko, born Marcus Rothkowitz (September 25, 1903 – February 25, 1970), was a Latvian-born American. Sources that focus on the aspects of his life that involved painting take the view that he was a painter although this is disputed by many who focus on other aspects of his life and non-paint based work including Lincoln High School, Portland, Oregon, who describe him primarily as one of their many notable alumni.
 * I have some reservations.
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per brewcrewer. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono
Before this closes as no consensus I wanted to shove my idea in again. It is just weird to argue over in such detail the original purpose of this RfC (does settlement or city get mentioned first) and there is no way consensus is being formed. It should be addressed on a case by case basis. Settlement should take a back seat if the inhabited place has many sources that discuss its schools, hospitals, tourism, commerce, and whatever other items make it more notable than it being a settlement. If the place is primarily notable for being a settlement then giving it top billing label wise shouldn't be a big deal. Realistically that is the status quo but maybe a mandate is needed to prevent sweeping changes that some see as POV. I am sure editors can think of some cities that are more well know for being settlements than cities and some settlements that are more notable for being cities if they really try. And editors that edit war on it should be topic banned without any hesitation. Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal
[insert bickering that won't come to consensus anyways]

Editors opposing this proposal
[insert more back and forth that also won't make a difference]

Statement by Ravpapa decrying the utter silliness of this RFC
Just to keep our eye on the ball, this RFC asks if it would not be better to say "Yadayada is a settlement and a town" rather than "is a town and a settlement." The justification for this change being that writing "settlement" first would somehow give more emphasis to the disputed legal status of Yadayada than to its size.

First of all, I wonder how many of our readers are aware of the mountains of exegesis surrounding the word "settlement" in this context. Do they know that this is an oblique reference to international objections about the legality of the, er, settlement? Do they know the difference between a "settlement" and a "town"? Or do they think of a settlement in its usual sense, as a frontier outpost; a place where the pony express rider leaves a little glob of spittle as he whisks through? I am willing to bet that 60 to 70 percent of our readers have no idea what the difference is between a town and a settlement, and, if they think about it at all, they will scratch their heads in wonder why both words appear when one would do perfectly well.

But assuming that the odd reader, well-informed and careful, understands all the arcane meanings hidden under this bizarre syntax, is he or she really going to believe that size is more important than legal status because it comes first? "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, leaps tall buildings in a single bound" - Does this mean that Superman's ability to go fast is more important than his strength - and certainly more important than his pole vaulting? Is a person who is tall and skinny first of all tall, and then only incidentally skinny?

"How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable Seem to me all the uses of this world"

First of all, or course, weary. That is what we are of this pointless nitpicking. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember seeing a similar comment at here :-) Interesting essay here at User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia. Nice to see you Ravpapa. But now that you've commented, and without really taking a side, how do you suggest we resolve this non-consensus? Leave the status quo? Topic ban all users who've commented above? Sometimes while editing here, I picture you regularly ignoring this area just sipping some good scotch (or wine?) listening to some of your music, and want to join you instead. I wondering if the view from your window is some dreary urban setting, or rolling hills. --Shuki (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this dispute about again? I see at least a dozen proposals...Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There actually is a rule on listing by importance in sentences. I believe it is mentioned in a business writing book published by Harvard University Press I have laying around somewhere. I can try to dig it up or google it. Agree this is silly so it really isn't that important.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
I am closing this RfC following a request for an administrator to do so at WP:AN.

The result of this RfC was no consensus. 25 people agree with Nableezy that the localities at issue should be primarily described as "an Israeli settlement and city/village", and 18 people agree with Shuki that they should be primarily described as "a city/village and Israeli settlement". The dispute, therefore, is about which descriptor is to be used as the principal descriptor, i.e., the first to be mentioned, and possibly also the only one to be mentioned in brief mentions (as in: "He grew up in X, an Israeli settlement/village in the West Bank").

From a policy point of view, always assuming that there are reliable sources calling such a locality a city (etc.) and also reliable sources calling it a settlement, I find it difficult to tell who has the stronger arguments in the abstract. WP:NPOV probably requires that both statuses be mentioned, at least in the article about the location, because they are both important sociopolitical features of the locality. But it's not possible to derive from NPOV alone which (if any) descriptor should be used primarily as a general rule, because that would require a consensus about how reliable sources generally and primarily refer to such localities, and that's exactly the consensus we don't have here. Absent a consensus for the general case, editors remain therefore required to examine how relevant sources refer to each individual locality.

While we have no consensus for any general rule, I submit that the following solution may work as a compromise that, in view of the discussion above, may be acceptable to most participants of this RfC and aims to minimize unnecessary edit-warring:
 * Localities which reliable sources describe both as a settlement and as a city, village, neighbourhood etc. should be referred to using both terms, even in brief mentions. In such cases, the article about the locality should contain the references to the sources for both descriptions.
 * Because we have no general consensus about which term is to be used first (i.e., "city and settlement" or "settlement and city"), this should be treated as a stylistic matter as long as no consensus exists with respect to the individual case. Editors should therefore not deviate from the style consistently used by the first principal content contributor to any one article, in the spirit of WP:MOS and WP:MOS, as long as no consensus exists in the individual case. (That is, if an article reads, "city and settlement" or "settlement and city", don't change this until you are certain that you have consensus to do so.)
 * Exceptions to these rules should be made only if a discussion among editors about how reliable sources refer to a specific location results in consensus to use "city" (etc.) or "settlement" exclusively, or to swap the order of the descriptors, with respect to that location. Any compromises which have already been reached about how to refer to certain places, such as Jerusalem, therefore remain in effect.

While I stress that the result of this RfC is "no consensus", and the above proposal is therefore not binding, I recommend that interested editors consider following it with a view to avoid edit-warring (and the resulting administrator intervention) about these issues.  Sandstein  07:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)