Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements/Archive 1

Discussion about GHcool's proposal

 * I'm not entirely sure of the issues here, but I've typically thought of "settlements" as being isolated or semi-isolated communities within what is commonly recognized as the Palestinian Territories. Using the term to refer to parts of East Jereuselum seems awkward; however, as I've said, I'm not well informed on this, hence I abstain. NickCT (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A good way to get a feeling for the spectrum of terminology used to describe..er..places where Israeli's live in..um..East Jerusalem is to look at what was said about Ramat Shlomo by RS when the building plans were announced during Biden's visit in March. For example..
 * The Times = settlement in East Jerusalem, project, religious community
 * The NYT = Jewish housing, Jewish housing development, a neighborhood
 * JPost = housing in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, neighborhoods
 * The Guardian = Israeli settlement, homes on occupied territory,
 * National Post = homes for Jews, a religious community
 * BBC = homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem, settlement, East Jerusalem project
 * CNN = neighborhood, the Jerusalem neighborhood (although they also quoted Hillary Clinton calling it a settlement).
 * I put some sources together at the time here that provide quite a nice sample of what was said. The UN resolution is a good one. It's called "resolution (A/HRC/13/L.28) on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan" but says "new housing units for new settlers in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo" thus keeping everyone happyish although Ban Ki-moon said "The world has condemned Israel's settlement plans in east Jerusalem,". I'm also ambivalent on this issue. I think everything after the 'but' in the statement by GHcool is invalid in the sense that it is inconsistent with many sources. The notion that these places are consistently different terminology-wise when one is in East Jerusalem and the other in the West Bank is not something that is reflected in the sources, including non-ideologically driven reliable sources. In other words, the terminology used by sources to describe Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem isn't simply defined by whether the spatial coordinates fall within an area annexed and defined as part of Jerusalem "complete and united" by Israel. It's much more complex than that and I'm not sure a simple rule is appropriate for East Jerusalem. Having said all that, I can live with the centralized discussion on the "ring neighborhoods".  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Informative Sean thanks. Humorous how all the American sources you offered above avoid the term "settlements". NickCT (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that they're American as that they're pro-Israel and pro-Zionism. There are several American sources who recognise the East Jerusalem settlements for what they are, but they're always condemned as 'ideologically driven', anti-Semitic, and/or self-hating. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless a reason not to is given relatively shortly, I will be moving this whole section to the talk page. Let's please try to keep this organized, these things inevitably fail to achieve anything as they quickly turn in to undecipherable and long-winded discussions. Discussions about the proposals should take place on the talk page.  nableezy  - 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, request for conments is sponsored by Twitter and Gallup now. I'm disgusted by the... etc. Perhaps editors can put long comments here and link to their vote to keep things organized.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper way to handle this
I think that we should first agree on how to present this issue in a fair NPOV way for proper dispute resolution. The way Nableezy is handling it (including this latest moving discussion away) is that he owns the discussion. --Shuki (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of the RFC is to ask people to give their opinions on the RFC questions, which is at the top of the page. The question is 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? The question is neutrally worded and takes no position on any of the issues in dispute here. And "primary description" is pretty basic, it is the first description used and if needing to Of course I did not give an opposing view, I think the opposing view is wrong. I left that to somebody who actually holds the opposing view.  nableezy  - 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Shuki, could you add a link to wherever this discussion was moved from so that people who haven't followed all of it can fully inform themselves about this particular outbreak of I-P conflict on WP? --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This has taken place on probably over 20 different article talk pages. With the same people having the same argument on each individual settlement page. That is why I brought it to a single centralized discussion.  nableezy  - 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * About thirty lines up, Nableezy states  I will be moving this whole section to the talk page. This is not about the discussion at other articles, it is about this specific one, which I find poorly presented and POV skewed from the beginning. What is the point of an RfC??? Why move comments away from the main page to the 'talk page'? You see, it is unclear to you even. You think it is a vote (as how it has developed). Frankly, I am not suggesting any opposing editor bother to fall into the trap you have laid. --Shuki (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. The reason I moved the comments was to keep threaded conversations on the talk page, as I have seen be the standard practice for any number of other RFCs. The point of the RFC is simple, to gauge whether they might be a consensus about the rfc question and what that consensus might be. There is absolutely no "POV skew" in the beginning. There is a neutrally worded question and then an opportunity for editors to endorse any views they agree with or write their own. You can continue crying complaining about what you think are my motives, or you can try to actually make a case for the format you have repeatedly edit-warred pushed into articles, downplaying the international standard terminology and insisting on placing a fringe viewpoint ahead of anything else. You keep saying you want a resolution to the problem, you have an opportunity to make your case. If you wish to piss that away there is nothing I can or will do to stop you.  nableezy  - 20:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Please refrain from making what are arguably personal attacks, Nableezy. It isn't helpful to either side. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by personal attacks, I dont see anything resembling an attack in anything I wrote above.  nableezy  - 20:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

'crying about what ... are my motives', 'repeatedly edit-warred into articles', and 'insisting on placing a fringe viewpoint ahead of anything else'. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I made two changes, even though I dont feel any of those are "personal attacks". Shuki is, oh lets go with "questioning" my motives, and has repeatedly pushed a minority view, that these places are towns, villages, whatever, ahead of standard international terminology.  nableezy  - 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) (Following from Shuki's comment at 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)) Ah, I misread you (Shuki) there. While I think it violates WP:AGF to call this a 'trap' Nableezy has laid, and I think you fall into the trap of assuming your conclusion when you state 'You see, it is unclear to you even.', I would be interested in your thoughts on how to present this RfC in a manner that is not skewed towards either being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to question your motives at all, you plainly state them for all to see and ridicule opposing editors. You (Nableezy) continue to accuse/attack me me of pushing fringe minority view, even here on this RfC, supposedly an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input,  instead of wanting serious and mature discussion from all editors, all opinions. Your intent is not to find the truth or consensus, but to push your POV. Do you find it interesting that no 'pro-Israel' editor is taking this seriously? Especially when you yourself disregard these populated places as towns, villages, whatever, ahead. Neither do you. --Shuki (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I wasnt aware GHcool was a pro-P editor. And yes, it is my position that calling these places "towns", "villages" or whatever is a fringe view and that the overwhelming majority of sources do not use such language when describing the settlements. Now you can continue arguing about how terrible I am or how all I am doing is trying to "push [my] POV", but that is both incorrect and meaningless. Get on with it, state your case and see who agrees with you.  nableezy  - 22:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality of the RfC
Calling the view that considers it appropriate to refer to description (town or city, Jewish or integrated) before place (settlement) a "fringe view" is to assert a prejudice as a fact. Comments like "the EU almost without exception call these places Israeli settlements almost exclusively" and Human rights organizations ...almost without exception cgh [sic] on occasion they do use "city" or "town", the JPost more so than Haaretz' make it clear that you are trying to turn an almost into an always. 'The overwhelming majority of high quality sources, you say, 'consistently use the terminology "Israeli settlement" before, and often to the exclusion of, any other description' tries to turn an "often" in some media, into an "always" at WP. Seems to me that your say-so constitutes original research and I note you have not put up a single "high quality" source to attempt to prove that assertion. I don't think WP needs to establish a new standard for how we describe cities and towns just for Israel. Stellarkid (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Nableezy is trying to 'establish a new standard for how we describe cities and towns just for Israel' as a whole, only for those cities and towns built for Jewish settlers on land Israel annexed and/or occupied after the Six Day War. Also, how has he 'not put up a single "high quality" source to attempt to prove that assertion'? Or are the EU, UN, ICRC, etc. not considered 'high quality sources? --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 02:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read my above comments and look at the WP standard for describing a city. Look at Boston or Ramallah.  We are told that Ramallah is a "Palestinian city" before we are told where it is located.  As for Nableezy not putting up any "high quality sources" -- he put up none at all.  He merely made an assertion that these "high quality" sources say what he says they say.  And even if they do so, they are useful as a source but not the only source.  We still need to define these towns in the special way of an encyclopedia, and that means describing each entity as something (eg "Jewish city")  before we put in location.  Stellarkid (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didnt think any of those organization[s would be disputed, but here you go, using Modi'in Illit as an example, more available on request: There are many more, as I am sure you already know. International organizations and news sources, as well as peer reviewed journals such as The Journal of Palestine Studies or the American Journal of International Law or any other number of high quality sources use "Israeli settlement" nearly exclusively when discussing the localities Israel has built in the occupied territories.  nableezy  - 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OCHA - ,
 * EU - ,
 * Human Rights Organizations:
 * B'tselem -
 * HRW -
 * News organizations: BBC, BBC, Guardian, Guardian, Independent, Independent, Reuters, NY Times, Washington Post, Haaretz, Haaretz, JPost, JPost
 * And just for fun, the Israeli Supreme Court:


 * It's a little late for me but I just took a look at the NYTimes one, which also refers to it as a "community." Of course RS like the Journal of Palestine Studies is going to use "settlements" exclusively.  They have a clear bias.  Your B'tselem article refers to it as a "neighborhood" as well. Your Independent article refers to the accusation of "settlement-building" by QUOTE "Pro-Palestinian organisations" -- the article doesn't use the expression in its reporting voice.  The Israeli court is referring to a specific area, and they mainly refer to it as an "area"-- other areas are referred to as "valid neighborhoods."     Your list looks real good, until you take a close look at it.  You didn't respond at all to the point that no one is saying that you cannot call something a settlement.  There are RS that call individual places a settlement.  But 'settlement' refers to place, not to type of community.  Every settlement is not like every other settlement.  They are different types of communities, towns and cities and neighborhoods and communities that are also settlements.  They should be described first and located second, just as Ramallah is, and virtually every other WP inhabited space in the world except these.  You are attempting to impose a special standard on Israeli communities that is not done anywhere else in the world.  This special standard is a reflection of a prejudice that you and your compadres share.  None of you make any bones about your bias and what you think is right and just with respect to Palestine.  But an encyclopedia is an encyclopedia and a town is a town even if it is a settlement of Israelis or Jews.  It is a town or community or group before it is a "settlement" since the only thing that a settlement defines is location. Stellarkid (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Journal of Palestine Studies is published by the University of California Press, it is a reliable source of the highest quality as a peer reviewed journal published by an academic press. And there are 2 Independent articles listed, and both of them use settlement in the narrative voice. The NYTimes article listed uses the "settlement" as the first description and uses "settlement" and "settlers" throughout the document, same with B'tselem. And every Israeli settlement is like every other Israeli settlement, in that it was illegally built in occupied territory. I dont see what my bias is supposed to be by wanting to use the international standard terminology. I am not the one arguing to use one "side's" favored language, and not even that "side", but rather a minority within that "side", as the primary description of these places, you are. I am saying that what is used across the world to refer to these places should be our primary language. And finally, "Israeli settlement" refers to the "type of community", it says it is an Israeli community built in occupied territory. That is the way that the overwhelming majority of sources use as the primary, and often exclusive, description of these places.  nableezy  - 04:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you are flat out wrong about the Israeli High Court ruling. The ruling says "Modi'in Illit is an Israeli settlement in the area of Modi'in, lying east of the boundary of the Judea and Samaria area (hereinafter – "area")". When it uses area after that it is referring to the Judea and Samaria area, the district name of the territory the military has authority over.  nableezy  - 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Every single other community in the world with a name and a mosque or a church or synagogue and a school is called a city or a town first... on WP. There is no reason at all to change this for Israel.  Israeli cities and towns may be built in the West Bank or in Timbucto but they are still Israeli cities and towns or communities before they are "settlements".  Settlements only means where it is located -- what you (constantly) refer to as "occupied territory."  Occupied or not occupied, something is a city in a location.  "Settlement=location."  Describe an Israeli town or neighborhood as such.  Stop trying to dehumanize Israelis just because of where they live.  Arabs live in Israel too.  We don't refer Arab neighborhoods as "settlements" -- though we could.  Stop putting up special standards just for Israel.  This is wrong.  This is not how WP defines a town.  We do not say "Boston is in Massachusetts and it is a city."  We say "Boston is a city in Massachusetts."  We don't say "Harlem is an enclave of African Americans," we say "Harlem is a neighborhood..."  These Jewish towns and neighborhoods are people just like the people in Boston or Harlem.  "Settlement" is a political word that as you point out constantly suggests "occupied territory" and "illegal" and "against international law."  These things are not what define human beings that make up a community, no matter where they live.  But I don't know why I talk to you.  I should talk to a wall.  Going to bed now.  Goodnight.  Stellarkid (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not "dehumanizing" anything, stop saying silly things like that. And if you can show that sources overwhelmingly use "Arab settlement" for Arab populated areas within Israel then the Wikipedia articles should use that as the primary description. Again, this isnt a special case for Israel, or Jews as you say above. It is what the world uses to describe the localities Israel has built in the occupied territories. You not liking that description is not a reason that Wikipedia should not use it. We follow the sources here, and the sources overwhelmingly refer to these places as "Israeli settlements".  nableezy  - 05:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a standard. It is not based on policy or guidelines. 'dehumanize people'...and there it is, the point where I can't understand the argument anymore. Even if every single one of these reliable sources is biased against Israel and use the Israeli Settlement terminology exclusively and specifically with the intent to 'dehumanize people', it's not our concern. We have policies. We have to follow them. When we do, the product is by wiki definition 'neutral' and 'reliably sourced'. Look at the very first sentence in Conflict of interest, something that is willfully ignored in the I-P conflict area, "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." I'm not allowed to make edits and arguments with the aim of preventing what I may see as the dehumanization of people and neither are you. This issue should be about the sources and policy compliance, not the aims of individual editors.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sean, it's not about the sources at all. No one is denying the use of this political term. There are absolutely no sources on either side of the political spectrum saying denying the use of this political term. The issue is whether these places are primarily political statements, or populated places where people sleep, go to the park, do shopping at the mall, get teeth pulled, and other normal things that happen in villages, towns, and cities. It is in fact about pushing POV into article space. There are many disputed areas around the world in which claimed 'occupying powers' have created new localities. Please find the basis in these areas that supports that settlement should come before the size of the locality. I could not find anything. Use the various locations in the occupied territory article for starters. --Shuki (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand but the thing is that I don't think it matters in the slightest whether the term used primarily to describe these places by reliable sources is political or apolitical or based on population size, location, the most common roof tile coloring, whether it's a port etc etc. I agree, it is about pushing POV into article space. It's pushing the POV (in the form of terminology) of the sources into article space in a policy compliant way without caring about what that POV is. If it is the case that "The overwhelming majority of high quality sources consistently use the terminology "Israeli settlement" before, and often to the exclusion of, any other description." then that is what we should do and we don't have a policy based reason to worry about it. You and Stellarkid seem to be looking for some kind of order and fairness which doesn't exist. I would much prefer there to be a policy that formalised how locations were described in articles in a project-wide consistent way so that we could just follow simple taxonomic hierarchy-like rules (as if we were dealing with biology) and not have to deal with this terminology ordering issue.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the case that every other locality in Wikipedia is described primarily as a town, city or whatever. For instance, the article on Transkei starts by stating that it "was a Bantustan" -- ie, by describing its specific political nature in the apartheid society. Similarly for Bophutatswana, Venda, Ciskei and many more. In these cases, what made the regions notable was not their size, location or population, but their political nature and purpose. The sanme is true for Israeli settlements. RolandR (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(replying to Shuki's comment at 08:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)) Would placing 'X is a primarily Jewish (village/town/city) built on land occupied/annexed (as appropriate) by Israel in the aftermath of the Six Day/Yom Kippur (as appropriate) War in (year), which is illegal under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is also widely considered a violation of UN Resolution 242, including by such nations and organisations as A, B, and C.', or text conveying the same information, in the lead of the relevant settlement articles, with relevant citations, be acceptable to you (Shuki)? --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 10:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrensath, that would be called boilerplate text and, in general, it is not tolerated in WP, and specifically here, especially since the legality is disputed. We've actually have had these discussion before, and it would only seem fair if some international court directly related to a certain place, and had decided that one specific place was illegal could this be included. --Shuki (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with only allowing a version of my proposed text on localities that have been specifically ruled illegal by international courts is that it completely ignores that all the localities on land Israel has occupied or unilaterally annexed are prima facie illegal under the 4GC. To analogise, premeditated killing is illegal (with the exception of death sentences), whether or not a court has ruled any specific act of premeditated killing to be illegal (again barring death sentences). --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 05:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Roland, thanks for the examples, but that would fall into Nableezy's explanation for term given by 'occupying power'. Bantustans were Bantustans. They seem to be only 'areas', not unlike Indian reservations, and not have different sizes that is necessary to explain the different places in the Judea and Samarian District, Golan Heights, and former Gaza and Sinai areas. The bantustans were not countries and it seems no one recognized them either as such. What other term might be used? Interesting though, on the Bophuthatswana article I found that Despite its official isolation, however, the government in Mmabatho managed to set up a trade mission in Tel Aviv, Israel. So much for Israel being an apartheid state. Nonetheless, I would accept that we could deprecate the local government status to size of locality instead. Instead of calling Elkana a local council, the lead should read Elkana is a town. --Shuki (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something here, but I can't for the life of me understand how the fact that Bophuthatswana had a trade mission in Tel Aviv disproves the assertion that Israel is an apartheid state. RolandR (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary description should be the one most often used in high quality sources. Nobody has disputed that for the localities Israel has built in the occupied territories that description is "Israeli settlement". The lead should read "X is an Israeli settlement in Y (West Bank or Golan Heights). It was designated as a town by Israel in YYYY." You argument rests on the premise that all locality articles say "X is a city". Even if that were true, and it is not, these localities are not like other localities. Please dont continue playing this game, the comparison is baseless and so are the conclusions that are made from them.  nableezy  - 21:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nableezy, if you were a reasonable editor, confident in your position, you would not feel the need to endlessly rehash your argument and get in the last word each time with absolutely nothing new to add to the discussion. But this is a tried and true tactic your have used extensively elsewhere that scares away uninvolved editors who could not be bothered to read so much and frankly, should not need to. This is exactly what is affecting the quality of this RrC. --Shuki (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the RFC is going quite well. And you have repeated the same bogus argument ad nauseam, you cant blame me for refuting it each time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is your third lie this week trying to mislead people about my edits. You should have noticed that Roland and Andrensath have joined the discussion with good points and I am replying to them on that. You merely chimed in with absolutely nothing new and entirely unrelated to what we are talking about now, and then claimed that I readded my 'ad nauseam' :-) opinion, when in fact I clearly did not. --Shuki (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except you continue to refuse to address the actual issue. That the most common phrasing in the sources should be what our primary description is. And I am not lying, as anybody who looks at the record can readily see for themselves. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are indeed lying again with this personal attack above "you have repeated the same bogus argument ad nauseam" deliberately trying to belittle anything I comment on in this in RfC which you think you WP:OWN. And don't threaten me on my talk page. --Shuki (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think I own the RFC, in fact I am quite happy you finally put an alternative proposal on the page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(from Shuki at 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)) Shuki, please refrain from describing the Israel-occupied section of the western bank of the Jordan as the 'Judea and Samaria District'. It risks giving the appearance of being POV-pushing (sp?), which is not helpful to reaching consensus. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 05:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? 'Settlement' is not POV-pushing? reply to editor on his talk page. This is not the scope of this RfC. --Shuki (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Town or village or city first, "settlement" second
Calling these places towns and villages is not a fringe view. Even settlements are "towns and villages" or communities. "Settlements" merely says something about location, nothing about the type of community. Check out for instance the definition of Boston, which says first of all that it is a "city" and secondly that it is located in Massachusetts. Or perhaps check out Ramallah, which is first of all a "Palestinian" city and secondly its location defined. "Settlements", even "Israeli settlements" tells us something about location only nothing about any other aspect of the community. "Settlement" tells us location and location only. City or town or community should come first. "Settlement" should come second if there are RS to call it a "settlement." This is the way WP defines every other place in the world. Stellarkid (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But what if it is the case that "The overwhelming majority of high quality sources consistently use the terminology "Israeli settlement" before, and often to the exclusion of, any other description." as it says in the Statement by Nableezy ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I answered this below. I'm not at all sure it is the case. But an encyclopedia is different from an article by the UN or B'tselem.  We are trying to define or describe a named town or city or community when we write an article on it. B'tselem is not defining it when it writes something about it.  I do not argue that some towns or cities do not meet the definition of Israeli settlement as generally accepted, or that we should not use that term at all.  But WP has a standard way of expressing place, and according to that way, "city" or "town" should come before location, which is the only thing that "settlement" tells us.  There is no need for a different standard for Israeli or Jewish towns or cities.  Stellarkid (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The fringe view Nableezy is referring to, AFAICT, is not that they are towns or villages; it is that they are towns or villages only, and not settlements on land occupied and/or unilaterally annexed in violation of international law. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 02:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you are wrong. He wants to place "settlement" before city or town or village.  Stellarkid (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what primary description means. I am not opposed to including the municipal status given by the occupying power, be that city, town, local council, whatever, but to place it ahead of what sources overwhelmingly use as the primary, if not only, description of these places violates WP:WEIGHT. The most notable thing about any of these places is that nearly every country in the world, with one obvious exception, agrees that they are illegal settlements in occupied territory. These places have a designated label used by the entire world, and that is "Israeli settlement". This isnt about which "side" is being given the primary representation, the "Palestinian POV" isn't even expressed in any of the options. This was the same thing that happened in the JS/WB case, where people played it like it was "West Bank"=Palestinian POV and "Judea and Samaria"=Israeli POV and they must be balanced. But that wasnt the case, it was "Occupied Palestine"=Palestinian POV, "Judea and Samaria"=Israeli POV, and "West Bank"=Everybody else in the world. This is the same situation, "Israeli settlement"!=Palestiniain POV, it is "Israeli colony in Occupied Palestine"=Palestinian POV, "town"=Israeli POV, and "Israeli settlement"=Everybody else in the world. My point is that what everybody else uses should be what we use as the primary description. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stellarkid, I don't think you answered my question. My point was that if the statement "The overwhelming majority of high quality sources.." etc can be shown to be the case, what then ? What if every single source in the world used the Israeli Settlement terminology in the way nableezy describes ? Would you still make the same argument based on an appeal to a non-existent standard ? It seems to me that if nablezzy's statement can be demonstrated to be the case then it becomes a simple matter of policy compliance, editors views/consensus become irrelevant and there is really nothing for anyone to argue or get upset about. WP doesn't have a standard way of expressing place that is defined by mandatory policy compliance rules as far as I am aware nor is this simply about expressing place or location. WP doesn't even have standard rules about how to name a place (see Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) for example). What it does have is standard ways of ensuring that what we say is consistent with what reliable sources say and those are mandatory policies where non-compliance simply isn't an option. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a non-existent standard. Look at any place name in WP and they call it a town or city in a place.  Did you look at how Ramallah was described?  Or Boston?  It was described as a Palestinian city in the West Bank.  Calling something a settlement tells you it where it is located only.  It tells you nothing else about it.  Thus there is no reason not to refer to an Israeli equivalent as an Israeli city in the West Bank, perhaps adding something like, "also referred to as a 'settlement' since it was built on land captured by Israel in 1967."  There are plenty of ways of adding the "settlement" word. There is no reason, however, to dehumanize people anywhere simply because one is sympathetic to the position of the Palestinians.  They are a town or a city or a neighborhood or a community first, and a settlement only later.  The are first and foremost a group of people.  That is how all of the wiki place names work. Description first, geography second. Please stop with making special cases just for Israel.  Stellarkid (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of those other cities are built by an occupying power in occupied territory? Which of those other cities have the International Court of Justice unanimously agreed to be violations of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Which of those other cities have the UN GA passed resolutions by a votes of the margin such as 173-2 on their being illegally constructed? These are not analogous to those articles. This isnt a "special case for Israel", as none of the places we are talking about are in Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I guess it is just a special case for Jews. You know -- "Jewish settlements."  Stellarkid (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to give that line a proper response, but this will do. No, not a special case for Jews. A special case for localities constructed in occupied territory in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I suggest you do your homework and find other places on WP and in the world which support your argument. For now, you are attempting to create a unique 'naming' convention here to support your POV. And please stop your continued delegitimization of Israel by refering to its localities with 'status given by the occupying power'. It is only reasonable and quite easy to qualify populated places based on the size of it's population. It is not a simple label arbitrarily decided upon.

But that would imply normalcy, and your attitude here seems to want to minimize that aspect. --Shuki (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * outpost - a few families,
 * village - a few families to a few hundred,
 * town - several hundred families,
 * city - several thousand families.
 * I am not "delegitimizing" Israel. Israel is the occupying power, and the status of "city", "town", "local council" is given by Israel. And, again, these arent "normal" circumstances. And Roland gave a few examples below. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How many of the 120 odd new localities the Chinese built in Tibet since occupying it are described primarily (or even at all) as settlements in wikipedia? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How widespread is the view that China occupied Tibet? Does it come anywhere close to the near unanimity in the view that these settlements are illegally constructed in occupied territory? And what do the sources use for the localities China has built? Do you dispute that the sources overwhelmingly use this as the primary, and often only, description of these places? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The view that China occupies Tibet is pretty widespread. I don't know how often the settlements China has built in Tibet are described as settlements, but you're just proving the point that when describing Israeli localities as such, the description is political. This encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral and consistent. Nobody is saying not to mention these are settlements at all, but using that as the first descriptor, as opposed to every single human locale in the world (including other settlements) is obvious political POV pushing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it not "political POV pushing" to deprecate the international standard terminology about certain places and place the chosen language of a fringe sized minority ahead of it? This encyclopedia is supposed to be NPOV, you are right, but if you read NPOV you will see that it specifically says that "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "international standard terminology" requires that "settlement" be used before any other descriptor? Really? Where can I read more about this "standard"?
 * I seriously doubt that the view that Modiin Illit is a town is a "fringe" view. Do you deny it's a town? Does anyone? Where's the "fringe" here?
 * You are misusing the terms "fringe" and "minority view" to push a political agenda. The fact the first sentence of the lead will note that this town is a settlement is giving it due weight. Nobody is trying to hide that fact or remove it from the very first sentence of the lead. You want to give it UNDUE weight by requiring that "settlement" be the very first descriptor, unlike any other place humans live anywhere in the world, even similar disputed places.
 * Your quote from NPOV says nothing about the order of significant viewpoints, just their proportion. I didn't check, but I doubt there's an article about an Israeli settlement that doesn't go into some detail about the fact it's a settlement. That satisfies NPOV. Your insistence that "settlement" be the first descriptor is not supported by this policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not misusing anything and I am not pushing an "agenda", at least no more than the people arguing we should emphasize the status given by the occupying power ahead of international standard terminology. And my position most assuredly is backed by WEIGHT. WEIGHT speaks to the emphasis given to "POVs", and that emphasis is not simply how many words are written on the subject. By placing the fringe position that these places are primarily "towns" "villages" ahead of the super-majority view that these places are Israeli settlements. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. The word "town" has a dictionary definition and is not "the status given by the occupying power". It's an objective term that describes populated area of a certain size. That you want to put the political status ahead of the objective definition is certainly pushing an agenda, attempting to dehumanize the people who live there, as if the political status is more important than the fact it's a place where people live. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Israeli settlement" is an objective term that describe a populated place in a certain location. The status of town, city, or local council is in fact given by the Israeli government, the occupying power. And I am not "dehumanizing" anything, I am using terminology to describe these colonies that is used by the super-majority of sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a political term that is only applicable as long as the political situation remains the same. It's not tied to a location, it's tied to a political status. It may change tomorrow. The fact Modiin Illit is a town (per the dictionary definition) will not change if the political status changes.
 * Perhaps you can show me some other places, people or whatever that are defined primarily by their political status, then I might reconsider my opinion that you are attempting to dehumanize the people living in these places. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Israeli settlement has a well defined meaning, a locality Israel has built in the territories occupied in 1967. For your question, Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. The Province of New Hampshire was a crown colony. As was the Province of Massachusetts Bay. And I really dont care if you are of the opinion that I am "dehumanizing" the people. What I do care is you spewing such a vile accusation with an implicit meaning that we both understand. But could you please answer a question? Do you dispute that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to these places primarily, and often exclusively, as "Israeli settlements"? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you just use something like India as an example? After all it says it's a country. You picked examples that are not relevant to this discussion. By the way, the examples you gave use the terminology the British (i.e. the colonizer) uses.
 * I don't know if most sources refer to the places primarily or exclusively as "Israeli settlements". I do know that it is very uncommon on wikipedia to put the political status before the description of localities. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)