Talk:Shavei Shomron

'occupied'

Please do not add POV boilerplate material to the article unless it is directly related to this article. --Shuki (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not "POV boilerplate material", it is the current status of the territory. And it is directly related to this article. nableezy - 19:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is, and not directly related at all. Every other month, someone comes along (AGF) and decides to change the leads of the locality articles. Every other month, we get dragged into the same endless discussion/argument. Don't you remember part of the reason you got blocked two months ago? --Shuki (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was topic-banned for repeatedly resisting a blatant POV push of attempting to remove a common Arabic name from an article. And what is exactly "POV" about saying "occupied West Bank"? There is no real dispute about the current status of the West Bank (Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation). nableezy - 22:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It was never Palestinian territory. Besides the fact that there was never a Palestinian country or sovereign entity in the area known today as the 'West Bank', the vast majority of Jewish villages were built on 'state lands' which included land administered by Jordan that was land administered by the Turks/Ottomans. Other land was purchased by Jews in legal transactions with Arab land owners. Some land has disputed ownership. I'm looking into the history of Shavei Shomron to get more specifics on its founding and what was the status of the land beforehand. --Shuki (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"It was never Palestinian territory"? Interesting. Perhaps you are talking about another West Bank. Because the West Bank that I am talking about is nearly universally recognized as Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. And "universally recognized" is a reference to not just the UN, the ICRC, the EU, and nearly every government in the world, but also countless high quality sources. Can you name one source that is peer-reviewed or published by an academic press that makes the ludicrous claim that it "was never Palestinian territory"? Or even one that makes the slightly less ludicrous, but still ludicrous, claim that it is not currently Palestinian territory? Sources are clear about this, it not only a super-majority view, it almost a unanimous view that the West Bank is Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. nableezy - 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

additional information and sources

Aronson, Geoffrey (Summer 1996). "Settlement Monitor: Quarterly Update on Developments". Journal of Palestine Studies. 25 (4). University of California Press: 125–136.:

p. 130: Nablus, because of its strategic location in the center of the northern West Bank, is surrounded by Jewish settlements. Kedumim, Kedumim Tzafon, Givat Hamerkazi lie to the east; Shavei Shomron to the northwest; the Mt. Ibal military installation and Elon Moreh to the north and northeast; Tel Hayim and Itamar to the southeast and south; Barakha directly south; and Yitzhar southwest. These settlements, and the Jewish-only bypass roads that are planned to link them, will entirely surround Nablus and isolate it from the rest of the West Bank.
Shavei Shomron-Mt. Ibal bypass road: Twenty-four hundred dunums from Dayr Sharaf, Naqura, Bayt Iba, Zawata, and Ibelia, located to the west-northwest of Nablus, have been confiscated to build an eight kilometer road surrounding Nablus to the north, crossing highway 60, which will link Shavei Shomron to the military installation on Mt. Ibal. There is a strong doubt that the road will end at the military installation, as Elon Moreh lies just to the east of the military installation. The area through which this road will pass is considered the bread basket of the area, and over one hundred people are affected by these confiscations.

Ill see what else I can find. nableezy - 23:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is about a road, not the Jewish village. I wonder if that has something to do with a (Israeli) plan to prohibit Jewish travel on road 60 through Hawarra and instead construct a bypass road in order to reduce that area of friction. Hawarra is apparently the largest Arab village that still has Jewish travel permitted through it and I know that the Arabs and the Israeli government would prefer to prohibit that. But this is not a forum and relevant discussion for this article. --Shuki (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I know it is not a forum, but a line on a Jewish only road connecting Shavei Shomron with other settlements surrounding Nablus, built on expropriated land, would be relevant here. nableezy - 12:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that information about Interstate 55 is relevant and improves the quality of the Chicago article? I think not. And FWIW, 'Jewish-only' bypass roads are a myth. There are two types of roads in Judea and Samaria - roads that are closed to Jews and all the other roads that are open to full Jewish and Arab traffic. The only roads that are 'Jewish-only' are the side roads that branch off the main routes/roads lead only into the Jewish villages. They are not really 'Jewish-only' but there is not really any reason for anyone else to be on it except for local residents, unless there is Arab land surrounding it in which case the farmers use it. The Israeli settlement article needs to be updated with this and the fact that many checkpoints have been removed. --Shuki (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Stevenson (in Chicago lingo, just had to do that), as well as the rest of the expressways, does get a mention in Chicago, an article many times the size of this (the article has the line Nine interstate highways run through Chicago and its suburbs. Segments that link to the city center are named after influential politicians, with four of them named after former U.S. Presidents. When referring to the expressways, citizens tend to use the names of the expressways rather than the interstate numbers.) and a link to the main article for highways in the Chi (Streets and highways of Chicago) which goes into further detail. And while it is arguable that Chicago and everything surrounding it was effectively stolen from the Native Americans, specifically the Potawatomis (who gave Chicago its name btw), we do not have a source that explicitly says that I-55 was built on expropriated land. As far as what is myth and what is fact, it is a fact that a high quality source explicitly says "Jewish-only bypass road" and also says that the land for the road was expropriated from Palestinian villages. If you have a source that disputes that, by all means present it, but as it stands a high quality source, which shockingly would be the only source in the article if included, has been presented that says this. nableezy - 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently, (without looking for sources about this) I only have OR (my personal driving) around the area to confirm that if anything, there are many Arab-only roads off limits to Jews and the other roads have free passage for all. In fact, there was a time at the high point of violence when Arab transportation was limited to public only (bus and taxi) and access roads to main routes were blocked off entailing large detours for non-Israeli cars, but the 'Jewish-only' thing was/is heavily exaggerated. The source you brought might be RS but uncertain quality, and its claim is speculation and we avoid that on WP. Mentioning a road that passes by the village is legitimate, but using the village article to expand the controversy might be UNDUE weight. If the reason for the road is for the benefit of the Shavei residents, legitimate, but if it is not really related, and actually simply a road being built to an army base, then frankly not relevant in this article. --Shuki (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you object to the following line cited to the source above:

Twenty-four hundred dunums were confiscated from Palestinian villages to build a bypass road from Shavei Shomron to the Mt. Ibal military installation.

I specifically avoided "Jewish-only" though I would still like to see a source dispute it, either generally or in this specific instance. nableezy - 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is from 1996, and we do not even know if this is true and if the road was ever built. I went to google maps looking for this alleged road and I'm not sure where it is. There seems to be a new road under construction, but it is not going through much farmland and it comes way to close to the houses anyway to be considered a 'Jewish' bypass road. The army would not plan a road within 50 metres of many houses. Maybe this is a regular highway for the city of Shechem/Nablus ? Certainly a better idea than the poor road infrastructure planning the British left the whole Mandate land area to deal with requiring drivers to go through the cities/villages. (ever been to London?) In any case, at this point, it does not seem relevant to the Shavei Shomron article. --Shuki (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is from 1996, but we are not using it to say that a road currently exists, but rather that x amount of land was confiscated to build a road connecting this settlement to a military installation. How is that not relevant to the page about the settlement? nableezy - 22:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We would need a better source and an updated one to show that this claim is in fact true. In the meantime, no road has been built and to confirm this negative claim, you should definitely find a more updated source to show that the lands were in fact appropriated / confiscated and that it is not just a contingency plan to be implemented in the future if at all. i.e. speculation at the very least. --Shuki (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A better source? Thois is a peer reviewed journal published by an academic press. There is no better source. And you arguing about the truth of the issue, the criteria here is verifiability, not truth. A high quality source says this is true, that is all that is needed. nableezy - 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So? peer-reviewed journals are bible/qurans that are perfect and undeniable? 13 years ago, someone made a claim that has yet come to fruition if it really did exist at all. If it did exist, there would be an Israeli record of it and many more sources. --Shuki (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to engage in blasphemy, Im sure you can understand, so Ill just say that on WP peer reviewed sources published by academic presses are reliable sources. If you would like we can take this to WP:RS/N, though honestly that would be a little silly. WP:RS explicitly says that such sources are reliable (Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. from WP:RS#Scholarship). Unless you can present a source that disputes the line above it should be included in the article (and will be in a few hours). nableezy - 19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)