Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements

Should we use the term used by "Majority of sources" ?

• Some examples:

1. The overwhelming majority of sources refer to Osama bin Laden as a terrorist. Although he is the world's #1 terrorist, our article about him doesn't label him a terrorist.
2. The international community, including the United Nations and the European Union, do not accept the sovereignty of Turkey over Northern Cyprus. Yet it is referred to as a "de facto state" and not as "occupied territory", and it's population centers are called "cities" and "villages".
3. The overwhelming majority of sources refer to "Palestinian political violence" as "Palestinian terrorism". Why don't we use the term "Palestinian terrorism"?

Why should we have double standards ? Why not choose the NPOV terms as we do in other articles? If we decide that the policy is "use the term used by overwhelming Majority of sources" then that policy should apply to every article in Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If other articles (such as the Northern Cyprus article you mentioned) have flaws then change those articles. No need to bring it up here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I gave those examples for a reason. For example see this very interesting talk entry by the opener of this discussion: [1] So, should we use what the vast majority of sources use or not? Marokwitz (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV policy is pretty clear. All significant published views are supposed to be included. Not just one side or the other. An RfC can't change fundamental policies. Any interested user can edit the articles you've mentioned. harlan (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully. This is not the dispute. Everybody agrees that All significant published views are supposed to be included. The dispute is whether articles should use the neutral term "city"/"village" as the primary term describing the place, since it is WP:NPOV and undisputed, or to use the loaded term "settlement" which has been claimed to be "used by the majority of sources". In my view - we should use the NPOV term as the primary term (and still mention all significant published views) Marokwitz (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the view that "settlement" is not a neutral term. Implantation of settlers and settlements by Israel is a very well known legal issue and that is the way that the original sources framed the debate. WP:YESPOV does not permit editors to disparage that subject, just report on it. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view.

I've been reading very carefully ever since Shuki misread/misreported the contents of the Sasson report and started a campaign to purge articles of the terms "illegal outpost" and "settlement" (seeing is believing). harlan (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is non neutral term, and even more so when talking about East Jerusalem neighborhoods and the Golan Heights, which were annexed to Israel and the Israeli government claims is a part of Israel (in contrast to the West Bank). Calling those cities and neighborhoods "settlements" is not something that Israelis/Palestinians/Syrians agree upon, this is the essence of the conflict, and therefore by definition cannot be called a "neutral fact". Therefore we should simply call them "cities" and add a cited section mentioning the legal status. Calling a neighborhood in Jerusalem a "Settlement" clearly opposes the "Israeli" view, and endorses the "International Community" view. I really don't see why you are objecting to the simple word "cities", given that we are leaving out no facts and nothing is censored . Marokwitz (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the sense that we have to give extreme minority positions equal footing with overwhelming majority positions. You are not only arguing that we should, but that we should give the extreme minority position greater weight than the overwhelming majority position. WP:WEIGHT specifically speaks against that idea. nableezy - 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli government positions are not "extreme minority positions". For example a recent poll shows that 75% of Israelis support construction of neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and do not see them as settlements. The support for building in the Golan heights is event higher. There are millions of international supporters of Israel. So there are at very least millions of people who believe otherwise. An "extreme minority position" would be, for example, disputing the moon landing. In articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict, both sides SHOULD be given equal weight, and neutral language should be used in all cases. This doesn't mean we don't report on all viewpoints, we certainly should and will, but when reporting on the number of schools in Gilo, we will use the natural language "the number of schools in the neighborhood" and not "the number of schools in the settlement". Marokwitz (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

They often are "extreme minority positions". And millions of people "dispute" the moon landing ever took place, we still dont give them equal weight. And you completely ignore the part in NPOV were it says that weight on POVs in an article is determined by the weight in sources. Do you actually dispute that the overwhelming majority of sources call these places primarily Israeli settlements? nableezy - 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that the majority of sources referring to Gilo and Kazrin use "Neighborhood" and "City" than "settlement". That's because they are places where hundreds of thousands of people live their normal lives, and there are many things going on that are unrelated to politics or land disputes. We don't have access to all the libraries in the world, and don't speak all the languages. And Newspapers are not encyclopedias, they are bound to different standards. But in any case that doesn't matter. Due weight does not say we need to use the most common words (for example "Bin laden is a terrorist"). It talks about not allocating large portions of the article to fringe positions (such as "The Israelis are responsible for 9/11, Osama bin laden is innocent"). 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us not forget that Israel annexed East Jerusalem and therefore can build whatever it wants there unless/until they decide to exchange it for peace with the Arabs. --GHcool (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us not also forget that annexation was ruled "null and void" by the UNSC and that the ICRC and the ICJ have both unequivocally said that EJ remains occupied and Israeli settlements in EJ violate the 4th GC. nableezy - 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum. For the purpose of Wikipedia it doesn't matter whether it is legal or illegal annexation. We need to use neutral language regardless of our opinions. Marokwitz (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that, which is why I have not given my own opinion. And your contention that "town" is neutral and that "Israeli settlement" is not does not in any way conform with how WP:NPOV defines "neutral". nableezy - 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The policy states that NPOV "does not endorse or oppose specific viewpoints", and since I am in the view that Israeli view is a "specific viewpoint", we should not endorse or oppose it, rather report on the different opinions. The part about "Due and undue weight" deals with the amount of space allocated for different opinions in the article and not to choice of words. "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes". Marokwitz (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So choosing to emphasize the language of an extreme minority position is not "endorsing or opposing a specific viewpoint"? Really? The policy also says "Don't misrepresent the relevant prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity." It is not a "viewpoint" that these places are Israeli settlements, it is a viewpoint that they are illegally constructed. We dont endorse any viewpoint by using the most common label for a locality as the label for that locality. nableezy - 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to "emphasize the language" of any side, rather to use a neutral term. Everyone agree that Katzrin is a town. Even the Syrians, if asked, would agree that it is a town. Do you dispute that it is, in fact, a town? Marokwitz (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are emphasizing the language of a certain side, the Israeli government calls Katzrin a town. Nearly everybody else in the world calls it a settlement. What I think a Syrian would say is that "No, it is an Israeli colony in occupied Syrian territory". I am not suggesting that we use what each side uses, I am suggesting we use what everybody else in the world uses. And I already said I am fine with including the municipal status as given by Israel, but not as the primary description because the sources do not use that as the primary description. Do you dispute that the most common phrasing in reliable sources to describe the localities that Israel occupied in 1967 is "Israeli settlement"? nableezy - 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you dispute that Katzrin is a town, then we have a serious problem. I don't think many will dispute that. There is no contradiction between it being a town and being a settlement. Regarding your question, I don't know, but I estimate that the majority of sources mentioning Katzrin are probably Israeli ones, since Israelis live there. Also in a very non-scientific survey [Which is not a good indication] there are 463 results for "+Katzrin +settlement" and over 10,000 results for "+Kazrin +town" Marokwitz (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe I said I dispute anything. And what matters here is what do most reliable sources say, not which phrase returns a greater number of google hits. And Israeli sources also call Katzrin a settlement (Haaretz: the largest Israeli settlement in the Golan). And non-Israeli sources also report on Katzrin (BBC: largest settlement, The Independent: biggest settlement, NYTimes Golan Heights settlement). nableezy - 19:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, so assuming from the above you don't dispute it is a town, all present editors are in agreement that it is both a town and a settlement. There is no dispute that Kazrin a town. Now, we are left with two words. One that everybody can accept, is merely descriptive, and does not bear any judgement either way, and one that implicitly implies that the Israeli annexation is illegal. To me it is obvious what's the more WP:NPOV term. I think that your argument that the Israeli official position is a fringe opinion akin to "The world is flat", and thus can be ignored when choosing our words, is very weak. But we are turning in circles and apparently we will not be able to reach consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't the reults I get http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%2BKatzrin+%2Bsettlement&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 11400] 22400. In any case, WP:GHITS can be extended to apply here. It is not the quantity but quality (reliability) of the sources that is relevant.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It actually seems that Nableezy is pushing and others here are pushing the 'quantity' of sources which is not too good a position. Another issue is that Nableezy seems to claim that the terms used to describe Israeli localities are made up by Israel - village, town, city, etc... and are therefore not legitimate descriptors. --Shuki (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It actually seems as though you misrepresented my argument. Kindly dont do that. nableezy - 21:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is what I understand is your main point, you say it repeatedly, and it is not misrepresenting anything. That and that I think this is POV. --Shuki (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I never said the Israeli designation is not "legitimate", I clearly said it should be included. What I have said is that the Israeli designation does not outweigh what the entire world uses instead. And I am not "pushing the 'quantity'" of the sources. What I have said is that high quality sources almost exclusively use "Israeli settlement" and thus should Wikipedia. Please dont put words in my mouth, I am generally careful with the words I choose for a reason. nableezy - 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, don't shy away from your repeated remarks of municipal status given by the occupying power. You clearly infer that the status is not 'real' and explicitly state that it is fringe. It therefore implied many times on these two pages (despite one single mention), that you do not accept the general NPOV size status of these localities (despite RS confirming this size). Tapuach is a village, only because Israeli gave it that label, Katzrin is a town only because Israel gave it this status, Ariel is a city? Only because Israel arbitrarily decided so. --Shuki (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"municipal status given by the occupying power" means exactly what it says. Please dont make such implications from my words; if you do not understand what I have said tell me and I will explain further. nableezy - 21:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"municipal status given by the occupying power" is nonsense. Show a picture of Modi'in Illit to anyone and ask them what that is and they'll tell you it's a town. Not because they know its "municipal status" but because the word "town" has an objective meaning most people understand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you show it to them on a map that outlines the occupied territories they will say it is either a colony or an Israeli settlement. Not because they are "anti-Israel", but because "Israeli settlement" has an objective meaning that most people understand. nableezy - 13:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think this is a no-brainer. WP:NPOV says that we go by what the majority of WP:RS say. They say "settlement". Also, this is the position of the international community, which is a distinct matter from WP:RS and something that might be more discussed in wiki policies. Something that should also be taken into account that it's Israeli and US sources that usually are the ones that fail to use "settlement". Calling them "cities" etc can be seen as an attempt to "normalize" them. --Dailycare (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

Since the definition of an Israeli settlement is a human settlement (or community/municipality or whatever) built on occupied land, why don't you just split the difference and write that out rather than using simple term by itself. So we could say that Ariel is a city built by Israel on land under military occupation. Or land captured in 1967 and held under occupation since then or whatever. That way we get to say that it is a geographical/sociological construct and also expound a little bit on what we mean when we say it is a settlement. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ironically enough, this was actually proposed by me earlier, and rejected by Shuki. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 05:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this proposal. It is accurate and descriptive. "A city built by Israel on land captured in 1967 and is considered occupied by the United Nations." Marokwitz (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but even the CIA don't worry about using Israeli settlement as a primary term e.g. this interpreted spot sat imageTalk:West_Bank#request_for_change. I'm still struggling to see why this terminology is so special that we need to invent new methods to deal with it when the issue is already covered by existing policies. It makes no difference to me personally what the primary term is or what the agreed decision is as long as it produces the most policy compliant solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If it makes no difference to you why do you keep pushing for a certain decision? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching more than pushing but if I am pushing it's because for me it looks like a simple case of applying policy and producing a policy compliant result, at least for the West Bank and the Golan. EJ is more complicated. What I see is editors not thinking clearly, caring too much and having a conflict of interest that makes them unable to treat terminology as if it is just a string of characters that RS have picked. The COI happens elsewhere e.g. at evolution related articles where it's just mercilessly crushed by editors simply enforcing policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what is not "policy compliant" with JGG's suggestion above, and if it is policy compliant, why you decided to attempt to derail it by posting something that doesn't address what he said specifically, but will be a cue for other pro-P editors not to support it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

'why you decided to attempt to derail it by posting...' means you don't get an answer. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So no policy based argument? How unfortunate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It isnt just considered occupied by the United Nations and a link to Israeli settlement should be retained. This is the common terminology used to describe these localities built in the territories occupied by Israel and I see no reason why we should pussyfoot around it. Every objection to the use of this term has been centered around certain users not liking the term. Sorry, but that is not a valid reason to ignore what the sources say. The sources call these places "Israeli settlements", so should we. nableezy - 13:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason we should make an exception to using the term that WP:RS use? --Dailycare (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay Nab. Well how about rendering it as "Ariel is an Israeli settlement: a city built on land under military occupation." I think the most legitimate complaint is that by writing settlement, we exclude the sociological and geographical fact of its existence as a human settlement. I think it is probably most NPOV to include both. This approach both explains that it is a municipality and expounds on the meotic euphemism of "settlement" to actually describe the issue of legal status. I think it is preferable for both positions. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is fine by me. But nobody is saying we cant say it is a "city", your proposal goes even further then mine by including "occupied" (which, despite the countless sources saying this as a simple fact, has been persistently fought off by a certain subset of users, to the point where it is nearly impossible to actually include this well documented statement of fact in an article). Mine just says that "Ariel is an Israeli settlement and a city in the West Bank". nableezy - 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we shouldn't say "Israeli settlement", either. I think the sociological and geographical fact of its existence as a human settlement should come before its political status, just like every other locality. These are people living in these places and it's dehumanizing to turn their city/town/village into a political issue before the neutral and objective descriptor of what kind of human settlement they're living in (again, like every other single human settlement on wikipedia, except those that have to do with Israel). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of sources define these places as Israeli settlements because they are not like every other human settlement. And please dont try that bs about this being different because it is about Israel, nobody has said that the towns in Israel should be dealt with in any way different than towns everywhere else in the world. This is an issue because these settlements are not like those towns. These settlements are not being treated different because they have to do with Israel, they are treated differently because they are different. Settlements established in occupied territory are not analogous to towns established elsewhere. Sources overwhelmingly define these settlements as "Israeli settlements" because they are not simply "towns" or "cities" or "villages". They are localities illegally constructed in occupied territory, to pretend that is the same thing as Boston or Chicago or Pleasanton is inane. nableezy - 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact that you want the towns that have to do with Israel to be dealt with in a way that's different than other human settlements, including other places where these settlements are built by an occupier and populated with the occupier's citizens. This is why your RfC is only about Israeli settlements rather than trying to figure out a wikipedia-wide guideline. It's also why there is only ONE uninvolved editor !voting on the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is nonsense. I do not want towns in Israel to be dealt with differently, I want illegally constructed localities built in occupied territory to be dealt with differently than those that are not. I am not involved in editing articles about Northern Cyprus or Tibet or any other place you want to compare the Israeli-occupied territories to, and if you want to open an RFC about the naming conventions for the towns in those areas you should feel free. I do however edit articles about Israel's occupation of these territories so I will focus on that. And the Wikipedia-wide guidelines are already set, they are called WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The reason that this RFC is about Israeli settlements specifically is because it is apparently impossible to actually enforce those Wikipedia-wide guidelines when it comes to the territory Israel holds under occupation. Kindly refrain from making bogus assumptions about what I want, as you have no idea what it is that I want. nableezy - 19:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My assumptions are based on your actions. It's a fact this RfC is only about Israel. It's also a fact that wikipedia does not primarily describe other similar settlements in occupied territory in the same way you want Israeli settlements to be described. You admit that your focus is solely on Israel and then call it BS when I say that this is different because it's about Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, my focus is on the Arab territory Israel holds under occupation. My focus is on Palestine and Syria. It just so happens that it is Israel that has illegally constructed settlements in Palestinian and Syrian territory (and once upon a time in Egyptian territory). Again, this is about things outside of Israel, this is about occupied Syrian and Palestinian territory. This RFC is about how localities established by the occupying power in Syrian and Palestinian territory are dealt with. See, I didnt even use the word Israel. And again, if you want to discuss how to apply NPOV and RS to the territories of Norther Cyrpus or Tibet or any other place feel free. What I am doing is showing that the sources overwhelmingly refer to the localities established illegally in Palestinian and Syrian territory a certain way. That way is "Israeli settlement". If this had been about any other state it would not even be an issue, but the only reason you and a few others are objecting is because it is "about Israel". It is only when things become about Israel's occupation that we have such problems. If the US had established such colonies in Iraq or Afghanistan and the sources called them "American settlements" nobody would argue about what Wikipedia should call them. It is only because it is Israel that has illegally constructed these localities that the language used by the sources faces a challenge. The policies on NPOV, specifically WEIGHT, and RS are clear. Whether or not they are applied is another question, one made more complicated because the obstinate attitudes that one encounters among certain editors when one tries to reflect the sources when it comes to nearly anything involving Israel. This same type of argument was held about "West Bank" and "Judea and Samaria". Again we had a set of editors determined to give less weight to the international standard terminology in favor of what a single state uses. The result, after a number of highly productive editors, on both sides, were topic banned (and one incredibly disruptive serial sockpuppeteer as well), was this where a consensus was established that Wikipedia does in fact use the terms that the sources overwhelmingly use, and that we dont use the language that a single state would rather apply to the territory it holds under occupation. nableezy - 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nableezy for that excllent response, every word of which I agree with. you have relieved me of the necessity of formulating just those words.RolandR (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First of all, you have not shown that the sources overwhelmingly refer to these places in any particular way, you have just repeated that claim over and over.

Second, of course it's about Israel, you even admitted that in your post before last. You can play with the semantics as much as you like, we all know what this is about, and as I pointed out above, that's the reason we only have involved editors commenting on this RfC.

Anyway, none of the policies you mentioned above require us to use a certain word order. Several editors have pointed out that your preferred word order is a. dehumanizing, and b. inconsistent with the way wikipedia treats similar places in similar situations. You don't care. I get it. I'm tired of going around in circles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know this is about illegally constructed localities in occupied Arab territory. And I have shown that fact a number of times on a number of different pages. And not one person has even disputed that fact. And last, we certainly are required to give due weight to the overwhelming majority of sources, and here those sources use "Israeli settlement" as the primary, if not exclusive, description of these localities. And finally, I really, truly, do not care what you or anybody else thinks is "dehumanizing". Whether or not you feel that way has no bearing on the language that Wikipedia uses to describe these localities. So from here on, I'm just going to ignore you and everybody else when they say that I or others or the sources are "dehumanizing". Mostly because it is a BS accusation, and also because it does not matter. I also am tired of running around in circles. I have repeatedly provided policy-backed arguments as to why the primary description of these places should be "Israeli settlement". You have just said "no". nableezy - 20:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy has a good point and you even confirm that you don't care about the rest of WP, just making sure that this corner of the world is set in a certain way. This RfC is not about the Israeli settlement article, it's about individual geographical points. No More Mr Nice Guy also makes another good point that basically renders this RfC useless. The stated point of the RfC is to bring an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input,. Without that outside input, nothing has changed. Could you help me to get more editors who've been involved in WP:Geography to take part? --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted everywhere I can think of. I've posted WT:ISRAEL, WT:PALESTINE, WT:IPCOLL and Talk:Israeli settlements. This is also in the RFC list for politics and for geography. Maybe a posting at WP:NPOV/N would also be useful. And yes, this RFC is not about the Israeli settlement article, it is about the articles for each Israeli settlement. And, again, kindly do not misrepresent what I said. I said that if anybody wishes to discuss Tibet or Northern Cyprus they should do that. I am discussing the Arab territories occupied by Israel and the illegally established localities in those territories. nableezy - 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And I just posted to WP:NPOV/N. nableezy - 00:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Sean. In fact there are two policies that are being disputed here; UNDUE and NPOV. The RfC is about which one applies. Me thinks that NPOV (stands for neutral POV) is most important. village, town, city, etc... are neutral terms. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV. nableezy - 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Add to that list WP:Geography I posted as well. I'm surprised that you think that you can create a unique structure for these articles. Sure, UNDUE is a subset of NPOV down in the middle of the article, but WP:MOS precedes it as well. --Shuki (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

These are articles on unique topics. But we both know where the other stands on the issue, I think its time to lay back and see what everybody else has to say. nableezy - 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, like many other editors I'm unable to see how Israeli Settlement isn't an NPOV compliant term and how its usage as a primary identifier would be UNDUE. I may of course be wrong. Similarly when I look at the Barack Obama article's opening sentence "Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States." where his current political status as President takes precedence over other aspects of Obama I see an NPOV/DUE compliant statement that reflects the sources. The actual term RS pick as the most important/standard identifier for these places is of no interest to me, Israeli settlement, aardvark, sofa, I really don't care and I don't think it matters. What I think is important is to ensure that editors make rational decisions that maximise policy compliance. We're supposed to be just sampling reliably sourced information, applying policy to the information and seeing what comes out of the other end e.g. -> Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. We aren't supposed to care what it is. We're all supposed to be uninvolved in that sense. I still can't understand the "it's POV"/"dehumanizing" arguments. It reminds me of some of the poor neglected stingless bees species of the Americas. They're sophisticated social bees with advanced comms systems, they make honey (an exceptionally rare activity for bee species) but they aren't honey bees. They are condemned by the academic community to be officially described merely as stingless bees rather than honey bees because they aren't members of the Apis genus (although some people refer to them, inaccurately, as honey bees). It seems unfair, POV, inconsistent, de-honeybee-izing but that is just how it is. Oddly no one seems upset about it, edit wars over it or finds it necessary to create an RfC. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is fundamentally incorrect, the status of Israeli constructed population centers in the Golan and neighborhoods in East Jerusalem is actually DISPUTED. Nobody argues that Barak Obama is not the president, and nobody disputes the bee's physiological characteristics. In topics where there is a DISPUTE then Wikipedia policy tells us to report on the dispute without taking sides. Marokwitz (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Errrr... --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really Marokwitz. Yes, Andrensath, that's exactly what I was going to say. There are plenty of people who would dispute the neutrality/validity/completeness of the Obama statement and their views feature in RS. And my point about the stingless bees was to illustrate that arguments from first principals based on consistency/logic/rules in editor's minds about taxonomy (like those being employed here to advocate precedence for generic location descriptors) can be contradicted by the consensus view in the RS in a way that superficially makes no sense at all, looks unfair/biased and could be disputed by anyone who knows enough about wikilawyering (and bees). Is there really a dispute about what RS say that we need to be concerned about or is there a Teach the Controversy-like dispute that we can ignore in articles that aren't dealing with the dispute itself ? Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel or not ? All of it or just part of it ? How much are we going to report on the dispute without taking sides in the sentence 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' ? I'm happy to just leave it as it is. (Also, I should add that many, many things about many aspects of many kinds of bees are disputed but unfortunately the articles don't attract as many editors as the I-P conflict for some reason).Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, "city" is only a neutral descriptor if it's what the majority of WP:RS use. As it is, "settlement" is more neutral since it's a descriptor that more WP:RS use. Since as a result of a RFC we can't decide to not apply WP:NPOV, this RFC should restrict itself to applying that policy to the question at hand. Here is a citation from that policy:

"editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view".

And another one:

"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".

It follows that as WP:RS primarily use "Israeli settlement", we'll use it primarily, too. Here is an example WP:RS that discusses Ariel, and mentions both "settlement" and "city". Suggestion: "Ariel is a city-sized Israeli settlement". --Dailycare (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sean, DailyCare and Andrensath, you are proving my theory. We are talking about the lead, not the rest of the article. Settlement is definitely not neutral, for what ynhockey stated; it's political and it also is vague. Anyway, Barak is definitely POTUS, Ariel is definitely a city. Absolutely, no one is denying that 18 000 people is not a city. Then that is the most neutral term to describe it. Just because that some tens of thousands of articles exist which do not refer to Ariel as a city, does not mean it isn't a city. It's actually poor writing, (I assume ignorance too) but the journalistic industry is a lost cause since the 80s. Good luck in getting the controversial info into the lead on the Barak article, even though there are many, many sources reporting about this controversy. --Shuki (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I'm afraid we are wasting our time. This debate will never reach any sort of consensus, since it's going in circles. Moving on to focus on productive work. Over and out. 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, no. The RFC has 30 days, let's see where we stand then. nableezy - 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, we're not discussing what makes a city. We're discussing what to write on wikipedia, and that's decided based on wikipedia policies. Editors' views on the state of modern journalism are irrelevant, except to the extent that we separate RS from non-RS. Also editors' views on what makes a city are irrelevant. If a significant part of respected sources were reporting the Barack Obama issue, it would be in the article. What decides is the proportion of representation a viewpoint gets, and the quality of sources. Jerusalem Post is less weighty than Le Monde. Whether we say primarily "Israeli settlement" or "city" is decided not based on our feelings, agendas or a shouting match, but by finding out which expression is used more frequently by the best sources. So far it hasn't been contested in this thread that "Israeli settlement" is the primary term in the best sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You gotta be joking. Le Monde is more RS than Jpost? Please read WP:OR. I definitely agree with you on this: Whether we say primarily "Israeli settlement" or "city" is decided not based on our feelings, agendas or a shouting match, but that is all. This is a geography article, not a political entity article. This is not about finding out which expression is most used at all, you are trying to make that justification. Geography articles are about geographic entities. But again, this is the base of the argument gone no where it seems because the basis of the discussion was not set beforehand. One side (represented by Nableezy's proposal) wishes to emphasize that these locations are political entities. I totally understand that POV. Some people, view Jewish settlement and sovereignty illegal. On the other hand, 'my' side sees these places primarily as normal geographic entities. This is frankly, not POV. Calling a city a city, is not POV. But your not listening to me anyway, so, whatever. --Shuki (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Which article are you discussing? If we're discussing e.g. Ariel, then it's not a "geography article" (whatever you mean by that), but an article about Ariel, and once more we treat the subject according to wikipedia policies. That means, that if geographical features are considered most prominent by WP:RS, then they're most prominent in the article, too. If you have an article entitled "Geography of Ariel" or whatever, then the issue is a bit different (although I don't think that subject is WP:Notable and probably the settlement issue would be dealt with in those sources, too). Once more I cite from WP:NPOV:

editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view

Do you have a policy-based argument as to why this wouldn't be a question of finding out what term is most often employed by the best sources? A policy-based argument has been presented that that's exactly what this is about. --Dailycare (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Duh. Where have you been until now? We've already discussed this a zillion times. Please read the entire discussion next time. If you have anything new to add, feel free. --Shuki (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I take it that's a "no". --Dailycare (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that after all these bytes, no one on the 'geography side' has produced any 'policy based arguments'? My answer is to read what has been written already by all editors on both pages. Once you are done, let me know if there is anything new to talk about. --Shuki (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not exactly what I said. In light of the citation(s) from WP:NPOV that I've now pasted once/twice there appear to be no policy-based arguments as to why this wouldn't be a question of finding out what term is most often employed by the best sources. Therefore, this is a question of finding out what term is most often employed by the best sources, and the finding out has already been achieved. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is a misleading 'nothing-new' statement. --Shuki (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you feel there is a policy-based counter-argument then please name the policy, cite it and apply it to the present question. I have named, cited and applied WP:NPOV. That hasn't been done by anyone from the "this is geography, therefore wikipedia policies don't apply" crowd. --Dailycare (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to quote almost ever line in WP:NPOV. Where should the pro-geography people start?

• The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject,
• should not endorse any particular point of view.
• be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone,
• Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias
• Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice
• When we want to present an opinion, we do so factually by attributing the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as a fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source for the fact that the person, organization, group or percentage of persons holds the particular opinion.
• Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves
• Almost anything about Flat Earth/Round Earth:
  • Ariel is a city = fact.
  • Ariel is an Israeli settlement = viewpoint.

The issue here is not UNDUE at all, but entirely NPOV neutrality. Should I go on? --Shuki (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly "disputes" that Ariel is an Israeli settlement? What is the bias in saying "Israeli settlement"? How is it "disparaging" to call these places Israeli settlements? How is it an "opinion" that these places are Israeli settlements. And the selective quoting you do border on being unbelievable. For example, the policy says that NPOV is "not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view" shortly after your first quote. The most blatant example of your selective reading of the policy is the third quote, which says in full "be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." (my emphasis on the part snipped out above). It is not an "opinion" or a "POV" that Ariel is an Israel settlement, it is a well-documented fact. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of quality sources choose to use that term as the primary description should be reflected, as the part of the NPOV policy you excluded above says. nableezy - 22:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nu, duh. Did I whine about DailyCare only quoting two lines? Did I claim that he was selective reading? DC asked for 'policy-based argument'. You got it. and then you rehased your arguements again. Go ahead, have the last word. I know you have to have it: --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now what you've done is cited some lines and then claimed that Ariel is a city in a different (and apparently "better") way than it's a settlement. Where does that come from? Everything should come from sources, and applying the parts of WP:NPOV you cite to the question at hand, we'll arrive at something like "Ariel is an Israeli settlement to which Israel has granted city rights", after e.g. the BBC source linked to above. Recall that above all, Ariel is a settlement (per the frequency of mention of it as a settlement, as compared to the frequency of mention of it as a city). Similarly, "without bias" means that we reproduce (roughly) the "market shares" of the various viewpoints in WP:RS, not that all viewpoints would be presented as equals (this is directly from WP:NPOV). --Dailycare (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha, slip of the tongue there. not that all viewpoints would be presented as equals Exactly the policy argument you wanted me to describe you are saying here. 'Settlement' is a view point. It's a general political label that is widely used to describe new populated places in these areas (many say Rawabi is actually the first Palestinian settlement). But the fact is that Ariel is a city, and Elkana is a town. If you want to argue that Ariel is a town and Elkana is a village, then objective consensus to get those qualifiers can be achieved later. 'City' is not just a label that Israel has given this populated place. That is merely an attempt to delegitimize, again. A populated place with tens of thousands of residents is not 'what Israel calls a city'. I fail to see where any other geography article on WP has that nonsense boilerplate. Miami is a place 'which Florida has granted city rights'. Give us a break already. --Shuki (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Miami is a place in Florida. It is not built on occupied territory, it is not regularly called a violation of international law. Please stop with these completely inane comparisons, they are not valid and you know it. If somebody had been trying to argue that we should say "Tel Aviv has been granted city status by Israel" you would have a point. But Tel Aviv is in Israel, Tel Aviv is not built on occupied territory. Ariel is not in Israel and Ariel is built on occupied territory. The comparisons you are making are utterly ridiculous. nableezy - 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for emphasizing that this is a POV issue for you. It's very hard for you to accept that these are regular places where people live, play, work, learn, and shop. Cities, towns, villages, farms, and more. --Shuki (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to take lessons from you on what is "POV". It is apparently hard for you to accept that these are not "regular" places, in fact they are the opposite of regular. These colonies are an aberration among current human settlements in that they are nearly universally regarded as illegally constructed in occupied territory. You can continue to pretend that this is analogous to Miami or any other city on the planet, but I'll call bs every time you do. This is not the same as Miami, and the sooner you stop making these completely illogical comparisons the sooner we can actually find a solution to the issue. You making wild comparisons does not help anything at all. nableezy - 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know of any other way to differentiate cities from towns or villages, except as a status given by the authorities? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please show me any other locality that is qualified by this 'village status given by the state' in the lead of the article.--Shuki (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Preston... is a city and non-metropolitan district in Lancashire, England. It is located on the north bank of the River Ribble, and was granted city status in 2002". "The City of Sunderland... is a local government district of Tyne and Wear, in North East England, with the status of a city and metropolitan borough"."The City of Carlisle... is a local government district of Cumbria, England, with the status of a city and non-metropolitan district". "Bath... is a city in the ceremonial county of Somerset in the south west of England... It was granted city status by Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth I in 1590". All of these appear in the lead, and there are many more similar examples. RolandR (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

All your examples start by stating it's a city, then move on to the status. The type of human settlement comes first. Nableezy and others object to doing the same thing in this case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Armagh... is a large settlement in Northern Ireland, and the county town of County Armagh. It is an ancient site of worship for both Celtic paganism and Christianity. Although classed as a medium-sized town,[1] Armagh was granted city status by Queen Elizabeth II in 1994". RolandR (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But being a city is not a type of human settlement. Rather it is a privelege granted by the state. Preston, Sunderland, Cartlisle etc. all are located in places where the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that the UK government is the state that has the right to determine whether settlemants qualify as cities or not. The places which we are discussing in this rfc, on the other hand, are in palces where only a minority of sources believe that Israel is the relevant state that can grant them any legal status including that of city. The vast majority of sources, on the other hand, believe that several supra-national authorities, including the UNSC etc., do have the legal power to pronounce on the status of these places. Therefore, the status of "illegal settlement" as determiend by those assorted supranational authorities is one agreed on by the vast majority of reliable sources as of utmost improtance, while the status granted by Israel (of city etc.) is regarded by them as of much less importance.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course being a city is a type of human settlement. If someone showed you a picture of Ariel and asked you what it was, you'd say it's a city. Not because you know what status Israel gave it, but because people know a city when they see one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"It looks like a city, hence it's a city" is definition with quite some degree of arbitrariness built in. What looks like a city to some might look like a town to others. Same for town vs. villages. Furthermore, it would depend on what picture was shown. It would not be encyclopedic to use such a definition. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, NMMNG. I've looked at the pictures in the article and it looks like a small town to me. Woking, Basingstoke and Reading, Berkshire are large towns and Ariel is a fraction of their size.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell it's an "illegal settlement"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If he looks at map he can. nableezy - 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? A map is enough? You don't need to know if Jews live there or not? You can tell that Ariel is a settlement but Salfit isn't by looking at a map? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a map is enough. For example, the CIA SPOT-5 map shows Ariel as a 'Built up area within an Israeli settlement' surrounded by zones described as 'Israeli settlement (civilian) beyond the 1949 Armistice Line', 'Israeli-claimned settlement municipal area' and 'Israeli military installation area' together with the sections of the separation barrier. On the other side of the barrier is Salfit described as a 'Palestinian-populated area'. See for yourself. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he meant you can find out Ariel is a settlement on a map of settlements? I guess if you saw a picture with a caption of "this is a settlement" you could tell it's a settlement too. On a regular map it's not so obvious, now is it?

Thanks for the link, but I've seen that map before. You've been pimping it all over the place. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what 'a regular map' is or indeed what a regular source is but yes, it's not possible to use a source that doesn't distinguish between two things to distinguish between those two things. If by 'regular' you mean any source that doesn't mention the term 'Israeli settlement' then you are quite right. It's not possible to identify Israeli settlements when you exclude sources that identify Israeli settlements. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

'A regular map' is a map that shows where places are, like the vast majority of maps one is likely to encounter while looking at maps. As opposed to a map specifically designed to identify settlements, which is 'a special map', like the special map you had to upload to commons so you could show it to people. In other words, we both know that most maps don't identify Israeli settlements. I hope this helps clarify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most maps I have seen explicitly differentiate between Israeli settlements and "villages" "towns" and "cities". nableezy - 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Shuki, as I wrote in my earlier comment, everything has to come from sources. It's not valid to say that the term you're pushing would be a "fact" whereas the other term would be a "viewpoint". It could equally be claimed the other way around (settlement=fact, city=viewpoint), really the only relevant source for content is sources. The BBC piece I linked to is a good example: it talks throughout of Israeli settlement but does also mention the grant of city status. I've still not seen persuasive policy-based arguments as to why this wouldn't be a simple question of finding out which term is predominantly used by the best sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your opinion is entirely unconvincing. It is clear that the 'pro-settlement' side here is pushing a POV, while the 'pro-standardization' side is demanding neutrality. Many of 'pro-settlement' editors here are also attempting to delegitimize these places by claim that the municipal status is not credible, seeing that it is something that 'Israel' (in quotes because some editors doubt in what it does) has merely given these arbitrary labels. The vast majority of populated places on the planet are listed on WP with their municipal size/status first, and then other info. Even examples of articles on many populated places in other disputed areas have been brought as examples to prove this WP NPOV standard. A minute number of exception exist, perhaps even proving the 'rule'. I like Mr Nice Guy's 'If I show you a picture of a place' reasoning. 'city' is not a viewpoint. It is not an imaginary label. The Israeli localities are subject to certain laws, and these laws decide what status is attributed to each. On the other hand, the Palestinian locality articles here do not seem to have any standard, and there are some towns with lower populations than villages. I suggest you improve those. As for policy-based arguments, I already gave you eight. If you want to ignore them (you have not managed to list why each one does not apply here), that is your prerogative. --Shuki (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Escept that most reliable sources do not believe that locations in the Occupied Territories are subject to those "certain laws" you claim, since they follow the UNSC and other supra-national authorities which have declared that Israel's actions in constructing these settlements and trying to apply its internal laws are violations of international law. And then you cut across NMMNG's argument while thinking you agree with him by saying that Israeli laws decide what status is given localaties (i.e. it isn't the photo that decides it) and that look and feel tests on Palestinian localaties actually produces an inconsistency because subjective judgments do vary as one person's look and feel town is another's look and feel village. Elsewhere in this RFC, I've given an example of a city with less population with villages.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You cited several sections of WP:NPOV, but you haven't yet really discussed why you feel they'd support your position and I've already impugned your reasoning concerning them. There is no policy according to which we should write these articles like articles on "other populated places" are written in terms of terminology. There are policies according to which we write all articles based on high-quality sources. Wrt "delegitimization", I don't believe it's possible to delegitimize the settlements since they're illegal to begin with, i.e. they have no legitimate status to remove. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ECCN informed

Fyi I have started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FIsraeli_settlements inviting a wider range of participants here and giving notice that at some point we'll need an admin to close this.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)