Talk:Beitar Illit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[unnamed thread][edit]

Can someone tell me what the sentence "There are 43 immigrant settlers." means? It does not seem to fit with the rest of the article. OneVoice 02:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[unnamed thread][edit]

Why do the moderators call geographic information POV? West Bank is a controversial POV term too.


The story of the election of 2007 is very lacking and inexact.

The story was that Rubinstein and Pindrus were allies in earlier elections. They had a rotation agreement that stated that in 2007 Rubinstein will run ofr major with Pindrus support. It seems that Rubinstein was not very serious in his intentions to actually use this agreement. When election came near, his party leader Meir Porush made it clear to him that he has to use his agreed right and run for major. Pindrus disagreed ignoring the agreement. Then it becomes a fight between the groups etc.

Pindrus also did not expected Shas to sign a deal with Rubinstein whihc made him losing in the bottom line. YechezkelZilber 23:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Population growth[edit]

i checked the link cited for the claim that in 2010 there will be close to 100,000 residents. the source said nothing of the sort. it only listed cities with their populations in 2005 and 2006 and the respective growth rates. there was no mention the population would grow to 100,000 and even if you extrapolate assuming a 8% growth rate it would take one and a half to two decades to reach 100,000. where did this information come from? (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)jonahReply[reply]

The domain that this link was to is now parked. I can't find any reliable source, or even an unreliable one, that repeats this projection. Is there any objection to taking the whole sentence out? Anyway, as mentioned below, there's a source from 2010 giving the population as just north of 36K so it seems silly to have this sentence in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Judea region"[edit]

While it's commendable that an attempt has been made to supply a source for the claim that there is a region called "Judea", a neutral (ie non-Israeli) source is needed if we want English Wikipedia to state that, per WP:NCGN. There is neither a dispute that the area is called "Judea" in Israel, nor a shortage of Israeli quotes that use that terminology. The source and the terminology are fine for Hebrew WP, but not for any other editions. See [1]. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia does not exclude reliable sources based on nationality. This is an English-language source, which is perfectly fine for use in the English WP. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is not neutral and is not current.[edit]

Where is the evidence that whether Beitar Ilit is in Israel is disputed? This portion of Israel was never held by outsiders, it has been part of Israel from the beginning. This language is only inflammatory and serves no other purpose; the residents of Beitar are fervently anti-Zionist and have no interest in political posturing, they only want to live on Jewish land. The Jews in Beitar don't vote in Israeli elections and don't engage in demonstrations for or against building in Israel, etc. The only issue is keeping Torah in Israel.

There is no proof of the statement that the original site of Beitar is a kilometer away. Nobody can identify the original site with certainty, until then we must assume Beitar is located in Beitar.

The city of Beitar is overwhelmingly Chassidic, not Charedi. There is even a picture of a Hachnosos Sefer Torah shown outside the Boston beis medrash where the sign on the building clearly says "...of the Boston Chassidus".

The page should be updated to replace Charedi with Chassidic with appropriate links to Chassidic pages on wikipedia. (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:IPA for Hebrew and more relevant WP:HE. Your claims are important, please find sources to them and add to the article. --Shuki (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a sign at the entrance to the city of Beitar Illit that says "City of Torah and Chassidus in the Judean Hills" (translated from Hebrew). Beitar Illit is certainly a Chassidic city! (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious statement on International Court of Justice[edit]

Status under international law section reads: ...Beitar Illit is considered illegal under international law...Fourth Geneva Convention...(With BBC ref). But then says: This view has been rejected by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross. With page 44-45 of Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a ref. It looks like they support Fourth Geneva Convention on page 44 and haven't finished giving an opinion on 45. So I'm wondering if this is malicious interpretation or vandalism or am I missing something? Tagged dubious in interim. CarolMooreDC 17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should read "Israel's view has been rejected.." (which is true), but I'm not necessarily supporting this sentence. Zerotalk 00:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it was probably just vandalism. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove section[edit]

I have boldly removed the "Status under international law" section and the sentence in the lead that summarized it. The reason is that that section and the sources in it pertains to the whole area this city is located in, and should therefore be mentioned only in a more general article about the whole area, but not in every article about every city, township or settlement in this area. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, no. This long-standing material will require more than your personal view that it does not belong in this article to be expunged. The most notable thing about this colony is that it was illegally established in occupied territory. Removing that pertinent piece of information is not in keeping with WP:NPOV. nableezy - 23:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, it is unsourced. Neither the sourced, nor the text which I removed, mentioned Beitar as such. Which is also an indication that this is not one of the things Beitar is notable for. The text was generic, and has no place in this article. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There exists a community-wide consensus that these statements shouldn't be removed from settlement articles. The notion that the settlements are illegal, and that Israel disagrees, is extremely well sourced. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was most certainly not unsourced. And if sources specific to Beitar Illit are necessary, here you go. The text applies to this specific colony, and belongs in the article. nableezy - 14:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dailycare, please tell me where such consensus was established, that this information should be repeated on the article of each and every town in the territories. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements. A later discussion seeking to overturn that resulted in "no consensus", with the closing admin saying that As to the relevance of the "no consensus" outcome, the proposal under discussion can be read to (at least implicitly) ask for an editorial alteration, i.e., the systematic removal of the text at issue. I found that there was no consensus for such a systematic removal, and as a result of this, in accordance with the policy you cited, my closing statement did not call for any change to any article. I also found that there was no consensus for the systematic retention (or inclusion) of the text, and this finding also does not require any changes to articles - but it does open the way, in my view, to subsequent case-by-case discussion. In other words, a "no consensus" outcome means no consensus for changes to articles, but it does imply a change from any pre-existing consensus... in the sense that there is no longer one. nableezy - 20:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which I understand to mean that there is no longer any consensus that the text I removed may not be removed. Am I correct? Debresser (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means that there is no consensus for removing the material. See WP:CON: In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. As Sandstein wrote, his close open the way, in my view, to subsequent case-by-case discussion. That is what is happening now, but there is still no consensus to remove the text. And, by the way, you have not responded to the fact that I provided several sources specific to Beitar Illit that include this line. nableezy - 21:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you, that the conclusion was that a case-by-case discussion should be opened. Failing other sources, I think I was right with my removal, and would insist on removal of that paragraph and sentence. As to the additional sources, though. I have not reacted to that, because all my posts, from the very first one here, have implied clearly that if such a source were to be added, and the text amended to reflect the source, then I would completely agree with that. And so I would. I was expecting, to be frank, that you would do so, and do not understand why you have not already done so. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may insist on whatever you like, but your insistence does not dictate the content of the article. The change, that being the removal, requires consensus to make.

As far as why I have not yet added any additional sources, simple. I dont think they are necessary. I can add them if people insist, but I want to be clear on this. Every single article on an Israeli settlement should have this material, regardless of whether or not a source specific to that settlement exists. The only reason why such a source would not be able to be found would be because international news organizations had never even noted the existence of said settlement. Every article in sources such as the BBC or the Guardian that even mentions a settlement includes that standard line. So to should our articles. The most notable thing about each of these places is that they were illegally established in occupied territory. Without that information included, our articles would take several steps down from "encyclopedia article" to "propaganda". nableezy - 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with Debresser unless there are sources specifically discussing the legality of Beitar Illit. The material should not be included unless -- like everything else on Wikipedia -- there is a consensus approving its inclusion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The change, that being the removal, will require consensus. You know that as well as I do. nableezy - 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nableezy, now you have shown your colors. Despite the conclusion you quoted, that inclusion of such a text is a case-by-case decision, you are of the opinion that "Every single article on an Israeli settlement should have this material, regardless of whether or not a source specific to that settlement exists." The rest of your post is propaganda, with overdone statements like "The most notable thing about each of these places" and "Without that information included, our articles ... propaganda". I am afraid this discussion will have to continue without you. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That really was fantastic. You think you can determine who may participate in the discussion? Cute. I would say that you showed your colors when you removed a well sourced section because you dont like how it makes a certain state look, but you had already shown those colors well before this. nableezy - 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the three links you mentioned above regarding Beitar Illit 1. are all related to the same incident, 2. most importantly, do not mention the legality of Beitar Illit, just the fact of it being part of the territories, and 3. as a side-note, please forgive me, but the BBC is known for its anti-Israel sentiments in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and I have seen this fact mentioned on Wikipedia before. So I think we must come to the conclusion, that the controversial paragraph is unsourced as far as Beitar Illit is concerned, and therefore must be removed. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You see those citations in the article? Those are sources. Saying something that has sources is unsourced is, well, I dont know how to describe such a backwards statement. Your belief on the "anti-Israel" sentiments of a news organization do not concern me. I'll again quote from WP:CON: In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. There isnt any consensus for the editorial alteration that you wish to make, and as such no change will be made to the article. nableezy - 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Debresser: All three sources mentions that settlements are illegal according to international law. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to underline Nableezy's point above, that the change (in this case removal), not the standing text, is what requires consensus. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today I removed only part of the Status under international law section. The part that was generic, and not sourced to sources that specifically mention Beitar Illit. As I understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as stated specifically in some of the posts in the above discussion, anything that is not sourced, should be removed, since it would be a violation of WP:RS or at least WP:OR (forbidding precisely this type of original research). Nevertheless, I was reverted by two editors (one of them having a huge bias in this issue). I posted on the three related WikiProjects and the WP:OR page for other editors to weigh in on this issue, to make sure editors comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this article as well. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entire section should be removed. We had a discussion about this recently, and an admin decided it should be on a case-by-case basis. Right now, it's taking sources that doesn't mention it and sticking it in the lead for a biasd purpose that is irrelevant to the article itself. Even if there was a source that specifically mentioned Beitar Illit, what difference would that make? IT belongs in a general article about settlements. When writing about cities in Alaska, we don't write "The city is located in Alaska, and is therefore very cold." The entire purpose of putting this in the lead is to push a bias. It's an article about a city, not about settlements, and it doesn't belong there. Yes, it's one fact about the city, but it's irrelevant for the article, just like many other facts about the city are irrelevant ("Beitar Illit is located 5000 miles away from New York;" "Beitar Illit stands next to a village that has yellow colored stones;" "The International Federation of Cracks have identified crack formations in Beitar Illit"). Vote for remove. And I wonder if out of curiosity we're going to repeat the same arguments for the next 10 days, whether we will do that on other articles as well, or whether we can just save everybody some time. --Activism1234 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The material is sourced, and it is certainly not original research. The sources directly support the content of the section, and any number of sources can be brought to bolster those sources. The idea that the illegality of this colony is irrelevant for the article boggles the mind. To reverse a quote, the entire purpose of suggesting that the illegality of this colony should not be included in this article is to push a POV that this is simply an article about a city, not about a colony illegally built on occupied territory, and the comment even if there was a source that specifically mentioned Beitar Illit, what difference would that make? betrays that bias. A long-standing effort to remove anything that suggests that these settlements, recognized by nearly every state in the world as being illegal, called illegal by countless leading scholars of international law, and called illegal by most news organizations when their name is even mentioned, has progressed to the point where people will argue that even if a source specifically says that this settlement is illegal it still shouldnt be in the article. Color me surprised that such a position would be taken. nableezy - 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think either the section or the sentence at the end of the intro is required. The first sentence of the article makes it clear that the place is an Israeli settlement and links to that article for an explanation of what that means. When we write that Manchester United is a football club we don't have a section (or sentence) explaining what a football club is. If there is something specific about Beitar Illit - e.g. that it was built on land confiscated from Palestinian village X, then by all means include it, but we don't need some kind of boilerplate tag on articles like this. Also, the edit warring here is particularly pathetic as someone keeps reinserting mistakes into the introduction - currently there are two full stops at the end of the final sentence and an unformatted reference. Do people not bother checking before they save, or is it all just blind reverting? Number 57 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a single line in the lead about the most notable aspect about the article subject. Such organizations as the BBC have guidelines recommending such information be included where relevant. It is not as though every mention of Beitar Illit is preceded by the illegal settlement of (which is close to what BBC does). and you could have just fixed the issue with the extra period nableezy - 15:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first sentence of the article refers to the fact that it's an Israeli settlement and links to that article. Further explanation of the generalities of what an Israeli settlement is or their legal status is therefore not required, unless there is something specific about Beitar Illit that makes it unusual. Manchester United is most famous for being a football club, but we don't have to explain what one is in that article. Number 57 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understood that when you wrote it the first time. However, this is not a football club, and Manchester United's status as a football club is not a notable controversy. Beitar Illit's status as an illegally built settlement in occupied territory is a notable controversy, and per WP:LEAD such notable controversies belong in the article's lead. nableezy - 16:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and it is in the lead in the very first sentence where it is noted that it is an Israeli settlement. There is no need to explain what that is if the term is a link. It seems to be WP:POINTy overkill to mention it twice, let alone to have the separate section. Number 57 16:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is WP:POINTy overkill to mention the most notable aspect of this colony twice? And it is not a blatant POV-push to pretend that this is just some town located east of an imaginary line? nableezy - 17:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes to your first point, and "what?" to your second. What POV is being pushed? It's clearly stated that it's an Israeli settlement. Number 57 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why thank you for the well reasoned explanation. As to your question, the POV being pushed, by omission, is that these places are typical human settlements. Unexplained links to other articles do not adequately explain the issues about this colony. nableezy - 17:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there is no omission - it's in the first sentence that the place is an Israeli settlement. Number 57 17:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under your proposal, the explanation of what that means is omitted, ie why that is a prominent controversy. nableezy - 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's your opinion. Others, however, don't view it as controversial that this specific town is located east of an imaginary line, and rather the conflict lies as a whole in general and should be on the general article about settlements, not this specific one that's meant to discuss a town not connected specifically to the general issue. --Activism1234 16:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a small correction to Nableezy's post: "Beitar Illit's disputed status as an illegally built settlement in occupied territory". Debresser (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not a correction, not even a little bit. nableezy - 17:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Activism1234 is right, and his point is my point. And in addition, the sources are not specific to Beitar Illit, and can not be used, so the generic part of the "Status under international law" must be removed. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, your declamations do not determine article content. No matter how much you emphasis must it remains your position, not one that Wikipedia must adopt. nableezy - 17:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Quoting from WP:LEAD: summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Is there any serious dispute that the fact that this place was illegally established in occupied territory is a prominent controversy? nableezy - 17:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No there isn't, and that's why the first sentence points out that it's an Israeli settlement. Number 57 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those two words, even with the link, do not explain anything to a reader of the article. This settlement is illegal under international law. That is notable, and probably the most notable thing about this place. For that reason, this article should include that notable, well-soruced fact. nableezy - 17:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We write notable articles. If that's the most notable thing about the place, then it will probably get deleted once (now I'm making the exaggerated assumption that this can actually happen) a peace plan is finalized and agreed on, no? Of course not. Just like most of the towns listed on Wikipedia, for example some towns i linked above to Alaska, are there even if there isn't what you consider to be a "notable controversy." And of course, you don't actually think this, because you insist on the language in every article about every Israeli settlement, no matter how tiny or large the town is, not just on this article. --Activism1234 17:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law - there is nothing special about Beitar Illit. This is what I was trying to explain earlier with the football club analogy. Number 57 17:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With all due respect, and I mean that, I think you are wrong. That a football club means that there is a group of people who play football professionally is not in any way analogous to the illegality of these settlements. That factoid does not cause any controversy. If the majority of scholarly sources on the history of football said that the establishment of football clubs constituted a war crime, then maybe I could see your point. As far as I am aware, no scholar has said that football clubs are war crimes. Scholars have however said that settlements are war crimes. nableezy - 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nableezy's statement that "this place was illegally established in occupied territory" is disputed. But I for one agree that that dispute is notable. The problem is another one, and Nableezy is trying to divert the attention from the main issue. Which is that the rest of the "Status under international law" section is not sourced for Beitar Illit, and must therefore be removed. And I see a large consensus here in that regard. So perhaps somebody undo Nableezy's revert? In addition I think that if we have this in the lead, we don't need that whole section at all. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it really is not. It is a super-majority view that this and every other colony that Israel has established in occupied Syrian and Palestinian territory violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. And you see a "large consensus"? Really? Dailycare, Frederico and myself, we dont count for some reason? And asking people to edit-war on your behalf, after already having violated the 1RR, is charming but not wise. nableezy - 17:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colony? Um no. Violate Fourth Geneva Convention? Um no, maybe you should look at what the convention was written for during its drafting, and you know that statement is disputed. Of course, using the word colony must've been a slip of the tongue, as your insistence to put this language in every article is obviously for NPOV purposes and to inform readers, not to push a POV. --Activism1234 17:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought um no was uncivil. I must be confusing you with somebody else (again). Would you like to read any of the 100 sources that can be brought saying that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories violate the Fourth Geneva Convention (among those sources being a statement by the High Contracting Parties of the Convention)? Your um, no does not trump my sources. nableezy - 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a 2 way street buddy. --Activism1234 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and my side of the street is paved with sources of the highest quality. Yours with um, no. nableezy - 19:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the convention was written for is irrelevant. What's relevant is what reliable sources say about the applicability of the convention to the settlements. That's clear:"It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies." Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights." (from a source in the article). Maybe we should stick to whether the section belongs in the article rather than debating whether the sources can be dismissed. They can't be dismissed. The section should stay in because the fact that Beitar Illit is illegal is the most notable thing about it along with the fact that the Israeli government keeps building houses there after they say they're going to stop. I say this after looking through 20 pages of newsbank results on the place this morning. Illegality, construction, and routine mentions are why this place gets in the news (and discrimination against Sephardi girls occasionally).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But part of the section is not sourced as far as Beitar Illit is concerned. And that part must be removed according to the pertaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree its clear WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you give us more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Debresser: So your problem here is that there is no source that says that the international community considers Beitar Illit specifically to be illegal?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if you atrociously dig up some source that mentions that, which is really atrocious editing to push a POV, it doesn't mean that we should smatter this all over the page when there is no need on this article about that town, as opposed to just a regular article on settlements. --Activism1234 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Re:alf laylah wa laylah (edit conflict) No. That is sourced. And that is why it is in the lead of the article. The problem is with the "Status under international law" section. The first sentence is already in the lead. But the rest of that section is sourced to sources that do not mention Beitar Illit, and is therefore original research or synthesis at best, or simply unsourced at worst. That why it has to be removed, in my understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can't be OR, since there are sources for it. WP:OR specifically says that The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. That leaves us with WP:SYNTH. I don't see how that applies. Can you explain? I think the only remotely applicable policy is WP:UNDUE, but I am not convinced that it prohibits the retention of the section.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is OR in that the sources do not specifically mention Beitar Illit regarding all the details which are in the continuation of the section. Only the general statement that Beitar Illit's status is disputed is sourced well. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am so confused. I'm sorry. It's my understanding of WP:OR that if a sentence is supported by a source, then its inclusion in an article does not violate WP:OR. It may or may not belong in the article for any number of other reasons, but if there's a reliable source that says it, it can't be removed from the article on the grounds of violation of WP:OR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are of course a 100% correct about that. The problem in this case is this the sources only mention that the legality of Beitar Illit is a matter of dispute. The source do not mention the Fourth Geneva Convention and the its interpretations by the various organizations. And the sources thta do discuss these do not mention Beitar Illit. Combining these two sources into one paragraph is a misrepresentation of the sources, which is why Wikipedia doesn't allow for it and calls it "original research" or "synthesis" at best. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're dropping the claim that it's original research and arguing purely on the basis of WP:SYNTH? I just want to understand what you mean precisely.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're right about that, yes. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you consider every sentence in that section to be supported by a reliable source, and the only problem you see is that the juxtaposition of the sentences creates a conclusion that is not supported by any of the sources? Still just checking on what your position is here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and more than that. There is a good reason synthesis isn't allowed. In this case, the information about the Forth Geneva Convention and the different interpretations of it is not so much relevant to the article about this town. It doesn't matter in the scope of this article to know all of that. It should be only on the main article. And that is reflected in the fact that there are no sources that mention all these details in connection with Beitar Illit. And that is (one of the reasons) why Wikipedia doesn't allow synthesis. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with the prohibition on synthesis. It's my understanding of that policy that it's not related to the scope of the article, though. Scope of the article is covered by different policies. From reading WP:SYNTH it seems to me that for something to be prohibited by that policy, there must be a conclusion which is implied by the juxtaposition of sourced sentences or facts that is not included in the sources themselves. What, in your opinion, is that conclusion in this case?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That the whole continuation of the section should be in an article about Beitar Illit. The inclusion of the information here is the conclusion of synthesis. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<- That makes no sense to me, I'm sorry. Can you maybe read the examples given in WP:SYNTH and try to come up with a parallel in this case? It's not possible to commit synthesis purely by including material. The material has to somehow create a conclusion that's not supported by the sources of the material. Can you say what that conclusion is here? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand what you mean. If you were arguing from WP:UNDUE it'd make more sense to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea of synthesis is that if "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The argument for inclusion of the continuation of that paragraph is: A=Beitar Illit is situated in the so-called "territories", B=there is a notable controversy regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in the territories, which includes all kind of details as to interpretation of certain conventions, therefore c=those details are notable in regard with Beitar Illit as well. While in reality these details are not mentioned in sources regarding Beitar Illit specifically. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked above, do I drop the claim of WP:OR for WP:SYNT. Please do not forget that synthesis is a form of original research. This is said clearly in WP:SYNTH as well. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine, I know that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SYNTH refers to assertions made in the article, it doesn't refer to notability arguments. Again, I'm not saying that those disputed sentences should remain, I'm just saying that I don't understand what they have to do with synthesis. It is certainly permissible to put context into an article. One does that every time one wikilinks a term. Is that synthesis too?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding the abovementioned details is not "adding context", it is "making a point". The details are superfluous and irrelevant here, and can be found in the linked article International law and Israeli settlements or even simply in the link to Israeli settlement. In addition, it is synthesis to say that these details are part of the context of the article about Beitar Illit, since Beitar is not mentioned in them. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

If they're making a point by juxtaposition with the other sentences, then I think maybe that would be synthesis. What point do you suppose that they're making?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose they want to stress that those settlements are considered illegal by many. Debresser (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you consider that to be synthesis, even though the very first source cited in the section says explicitly that Beitar Illit is south of Jerusalem, while Karnei Shomron lies 15 kilometres (nine miles) west of the northern West Bank city of Nablus. The international community considers settlements in the West Bank -- captured from Jordan by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War -- to be illegal. How is this synthesis? One single source says that Beitar Illit is in the West Bank and that the international community considers settlements in the West Bank to be illegal. Where is the synthesis in that? If there is synthesis, it must be of some other point, because that point is stated explicitly in every source that mentions Beitar Illit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, since you asked me what I personally suppose, I'd like to add my own point of view on the matter. I think it is a lot more relevant to the article to stress the point of view of the local power. Which for Beitar Illit is the Israeli government. Because they are after all the local power, and all others are far away, so their point of view is not as relevant. But again, that is my personal opinion, logical as it may be. Debresser (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already explained to you what the synthesis is. I just answered a personal question from you, what I think is the reason some editors here want to make that synthesis. You are starting to go in circles now. Debresser (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry you feel I'm going in circles. I don't think I am. You claim it's synthesis. That means you must think that there's some conclusion that someone's trying to draw from a combination of two or more sources. I was just wondering what you thought that conclusion was. You said that it was that the settlements are considered illegal. I was merely pointing out that if that's in fact the conclusion someone's trying to draw from multiple sources, it wouldn't be necessary as it's already in a single source. I'm not sure why you think the Israeli point of view on this is more relevant. It seems to me to be equally relevant, no more and no less. We don't have any policies on wikipedia about geographical proximity of sources in relationship to their reliability, nor do I think we should. If geographical proximity were a consideration, I'd be quoting a lot more stuff from Palestinian and Egyptian newspapers than I feel comfortable doing under current policies.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I did not say that the conclusion of the synthesis is "that the settlements are considered illegal". It is the detailed information about the dispute that I think need not be included generically on every article about settlements. The reason that was given by Nableezy, who is the most vocal proponent of this information, is the argument I mentioned, which is based on an assertion of notability involving a synthesis-like structure. Various other authors have already disagreed with this argument previously here, saying that if no source will be found that mentions Beitar Illit in direct connection with all those details, they will have to be removed. And I think it is about time that we do so! Debresser (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I'm really confused. So you don't think it's synthesis any longer? You just think that the paragraph shouldn't be included, but not because it's synthesis? Do you have a policy based reason for wanting to exclude the paragraph, then? I'm not sure what you mean by "synthesis-like structure" and your phrase "assertion of notability" really confuses me. That's a concept used in deciding whether or not to delete articles, not content from articles. Information itself is neither notable nor non-notable. On WP the question of notability applies to articles themselves, not the material in them. This conversation is so incredibly convoluted by this point that I don't see how anyone can tell how many think it should stay, how many think it should go, or what. It seems to me that there's no consensus here, but I could be wrong.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's try it again. The section about "Status under international law" consists of two parts: the first part being "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Beitar Illit is considered illegal under international law,[14][15] though Israel disputes this." This sentence is sourced, and the sources explicitly mention Beitar. The second part is "The international community considers Israeli settlements to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the transfer of an occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory. The Israeli government disputes that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Palestinian territories as they had not been legally held by a sovereign prior to Israel taking control of them.[7] This view has been rejected by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.[16]" This part is also sourced, but the sources do not mention Beitar Illit. Ergo, this second part must be removed.

I only mentioned WP:OR and more precisely WP:SYNTH as a possible albeit faulty way of reasoning to argue inclusion of the second part. In effect, I don't know why the second part was added, because I think it can not be here. It is generic, not sourced to anything that mentions Beitar, and therfore should be removed. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you think that wp:or and, more precisely, wp:synth, do not actually prevent the inclusion of the second part?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. I did not say that. 2. I think you are getting too deep into theory, while we have a very simple problem here. Therefore I propose:
The first part of the section is already in the lead. We can make that even better by adding the link to what is now the main article of the section. The second part is unsourced as far as Beitar Illit is concerned. Ergo, the section should be removed (consider the first part merged into the lead, if you like).
I respectfully note that half of the editors here are in favor of keeping the section, but they do not address the Wikipedia policy and guidelines issues raised by the half that is in favor of removal of this section. I shall now remove the section, and any editor who disagrees will first have to address the issues at hand in a way that finds consensus here before he can revert, since the burden of proof is now on inclusion. Debresser (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do not have consensus for the removal. You do not determine that your arguments trump others. Multiple users have disputed your assertion that the section is OR. On top of that, you cannot simply say no now others need consensus. This material had consensus, and a new consensus will need to be established prior to removing it. I quoted from WP:CON several times, and if you continue to disregard that policy I will be going back to AE. nableezy - 13:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Debresser. You didn't say that? What did you mean by this: I only mentioned WP:OR and more precisely WP:SYNTH as a possible albeit faulty way of reasoning to argue inclusion of the second part. It seems to say literally that you were arguing for the inclusion of the second part using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and then acknowledging that using them is a "faulty way of reasoning to argue inclusion." Since it's not possible to use either of those policies to "argue inclusion" I used the Principle of charity and assumed that you meant "argue against inclusion" or perhaps "dispute inclusion." Given that, it seems to me that you were saying that these two policies are a "faulty way of reasoning" against conclusion. If my charitable interpretation of your sentence was wrong, then maybe you can explain what you meant, since you obviously weren't arguing for inclusion of the second part.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Debresser. Oh, and by the way, I certainly don't think there's consensus here to eliminate the second part. I'm still willing to consider policy based objections to it, but I haven't seen any that stand up. The idea that material could be removed because the sources don't specifically mention the topic of the article frightens me. It seems to me that WP would grind to a halt if this were accepted. Would you like lots of examples from much less contentious articles than this one that this is done, and rightly so, all the time without dispute by anyone?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are sources saying that this and every other settlement is illegal under international law. There are sources that explain why it is. To call including those sources an example of WP:SYNTH shows that a user has manifestly not read WP:SYNTH. And then to claim that a "new consensus" is required to restore long-standing material is to demonstrate that the user has neither read WP:CON or WP:BURDEN. Debresser, please dont misrepresent Wikipedia policy. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 14:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break 4[edit]

@Debresser. And now you're even removing the first two sentences of the paragraph, where the sources do specifically mention Beitar Illit? How do you think you have consensus for that? I thought that everyone's argument was that the second part had to go because the sources didn't mention Beitar Illit. Since the sources for the first part do in fact mention Beitar Illit, I would have thought that you'd want to leave them in. Do you have a policy based argument for removing the first part?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Everybody. I don't know about you all, but perhaps it might be good to have a WP:STRAW poll just so we can see where we're at in terms of consensus. I propose that we do this in a new section below with a clear proposal and everyone limited to stating support or oppose with a couple explanatory sentences. I propose that this be used merely as a tool for measuring whether we're close to any kind of consensus, and for discovering what reasons editors have for wanting to exclude or include the material. I for one find it impossible to figure out what's happening in the wall of text above, even though I've contributed my share to it, and would find such a poll useful. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really dont see the point of a straw poll, at least not here. A wider RFC is needed. But there is already a past consensus supporting the inclusion of the paragraph, and no consensus since for removing it. Despite Debresser's attempt to manipulate policy to switch the burden around, WP:CON clearly says In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. Debresser cant now say "oh no consensus so Ill remove and you need consensus to re-insert". And arguments like one proffered above that go like "even if there are sources that explicitly say this settlement is illegal, and finding those sources would be atrocious editing, it should still be removed" demonstrates the point here. To some of the people participating in these discussions, the sources dont matter. What matters is removing any material that does not show the Greatest State in the Whole Wide World in anything other than the best of light. Through any number of means (off-wiki canvasing ...) such people will overwhelm a "poll". There is a reason we require people to back up their views with sources and policy, not just show up to vote for the party line. nableezy - 14:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair enough, and it's getting to be clear to me that a wider RFC is needed. The reason I linked to WP:STRAW though, is that it says explicitly about a zillion times that it's not a vote, but an organized way to get an idea of what opinions editors have. I don't actually care that much about it, though, and I can see that all the effort on this page is just going to have to be duplicated everywhere if there's not a wider discussion. It's clear to me, though, that if there's no consensus the material must stay in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alf laylah wa laylah, I explained why I removed the first half of the paragraph as well: because it is already in the lead. I even copied the sources and the link to International law and Israeli settlements to the lead.
Nableezy, I explained already that even though the "votes" seem to be divided half to half, the half that advocates removal brings an argument based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the second half (you included) does not address those issues (just claims disagreement). Based on that, I think my removal was justified. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has gone well beyond anything that I am willing to deal with right now. WP:CON specifically says that when there is no consensus no change is made. You are playing a game here, but thankfully you are not very good at it. Ill let AE work this out. nableezy - 19:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having done a rather brief review of the sitatuion here as an outsider, I definitely think that the best way to go is through a broadbased RfC, preferably after review of the largest number of relevant reliable sources. One of the big things that stands out to me regarding this article are the lack of a "history" section, which admittedly in this case is only 35 years or so. However, that is more or less a standard subdivision of such articles. And, if as I think likely this settlement, since its foundation, has been subject to some international concerns, I believe that would definitely merit reasonable discussion in the article. My own, admittedly not particularly well-informed, opinion might be as follows:
1) Have people on both sides of this disagreement review as many relevant reliable sources for the information they contain as possible. I find the Highbeam Research site has 232 articles that at least mention this name, although I'm not sure to what extent. I have a feeling other content is available on other subscription sites I have access to as well. I think it would be a good idea if individuals on both sides of the dispute were to get the information, so they would not have to "trust" the other. I am more than willing to forward anything which contains more than a passing mention in these sources to anyone who sends me an e-mail with an indication of what address they want the information sent to. I am also willing to check JSTOR, ProQuest, NewsBank, and EBSCO for any additional information they might have at request. Yes, I know that this involves to some degree trusting me to forward all the relevant information, not just the information I select, but all I can say is that, personally, this is not a subject of particular interest to me one way or another anyway. And, yeah, I would probably read them all myself. All of them. Joy.
2) After review of the pertinent reliable sources, which might itself provide an answer that all can agree on, I definitely think calling an RfC would be valuable. I would myself probably notify in addition to the most obvious WikiProjects Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and some of the other broad geographic/global WikiProjects, so that those who might have had dealings with perhaps other similar past or present disputes on that basis might be able to offer what input they have. And, FWIW, I do not know right off if I myself am a member of those groups, but I tend to think I might possibly be. I would be more than willing to recuse from participation at any request however. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the text of the Rfc should be drafted by an uninvolved editor. Debresser (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another tl;dr discussion. Rfc is usually with some exceptions closed by the number of votes (i.e. sizes of the partisan parties), and has nothing to do with encyclopedic research of reliable sources. There is WP:CON content pillar for you. There is a group of editors which demand that the "illegality" note would be mandatory for every "settlement" page. This is ridiculous. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John, there have been discussions of such an RFC. An earlier discussion resulted in consensus for including the sentence in the lead and, if the article is long enough, a section in the body. A discussion seeking to overturn that resulted in "no consensus". Some of us have been batting around ideas on how to put together that RFC (eg here, where a few of us were working on mutually acceptable admins to close the discussion). That discussion, and the other at IPCOLL, seemed to have stalled out. Ill see about getting that restarted. nableezy - 22:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. My main points, FWIW, are that the article is still "start" class, and that the "History" section in almost all "city" articles seems to be missing. Like I said, if anyone wants me to go through the articles on the databanks available to me, find what articles with substantial content relevant to this article they have and forward what I find to them, I would be more than willing to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source for population[edit]

This source: <:ref name="haaretz1"></ref> that the population is cited to doesn't seem to point to anything but the front page of Haaretz, and hence doesn't support the figure. Does anyone have a working version or an alternative?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know everybody's concerned with more super-important matters right now, but would anyone be overly concerned if I replaced the 2007 population figure which is sourced to an inactive link at Haaretz with the figure of 36,757 as of October 2010 which appears in this book and is cited to a municipal spokesman of the town: Gershom Gorenberg (8 November 2011). The Unmaking of Israel. HarperCollins. p. 272. ISBN 978-0-06-209731-6. Retrieved 21 August 2012.alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. In any case, what is this strange wording "According to the statistics from the Ministry of the Interior, the population figures for January 2007 there are 34,427 members listed on their computers and 29,404 citizens that are listed as active." What is an "active citizen"? :) Debresser (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea either. I think it'd be best to drop the members thing and just put the population. Will wait a while to see if others care and till tomorrow anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of foundation of settlement[edit]

The lead says 1984 without a source. This book here says 1990. Does anyone have a source for 1984? Should I change it to 1990 since it's sourceable? Paul Rivlin (15 November 2010). The Israeli Economy from the Foundation of the State through the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press. p. 169. ISBN 978-0-521-19037-4. Retrieved 21 August 2012.alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes sources may refer to the date a settlement was turned into a township, and say that the town was founded in such-and-such, while that doesn't mean that it was founded, but that is was recognized as a township. In any case I think it would be advisable to confer with an additional source before we change something so fundamental. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reasonable, I suppose. I wonder where the 1984 stuff came from, though. Perhaps it's possible to make an addition without removing the 1984 statement. I'll think about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haredim influx[edit]

The lead says without a source that Haredim moved in after the town was started. This source says that the town was especially designed for Haredim. Should we change this, since there's a source for it. Does someone have a source for that other story about the founding? I can't yet find one. Nurit Stadler (1 January 2009). Yeshiva Fundamentalism: Piety, Gender, and Resistance in the Ultra-Orthodox World. NYU Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-8147-4049-1. Retrieved 21 August 2012.alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that both things can be true. The very start was surely small, and was not especially for haredim. Soon enough they started planning to enlarge the settlement, and then they already had the haredim in mind.
In addition, the lead says that the first settlers came from Merkaz Harav. Those are national religious, but close to haredi. So there wasn't much of a switch, I think, in reality. Debresser (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, that makes sense. I wish there was a source for the earlier year, though. Maybe I'll just add something about the later date and the Haredim influx after waiting to see if anyone else understands what happened.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sewage flow in controversies section[edit]

Concerning this sentence:

The Palestinian Authority claims that Beitar Illit authorities release the settlement's sewage on to the Palestinian fields and orchards surrounding the settlement.<:ref name=wafa>"Settlers Drown Palestinians' Land with Wastewater in Bethlehem". Wafa. 29 May 2011. Retrieved 19 July 2011.</ref><:ref>Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner (July 26, 2009). "In West Bank Settlements, Sign of Hope for a Deal". New York Times. Retrieved August 21, 2012.</ref>

The first reference supports the statement that the Palestinian Authority claims sewage releases. The second reference does not. It just mentions sewage flow, and makes no claims of intentionality on the part of the settlers. This phenomenon is more widely recognized than claims that the releases are intentional, which I can't so far find elsewhere. For instance, here are three scientists from Al-Quds University writing a paper saying that runoff and sewage releases (with NO attribution of intentionality) are polluting the aquifer:

Jawad Hasan; Amer Marie; Haneen Froukh (2010). "Watershed Management Under Terms of Depletive Water Balance and High Vulnerability in Wadi Fuqeen: West Bank Palestine". Integrated water resources management Karlsruhe 2010 : international conference, 24 - 25 November 2010; conference proceedings. KIT Scientific Publishing. pp. 50–6. ISBN 978-3-86644-545-1. Retrieved 21 August 2012.

I will propose a rewrite shortly, but wanted to put this up here in case someone has a time-out from the dramaboards and wants to write something about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, how does this look?

Sewage flows and urban runoff from Beitar Illit have contaminated the local hydrological system.<:ref>Jawad Hasan; Amer Marie; Haneen Froukh (2010). "Watershed Management Under Terms of Depletive Water Balance and High Vulnerability in Wadi Fuqeen: West Bank Palestine". Integrated water resources management Karlsruhe 2010 : international conference, 24 - 25 November 2010; conference proceedings. KIT Scientific Publishing. pp. 50–6. ISBN 978-3-86644-545-1. Retrieved 21 August 2012.</ref> The Palestinian Authority claims that Beitar Illit authorities release the settlement's sewage on to the Palestinian fields and orchards surrounding the settlement.<:ref name=wafa>"Settlers Drown Palestinians' Land with Wastewater in Bethlehem". Wafa. 29 May 2011. Retrieved 19 July 2011.</ref>

The only difference is that I'd like to remove the NYT source from the sentence stating that the Palestinian Authority claims the releases. I'm going to go ahead and add the first sentence, and wait to see here about what people think about removing the NYT source, since it doesn't support the claim that the PA claims that the BI authorities release the sewage.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see some problem now, with the logical structure of that paragraph. First it states a fact, and then it states that the fact is only a claim of one side. This is confusing. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's reasonable. I think that the problem is that the sentence about the PA is cited to a primary source. It seems clear to me that the PA is claiming that the sewage is intentionally released. I haven't seen any reliable sources that state this, so if it's going to stay in, it's got to be attributed to the PA as an opinion. However, the primary source doesn't explicitly state that the release was intentional, so I don't think we can fill that in. I'm not sure what to do, but obviously the scientific paper is reliable. Would you be happier if the two were separate paragraphs? At this point, neither of us can take anything out for a while, and I don't think I'll ever be inclined to use a revert on the PA claim.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I see not claim of intentionality in the first source as well. So perhaps the statements can be merged and sourced to both sources? Debresser (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean the PA isn't claiming intentionality? I think they are implying it, but it's certainly irrelevant. I don't think that it's possible to merge the sentences because they're talking about two different things. The hydrologists are concerned with the effects on the water table and the PA is concerned with sewage going on to orchards. Two completely different things.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many families[edit]

This is a clause from the lead:

consisting of over 6000 families.<:ref name="autogeneratedil">"Community Guide". Retrieved 2011-07-19.</ref> By 2020, the population is expected to reach 100,000.[1]

First of all, the cited source doesn't say anything about how many families there are. Second of all, it's a wiki, and thus probably not a reliable source. I propose to replace the whole sentence with one using the population figure I cited above and not mention anything about how many families there are unless someone can find a solid source. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be important to have the number of families. The reason being that there live mostly religious people in Beitar, so large families, and the number of families as to the number of people is likely to be notably high. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but there's no source for it. I've looked everywhere. I found a good source for the population. None for the number of families. The source it's cited to does not support it. I would have no problem with it if there were a source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Communities -Beitar Illit". Kehillot Tehilla. Retrieved 2011-07-19.

How many men work?[edit]

Similarly, this sentence is cited to the same source as discussed in the paragraph above:

A significant percentage of men in the community work, mostly commuting to jobs in Jerusalem or working from home.<:ref name="autogeneratedil"/>

It makes no sense to me, and the source it's cited to doesn't support it or even mention it. There seems to be zero chance of finding an actual source for it. I propose that we eliminate the entire sentence. Thoughts?

This sentence makes perfect sense to me. What is it you don't understand. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is a significant percentage? Why is it in here? Obviously since work is significant, whatever percentage of people that work is significant. It's significant if 0% work, it's significant if 100% work, and so on. Anyway, the source doesn't support it or even mention it. That's the real issue.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Israel there is a stereotype, that haredi people don't work. That is why this sentence is important. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's controversial, then, I think it especially needs a source, and it doesn't have one. It doesn't even say that they work hard. To people who believe that stereotype I suppose it would be significant if 0% of the men worked. Without a source, if this sentence is referring to a stereotype, I especially think it ought to be removed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not controversial, I think, just exceptional. I said there is such a stereotype, not that it doesn't happen. But I agree we would need a source, and I would be happy if one were to be found. Debresser (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't understand what "a significant percentage" means.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links section[edit]

I would like to remove these two items:

The first is the same source that I've mentioned in the two sections above this one. The second one is dead. I see the need to leave dead links in when they're references, but I see no harm in removing dead external links. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the first source does not give information about Beitar Illit. It is more of a "How to" guide. Debresser (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2007 municipal elections[edit]

Is there any reason to keep this section? It's unsourced, seemingly unsourceable, and seems to be nothing more than 5 year old expired recentism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The geography section says "eitar Illit is connected to West Jerusalem by the Tunnels Highway, which passes directly underneath the Palestinian town of Beit Jala and allows settlers access to Israel without coming into contact with or eyesight of Palestinians".

I suppose the words "without coming into contact with or eyesight of Palestinian" are in the source, but I still think we need to rephrase this. Surely the tunnels weren't build in order that settlers shouldn't have to see Palestinians?! This sounds as though the settlers are some kind of racists who do not wish to have to cast an eye on a Palestinian. The tunnel was built for security reasons, so that Israeli travelers to the south shouldn't be shot at, or have stones thrown at their cars. By Palestinians, true. Debresser (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source says:

With bypass roads, tunnels, and the wall, Israel allows settlers "smooth" access to Israel proper unimpeded by Palestinian traffic and, indeed, virtually unencumbered by the sight of anything Palestinian. Residents of Beitar Illit, for example, can travel in a loop from West Jerusalem to their West Bank settlement and back again without knowing they have crossed the Green Line, even though they literally pass underneath the densely populated Palestinian town of Bayt Jala. The wall hugging the line of the road keeps the Palestinians out---and out of view.

I don't pretend to know why the tunnels were built. When I wrote the sentence I was careful not to impute motives to anyone. I merely summarized what the source says. Is there anything I said which is not in the source? Did I change the impression given by the source? I think actually that I phrased it more blandly than the source. Just because you don't like the impression it may give of the settlers, and I think that I was quite careful to phrase it neutrally, we must, after all, go by what the source says. Furthermore, if you're to be consistent with your arguments above, you should be opposed to providing any context about why the tunnels were built unless it comes from sources which specifically mention Beitar Illit. Otherwise, it seems from your arguments, it would be synthesis. If I were of a mind to turn those arguments against you, which I'm not because I disagree with them, I might even say that the purpose of the tunnel is explained in the wikilinked article and that should be sufficient.— alf laylah wa laylah
The sentence as it is, without context, seems to imply that settlers are some kind of racists. So perhaps we should add context, or simply rephrase the sentence a little, like "and allows settlers access to Israel without coming in proximity of Palestinians". Debresser (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add whatever sourceable context you want to add; of course that's fine with me. Unless you have some policy based reason for rephrasing the sentence I'd prefer not to, though. The impression it happens to make on you is not a reason for doing anything to it. It doesn't seem to me to imply that anyone's a racist. I don't even know if Palestinians are a race, which would obviate the possibility of racism. Do you think it doesn't accurately reflect what the source says?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When using the word "racism" I did not mean it in a strict academical sense. I meant the attitude.
On Wikipedia we do not have to blindly follow the wording of sources. Especially in this case, where I for one do think the present wording is potentially ambiguous. I would like at least one other editor's agreement, but I think this text should be improved. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that I followed the source blindly, I think I summarized it concisely. The source twice makes the point that Palestinians aren't visible from the road. How is it ambiguous to say that people off the road are out of the eyesight of people on the road? As far as waiting for one more editor before you change the sentence, I'd prefer that you not set arbitrary limits like that. There's no policy that says that two editors beat one. Why not be patient, wait a couple days, and see if we can't come to an agreement. If you can find other sources that discuss the road and its purposes, by all means add information from them. I would welcome some context for the way the road is set up. I just couldn't find any other discussion of it that mentioned it in the context of Beitar Illit so I didn't put it in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd rather err on the safe side. Which in this case is the side of avoiding a possible serious misunderstanding of a sentence without context. i am surprised you are not with me on this. I understand you had the best of intentions, but the words came out ambiguous. On Wikipedia we take these things serious. That is why I think we should change this first, and discuss later. Other issues can be dealt with the other way around, but not all. I am showing restraint by discussing this first, and I am not sure that is a good thing in this case. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't understand your objections. Anyway, your proposed replacement about proximity doesn't seem possible to me because it misrepresents the source. The source doesn't say anything about distance. In fact, if the road tunnels under Palestinian towns, I suppose that people on the road are within a few hundred feet of the people on the surface, which seems to me to be in proximity of Palestinians. Can you perhaps propose another version which satisfies your objections, but which doesn't add to or subtract from the source?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you serious? You interpret "proximity" as to include a short distance through a mountain? Also, the source mentions within "eyesight", and that is related to "proximity". So my proposed text reflects the source very well indeed! Debresser (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the source mentions eyesight, what's the problem with using it in the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already explained that. If you say "Get out of my eyesight!", does that sound like "Please keep a safe distance from me" or like "I hate you!"? I just say we may and in this case should rephrase the source a little. After all, sources are always a little out of context, and in this case there is place for confusion as to how to correctly understand the source's words. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you say "Get out of my proximity!" does that sound like "I would prefer not to look at you" or like "I hate you!"? This is a red herring. I think you're reading far too much into the sentence. The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to think that the sentence I wrote and the source attribute to the settlers a desire to keep the Palestinians out of sight. I don't think either my sentence or the source attribute any desire to anyone. I think that both merely state a fact and state it neutrally. I believe that changing to "proximity" would be misrepresenting the source, as the source doesn't say anything about proximity.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beitar Illit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted the last two to the official city website. No idea why it was changed. The first link is no good. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beitar Illit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2017[edit]

Please somebody revert this edit, since redundant category is already included in "Religious Israeli settlements".--Boots Dawson (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: :Since the TrickyH's edit was in question here. Its best if the editor attends this edit request. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 06:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done, see my edit summary. Debresser (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before I started adding this cat to pages that already included the subcats of "mixed" or "religious" settlements, I read through the H:CAT page and I didn't see any statement that a page shouldn't belong in both a subcat and the parent cat. To me it makes sense for the pages of the settlement to be listed in both, so that one cat might make a complete list of settlements. I'm happy to be proven otherwise if I'm not looking in the right place. TrickyH (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beitar Illit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Debresser, your edit restored a factual error to the article. When you use that map the alt text shows "Beitar Illit is in Israel". It is not, it is in the West Bank. Please explain why having a settlement in the West Bank display that it is in Israel is appropriate. nableezy - 18:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. I hadn't noticed that alt text. In that case, although I do believe the Israel map is the more relevant, I have no choice but to agree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


what it was would logically precede what it became. nableezy - 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic, undisputed facts such as when it was founded and by whom should clearly precede claims attributed to an advocacy group about the legal ownership of its lands. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cant assert a dispute, who is disputing the basic fact about the land this settlement was founded on? Source please. nableezy - 09:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] the legal battle over ownership has been going on for years. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Firkin Flying Fox's argument, that since that statement is disputed, the article should first mention what is undisputed. The article must also, in addition, mention the fact that this statement is disputed. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That source does not say that the land was not appropriated from the villages. Debresser, did you read the article you added? Though I do appreciate the tacit acknowledgment that is a reliable source. Such growth from NoCal100 to bring that source. nableezy - 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides the obvious problem of Debresser introducing material that is manifestly not in the source cited, by itself a serious issue, there isnt any actual policy backing up the argument given. Why would a history section be out of order on the history? Besides the obvious reason of wanting to diminish anything that shows Israel in other than the best light, but that isnt a valid reason here. nableezy - 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't understand that latest addition at is an interesting article, which could be incorporated here...but nowhere does it "dispute" the previous sentence (that so and so much were confiscated from the Palestinian village before 1985). Huldra (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article says "Yoav Mordechai, head of ... disputed the illegality of the land claim". I understood this to mean that this Israeli official holds that the land was not confiscated, but rather was no man's land, and therefore the claim as though the land was illegally confiscated is not justified. I did not understand this to mean an acknowledgement of confiscation, just considering that confiscation legally justified. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but that is about the land they were trying to confiscate in 2014! (starting a few years before 2014). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I simply do not see anything about the land confiscated pre 1985 ....? Huldra (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Debresser:, he is disputing that the land that Israel declared as state land for the outpost of Gevaot is privately owned by the Nassar family. Not about the land that this settlement was founded on some 30 years prior to the land that the article you added is talking about. nableezy - 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coat of arms[edit]

Please replace coat of arms to this file: . Юкатан (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't you do this yourself? Debresser (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

short desc[edit]

Debresser, the primary description of this place, both in this article and in reliable sources, is Israeli settlement. Not Israeli city. nableezy - 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what you cite is new information that is in no way implied by previous information Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was adding new information to the article there, not information that was implied. Also, if the information is in the linked articles, in regards to my mention of limited recognition of Jordan’s annexation, then why does it say in every article that Israel’s rule is regarded as an occupation, or that it is not recognized by the international community if that information is also in the linked article? Double standard? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel we are getting off topic. If you can tell me why including the words “were taken” is encyclopedic and concise please tell me. Otherwise, as aforementioned, it seems to be undue emphasis on a practice that is already mentioned above when it’s says “confiscated” Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we are getting off topic. “Were taken” is implied by “confiscated” so why use the words? Seems like undue emphasis Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be appreciated thank you. But back to the issue at hand...can someone refer to me a cogent argument for why the words “were taken” is not superfluous? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

City, not settlement[edit]

The short description should say "city", which is the more precise term for what Beitar is. Just like here you called it a regional council. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many types of settlements, like villages, towns and cities. This is a city. That it is an Israeli settlement is already expressed by "in the West Bank". Debresser (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the above section, the primary description this article uses is settlement. nableezy - 23:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the discussion is here.
That in itself is something I think is wrong. This article should simply say "city". Done that.
In any case, as I said above, "settlement in the West Bank" is 1. unnecessarily saying the same thing twice. 2. unnecessarily underinforming the readers that this is a city. Debresser (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you kidding me? You removed that this is an Israeli settlement from the lead? And I shouldnt report that incredibly tendentious edit to AE? nableezy - 14:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kid you not. I did not remove that from the lead at all. It is actually mentioned another two times in the lead. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Recently, User:Nableezy added {{short description|Israeli settlement in the West Bank/Golan Heights}} to this article and a bunch of others. It is my opinion that this short description should be refined, here as well as in those other articles. In the case of Beitar e.g. that should be "Israeli city in the West Bank", in the case of Neve Ativ e.g. "Israeli moshav in the Golan Heights", etc.

Likewise it is my opinion that the first sentence of these articles should avoid wording like "Israeli settlement incorporated as a city/moshav", which these articles presently is part of their lead sentence in many cases. This is 1. unnecessarily verbose, 2. not the way we usually start article about human settlements, and 3. redundant to the continuation of the lead which invariably contains some explanation to the fact that "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank/Golan Heights illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this."

I am well aware that all of these are Israeli settlements, just hold that the short description should be as refined as possible, while the fact that these cities/moshavs etc. are in the West Bank or the Golan Heights explains clearly enough that they are in the general category of "Israeli settlements". Debresser (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Notified WP:GEOGRAPHY and WP:ISRAEL. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Settlement is by far the most common descriptor, and WT:PALESTINE is a relevant notification, and this very formulation has been agreed to by a number of editors in the past and is the long standing consensus. Reliable sources, and this article for years before Debresser's edit, refer to this place primarily, and often exclusively, as an Israeli settlement. Rare is the reliable source that simply calls this illegally established colony in occupied territory an Israeli city. It is absurd for an editor to skew our article in such a way, and it should be met with sanctions. nableezy - 14:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question wasn’t there consensus on a topic related to this many years ago in which the community agreed to add the words “The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.[5][6][7][8]” to the lede of every settlement article? Could someone link to that? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. nableezy - 17:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you specify this particular case as "city" (by which definition?) then wouldn't that mean going through all the cases and specifying them as towns, villages, hamlets, hovels or whatever? Surely the simplest procedure is just to refer to them all as "settlements" (in much the same way as we try to do with assigning things to categories).Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    These terms (city, moshav etc.) are legally defined, and which one it is is specified in each article (or should be, didn't check all of them). Simplest is not how things work, rather we should further refine this a bit. This actually should have been done by the editor who made the mass edits, but he has obvious reasons to not do so. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Legally defined by who? They are not in Israel so those definitions don't count.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is a city according to Israel, however it is WP:UNDUE to use a descriptor that is POV (just as calling it colony would be POV) when that is not the most common description of this place. Beitar Illit, and the rest of these settlements, are much more widely widely referred to as an "Israeli settlement" than as an "Israeli city", and it's not even close. Beyond that, Israeli city implies it is in Israel, and this settlement is very much not in Israel. nableezy - 17:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Israeli city in the West Bank" is more than clear enough that it is not in Israel. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    15 for one search and 8 for the other search is not the large numbers that are really relevant for a WP:COMMONNAME decision. Not to mention that that guideline is about article names and not relevant to how we phrase things in the article proper, which should be based on considerations like logical presentation of a subject and many, many other factors. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    an Israeli settlement in the West Bank is by far, like exponentially more, the most common description of this place across reliable sources. Your personal POV that the language used by the occupying power in its administration of this literal war crime does not trump our NPOV policy which requires POVs be given the weight given to them by reliable sources. Israeli city is given nearly no weight by reliable sources, and as such it cannot be the primary description of this place. The numbers are not 15 and 8, it is 144 to 8 for exclusive searches. WP:WEIGHT applies to more than the title of an article. You are attempting to skew this article away from a neutral state to an expansionist Israeli POV one. Note that I can easily source "Israeli colony" (eg here) for this place. Should I replace city with colony? It has as much support in the sources as city. nableezy - 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was going to say that doesn't "Israeli settlement" equally imply that it is in Israel? (I agree it's not, strictly it should just say "settlement" but then how would you distinguish it from a legal settlement?)Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, because Israeli settlement means not in Israel. That is literally the definition of the noun phrase nableezy - 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a pity that, because a natural language interpretation of that phrase would be a settlement in Israel (presumably legal in that case).Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Israeli settlement is a noun phrase, it is not simply the noun settlement modified by the adjective Israeli. Maybe that is not as common knowledge as I thought, but it is the standard terminology by neutral sources. Pro-Israel sources will often use "Israeli city" or "moshav" or whatever and pro-Palestinian sources will often call it "illegal colony". nableezy - 17:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do understand, was just playing devil's advocate, it is really the source of the problem here, people use the phrase to mean something other than what the phrase would ordinarily mean.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Nableezy It is 15:8, sorry. And again, that guideline is not really relevant.
    @Nableezy The lead already says "settlement" twice. How is removing a third time introducing a POV. You are laughable. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh no, the google news results show 144 results for "beitar illit" "israeli settlement" -city. Not 15. And 8 for city -settlement. And it also says, or said and will say, city council, whats your point? And WP:DUE is very much relevant, your saying so doesnt make it so. Removing it as the primary description in favor of the terminology used by a small minority of sources is indeed a POV edit. nableezy - 17:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The RfC has not been done properly – it needs to be a clear choice for editors to make a decision on. But anyway, I agree with Nableezy that the short description and the opening sentence should describe Beitar Illit as a settlement. However, I think the boilerplate text "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank/Golan Heights illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." should be removed from this and all other articles – Israeli settlement is linked in the first sentence and this should be enough, and the inclusion of this sentence smells strongly of point-making. Number 57 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are certainly free to start an RFC to that effect. As it stands there was an RFC to include that material, it had consensus, and there has never been a consensus to overturn it. nableezy - 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Urgh, both apply. Can't we find a way to describe this both as a city (which it is by size, type of dwellings, etc.) - AND as a settlement (quasi-legal jargon)?Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Um, the word "settlement" is not quasi-legal jargon, it's just a word that means (here) human settlement (of any size). "Illegal settlement" would be quasi-legal jargon and the way the phrase "Israeli settlement" is used almost fits that category as well.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Umm OK. Settlement type (physical) = city. Settlement type (qusai-legal jargon) = Israeli settlement. Can we agree on a way to include both? Do we want an itty bitty hamlet, farming village, and city described the same way?Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, that's a better way of looking at it but where do you draw the line, there are a myriad ways to categorize the settlements. You used "physical" but that could be population, facilities, infrastructure, all sorts. And to be consistent, it would still have to be done for all cases not just this one. As for quasi-legal jargon, that's easy, use proper legal expressions instead but the same question arises, where do you draw the line. It is my impression that the short desc should be just that, short (I don't think that they need to be "descriptive" as such just not misleading). The only practical way to produce short is to keep it simple. An alternative is to just leave short desc blank.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Include both where? Prior to Debresser's edit the lead sentence of this article said is an Israeli settlement organized as a city (that should include the link to city council (Israel), and when I revert Debresser's edit I'll add that). In the short description? That would make it, um, not short. nableezy - 18:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Israeli settlement/city ?Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Israeli city implies in Israel, that phrasing is non-neutral. nableezy - 18:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh. City/Israeli settlement ?Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The primary description, per WP:WEIGHT, should be Israeli settlement. Why does the type of settlement need to be specific in the short description anyway? Prior to my adding a short description this just said place. nableezy - 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be fine, except normally that expression is wikilinked so you can figure out that the meaning is not the natural one. What is the short desc being used for, are we misleading people by putting in that phrase?Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sdesc is supposed to be an at a glance description. I think, that per common sense, the primary description of an urban settlement with apartment blocks is "city" (or maybe "town") whereas a small settlement of a few dozen private dwellings on a small hilltop is something else. The legal status is but one aspect here - certainly of some relevance - but it does not describe geography, urban planning, environment, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. You can see it on mobile but not on desktop. I definitely don't like Israeli settlement in that case. It should say West Bank settlement.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It says in the West Bank. We should not be making determinations on what phrasing we personally prefer. We should be making determinations on what phrasing reliable sources prefer. The answer to that question, and again it is not even close, is Israeli settlement. nableezy - 19:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As indicated more than once at WP:RFC, an RfC should begin with a brief neutral description of the issue, not with one person's opinion about the issue. Debresser, you have been here far too long to not know that. Due to this major procedural flaw, this RfC is invalid and should be closed as invalid. Zerotalk 19:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nableezy Per WP:WEIGHT it should definitely be "Israeli city", because the article exists not because it is an Israeli settlement. All cities in Israel, and all villages and moshavs, basically, have articles. The fact that this is also an Israeli settlement is incidental, not the reason this article exists. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont actually get any of the logic in that. All settlements in the West Bank have articles too. All outposts do too. All Palestinian villages and towns do too. I dont get how that makes any impact on what WP:WEIGHT actually says. Which is

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.<ref>The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.</ref> Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.

(emphasis added). The weight of a view is determined not by what Wikipedia editors personally feel is the most important thing, but by how much weight reliable sources give a view. The phrasing Israeli settlements is overwhelmingly favored by reliable source, exponentially so. By using the terminology of a small minority of sources as the primary description of this place you are giving undue weight through prominence of placement of that terminology. A similar example is using Judea and/or Samaria in place of West Bank, an issue that gave us WP:ARBPIA2 and WP:WESTBANK, which established that the terminology found in the vast majority of sources is to be preferred in our articles. That using the favored terminology of one side of a dispute, and not the terminology used by the vast majority of third-party sources, is non-neutral. And in that same vein you should recognize the equivalence in POV claims here is not Israeli city vs Israeli settlement. It is Israeli city vs Israeli colony. And that third-party sources prefer a more neutral terminology, in this case Israeli settlement. nableezy - 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's context dependent. You might be correct regarding reporting involving the very narrow topic area of geopolitics. However, this city (as other human settlements) has coverage that is unrelated to geopolitics (and likewise - our article - is also mostly not on geopolitics). For instance - when covering bus transport ([2]) or the measles epidemic ([3]) - this human settlement is described as a "city". Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes it sound as if it were just another Israeli city in Israel. Which fails for the obvious reason that it isn't. The main point about this place is not that it is a city, it is that it is an "Israeli settlement" (I don't much like this phrase but there you are).Selfstudier (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Outside of the narrow context of geopolitics - it is a city with various issues reported (e.g. the measles outbreak or bus transportation above) on the local and national level as any other city (though often in conjunction with other ultra orthodox cities in the area). In the narrow context of geopolitics (in which this particular location is fairly insignificant (it is not a major flashpoint - unlike say Yitzhar) - other than being yet another Israeli settlement) - it is treated as an Israeli settlement. Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, you said that already. The trouble is that you cannot expect "normal" reporting when the situation isn't normal. I am going to look for non Israeli reports about this place (since Israeli reporting would likely treat it as if it were in Israel) and should they exist I would expect them to mention initially/prominently that the place is an Israeli settlement.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a brief look, there are relatively few non Israeli/non partisan reports, I found two (old?) and, both reporting directly on matters relating to the "Israeli settlement" status.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both of those cover this city in the context of geopolitics - which is but a narrow aspect here - and are brief location mentions - not coverage of the city itself (and such small cities / large towns tend to get local coverage that is in-depth). Furthermore, I'd note that the sole sentence in the BBC article mentioning this location uses "The largest, Beitar Illit, is a town of more than 40,000 people, a blaze of lights on the hillside at night."[4].Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You must be reading a different article, the lead of the BBC article reads " Now surrounded by Israeli settlements...referring to Beitar Illit and others. While I agree that the local coverage is in depth, users looking for such information will doubtless use local newspaper sites or similar, not Wikipedia.Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the reader will immediately ask "largest what?" and examine the source to discover that it is noting Beitar Illit to be the largest of five particular "settlements". The settlement status, not the size, is transparently the reason it is mentioned by the source at all. Zerotalk 10:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems there is consensus for a dual-descriptor approach, but no agreement on how. I suggest Debresser restarts this RFC with a neutrally worded proposal setting out a variety of dual-descriptor alternatives for consideration. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The alternative is obviously leaving things the way Nableezy made them, which is clearly outlined in the proposal as well. Debresser (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree there seems to be support for that. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that the wikidata has "Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian West Bank".Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is laying it on too thick. By the way, that was probably also Nableezy's edit.
@Selfstudier "The main point about this place is not that it is a city" That is precisely where you are wrong: this article exists because there is such a city. If the city would not have been in the West Bank, the article would still exist. Which proves that the main point of this article is that it is a city, not that it is an Israeli settlement. Therefore, having it in the short description, in addition to 3 (!) times in the lead, is WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's illogical. The article would exist regardless of it's size, just like the others similar (and not classed as "cities").Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No reading of WP:UNDUE allows for this type of mental gymnastics. What it says, plainly and clearly, is that the level of coverage something is given in our articles is proportionate to that given in reliable sources. Reliable sources cover this place as an Israeli settlement. They do so exponentially more often than they cover it as an Israeli city. As such, WP:DUE requires us to give that same difference in weight here. And that necessitates using the most common description of this place, by far, as the primary description. Not some nonsense about well if it werent in the West Bank but it was in Israel then it would still have an article. That has literally zero meaning to it. And zero relevance to what our policies demand. And as far as laying it on too thick, that is actually a completely neutral and accurate description of this place. And no, that was not my edit. nableezy - 16:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, it wasn't your edit A wikidata expert by the looks of it:)Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Related rfc,_subdivisions,_and_disputed_territories Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it was Huldra, who has been very active in Commons and other Wikimedia projects to push her non-expert Palestinian POV. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting proposal. Don't think it has any direct bearing on the present discussion, though. If anything, I think it proposes a realistic and down-to-earth approach, just like my proposal to say "city" when it is a city and not stop at the general classification of Israeli settlement. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian West Bank is not a Palestinian POV, it is the view of nearly every competent party on the planet. Israeli settlement is a much more specific classification than "city". And beyond that, it is the classification that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use to describe this place. nableezy - 21:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not both? Beitar Illit is a city (עיר, Ir) and a settlement (התנחלות, Hitnachlut). The label "settlement" blurs the fact it is a regular city and the label "city" blurs the fact it is a settlement.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True enough, if it were JUST a settlement, it's not though, it's an "Israeli settlement", which has a very distinct meaning here. Let's not be under any illusions, the intent of the Israeli authorities is to effect changes on the ground or otherwise, that elides the differences between a settlement in Israel and one in the West Bank. This is not POV, it's just the way it is.Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody says that it is not a settlement. But the article exists because it is a city, and describes a city, while the settlement aspect is minor (as it logically should be). Therefore, the short description should mention that it is a city, while the fact that it is also a settlement is not relevant for the short description. Debresser (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bolter, the article says both already. The short description is supposed to be short. Which would normally entail having one primary description for a given topic. And here the sources primarily use Israeli settlement as that description, so WP:WEIGHT requires we do too. nableezy - 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Greenblatt thinks the word "settlement" is pejorative, that we should call them "neighborhoods and cities". Shame its POV.Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greenblatt isnt a reliable source, so who cares. Just like occupied, settlement is not "POV". It is the neutral, factual, terminology preferred by reliable sources. nableezy - 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note related discussion at WT:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demographics - Acceptance Committee[edit]

"All incoming residents are screened by an acceptance committee."

This is no longer true. I've been living in Beitar Illit since 2016. I and others I know have rented and bought apartments here. No one had to go through any kind of acceptance committee. Older folks here say there used to be one but that this is no longer the case.

The source quoted is Nefesh B'Nefesh website, which - as of July 29, 2019 - has been last updated in December of 2014. Bumy Goldson (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct: the acceptance committee does no longer officially function in Beitar Illit, unfortunately. Debresser (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That needs a source, rewording to as of date because used to be is unsourced. nableezy - 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since 2007. There was also a related Supreme court case (not on Beitar - but with country wide effect for communities that are above a few hundred families).Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like a much better source to base this all on. nableezy - 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, why exactly is Nefesh B'Nefesh used as a source in this article for anything at all? nableezy - 19:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Debresser:, imagine, dear friend, that any mention of an Israeli or American Jewish NGO, say AIPAC or the ADL or whatever, were preceded by according to the Jewish NGO .... You, and I, would rightly object to such yellow badging. This is no different. nableezy - 22:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose you are right. Although it does happen, on both sides.
On a related note, and in view of the edit summary claimed "unnecessary detail", I think we have a few more cases of unnecessary detail in this article. For example "is an Israeli settlement organized as a city council" which IMHO should simply be "is an Israeli city". Likewise "part of the Gush Etzion "settlement bloc"" which is IMHO superfluous in its entirety. Not only do I think these two are both superfluous, as the simple fact that the West Bank is mentioned makes it clear enough that this is a "settlement", but they are also superfluous together, in other words, both state the fact that this is a settlement, and once should be enough. That is in addition to the third sentence, which also uses the word "settlement". Debresser (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edit didn't only claim unnecessary LoD, it also pointed out that this was a very recent edit to long standing material. The latter is what you are doing now, attempting to "lose" the standard phrase "Israeli settlement" (which exists in all relevant articles) along with it's attendant Wikilink, so I put that back in.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying it is an Israeli settlement is not superfluous, it is the defining trait of this place. We've been through this before. Several times in fact. nableezy - 18:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to miss the point. Saying it once is fine, saying it three times is not. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were taken[edit]

“Israel had confiscated from two nearby Palestinian villages; 3140 dunams were taken from Husan[10] and 1166 dunams were taken from Nahalin.[11]”

Isn’t “were taken” superfluous, and deleting those two words would assist in conciseness, since “Israel had confiscated from two nearby Palestinian villages” obviously implies that the land[s] “were taken”? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too prefer the wording proposed by Zarcademan123456 as more streamlined and encyclopedical. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is almost absurd: Zarcademan123456 inserted extra wording into hundreds of West Bank articles, edits like this, or this, where the info inserted either was incomplete, or was already in the linked articles. Alas, when it comes to Israeli confiscation, the text needs to be "streamlined!" Lol! I don't quite know whether to laugh or to cry... Double-standard much? Unsurprisingly, I am against the removal of those two words, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your sarcasm doesn't really help you make your point, just antagonizes editors... Debresser (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The emphasis given by "were taken" seems appropriate and changing confiscation to expropriation isn't going to fly either, there is nothing in any way legal or official judicial about the "taking" of this territory (it is not in Israel so it is at best a military occupation confiscation for which there needs to be a valid purposeSimon McKenzie (8 November 2019). Disputed Territories and International Criminal Law: Israeli Settlements and the International Criminal Court. Taylor & Francis. pp. 144–. ISBN 978-1-00-075805-4.).Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was an expropriation process. It may be viewed otherwise, but that is the legal term. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You again ignore the location, expropriation, confiscation (sometimes eminent domain) in general refer to a judicial action by a competent court within a given jurisdiction. That is not the case here. What applies here is the Hague regulations" Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated." (there are exceptions that I already alluded to) Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ignore nothing. Please comment on content, not editor.
The Israeli process was called and was by all standards a process of expropriation. The fact that it is considered by others to be against international law, does not change the facts. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An Israeli process applies in Israel. The WB is not in Israel. The applicable regime is the occupying force which is subject to the Hague regulations Art 45 and I have provided you with an additional RS to that effect. It uses the word confiscation. I will have another look at it if you are able to show an independent RS referring to it as an expropriation.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was only one process. Your highly POV source is not proof of anything, not to mention that per WP:PARAPHRASE we are not obligated to use the language of our sources. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not disputing the number of processes, I am saying that an Israeli process is not applicable in the WB. Sources do not have a POV, I assume you mean it is biased and indeed it is as are all sources. The particular one I have provided is biased in favor of Israel (note that it refers to "disputed territories") and I provided it as counterpoint for ARIJ. I accept that we do not necessarily have to use the language of the sources but one might then quite reasonably ask why one finds it necessary to change it from what is has been for a long time and what it is in many related articles. Zarcardeman has been requested several times to get a centralized consensus for mass changes, maybe you could help him with that, the necessary procedures are apparently causing him some difficulties.Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you you very much, I will try to arrange that just to get back on topic...I feel I have not yet heard a cogent argument for what the words ”were taken” add to the article/why they are not superfluous, since, as aforementioned, “Israel had confiscated from two nearby Palestinian villages; 3140 dunams were taken from Husan[10] and 1166 dunams were taken from Nahalin.”

again, WHY is “were taken” not superfluous? If something is “confiscated” it logically follows that they “were taken”, no? So what do these two words add to the article??Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would turn the question around: WHY is it so important for you to remove these two words? (especially as you have had no problems in adding lots of other stuff, which is covered in other articles, such as Jordanian annexation of the West Bank). I do not think these two words are "superfluous", in fact, they make the article clearer, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

once again you avoid the question. Here is not the place to address that question, please ask on my talk page if you like. WHY, in your opinion, does the addition of these two words make the article clearer?Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It is relevant information because sources when discussing this place find it relevant. E.g. this. Or this. nableezy - 08:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beitar Illit is not in Israel[edit]

Editor Debresser appears to think that this Israeli settlement is in Israel. Note the link City in the infobox does not show Beitar Illit as being in said list. So a self revert would appear to be "realistic".Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be that as it may, but since I live I should know if it is Israel or not. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:OR, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But no less true. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add[edit]

--2604:2000:E010:1100:68A0:D758:F52B:2D8B (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

recent edits[edit]

First off, WP:WESTBANK disallows saying a place is in, present tense, "Judea". Next, no part of Beitar Illit has been annexed by Israel. Next, no part of the territory was ceded to Israel, it was included in Area C, which is according to the accords a temporary administrative designation, not anything near ceding the territory to Israel. Next, international community is the phrase found in a thousand sources and is included in nearly every single article on the settlements. Absent a reason to change that established consensus that should be the language that is retained. nableezy - 05:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Beitar is 10 km southwest of Jerusalem (actually only 7). The article says it's south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumy Goldson (talkcontribs) 12:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point is, it's more West than South.
I would guess at the motives of the wording, but this page needs no fuel. Bumy Goldson (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People dont notice new threads that are placed at the top of a talk page, but I corrected this. nableezy - 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typo in first sentence[edit]

"is an Haredi" should be "is a Haredi" since the "h" is not silent. (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]