Talk:Settlements in Israel

Which settlements in each article?

I think the solution of having an article about Israeli settlements in general and another which is region-specific may be good solution. gidonb 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a total mess (like you said earlier, even though you created this mess). Like I said, I'm not a fan of the word "settlement", but the way you went about this was, to put it one way, POV-pushing. Plus it was without consensus, which is even more regretful. According to NPOV rules, the solution to this lies in "common use", yet you created a new stub that will baffle anyone who come to WP to read about "Israeli settlements" the way most people (even those who oppose the word) know it. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massa alcheer Ramallite, I think there is also a rule that names on Wikipedia should not be misleading. When referring to all Israeli settlements as if they were outside Israel one is doing excatly that. As I am very sure about this, I suggested to talk it over and even move things back while we are talking, however that did not work out. In the meantime I have restored the redirect mess and asked for an extra opinion on the solution we have reached. Salam 3alakum, gidonb 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ironic thing about this is that extremists on both sides would be happy with the new Israeli settlements stub (as of the time I'm writing this)! One one side, extremists would be glad to read that all Jewish population centers in Eretz Yisrael (including the territories) are considered equal, and on the other side, people would be delighted that Wikipedia considers Israeli towns even within the Green Line as "settlements" (because of the temporary or illegal connotation it implies) :-) Ramallite ^(talk) 13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of large Israeli cities being called "settlements" other than way in the past when they were not large cities. This stub makes no sense to me. --Zero 05:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A settlement is any city, town or village, whether Israeli, French or American. I can provide you many links. gidonb 14:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the English word "settlement" means, but this article is about "Israeli settlements" and as far as I know there is no article "X settlements" for any other country X. Can you show me a link that calls Haifa, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem a "settlement" in modern times? The silliness of this article is seen by reading it: "Depending on one's definition, most or all the latter are Israeli settlements in the West Bank." By who's definition is Haifa in the West Bank? I vote to make this article into a redirect to one on the settlements in the OT. The ambiguity of the word "settlement" can be disposed of in a single sentence near the beginning of the latter article. --Zero 21:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I believe that every country should have articles about its settlements. Also, the article "Israeli settlement" now opens with the phrase "Israeli settlements" and is extremely misleading, as it deals only with Israeli settlements outside Israel's sovereign territory. The great majority of the Israeli settlements are not in such territories and therefore the article purposefully misleads the reader with marginal information on the topic it claims to cover. The terminology chapter is a slap in the face to all spatial sciences. gidonb 20:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This should be restricted to the West Bank"

it's not a settlement if it's part of Israel-proper (i.e. excluding West Bank)

This article is extremely misleading. Several articles mistakenly link here because the disambiguation link was removed. There is already an article on the settlements which includes a dispute over terminology. This page should be deleted. -136.159.208.20 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to totally disregard the meaning of the word settlement. gidonb 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the opening line of the real article states, the term is commonly used to refer to communities built by Israeli settlers in areas captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. You may wish this isn't the case, but what you wish is irrelevant. The article is misleading not only because it introduces an ambiguity that only exists in the minds of dogmatic POV-pushers, but because most of the links that connect here were actually intended to link to the "Israeli Settlement" page. I think it should be deleted. If you want to start a All Israeli Communities are Settlements page, make it somewhere else. 161.184.52.227 17:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Israeli communities in the West Bank were built since 1967. Why should I have a problem with such facts? If Wikipedia was a forum I would add my opinion on these settlements. It isn't however. Assigning me false intentions is totally against our policies. I believe you should review your ways of conduct around our encyclopedia. If the policies are not to your liking, try to change them, to adjust yourself or not to participate. gidonb 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an article that deals largely with the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It was recently renamed and now falsely claims to address broader issues than these included in the text. gidonb 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Research"

This whole article is original research. Can someone point out to the application of the term "Israeli settlements" in the literature to all the communities in Israel? As pointed out above, this looks like POV-pushing. The information in this article is either trivial, or belongs to a section or article about the geography of Israel. Furthermore, it is easily confused with the informative article on Israeli settlement. I think this entry ought to be a redirect to Israeli settlement.--Doron 06:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If Gidon cannot get some support for his idiosyncratic position, we should change it as you suggest. --Zero 08:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally ridiculous. I have already placed such sources in the discussion we held before. As a social scientist I am flattered by the label "original research", however as a Wikipedia old-timer I have to note there is nothing original about this data or my common use of the word settlements. I will put a few sources in the article and remove the warning. gidonb 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either you misunderstood my point, or you are avoiding the point I am trying to make.

The information in this article is mostly trivial (obviously they are either cities or villages etc., what else could they be? floating platforms? large chunks of cheese?), and whatever is worth noting belongs in the Geography of Israel article.
There cannot be two articles with virtually the same name that talk about completely different issues. Given the wide usage as given in the other article, this article, if it must exist, would be better named "Israeli communities". "Israeli settlements" ought to be a redirect to "Israeli settlement".
Your link includes only rural settlements, while the article refers to all kinds of communities in Israel, so it hardly resolves the OR issue.--Doron 13:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doron, you are welcome to make these statements at the other talk page. This is the correct Israeli settlements page, and the non-political and non-original research version. The other one is original research, misleading and POV. I will add more sources and information in this article and sharpen the definitions, as there seems to be some conceptual confusion between settlements, places and communities. I thank you for the constructive part of your criticism. Regards, gidonb 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your "source" appears to be a power point presentation, hardly a legitimate citation, and your dogmatic claim to be the sole person capable of NPOV is a performative contradiction. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the term "Israeli settlement" is commonly used in the abstract sense of "community." As you should know (being a "social scientist" of some indefinite sort), words often have different meanings in different contexts, and while "human community" is one sense of the word "settlement," the specific meaning in this context is "recent colonization," and refers exclusively to communities founded by Israeli settlers on land annexed after the Six-Day War. You are well aware of this history, and you are well aware of the various connotation implied by the term. You may disagree with the use of the term, but you can't arbitrarily redefine its meaning without introducing a confusion which works against your stated intent. -161.184.50.102 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cited many sources when we had this discussion elsewhere. I will organize this article better and remove the warning, after the concerns have been dealt with. I know the therm settlements is often used in a politicized context. Wikipedia in general has a bias towards anything that is politicized, especially articles of and concepts in the Middle East. If there are many people out there who like to push POV, I do not have to join them. gidonb 17:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many politicized terms in common circulation. You cannot arbitrarily eliminate them without eliminating the subject matter; you cannot arbitrarily redefine their meaning without introducing a new political term with an added level of confusion. You have one source, and it is some random power-point presentation. You have dealt with none of the concerns listed, nor are you capable of doing so given the absurdity of your position. -161.184.50.102 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious this page falls under both original research and wp:point. And the usage in the correct page, i.e. the other one, is absolutely in conformity with semantics. From OED, a highly respected and authoritive guide to the English language:

6. The act of settling as colonists or new-comers; the act of peopling or colonizing a new country, or of planting a colony. (Cf. sense 14.) 14. a. (Cf. sense 6.) A community of the subjects of a state settled in a new country; a tract of country so settled, a colony, esp. one in its earlier stages.

From Merriam-Webster:

3 a : occupation by settlers b : a place or region newly settled. Settle: 2 a : to establish in residence b : to furnish with inhabitants : COLONIZE

Encarta:

1. act or state of settling: an act of settling, or the state of being settled 2. act of populating: the act of populating a place with permanent residents or becoming a permanent resident in a place 3. colony: a place that has recently been populated with permanent residentsa

And yes: you will find the usage "small community" in the very same dictionaries, but the usage in this context clearly reflects the usage outlined above and in the Israeli settlement article. Trying to establish a completely different meaning to the term than what it actually means is clearly original research, and this article is contrary to WP guidelines. The term "israeli settlements" is not used in this context, and even if it would, would not be worthy of its own encyclopedic entry. Articles such as Spanish Steps or Russian roulette refers to their general meaning, not some Original research attributed to make a WP:POINT --Cybbe 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have seen nothing but references that prove what I have written above that the concept settlement is used often in a politicized context. I will bring some more references that underpin the more scientific usage of the word. gidonb 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some very basic curriculum sources, just to show what a trivial discussion this is :-D

A settlement is a place where people live. Settlements come in lots of different sizes. A settlement may be as small as a single house in a remote area or as a large as a mega city (a city with over 10 million residents).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/urbanrural/settlementtypesrev2.shtml

Most of us live in a settlement, but they are all very different in nature. Some are small villages whilst others are large cities Most of the settlements in Britain have a long history and they grew up in particular places for important reasons.

http://www.tavistockcollege.devon.sch.uk/Online%20Curriculum/Depts/Geography/Yr%209%20resources/Year9%20Settlement.enq1a.doc

(A not-so-constructive comment: the above remarkably resembles the article!--Doron 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Some other ones: http://www.schooltrain.info/geography/outandabout/settlement.htm http://www.ofs.edu.sg/course-info/course-descriptions/middle-school/humanities/grade-6/ http://www.kesgrave.suffolk.sch.uk/learningzone/subjects/geography/sform.html

Just tell me how many more articles and definitions of settlements, from class 3 to PhD research you would like to have! ;-D 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me put this as simply as possible: most words have several different meanings. Sometimes we can only understand their meaning when we consider the context in which the word is used. None of your links refer to this context, so the "definition" you have derived from them is nothing but a tautology. The term "Israeli settlement" does not simply mean "Israeli community," but has a very exclusive meaning which refers to "Israeli communities established within the occupied/disputed territories." Anyone with a passing familiarity with recent history is aware of this. You seem to have some tenuous grasp of history, so your arguments are disingenuous at best. -136.159.208.50 19:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between a community and a settlement. A settlement (noun) is a place that people live in, or in other words a community that is place-specific. The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are places that people live in, in a specific geography. As you admittedly break all the Wikipedia rules, I will cease this unfruitful discussion. With my many references, I have shown time and again that this article is NOT original research. The other article is POV and original research and should be renamed. gidonb 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "cease this unfruitful discussion," although frankly, I don't know what you mean half the time. I certainly don't understand your use of the term "proof." -136.159.208.50 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can make a constructive comment! gidonb 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A rather constructive comment:

Do you deny that the term "Israeli settlement" (not just "settlement") is most commonly used to refer to what is descrived in "the other article"?
Do you deny the possible confusion these two rather different articles with very similar names may cause?
Do you object to renaming this article to "Israeli communities" as a compromise?--Doron 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doron, although all has been covered before, your questions do summarize some of the major problems. My answers:

The bias is widespread.
The similarity of the names should be resolved. Each article should have a name that is unbiased and indicative of its subject matter, per our policies. In the article Israeli settlement all specificity was recently removed from the title. Now only an "s" differentiates between this article and "Israeli settlements".
Israeli communities cannot be even a partial solution since these are much wider entities than settlements, e.g. in the use of business community, Druze community, LGBT community etcetera. Settlements are location specific communities (in sociology terms) or populated places (in geography terms). Such a name changed would tremendously increase the ambiguity, rather than resolve it. Why do you suddenly refer to this proposal as a "compromise"? Your last question leaves me somewhat puzzled. gidonb 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I restate that the case for this "original research" claim, that was inserted by a anonymous user who admittedly broke WP policies, was totally refuted. Some more of millions of possible examples:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/pathfind/humanset/1100.htm United Nations
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/metro.studies/course/ New York University
http://www.unesco.org/mab/urban/old/Bonnes1.PDF UNESCO
http://www.sviva.net/pages/html/modules.php?name=News&file=articleen&sid=180 An Israeli organization (Internal Israeli context)
http://latino.sscnet.ucla.edu/challenge/47.htm UCLA
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088623/html/479.html The National Academies Press

If he wants to keep this tag, this anonymous who made all sorts of unbased accusation at my address (I would be motivated by certain political convictions and I had changed links) should log in and substantiate why he believes that the most common use of settlements in social science is my "original research". gidonb 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know the "bias", as you call it, is widespread, the question is what is the most common use of the term "Israeli settlement". If it is your interpretation, then surely you can provide some evidence? Otherwise, Wikipedia is not the place to propagate what you perceive as the "correct" usage.
I take it you agree that the current situation with the similarity between the titles is unacceptable.
I believe the contents of this article belong in Geography of Israel, I really don't see the point in this article. The only reason I can see why Israeli communities warrant an article is the unique types of communities (kibbutz and moshav), but each already has an article. However, I suggested a compromise, by which this article would remain, but be renamed. That's what I meant by compromise. If "communities" is not good (note, by the way, that "settlement" and "Israel" are both ambiguous), then we should come up with something else ("towns and villages", "population centers", "localities" or even Settlements of Israel). Why do you insist on this problematic title?
You are yet to provide a source that refers to the term "Israeli settlement" according to your interpretation. I can read a dictionary and I know what the word "settlement" means. What I am disputing is your usage of the term "Israeli settlement". By analogy, a flea market is not a place where you can by fleas -- if you started an article called flea markets describing such markets that sell fleas (if there were such a thing...), you'd get the same reaction! :) --Doron 07:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that our postings crossed, since all the publications above use same scientific and extremely common meaning of settlements as I do. I also supplied several sources on Israeli settlements on this page, urban and rural, Jewish and Arab and in all cases inside the green line. Your analogy is thus incorrect. Are you by any chance the anonymous user who made all sorts of highly inappropriate accusations today? gidonb 07:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I went over all of them, and could not find a single instance of the term "Israeli settlement". If I overlooked, please point out where the term "Israeli settlement" appears exactly. And no, I am not that user, and I hope I haven't said anything inappropriate.--Doron 07:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry for asking. Israeli settlements is used in the ppt document and Arab settlements (inside Israel) in the seviva document. As this is a very common use of the word settlements, I can come up with a zillion additional documents, for any locale. Hence I would appreciate your support of decreasing the extreme ambiguity of the article name israeli settlement, which is biased as it refers to a small minority among the settlements as being the Israeli settlements. Here the problems are far less severe. gidonb 07:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my thickness, but I can't find a reference to "Israeli settlement" anywhere. The closest I get is the title, which says "Israel - A Settlement Geography".--Doron 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...which, by the way, gives rise to another possible name -- Settlement geography of Israel. And another thing -- I don't see the bias. If you look up "Swedish settlements", "French settlements", etc., you'll mostly find references to colonies, not Stokholm and Paris.--Doron 08:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its the use of settlements in conjunction with "Israeli", and you using this specific term different from its ordinary use (i.e. see Israeli settlement), that is OR. You have not given a single reference of this being in _general usage_ in this specific context, worthy of a encyclopedic entry. Oh, and by the way, WP:NOT in general, and especially the dictionary part, is the third WP policy this article is in violation of. --Cybbe 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already brought many sources which deal which deal with Israeli settlements, that is settlements in Israel proper. Doron insisted that the word Israeli and settlements will appear together. I have no problem with that request. There are many of these too. gidonb 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are so many of them, as you claim, I find it quite astonishing that you could not provide even a single instance in which the term "Israeli settlement" was used the way you perceive it. And just to make sure we don't go over this yet again, I mean "Israeli settlement", not "Israeli" and "settlement" appearing separately in the same document, I mean the actual phrase "Israeli settlement". Of course, to prove your point, you would have to come up with a lot more than just a single instance, you would have to counter the overwhelming amount of literature that uses the term as the rest of us perceive it.

But much more importantly, wouldn't Settlement geography of Israel be more appropriate? Do you have any objections to this title?--Doron 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you many references on Israeli settlements in Israel proper, so your statement above is incorrect. Ok they did not convince you about the need for name change of the artcle "Israeli settlement" so here are just a few direct references to "Israeli settlements".

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82606-p10/daniel-byman/should-hezbollah-be-next.html
washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050314-090221-6481r.htm
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1220(200003/ 04)6:2%3C133::AID-IJPG173%3E3.3.CO;2-1
www.feweb.vu.nl/ersa2005/final_papers/50.pdf
english.people.com.cn/200207/08/eng20020708_99299.shtml
www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/isrlebx.htm
w3.bgu.ac.il/bedouin/Monograph-Harvey.doc

However self-evident, such an understanding does not appear to inform the practical work of designing and expanding Israeli settlements. It is true for Tel Aviv and Jerusalem no less than the development towns in the Negev, and is just as true for the seven Bedouin towns, which are the subject of this study.

www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm
www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1978.cfm
pointask.com/pointask/f_q.php3?qid=15080
www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/HAMAS
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/10/716
www.aog.usma.edu/Pubs/ASSEMBLY/990506/marcus1.htm

AND SO ON AND SO ON AND SON The bottom line is that WHEN one wants to talk about the Israeli settlements in the Westbank or the Israeli settelements in the Gazastrip or the Israeli settlements on the Golan Heights one has to be specific. This what about all the better sources do. Wikipedia is ambigious and biased and leads with a bad example that is totally against our policies. 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

At last, the first instances you have given with "Israeli settlement" appearing in them! But surely you understand that this is not enough. Sure, you can find random instances of "Israeli settlement", meaning settlements that are Israeli, but still the term "Israeli settlement" is overwhelmingly used in the sense of settlements in the Occupied Territories.

I'll ask again, do you have any objections to renaming it to Settlement geography of Israel?--Doron 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of some change here eventually because the now so common biased use of the concept Israeli settlements neglecting to say that one is talking about Israeli settlements outside Israel proper. I insist however that the name of the article Israeli settlement is the main problem and that this one is far less pressing. I gave only a very a small choice of examples (13) of the proper use of Israeli settlements in the social sciences. There are many more. The quote of the Canadian economist Harvey Lithwick says it all. gidonb 11:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research when you claim "the proper use of" an established term. This article is nothing more than a dictionary entry, and its original research when you try to connote to the term more than just that. It is Original research when you claim "6 million live in IS" etc, as some general used term. No one has ever used the term in that way, except you of course. Its original research when you try to construct an encyclopedic article out of two dictionary definitions (parts of them), and its obvious from your own edits the only reason you disrupt Wikipedia in this way is because you have a problem with the Israeli Settlement article.

Well your claims are totally refuted by the evidence I have brought above. Initially I brought tons of evidence that the settlements within in Israel are commonly called settlements. In addition, Doron wanted proof that settlements in Israel are also called Israeli settlements. Then I provided plenty also of that. Therefor your claim that is original research holds no water and labling it as such is abuse of the editing tools provided by our encyclopedia. The irony is that after the evidence provided, the lable itself and not the content of the article is original research. gidonb 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Now that the claim of "original research" has been totally refuted, there remains a problem of some ambiguity between the scientific use of the word settlement and between a use that has become quite popular in various media. Proposals which overcome this ambiguity (and do not introduce new confusion) will be welcomed. gidonb 06:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This ambiguity could be eradicated by specifying in the title exactly which of the settlements populated (predominantly) by Israeli citizens the article refers to, namely those contrary to international law. Journalists, academics and politicians critical of Israeli civilian presence beyond the Green Line refer to these houses collectively as illegal settlements, while many Israeli media outlets make no such distinction. As long as no peace deal is brokered, these communities are caught in a legal vacuum and are not legally part of any state. How about renaming the article accordingly then? I propose "Israeli civilian communities outside Israel proper", or something less cumbersome but equally precise. //Big Adamsky 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cybbe and Doron, the article is still OR as it is currently presented. A tiny minority may refer to Israeli cities as "Israeli settlements," but to present this view as a neutral fact is disingenuous. The scattered evidence provided by Gidonb does not constitute the "scientific use" of the term, and can hardly be called "proof," as anyone with even a sophomoric understanding of scientific methodology could attest. I agree with most of the suggestions offered by other editors. This page could be merged with either Geography of Israel or Israeli settlement, although the claims currently presented should be highly qualified. I don't think this stub really needs to exist, even with a different name. It certainly shouldn't continue to exist with this name, since the site has redirected all links using the plural form of the term away from the main article.

-Gregor Samsa 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gregor, the two articles have different functions. One deals with Israeli settlements in general and the other deals with Israeli settlements which are specifically located outside Israel proper. These settlements have now become so famous that sometimes they are mentioned without some specificity of the geography they are located within. In many if not most cases OUTSIDE Wikipedia the specific geographic area (e.g. West Bank) or general geographic circumstances (e.g. occupied territories, Palestinian territories) are mentioned next to "Israeli settlement" as otherwise the articles may be misunderstood. We took over the practice of the more sloppy authors and this lack of specificity is misleading and against our policies. After all, these settlements are a minority among the Israeli settlements. I suggest that "Israeli settlement" will be renamed as its current title is highly ambiguous if not to say deceptive. I agree with Big Adamsky that renaming is the appropriate route. I hope you are willing to reconsider your POV after giving the issue some additional consideration. gidonb 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If not redirected to Israeli settlement, this should be moved to Settlements in Israel and the redirect from here pointed to Israeli settlement. How many other articles are there where the singular title deals with one thing and the plural title with something completely different? At least I hope the proponents for its continued existence at this location will have the decency to go around checking that none of the linked articles are meant to be linking to Israeli settlement. Is that too much to ask? Palmiro | Talk 03:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palmiro, there is no argument about the fact that several wrong links exist. I suggest that these will be changed, after the article "Israeli settlement" that is now only an "s" away from this title will be disambigued. gidonb 12:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not particularly reassuring, as there is by contrast plenty of argument over what is going to happen to the other article, and on a quick glance the bulk of opinion seems to favour it staying where it is. Palmiro | Talk 13:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the talk pages on both sites, I note that this discussion has be going on since late October, when Gidonb, in opposition to all parties, created this stub and redirected dozens of links away from the main article. As far as I can see, Gidonb has failed to find any support for his views, and it is unlikely anyone will convince him that his unilateral actions are misguided. I suggest we put this to a vote. I propose that this article be merged with Geography of Israel, and all links using the term "Israeli settlements" be returned to the main article. A note can also be made in the main article that some people use the term to refer to settlements in Israel. -Gregor Samsa 17:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never created one single link to this page, unless from a talk page when relevant in our discussion. The rest of your claims, unfortunately, also do not hold water. gidonb 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively you did, since you changed it from a redirect to Israeli settlement into a stub on a different topic, without, as far as I can see, fixing the links to it that were relevant to the original meaning. Palmiro | Talk 18:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between the two. I wrote a stub on Israeli settlements under the name Israeli settlements, which is totally appropriate. I am sure that all wiki's from other articles of which I DID NOT CREATE EVEN ONE will be changed once the name issues are resolved. I will personally write a request to someone with a bot who can change them in two seconds. All this is early since we have not decided yet what our articles are going to look like. When working in a good atmosphere as colleagues and as one community this would have never become an issue. I regret that this discussion is deteriorating and will further stop reacting to false accusations and the like. gidonb 23:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The requested move was successful. The discussion is archived here. enochlau (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has moved and is developing I look forward to the apologies for the disgusting personal attacks on this longtime contributor, which were totally disconnected from any reality and inappropriate per our policies assume good intentions and no personal attacks. As a strict NPOV contributor, I have always had good working relations with all political parties on Wikipedia and hope things will remain this way. gidonb 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses Israeli settlements in general, with Jewish and Arab populations. As I have indicated before, the current title is more ambiguous the previous title Israeli settlements. Few Israeli settlements are outside Israel proper. These settlements are not a focus of this article, but are included in the totals and this article may be useful also to learn about their general models, as far as it resembles the models in Israel proper (political and other specifics - not here). Settlements in Israel therefore is an erroneous title. I have thought this over and propose moving this article to Settlement geography of Israel, which can include all settlements. It also removes some of the ambiguity with the popular (but sloppy) use of "settlements", in the more political context, which this article is not about. Give me a break this time, no politics, or personal attacks. If you really object, please mention it below. gidonb 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating a section in Geography of Israel? (to avoid duplication). -Gregor Samsa 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to settlement geography of Israel, as explained above

Approve

gidonb 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object

Much has already been said. I think that the article is valid if fixed up properly. Currently, it seems more geography oriented but could have more history/bible references inserted to explain why the term settlement is the literal translation of the Hebrew 'hitnachlut' which does refer to the settling of any area (not only in 'disputed territories'). I reverted the redirect since the compromise of moving the contents to Geography of Israel was not even performed yet. I also added a merge template to make the move a bit more official and binding and copied this section to the destination talk page. --Shuki 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue discussion Talk:Geography of Israel

(after conflict) Shuki, please do not revert before a different consensus is reached than the previous one. I have explained the concept with tons of refernces but to no avail. People remain confused about the concepts. I want to move on. Do me a favor this time. The discussions are old and closed. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this now belongs to the Geography of Israel. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being reasonable :-/ I was going to ask more wikipedians to come and give their advice. This move was performed steathly and not according to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. --Shuki 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were no objections at the time. We all agreed on the issue, after I gave up explaining. Why not just go ahead and write more. If you want to write a new article on hitnachluyut, go ahead. No problem with me, but others get utterly confused. Not everyone swims in social science and there is a lot of resistance since the popular but sloppy use of settlements in the press is so prevalent. gidonb 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the word I was looking for - sloppy. Now there is no mention of the important biblical term of 'hitnachluyut', especially since Jewish settlement was long ago redirected into Israeli settlement which only describes Jewish residential areas on the West Bank. I suppose that given some time, I could have fixed up this article, Ynhockey had only recently suggested his help. --Shuki 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I have to execute the verdict opinion of the community. You are most welcome to write a new article. Perhaps you will do a better job than me persuading that this is NPOV. gidonb 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitnahlut

I am unclear how the following text fits in: The Hebrew bible mentions the word 'nahalot' (נחלות) as estates in the land of Israel that were given to various tribes and groups. 'Hitnahlut' (התנחלות), commonly translated as settlements, is the term used to describe the areas actively settled, rather than merely allocated. With corrections, it may be of use in some another article. gidonb 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli settlements

here is already an article about the real settlments (those beyond the green line). No one other than Hamas propeganda calls Israeli towns (inside Israel proper) "settlements". This article should be deleted. can anyone explain to me how to list an article for deletion ? Thanks. Zeq 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this discussion [1] should be reopened. 5 people only participated in it. Now that I left the comment here all the wikistalkers are soon to join in. Zeq 06:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that only the Hamas refers to Israeli cities, towns and villages as settlements has been discussed above. Plentiful proof of the opposite has been provided. Also, the old discussion is closed. As the name change increased the ambiguity of this important article, I have proposed another change. gidonb 11:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with Zeq that the article is a POV push, I somehow fail to see the point of this article. If the point is to talk about communities in Israel (from kibbutzes to metropolitans), then the article fails to provide any interesting information. But if that is indeed the point, please say so anyway; then I will try to expand the article to mention other important details. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli metropolises

I must agree that the article is totally pointless. And since when Nazareth became metropolis? Mag2k 07:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the city and its suburbs grew, according to some researchers (and thus "possibly" in the article). Follow the link to learn more. I am going to move the text to Geography of Israel, which is now largely physical geography and give that article a quality push. BTW, the article is NOT and was NEVER about communities, but about inhabited places (settlements). There is a world of difference between communities and settlements, but users here tend to get confused between basic concepts of geography, sociology and political science. I can respect that, as I have a strong background in all three. Combining the articles will solve the issue. gidonb 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK did all that. I am a little fed up. The text was clear, the references were clear, the researchers who regard Nazareth as a metropolis are clear, so why ask "since when Nazareth became metropolis?". It is referenced and the text did NOT say that Nazareth became a metropolis. Everybody is stuck in his own concepts and that is fine with me. I adjusted everything accordingly. "Totally pointless" is rude. A little more appreciation for each other would be helpful. gidonb 08:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New location is much better. I've read the arguments, but still think that a town of 60000, hardly could be considered an urban center, even if it is surrounded by some villages. Otherwise and by the same logic you surely should include other cities as Afula and Neanya in the list of metropolises. Which makes the arguments of the researchers look ridiculously. With all the proper respect. Mag2k 09:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can see how Nazareth may eventually be called a metropolis - Its surrounding area totals about 220,000 in population (including Nazareth itself), and there are some more nearby villages which may be incorporated into 'Greater Nazareth' once the area grows. The only thing lacking right now is the urban development, which is bound to happen eventually. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 09:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60,000 is not "a town" by any standard, and 160,000 people do not live in "a few villages", but in other adjacent cities and towns. Further, these are notable researchers in their discipline and their view is shared by many of their colleagues, so it is very important information to include. Netanya and Afula are very different cases. Afula is not a metropolis by any standard. Netanya is part of the Gedera-Hadera conurbation of Tel Aviv, which researchers agree is a metropolis, but not with Netanya as central city. gidonb 09:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you list several "adjacent cities and towns" that you consider as a part of the Nazareth metropolis?

In Nazareth's immediate vicinity, there are: Nazareth (64,100), Natzrat Ilit (44,000), Migdal HaEmek (24,700), Kfar Kana (16,400), Yafia (15,700), Raina (14,900), Iksal (10,500), Ein Mahl (10,000), Mashhad (6,500), Ilut (6,000). Additionally, close enough to Nazareth (as close as Beersheba's 'metropolis' is to Beersheba itself), there are a number of other towns and villages, such as Daburiya (7,800), Shibli (4,500), Zarzir (5,900), and a few others I forgot. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 10:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Beersheba is metropolis. Also, geographical vicinity of Natzrat Ilit or Migdal HaEmek doesn't make them satelite cities of Nazareth, due to the lack of cultural, administrative or transportation significance of Nazareth for the population of these cities.Mag2k 11:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mag2k, be serious for a moment. The multi nuclei-model is a common way of thinking about urban areas since 1945!!! Since the early 70s the more common way. Geography/Regional science is a discipline combining natural and social sciences. It has common definitions and core models, just like other sciences. Have you ever taken a class in geography in high school or beyond? gidonb 11:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are academic courses in location theory and environmental economics good enough? Despite the arguments of multiple nuclei model I think that calling Nazareth metropolis is ridiculous. I am not going to edit it out of further discuss it. I just stated my opinion. Mag2k 13:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They sure are good enough. Location theory is taught mostly in economics depts and business schools under the name regional science, which is basically the same thing as geography. Environmental economics is mostly taught in economics and public policy schools under the same name. Is this were you studied them? Together they give an exellent idea of the field: many core models in location theory class and a choice of more specific subject matter in environmental econmics combining well the physical and social dimensions of space. gidonb 13:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I learned it in the framework of my economics studies. Mag2k 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That make sense since the professional schools would teach either course, but not both. gidonb 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]