Israel C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Should Susya article be split and become a disambiguation page redirecting 3 different articles about the archaeological site, the Palestinian community and the Israeli settlement? Settleman (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send alerts to all participants of deletion discussions. Huldra, Oneiros, Debresser, Igorp lj, Number 57, Kingsindian, Nishidani, E.M.Gregory, Zigzig20s, Pluto2012, Johnmcintyre1959, W1i2k3i45,

• Yes - The Israeli settlement is over a km away from the archaeological site. The Israeli settlement is different then the Palestinian community (and both sides wish to leave it this way). The Palestinian community current legal battle isn't about returning to the original site but about building a village nearby. This is similar in many ways to the Huqoq/Yaquq/Hukok situation. Settleman (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Because as I explained above, it is common Wikipedia practice to give significant archaeological sites pages of their own.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No - The main point is that they are not separate. The facts are in this UN factsheet which contains a map. In 1986, Israel declared the Palestinian residential area as an archaeological site and expelled the inhabitants. The residents then moved a few hundred meters away. (Some Israeli settlers now live in an outpost on the archaelogical site). The Israeli settlement, built in violation of international law, (in 1983), on the other side, has since expanded to five times the "built up" area. On the map, you can clearly see the intersection of the Palestinian area with the "area denied to Palestinians". Due to settler intimidation and violence, the Palestinian village is denied access to 2000 dunums of land, which is two-thirds of their farming and grazing area. This WP article split will artificially separate out things which are inseparable, and legitimate what B'Tselem accurately termed a "land grab" more than a decade ago. This is not related to Yaquq/Huqoq case because that is a depopulated village (during the 1948 war) while this is an ongoing matter. Finally, if this article is split, the articles will forever remain stubs, just as all the articles on most of the settlements are. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The usual practice is to give separate pages to notable ancient sites. For example, Saint Anne Church, Trabzon, is a separate page from Trabzon. Jews' Court, Lincoln is separate from Lincoln. The Ostia Synagogue is not rolled into the page of the Ostia Antica archaeological park. The Delos Synagogue has it's own page, as do many of the ancient Greek Temples on Delos. St. Anne's Church, Trani, with a history of conquest and conversion similar to Susiya, has it's own page, separated from Trani. I would be happy to expand and improve the sourcing, detail on this notable ancient building. Wikipedia has hundreds of pages on notable ancient buildings, archaeological finds. In this case, it does not appear from your map, photographs or other reliable reports that the tents are actually located atop the ruins, but even if they were, the argument that they are "on the same site" is not persuasive since separate pages for notable ancient sites are a Wikipedia convention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That partially proves my point: in all of the articles you link to, the separate synagogue/church articles are stubs. I have no idea why you think the persecution of Jews (in the case of Trani) in the 14th century is relevant here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingsindian, if you are concerned that the article would be too short, I personally undertake to read the dig reports and secondary scholarly literature and create a proper article. The sources on this dig/site/ancient house of worship are extensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that is only one of my points. The other points remain in place. Anyway, nothing is stopping you from adding these extensive sources to this article. It has existed for 7 years. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The stub claim is simply not true. Khirbet Susya is currently 37k and with the additional work desperately required, it will probably go even higher. Archealogical site is about 23k. So both are not stubs any more. Susya, Har Hebron, though the article is still short, it is its own place which makes it important enough to get an article. Settleman (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Background comment.

This article has been relatively stable, despite occasional efforts to editwar out a variety of documented facts outlining the Palestinian community, since 2009. This year, the Israel Court, led by a judge who happens to be a settler, ordered on May 5 the eviction of the historic community of Palestinians in Susiya, and transferring them to an area outside of Area C, which, though Palestinian in international law, is under Israeli military rule. The community had lived in caves in Susya from the 19th century until 1986, when they were evicted from the site, and they reconstituted their village on their own contiguous lands at that date, refusing to budge. They have, on Israel’s own internal expert advice and internal documentation, title to the land, where the archaeological site was found, and its surrounding area, since Ottoman times (1881).

After the court made this decision, pro-Israeli editors moved to split this article, mirroring on wikipedia what the court has proposed to accomplish, i.e., rid the archaeological site of any trace of the community that had lived there on its own property. In particular User:Settleman, who behaves – perhaps it is a coincidence - identically to the banned user User.Ashtul, and User:E.M.Gregory, whose major work has been to frame articles underlining Palestinian violence (Palestinian stone-throwing, backing it by an attempt in a new article to conflate Israeli law with international law (Criminal rock throwing)), have tried to press for the splitting off of any mention of Palestinians in the old article, which covered three realities in the one location of Susiya. An article that was stable for several years, of reasonable length, and comprehensively covering all three realities, should not be eviscerated idly into three stubs, particularly when it looks like an attempt to make one half of the I/P equation disappear from sight on the main article where the synagogue/mosque is located.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• None of Nish's rant has anything to do with the simple, routine practice of having separate pages for separate towns, and separate pages for notable archaeological sites.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Although I am open to the Palestinian village and archaeological site articles being combined as they are in the same place, the Israeli settlement article should definitely be separated for the following reasons: Firstly the two sites are in different locations as quite clearly shown in this map. Secondly, the two locations are under different jurisdictions; the settlement is part of Har Hebron Regional Council and the village is part of Hebron Govornate. We have numerous examples of contiguous places under separate jurisdictions having separate articles, eg Nicosia and North Nicosia. Thirdly, there are also numerous precedents in this topic area for having separate articles, many of which have already been cited in the discussions above.

Contrary to the above inference that the split is solely the wish of pro-Israel editors, I also support it, and it also appears to be supported by one editor in the pro-Palestinian camp. On the other hand, the only opposition to splitting the article (to date) has come from pro-Palestinian editors. The idea that the split is somehow an attempt to hide the illegal settlement is rather desperate as the DAB will list it prominently. Plus the whole land issue will still be covered in both the village and settlement articles.

Finally, I must take some blame for this whole mess. I started the article (I think in 2007) solely as an article about the settlement when I was completing the set of all registered Israeli localities (both in Israel and the Occupied Territories). However, around 2008 I removed them all from my watchlist as I was tired of fighting the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors, and of seeing their petty edit wars on my watchlist. As a result, I missed the widening of the article's scope, which I would have attempted to stop at the time. A couple of years ago I added all the articles I had created back to my watchlist in order to keep an eye out for vandalism, and got annoyed enough with the poor quality if arguments made here that I felt compelled to join the discussion. Number 57 11:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: While I appreciate the detailed explanation, the point about Nicosia seems rather far-fetched to me. I do not know much about it, but it looks like it was partitioned in 1963. This is rather like saying India and Pakistan have separate articles. In Susya's case the entities are not just contiguous, but overlapping, once you consider the area denied to the Palestinian village, which has no approved master plan (because Israel denies them all). This is clearly indicated in the UN map I gave. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point, which was that the two are under separate jurisdictions, not how the situation arose. Another example is Texhoma, which isn't even split across a national border, but has two separate articles for the Texan and Oklahoman-run sides. Number 57 12:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: You are factually wrong about "separate jurisdiction". Susya comes under Area C, which is under Israeli control. Israel almost never allows building permits in Area C, this is one of the main issues under conflict here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. Even if the village is in Area C, it is still not under the jurisdiction of Har Hebron regional council. Number 57 13:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distinction without a difference. What is important is Israel controls it, not what name it chooses to give it. Israel has been quite open that it wants to expel people from this part of Area C into Yatta, which is in area A under Palestinian control. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Israel controls the whole area is wholly irrelevant to the jurisdiction issue - there are levels of jurisdiction below the national government - ie the regional council. One of these places is under its jurisdiction, the other is not. Number 57 14:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment on this matter. This "different jurisdiction" stuff was in relation to Nicosia and North Nicosia. North Nicosia is under Turkish occupation, Nicosia is not. This kind of difference cannot be finessed away by appealing to "different levels of jurisdiction below the national government". Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you are obsessed with the occupation issue with Nicosia as it was simply an example. If its really a big deal for whatever reason (I suspect trying to avoid the real subject), then forget I ever mentioned Nicosia and focus on the Texhoma example instead, or perhaps Bristol, Tennessee/Bristol, Virginia or perhaps Union City, Indiana/Union City, Ohio. There are plenty more to choose from. Number 57 09:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was an example, and I tried to argue that it didn't apply here. There is no obsession, I was simply replying to your points. The rest of your examples are "twin cities", which is the opposite of partition, as in the Nicosia case. In these cases, cities in proximity grow into each other over time. However, that is not what is happening here. In this case, one entity is taking over the land of the other entity. Nobody is suggesting that Palestinian Susya is growing into Israeli Susya; that would be absurd. I have already gone on too long on this issue, so I will shut up now and let other people discuss. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point again (deliberately?). These are all contiguous or adjacent cities with the same name but split across two jurisdictions, and all of which have two articles. It's that simple. Number 57 14:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The settlement has a council which is independent manages the settlers. Not sure what the Palestinians have there but it is most defiantly different. Settleman (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per E.M.Gregory —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After a week there have been 4 opinions expressed, the last by an editor new to this page, User:KingsIndian, would you be willing to agree with the proposed split?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No -- the division proposed here is an artificial one. The article is more informative if these issues are treated together. This RfC should be closed by someone not already involved in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No. The split would actually be hard to make, since how it is to be split is not defined. The intention of settleman (the name speaks volumes) appears to be to remove all mention of the intense decades long conflict raging over a Jewish-Muslim site (for it has a mosque as well as a synagogue), on top of which lay the Palestinian village of Susiya (David Dean Shulman, a world-reknown scholar) so that it becomes an Israeli cultural memorial ridden of its Palestinian history. Likewise the Jewish Susiya has no history, and would remain a stub. It's a politically-motivated split proposal, for a comprehensively rounded article that at 61,000kb, comes well within the limits of a good wiki article, given the POV of all sides. Jewish-Israeli opinion is deeply divided over this, and we should not mimic a solution that accepts the 'cleansing' of the article proposed by just one highly pointy settler activist group (Regavim (NGO)), whose positions Settleman is consistently presenting on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shulman is a scholar (the word you wanted is "renowned") - of the language and literature of South India. I cannot see why his opinion has any special weight here. As for the pro- and anti-Israel NGOs (Rabbis for Human Rights, B'tselem, Regavim) - they all equally POV, and our job is to try to keep things down the center, towards which goal splitting the article seems like a good step.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spelling correction. Shulman is trained in scholarly methods of evaluating evidence, has mastered the methods of ethnography required to enter into a dozen alien language/cultures, is fluent in Arabic and Hebrew, has written a widely praised work on his field experiences in the South Hebron Hills, where he has been active for over a decade. That adds up to expertise. As to the equation Regavim and the rest, there is one difference. Regavim pursues the expulsion of an indigenous people from its land. The other NGOs seek the extension of human rights guaranteed by Israel's democracy to people under Israeliu occupation. One has a vested interest in any argument that will rid the 'Land of Israel' of 'Arabs': the others have a democratic interest in seeing Jews and non-Jews treated equally. The one despises international law, the others accept that Israel must accept the extension of international law. The comparison between this NGO and the others is patently absurd. Our job is to ensure that fringe racist movements are not given equal accreditation with groups that represent the fundamental principles of modern civilization. Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, pr Nishidani and Nomoskedasticity, Huldra (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is that different from Talk:Az-Zakariyya#Merge where you voted against a merge b/c they aren't in the same location? The settlement itself doesn't even sit on Susya lands, just the archaeological park. Settleman (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Huldra, KingIndian and Nishdani fail to justify treating this archaeological site/ancient house of worship differently than similar sites in other countries on Wikipedia (eg. Old main synagogue, Segovia, Chora Church,) and in Israel (Eshtemoa synagogue, [[Burqin Church) - it is normative to give separate article to archaeological sites. While these editors are entitled to hold political opinions, they really do have to provide some policy support for treating this site differently form similar sites.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Reread the comments then. Old main synagogue, Segovia was reconstructed after it was completely destroyed: it wasn't a village; Chora Church refers to a site that was successively a church, mosque and museum: it wasn't a village; the Eshtemoa synagogue was excavated on a site without disturbing a traditional village, since none was built over it, and the same is true of Burqin Church. Your examples only illustrate the uniqueness of the Susya site, where an entire population is under threat of expulsion because it both has apparent title to, and once lived amid, the site of a synagogue and a mosque. The site has been invested with a political impetus that the other comparable sites lack, and to step round this anomaly is to play politics (those of cleansing the site of its historic associations with a local people).Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Let me see if I got it right - you write about the uniqueness of the Susya and your way of allowing the reader to fully understand the situation is to combine into it two more articles that can proudly stand alone? hmmmmm Settleman (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• in favor of a disambiguation : An AfD concluded that the article about the settlement should be kept, so having only 1 article about all these 3 topics (which had my favor given all 3 topics overlapped) is not possible. That said, given all 3 topics overlap I think that to avoid WP:Fork (2 articles would cover teh same topic) we need to clearly state what will be discussed in each of these 3 articles and the only remaining solution is a disambiguation. I see no good reason to keep together the archeological site and the (current) Palestinian village. We can explain in the article about the village (and if it is indeed the case because I didn't follow everything in detail) that it was first on the archeological site (and they were moved) and then moved again after the building of the settlement and then today their complete expulsion is discussed by IL. A disambiguation page could clarify precisely what is discussed in each article. This will help the reader and will avoid pov-forks. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012: You are incorrect about the result of the AfD. The result was "no consensus", not "keep". Since the article was split without consensus, if this RfC results in keeping the article this way, it is entirely possible for the other articles to be made redirects to this one. See the discussion I had with Sandstein here and the discussion on the AfD talk page here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: : In my mind, no consensus to delete means the article will remain there (and not just as a redirection). But if the redirect is possible, this has my preference given I was in favor of deleting the article. But we cannot have an article about the settlement and an article about the archeological site/settlement/village ; even less that the settlement is the one on which there is the less to say. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• yes per Settleman, E.M.Gregory & Number 57. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Summoned by bot and by no means an expert in this topic, but it seems the history of palestinian susya and the archaelogical site are closely interwined. Tearing them apart would be unproductive. Brustopher (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Settleman, E.M.Gregory, Number 57. Donottroll (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Articles Susya, Har Hebron & Khirbet Susya were created w/o split discussion and AfD closed with 'no consensus'. Settleman (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Meredith van de Velde published several editions of a very detailed map of Palestine in the mid-19th century. I have the editions of 1858 and 1865. Both show "Susieh". I've known that for months, but I only just realised that these maps use a different symbol for a village and a ruin. Villages are shown as solid circles and ruins as dotted circles. Ruins also have the notation "r." on them. There are many ruins shown in the Hebron hills region, but Susieh is shown as a village in both editions. You can view the 1858 map here. The legend is in Section 3 and Susieh is in Section 7. A summary of van de Velde's sources is in Section 1. It might be worth looking at the writings of the people mentioned there. Zero^talk 09:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An 1850 map that also apparently shows Susieh as a village in distinction to a ruin is here. I have to say "apparently" as I can't find the legend to verify that the dark and light circles mean what they appear to mean. Zero^talk 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This 1859 map also shows it as a village rather than a ruin. (You need the Mr Sid version to see it properly.) I'm restricting my search to maps made by people claiming to have used their own observations in addition to those of others. Of course they don't indicate exactly which places they observed, but I want to exclude the many map makers who sat in London or Berlin and copied from other peoples' maps. Zero^talk 10:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating! I would look deeper into it.

I looked at the Palestine Exploration Fund map referenced on different Arab villages in the area (here) and if I read it correctly, the red color symbolize inhibited places and doesn't exist in Susya. Settleman (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map legend (not at that site?) does not say what the red color means, but I always took it as indicating a living village. There are errors though and it is good to consult the text. In this case there is no mention of a population. Thinking aloud: if the population was seasonal, what visitors saw would depend on the season. Zero^talk 11:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But there is a strict resistance of including the seasonality. Settleman (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access Zero's evidence, and it looks of a complexity that I'd only trust him to synthesize and edit in neutrally. I've no objection to 'seasonality'. It's attested. I objected to statements saying they have been 'seasonal' since 1830. Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit on Regavim (NGO) made it clear that you won't recognize neutral even if it stared you in the face. Putting opposing criticism in the first sentence is exactly what I got to expect from you. Settleman (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at your edit at Regavim. Examine the farcical text, a hilarious mockery of NPOV.

Regavim (רגבים) is an Israeli NGO dedicated to ensuring the legal, responsible, and environmentally friendly use of land.Regavim monitors and reports on illegal construction,[2] and prosecuted cases of illegal construction through the judicial system

That was a completely fraudulent statement and you found nothing objectionable. Regavim, as everyone knows and numerous reports clarify, run by people who live in outposts that are unauthorized or illegal, and it specializes in petitioning to destroy any Palestinian building that shows the same chutzpah Regavim people display, i.e. building illegally or petitioning Israeli courts not to demolish illegal Israeli construction in the West Bank. The page was a whitewash, and now, edited per sources, you see what Regavim claims to be, and what its critics claim it actually does. Two sides.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply added a few lines somewhere else. What is your problem? Settleman (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishdani, please do not fling about accusations ("completely fraudulent statement") when in fact an editor was using the self-description found on this NGOs web site, it is neutral, carefully parsed wording. This is, after all, an organization that has as its core mission such activities as filing lawsuits over illegal Arab construction on park lands and in forest reserves, and illegal Arab grazing of flocks in nature reserves.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to participate in here once, because I feel it is key to point out that, above, where EMG agrees with the statement, it's "self-description", and when he doesn't elsewhere, it's "a bio so rich in personal detail and laudatory that it cold only have been written by someone very close to the subject"? MSJapan (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSJAPAN is WP:HOUNDING me, I regret that a user's misbehavior has interrupted this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not, because I'm not mindlessly tracking all your contribs and trolling you. I have clearly indicated via links that you have strenuously removed content in another article for exactly the same reason that you are fighting to keep it here. The inconsistent position is a problem, because in both cases, the position you are taking suits your purposes, not those of the encyclopedia. The fact that you have taken an inconsistent position with respect to such material does indeed directly affect this discussion, and I regret that you merely see it as "misbehavior." MSJapan (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, You mentioned the maps are based on personal observations so I finally looked at Velde's journal and apparently he skipped Susya. Took me awhile to figure out the brownish-red line is his path, and as you can see, it doesn't go through Susya. I'm adding a reference to it and would like to hear your opinion. Settleman (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that de Velde visited Susya. I said that the map derives from his own observations as well as those of others (some of them listed on the map). I don't know how Susya got to be shown on the map as it was, only that it was. That's why I wrote in the article that it was shown as a village and I didn't write that it was a village. If you want to insert something that casts doubt on the map, you'll need a source that casts doubt on it. Zero^talk 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you have and I didn't change the text. Just wondered if you have anything to say since you seem to be knowledgeable in the area. Settleman (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I called RHR to ask them about their source for the 1830/early 19th century claim. They pointed me to a book by David Grossman (not the writer) named הכפר הערבי ובנותיו page 226. I want to the libarary and here are photos of the 225 & 226. It may come as shocking to some of you (some will say 'we told you so') but the page mentions Susya, mentions 19th century but doesn't say Susya is since the 19th century. It mentions Susya in 1986 and Khirbet Zanuta from early 19th century.

Regavim give sources to each of the sentence I took from their report which were confirmed but somehow aren't RS, not even with attribution. RHR (and the rest of the 'humaniterians') provide a source that doesn't support their statement. But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic. Settleman (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing those photos. Too few editors these days will take the trouble to visit libraries. Personally I think Regavim can be cited with attribution, provided they are identified as an organisation associated with the settlers. But I don't agree with your view of their document. It has "propaganda" written all over it. The fact that some claims are sourced means little to the propagandist because they know that only a tiny fraction of readers will check for missing context. For example, they say that Tristram described Susieh as a "town of ruins", which is true, but they don't mention that Tristram only "rode rapidly" through it. If there were people living in caves, in those times when strangers were often dangerous, how many people should Tristram have seen? None, actually. So far I don't recall seeing any 19th century textual source which unequivocally states that Susieh was inhabited or not. Similarly the absence of Susieh in British censuses is negative evidence but if it was seen as a seasonal outpost of a nearby village, or if the census was made in a season when the occupants were elsewhere, it would not have been listed. Bedouin encampments, even large long-term ones, are not listed either. Of course we will never get such information from Regavim. Zero^talk 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I completely agree with you. The maps you found a few days ago are proof that something was there. This is why I wrote "a permanent village" though Regavim write village b/c for them seasonal means nothing. It might be considered Original Research but it does justice and keeps it objective. I don't wish to make the case for either side but brings the narratives of both sides which is why I add Plia Albeck on Khirbet Susya which was imported to Susya later.

Can you participate in the RfC about spliting the articles and making Susya a redirect? Settleman (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is not allowed whatever the cause or reason. I'd be writing hundreds of edits I think correct but can't source were I to follow the logic above ('It might be considered Original Research but it does justice and keeps it objective.') The increase in our knowledge is directly proportion to an increased awareness of our ignorance, and we cannot assume to fill in the obscurities by guesses or original research. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regavim doesn't dispute the fact there were some seasonal inhibitation for some years but they call it 'there was no village'. Your claim about it being contrafactual is really silly b/c Albeck stated what she saw at a certain visit or maybe a few visits, while Regavim (based on Havakook) say it was not permenant. Albeck's testimony IMO is more important when writing about the land ownership but there is no way her testimony overweight that of Havakook who lived there for years (and got bitten by a flea in an abandoned cave in Susya, contracted 'dalam' for which the local advised him of drink his own pee. p.146) Settleman (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is good work by Settleman but unfortunately WP:OR, so can't be used directly. I agree with Zero's comments in general. I note that the current text in the article citing Regavim does not use attribution, which is one of the main sticking points in this whole discussion. I do not consider Regavim WP:RS, but there seems to be a dearth of research on this topic, so the only available sources are partisan. Just using them with attribution seems an ok compromise. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made attribution that clearly present Regavin bias and I hope it works for everyone. Now for the 1830 claim, none of the sources directly cite where it comes from and my phone call resulted in a source that was cites wrongfully. I don't want to delete it without an agreement but I believe none of the sources that make this claim can be considered RS for historic claims without their primary source. It looks like one involved organization made the claim and everybody copied it. Zero's map finding is very interesting and convinced me there was something going on there in the 19th century but the question is, can we use it somehow?

Any suggestions? Settleman (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you write, citing directly Havakook's book:

According to a 1985 study by Yaakov Havakook, the community was seasonal and didn't live in Khirbet Susya year-round. Families of shepherds arrived after the first rain (October–November), stayed during the grazing season and left in April end or beginning of May.(HavakookHavakook, Yaakov (1985). Live in the caves of Mount Hebron. p. 56. The fate and rule (לחם חוקם) for shepherds' they have to migrate with their herds following the grass and water... The large amount of natural caves met the requirements of the shepherds: they provided protection from the cold, rain, wind and other natural elements... Whoever travel in South Mount Hebron even today, when this book is written, in early 1984, in Khirbats like... Khirbet Susya (landmark 159090) and the alike will discover, that every year, during grazing time, families of shepherds visit the caves in these ruins, with every shepherd family returning to and living in the same cave in which that family lived in the prior season. At the end of the rainy season, the shepherds abandon the caves which they used during the grazing months, and return to their village, or may visit other grazing areas.)

I.e. Havakook's book implicitly asserts they arrived in October-November and left in April/May, that is 5-7 months.

This is how Ari Briggs cites Havakook's book.

Anthropologist Yaacov Havakook researched the area the 1980s when he lived there for several years. As an expert witness he stated: “The Arabs never lived permanently in these caves... the caves have been used only as temporary dwellings by shepherds for two weeks to a month a year during the grazing season.” 'Comment: The invention of the village of Susiya,' Jerusalem Post 22 July 2015

.

Given that you translated with page numeration the precise section in Havakook, and given that Ari Briggs has asserted, on the same authority, that Havakook's 5-7 months is nothing more than 2 weeks or a month, the latter is lying. Or did you falsify the book source. There are no other alternatives. I'm I nclined to believe you got the translation right, and Ari Briggs is simply demonstrating the unreliability of Regavim for anything to do with a factual nature regarding Palestinian villages.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is a good thing opinion columns aren't considered RS on wikipedia as poeple are less careful and this is indeed a stupid thing of him to write. The report they released is very detailed and supported with documents.

As I have stated on the noticeboard, I have no problem with both or niether being considered RS but the fact you don't like one (to say the least) and admire the other, doesn't make a difference. They are both biased.

Another issue is "Susya al-Qadima" and "Rujum al-Hamri" which I couldn't kind anywhere but activist materials and websites. The reason in clear as Khirba refers to seasonallity which the activists try to eliminate. Please find completely uninvolved sources to support those names (David Shulman is of course a devoted activist for Susya so he is no good). I looked for a bit and failed to find much. Regardless, it is defiantly not widely used and until a month ago the article didn't mention khirbet susya in the modern era section. Seems like someone knew exactly what they were hiding. Settleman (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Ari Briggs is the director of this 'research organization' and is not even familiar with his own outfits' work? There are any number of other conclusions one could make, that he engages in deliberate public misrepresentation: the margin of error here is enormous.

(2)That David Dean Shulman actively helps poor people being dispossessed of what little they have, or from being chased off their land, or that he takes time off his Indology interests, where he is acknowledged to be one of the finest scholars of our time, in order to scrabble with herders in the Hebron Hills to remove the toxic pellets spread there by settlers to poison Palestinian livestock, etc.etc.etc., does not invalidate him. To the contrary, like many other scholars at Hebrew University, he brings critical intelligence to the analysis of the area's issues, and for that reason is published by Chicago University Press and regularly by The New York Times Book Review. It's like arguing Einstein can't be cited for his views on World Peace or the Irgun, because he was a social activist and working outside of his area of competence.

(3)"Susya al-Qadima" and "Rujum al-Hamri". Again you insist that we avoid all use of sources that come from standard organizations, B'tselem, RHR, that have long field experience of working in this area. This is completely off-the-point. Those organizations do close interviews with most of the victims of violence, to document their stories. Regavim does not have any reputation, indeed it would be against their principles, to actually get to know the people whose histories and experiences the article documents, and suggestions that any source which accomplishes this field-work, being activist, is therefore unusable, are, by the looks of it, little more than flanking efforts to erase from the record anything coming, not from British or Israeli colonial paperwork and rules, but the natives. This is patently absurd, indeed hysterically silly. It's Keith Windschuttle recycled into the IP area. Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman: "Rujm al Hamri" is what appears on old maps for the hilltop at the north-west edge of the Susya settlement. I didn't try to search for its history yet. About khirba, that article is a problem as it presents a view that goes against a vast literature which takes Khirba to mean ruin. I can see now that it even contradicts its main source, which says that the use of khirba to mean a satellite village is a modern development and in general "a khirba can be almost anything, including a ruin". In any case it definitely does not imply seasonality in practice, even if that was the origin of the word. There are tons of sites called Khirbet Something which were normal villages for centuries, and many were not near any village that could have originally spawned them. Zero^talk 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (without hard evidence) is that "Susya al-Qadima" (old Susya) is the name given to the place by the villagers after being expelled from there, to distinguish it from the new location that they also called Susya. It's a pretty normal naming phenomenon and I don't see what the fuss is about. Zero^talk 01:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, this makes total sense. Yet, somehow it was in and Khirbet Susya, a much more common name, was out.

Nishidani, I'm really not interested in your opinion about the conflict or what narratives are right or wrong. No point of keep repeating our points, we don't agree on much.

Your last edit attributing to Havakook the 1830s thing is horseshit. I have read on the pages Susya is mentioned on and none say it. If you try to highlight the fact b'tselem is not reliable, you have made your point. Moving regavim to the bottom is making the section fractured, going from origins and seasonality to ownership and back. I think breaking it into sections will make it more clear. It also expand on 'Israeli stance' on the issue.

The complexity of the situation is exactly the reason to split it off. Having the article read as "the zionist expeled them again and again" is nice but only as a blog post on Mondoweiss, not on wikipedia. Settleman (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that people read books, and check. But when you say from reading one, that my 'last edit attributing to Havakook the 1830s thing is horseshit' you are assuming that what the source writer stated came from those pages, an assumption no editor is permitted to make. You are placing your personal judgement above those of the sources. Regavim's position, which your editing shows you follow to the word - almost proxy like - is fringe. It should not preface an argument or position, but be noted after views shared by several organizations and scholars are outlined. The problem here, as often, is that we do not know enough, sources don't tell us what we would like to know, and your attempt to prejudice our ignorance by inferential certainties is not tolerated on Wikipedia. There is no reason to split this article. No one save yourself has fussed so intensely over this for several years.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, you cannot but know by now, is a fragrant violation of WP:OR protocols. We have a source, the Jerusalem Post, not RHR or B'tselem, making a claim about Havakook, not about the one book by that author you have read, and you assume the source is referring to that book. The writer did not mention where he found that information. Obey the rules, like the rest of us.Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might add re seasonal that there is a remark from a contiguous, and related clan group which, while not in Susiya, mentions their lifestyle. They have the same pastoral mode as the Susiyans, and the source states:-

The administration said cave dwellers were seasonal farmers who lived in the caves a few months a year when they were cultivating their land and grazing flocks, while actually maintaining houses in the neighboring town of Yatta. They were allowed into the firing zone 90 days a year and on weekends and Jewish holidays, when the army does not train, to cultivate their lands in season, an administration spokesman said. But Mr. Hamamdeh and neighbors at Al Mufaqara said they were part of a core group that lived there year-round, joined by others who arrived in the rainy farming season. Some people have relatives living in family homes in Yatta, residents said, but the houses are full and cannot accommodate the displaced who are now living in tents and empty buildings in other communities.

Joel Greenberg, 'Cave Dwellers Resent Evictions,' New York Times 22: February , 2000.

Here ther 'seasonal thesis' is stated as the view of the Civil (sic)Administration, contradicted by a local informant, who asserts they have a core/transhumant culture. This cannot be used for Susiya (and Huldra we do not appear to have an article on Al Mufaqara?). But it underlines the caution one must exercise in confusing partisan views with objective realities.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really tiring. Havakook have one book on the area and the index shows all pages where Susya is mentioned. Move on!

As for the transhumant-culture, I think it should be included and I can possibly translate part of grossman book on it (But remember, they aren't Bedouins. They are attached to the main town, in this case, Yatta). I think it will enrich the reader to understand the complexity. Why haven't you done so until now? I don't try to hide info and I brought to the table Plia Albeck. You try to simplify the issue to "Zionists expel Palestinians". Settleman (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is tiring perhaps because you (a) did not understand my point, and (b) do not understand wiki policy, which forbids us to succumb to temptations to second guess sources. Example. There is a substantial literature on (a) false claims made by Palestinian political parties assuming responsibility for some 'terroristic' act or uprising (b) there are a notable number of sources saying this is done to compete for the sympathies of various constituencies (c) there is proof that the PLO was haemorhaging after the failur eof Camp David, losing many factions to Hamas and Islamic Jihad (d) many PLO reps claimed they plotted the Al Aqsa uprising. I don't know the truth, but with an historian's eyes I can perceive the possibility that several of those statements reflected attempts to claim leadership of an uprising and win back defectors from the PLO cause. But I have no source for this legitimate and I think informed suspicion, and therefore I cannot influence the text by inserting that deduction (WP:OR) because no source I am familiar with connect the dots. So what do I do? I add further details documenting Palestinian insiders saying the PLO planned it, though it is the official Israeli POV, and I find it techn ically problematical. One is morally and technically obliged to edit in things one does not believe or even trust, if they are impeccably sourced. You connect the dots, and it is not allowed. Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the name "Khirbet Susieh", it appears on Mandate-era maps, and it also appears in the 1860s book of Guerin. But other 19th century sources (I didn't try to survey carefully) and maps including the PEF map call it just Susieh. Zero^talk 09:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A slight correction to Nishidani's edit here. I agree that Settleman's edit is WP:OR and incorrect, however, it is not correct to state that "JPost said X". It is an op-ed by B'Tselem staffer, and not generally reliable for facts. I am generally leery of quoting newspapers on historical matters anyway. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. The point is, however, the Eyal Hareuveni, a researcher from B'tselem, can be cited, with attribution. on Havakook. Settleman cannot cite his personal views regarding the same writer. I concur generally that historical facts are best not cited from newspapers, but is quoting Hareuveni's impressions of reading Havakook's book a matter of asserting a historical fact? I do not think so. Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is any problem with attributing this view to B'Tselem, since they talk elsewhere about the 1830's stuff. I thought this was decided above, that we would use both sources with attribution? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is a lack of clarity about number of expulsions. Shulman mentions this briefly in his article, he says 3 or 4 expulsions depending on how you count. The B'Tselem and the UN source give 3 expulsions, in 1986, 2001 and 2011. The 1990 one is not mentioned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) For the expulsions, RHR also mentions 1990. (2) For the 1830s, it seems to be a myth going on in the activists circles. There are several sources in Hebrew mentioning that but none give a reference to a book or specific documents. I went out of my way to get the source and was handed falsification. IMO, even with attribution, when the source was checked by an editor and was found false, contradicts commonsense which is highlighted on many wikipedia policy pages. The best we can do is mention Grossman saying the tradition of migrating during part of the year in S. Hebron mountain area was documented since 1830. (Here I removed a comment about Yoram Shkolnik b/c we know his name is Yoram and reporters do mistakes. None of those source are of the highest reliability and it seems they all recycle the same number like Kumbaya). Maybe we should take it to the noticeboard. Settleman (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know my reasoning can violate OR. We can say what we want or believe in. I believe the 1830s should fall under WP:REDFLAG b/c they are (a) "apparently important claims" (b) "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Settleman (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing consistently violates WP:OR for the reason often indicated: you go way beyond what sources say in order to draw skeptical conclusions about their reliability and use this 'reasoning' to excise matter. No one is happy that, to date, we cannot find a comprehensive scholarly history of the Susiya area, by a scholar fluent in Arabic, English and Hebrew. But that is no reason to second guess what we have. It is true that memes circulate, but then again, most of Zionism, like any ideology (Communism, liberalism, pan-Arabism, etc), is based on memes, and not for that do we eliminate well-attested talking points on sight, unless we can get a scholarly source that disposes of the myth as deployed in a given article. Don't mention WP:REDFLAG. It is scraping the barrel for removalist pretexts, and is inappropriate to an often cited datation. You must exercise patience, as we are all obliged to do, rather than impatiently remove or challenge what neither you nor anyone else has good RS grounds to elide so far.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention whatever I think is reasonable. Thanks you! This is obviouslt important!

The link you added is dead and regardless, Taayush is not very reliable as it is extremely biased. If you can get the quote from it will be helpful. RHR is completely bogus since their source doesn't say it. Please come up with the goodies or the text will have to go. Settleman (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There is a thing called WP:CONSENSUS. Read it. It means one doesn't just go ahead and edit, on whatever convictions one entertains re 'reasonableness'. Concretely, specify what links are dead. I am using an old file where I downloaded the texts of a very large number of articles I collected several years ago.Don't harp on 'bogus' organizations because you dislike them, with no evidence that they have a history of deception. Regavim's own research indicates over a IsraeliJewish thousand homes are built on Palestinian land, and it has yet to demand their demolition, as opposed to its incessant recourse to Israeli courts to demand the demolition of anything Palestinian built without the permit Israel's bureaucracy denies Palestinians. That translates into 'bogus' 'hypocrisy' and 'double think' whose only rationnale is racist criteria as the seminal determinant of legality.

I see the one you cannot read. Oren Yiftachel/Neve Gordon. I've provided a link to enable it to be accessed. The article is mentioned in several books.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 About Khirba, I believe sometimes the name stuck from the time it was seasonal. It is like Kfar Saba in Israel or Green Village etc'. Havakook also writes about Khirbah being only seasonal but then he writes Khirbat at-Tuwani is permanent. Settleman (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add a sentence: "A number of maps in the mid-19th century showed Susieh as a village" with citation to a few such maps. This is a plain report of sources without interpretation. Any objections or suggestions? Zero^talk 10:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me -- straightforward use of primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You gave the details above, but the edit looks complex enough, without oddbods like myself, who can't independently check what you have at your elbow. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR but I believe it can show the complexity. I would add others which don't which will highlight the seasonality and be neutral. Settleman (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR to report what a source says without interpreting it. I don't see a map as different from a text in that respect, though in the past more than one opinion has been expressed on that in the meta-pages. Zero^talk 21:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding map from British mandate era as well as censuses. No interpretation of course. If someone can find the 1917 map RHR refers to it should be added. I'll try to call them again. Settleman (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source needs to be checked.Yuval Yoaz,'Court: Palestinian homes in southern Hebron Hills can stay,' Haaretz, 08/09/2004. The link is to Ta'ayush, and is dead. Some of the details re Ayala Procaccia seem to date to 2009.

Here is the link to the wayback machine archive of the page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fanks. Done.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'only during grazing season for an unknown period of time,' This is unacceptable.

• Only is not neutral.
• The source you introduced (Havakook) is specific about the period of time he attributes to their transhumant presence, and hence it is 'known'. You seem to be trying, furthermore to reconcile the Ari Briggs' a few weeks, with Havakook's several months.
• It is a generalization for which we have a source for the period 1977-1982, not before that, and cannot be attached to a statement about Susiya Palestinian herder/farmers whose presence, according to some sources, goes back to the 1830s.
• The lead cannot contradict, as your edit did, the relevant section where Havakook's views are set forth.
• For these reasons, and the fact that it is ungrammatical, the sentence is unacceptable, and WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are a big boy. Make a constructive suggestion!

I believe it is pretty clear the unknown period of time refers to the years while seasonal refers to the the period within the year. HAvakook lived there for certain years but he writes generally about what they were doing. You Ta'ayush source about 19th century is also OR. It doesn't specify the period about Susya. It is basically exactly what Grossman wrote in his book, a general history of the region. It is easy to see how activists got it wrong. Settleman (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite WP:OR, since the article is quite explicit that the areas affected by the expulsions, which include Susiya, are all characterized by the one cave-dwelling lifestyle. I have adjusted. What you overlooked is the quote in Italian which confirms what now many sources say, re the 1830s, not least Oren Yiftachel/Neve Gordon. It runs:-

'In the 1830s the poorest families of southern Hebron villages left their lands and bought plots of land up to 20 kilometres away on the outskirts. The families lived in the numerous large caves that were already present there, and drew their livelihood from the fields and grazing areas (now corresponding to the extreme southern zone of rthe West Bank) Successive genberations developed a lifestyle based on dry-land farming, in a terrain that is arid, with little rainfall, and on pastoral production.

Of course I would appreciate wider input on this.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit about 1830.

Except for strong POV, I can't see how an article which states 'we were rejected by Haaretz' is RS while Regavim or Arutz 7 (which I saw in history was rejected at sight) are not. The article is packed with those HR organizations. I'm not interested in getting into the argument here since we done plenty already and aparently RSN is already full of it. Is there another noticeboard for this? Something which is more mediation so it is not about number of editors or whoever is more stubborn. Settleman (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do we see by now? We have had several arguably valid refs removed (B'tselem, RHR etc.) referring to the 1830s, out of a consistent finicky dislike for those organizations, though they are RS. The thesis of Susiyans dwelling there earlier than 1986 is maintained by a fringe settler 'NGO', and no one else. Your argument is, if the fringe group cannot be cited on a historical thesis, neither can more mainstream groups. People went half way with you on this, and better sources were sought. My concern was meme reproduction, the possibility that good sources might simply copy one another to assert something lying there unchecked. The map evidence, just added, notes that several maps in scholarly works from the mid-nineteenth depict Susiya as a village; Nadia Abu Zahra, 'IDs and Territory: Control for Resource Expropriation,' in Deborah Cowen and Emil Gilbert (eds.),War, citizenship, territory , Routledge, 2008, pp-303-326, p.322 is already there as a book source for that period. Oren Yiftachel and Neve Gordon, the former a published expert on things like this since his discipline is that of political geography, contextually identify Susiya as one of many sites cave-dwellers inhabited from the mid-nineteenth century. Does the fact that the Yiftachel/Gordon piece was rejected by Haaretz constitute a judgement on its factual content or its politics? It appears to have been commissioned in February (26) and then found unacceptable for the paper's editorial line. This happens quite often,(with Richard Silverstein for example, a good investigative reporter with many scoops to his credit). My view is that a newspaper's rejection of what two scholars with a deep knowledge of a subject write for them does not constitute evidence that their expertise is challenged, as much as a disagreement with their views. What Yiftachel writes or underwrites on his own area of political geography is RS - the editorial board at Haaretz is in no position to judge the factual aspect of an expert's presentation.

The piece from Operazione Colomba which is a world-wide group active in social justice, and which has had a constant presence in this area, might be dismissed as being like B'tselem and RHR, but for the fact that its report indicates independent knowledge, for alone of the sources it asserts new historical material, by providing, probably on evidence from oral narratives, an origin for the cave-dwellers, as descending from a migration of the poorest in Southern Hebron hills to the (abandoned) periphery where they acquired the land and worked it from this period. Textually, that cannot have been copied from RHR or B'tselem, and thus constitutes an independent corroboration for what we find in maps.

In short, we have Regavim's thesis, which you identify with, and several sources, each of which might be vigorously challenged on various technical grounds, but which, in terms of their authorship and venue, together constitute fair evidence that Regavim's unique ideological dismissal goes no way towards addressing the complexity of accrued evidence summoned by these sources. Lastly, Regavim, to repeat, has a deep ideological investment in denying Palestinian residence in Palestinian lands. This is a wildly fringe thesis, equivalent to flatearth theories, because no reputable scholarship over a century has ever found any merit in such a profoundly contrafactual claim. It is WP:Fringe, and just one voice, against many sources which are not normatively regarded as making wild claims. Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, if your tactic is to drawn you opposition with text, you are doing a great job. I specifically asked to not reopen this again. Labeling Regavim as 'fringe' and the rest as RS is POVPUSH and nothing else especially after I got RHR source which they distort. Is there another body on wikipedia that deals with these matters or not? Settleman (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN discussion concluded that Regavim can be used with attribution, and Zero's additional note that it should be qualified as a 'settler organization ' (interested party) should be taken on board. That is a generous compromise, given that it is a fringe organization noted for its distortion of facts (Bedouin in the Negev) etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a "tactic". You are dissatisfied and I replied to that discontent. That Regavim is fringe is obvious. Any movement that refuses to accept any historical fact other than the ones that suit its known agenda, and any movement which calls a population that has an attested presence in a country for millennia "squatters", lives in an Orwellian universe of distortions. None of this deliberate Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word,.. it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.") twisting of the received meaning of words is practiced by the scholars cited, or the organizations adduced. To put them on a hermeneutic par with a group espousing ethnic cleansing is, frankly, obtuse, morally and cognitively. The POVPUSH being practiced somewhat artfully here is to reproduce for Wikipedia the premise adopted by Regavim itself, i.e. to mirror the language of human rights groups while systematically inverting the natural meaning of terms. It is a rhetorical tactic that, analogically, is identical to someone putting Newspeak on a par with the texts that go down the memory hole because, though their contents are diametrically opposed, they are both written in English. I won't convince you of the obvious, but this is the kind of objection you will face in trying to put Regavim on a par with Human Rights groups, especially rabbinical ones that consider Judaism a humanistic religion, not a cover for reproducing the lethal logic of the Book of Joshua. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming Regavim is HR org. I'm claiming it is more accurate than most of the sources you brought. Every claim they make is supported by sources. They do ignore some facts but so do your sources. They don't speak about the ownership issue and they don't claim shepherds didn't use the caves on a seasonal basis. They do claim a village named Khirbet Susya never existed. Whether you call a seasonal community - village, is a definition that is not absolute. Now, is there another noticeboard to turn to? Settleman (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the sources Regavim never mentions, the yawning gap in their selective use of evidence, which is problematical. I gave you an example, Ari Briggs reducing to 2 weeks or a month what his own source Havakook said was 5-7 months. Claiming that 'Khirbet Susya' never existed at sight proves that they falsify known facts: Plia Albeck in 1982 determines that

'The [ancient] synagogue is located in an area that is known as 'the lands of Khirbet Susya, and around an Arab village between the ancient ruins,

and this authoritative testimony, there for 30 years, that between the ruins of the synagogue Khirbet Susya village exists, is denied by Regavim which continues to assert a documentable lie. They have never, to my knowledge, answered the detailed analysis by RHR showing their manipulation of statistics regarding Bedouin claims in the Negev. The blatantly assert in their documents the Bedouin are not native to the Negev when Zionist official records document their indigenous presence in detail, and historians document their presence there, in 3 waves, beginning in the 7th century (Aref Abu Rabia, 'Displacement, Forced Settlement and Conservation,' in Dawn Chatty,Marcus Colchester (eds.) Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement, and Sustainable Development, Berghahn Books 2002 pp.202ff.). This is just a small sample of the travesties of deliberate suppressio veri and misrepresentation chargeable to their account.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the same speech again and again doesn't make you right, just obnoxious. RHR falsified Grossman and all other 'HR orgs' happily repeated the lie. Settleman (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman this edit again is WP:OR. The IMEMC source says 'multiple' and you overwrite this as 'two' because you apparently infer that this must refer to the Jabur and Nawaj'ah clans' Ottoman-era tabus mentioned in the article. Until you have ethnographic evidence there is no way you can infer what the arrangements, intermarriage, land transactions are between these large Nawaj'ah and Jabur clans and other families among the 25 noted in 1986 such as the Balal, the Shiniran, the Shreiteh, the Abu Malesh, the Mur, the Hushiya, the Abu Sabha, the Halis (though they are now domiciled in Yatta) and the Misif families, to note just a few by way of example. So drop the guesswork, and stick to source language.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source also names two families (as does Haaretz) so two is more accurate then multiple.

While at it, putting the quote about the 'bible' is OR because you " combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". No doubt you are an artist. Settleman (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please slowly reread what I wrote. Parse it carefully, and then consult WP:OR for you haven't understood it. On both counts you fail to understand policy. Haaretz mentions the Jabur family's Ottoman document: Moshe Meiri then said examining it he found it covered land owned both by the Jabur and the Nawaj'ah. How Meiri included the Nawaj'ah here is not clear. Worse, he ruled that the orders against the Jabur (not the Nawaj'ah) were to be revoked on those grounds. Worse still, Ravid and Levinson then write:'Sussia residents claim ownership over the lands on which their village sits and have already presented deeds dating to the Ottoman period that cover an area of 3,000 dunams (741 acres).' They do not write '2 families'. One can make all sorts of deductions or inferences here, as I outlined, since Sussia residents is generic, and does not specify or limit the claim to 2 families, and, as I noted, what the title inheritance arrangements are between families there is totally obscure to us. So you were engaged in WP:OR, and going way beyond what we are allowed to do on wikipedia.

Tabu is mentioned in multiple sources on the land dispute in Susya. Nir Hasson's article is on Susya, and mentions both tabu and a settler's response. The article, dealing with both Palestinian claims and Jewish settler claims in the one area, rightly requires due weight to be given to the latter's viewpoint, hitherto lacking, and this is one piece of evidence. In it he mentions a local Jewish settler's dismissal of tabu documents. There is no conclusion drawn. It is the settler who responds to the issue by identifying the Bible as the Jewish tabu for taking over land. Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a gift of complicating a simple argument. We can write Jabor and Nawaje instead. Settleman (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove section as I expanded on it above. the way you created the sentence linking it to the 'bible statement is complete OR. Also, if this quote is not good enough, a random settler isn't either. Settleman (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR which your successive answers show you are incapable of understanding. Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[This edit] added the info 'without compensation roughly 60 families'. When the link was finally fixed, it apparently speaks of "55 nuclear families, who have been living in this location for decades". (Only 28 in area C so even relevant. but that can be oversight). So 55 is current number and there no mention of compensation. Settleman (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about?

• [This edit] added the info 'without compensation roughly 60 families'. This is your diff.
• Click on the source and you read:
• 'Susiya:At Imminent Risk of Forced Displacement,' OCHA March 2012. In 1986, the main residential area of the community was declared an archaeological site by the Israeli authorities and approximately 60 families were forcibly displaced, without any compensation according to residents.']
• If OCHA2012 has been subsequently changed to the updated version OCHA2015, which drops the phrase 'without any compensation', this does not alter the validity of the 2012 entry. The error, if any, was in not adding 'according to residents'. That has to be added, since the non-compensation issue is what local informants mention (Nasser Nawaja, ‘Israel, Don’t Level My Village,' New York Times 25 July, 2015.) There has been no falsification of sources: the OCHA2012 document is as valid as the one replacing it.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on getting 404 error message. Settleman (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here is a copy which indeed states what you said. I retract my claim. Don't expect me to do your job for you. Settleman (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, Does Havakook on p.25 mention this as the origin of Susya? I ask because it is what you get in Joel Greenberg, but I didn’t add that source because it does not mention Susya in that context. The argument that WP:RS dissallows taking two separate passages separated by 60 pages from the same book to synthesize an argument, as apparently you did here, was made some years ago (and the page distance was 3) here where the relevant argument is as follows.

Now, there is no doubt that the quote backs up the material; but where is the direct connection to Antisemitism in the New Testament, the topic of the article? The person inserting insists that the book in question does indeed mention antisemitism; not, however, on page 18, where this quote is from, but in "n.16 p.228." That's a pretty long distance away. Are these two insertions, in fact, Original Research?

A majority of editors maintained that this was a violation of WP:NOR. By that logic, you also violate the policy unless Susya is listed on the first cited page p.25. By this reasoning, you are combining 2 sections of a book, p.25 and p.85 to write the history of Susya when only one section p.85 mentions it. Clarify please.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The technical issue is that p.25 per Havakook suggests Susya was populated from Dura and Yatta, whereas the Colomba source says that the Susya inhabitants in the pre-1830s went as far as 20 kilometres, the periphery of the Hebron area they ostensibly hailed from. That conflicts with the Yatta thesis, because Yatta is 3 kilometres from Susiya.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is background about the begining of settlements in the area in Ottoman era. The area includes Susya and the map before the chapter has Susya in it.. It is very relevant and informative even if you don't like it. You write about the uniqueness of the place but refuse to give readers the facts. Settleman (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the point. Does Havakook on p.25ff.in the context you paraphrase, instance Susiya as an example of the satellites of Yatta? Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't page 25 but pages 25 to 31. Susya is on the map proceeding the chapter and mentioned on a comment from page 28 appearing in comment section p.34 where Havakook specify Susya as seasonal. Background, is background. I know your prefer you RHR RS which distort the academic sources but if you take this out, there is nothing dating susya back to 19th century. I tried to take more from Grossman but he brushes through it and not very useful. Settleman (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't have time to go into this, but please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Non-English sources should be translated if requested, and one should make sure what exactly is quoted where. It is not easy to check what exactly is being used from Havakook to write this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, I read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Am I expected to translate 7 pages of text? Some paragraphs are summarized in a short sentence or even a few words. Havakook and Grossman are the only books (I know of so far) who wrote about the subject and their 'quality' surpasses by far any activist sources which are the main source of this article (and falsify them). I'm sure there are editors who can read Hebrew and confirm.

(Note: I do not support Regavim, the destruction of Susya or giving it permits. I'm questioning all sides. All I want is for this article (and others) to be neutral. I have brought Plia Albeck to the table which is a pro-Palestinian evidence and didn't oppose Zero using primary sources in a neutral way which support Palestinian claims. Who knows how many of those questionable sources wrote 1830 based on wikipedia where is has been sitting unquoted for years.) Settleman (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to justify one's presence here. Anyone, with any personal POV can edit without prejudice, as long as the rules are followed. I have a personal interest in this page for 2 reasons: I wrote the detailed history of the synagogue, which is perhaps as detailed as one gets on wiki. No objections. I then started to mention the Palestinian story, and the page has been under endless attack from that moment. Most nations like to cleanse their own history, and present a pretty picture. Here you get a pretty picture (the synagogue) and its aftermath in the tragic consequences its presence has created for the people who probably own the land it is situated on. In modern historical writing, such interwoven realities are, as distinct from nationalist histories, preferred, for their comprehensiveness and steely regard for the whole picture. My prejudice is in favour of showing all sides to what is essentially one long history. I have no sympathy for those who prefer to create comfort zones where half of reality is ignored or suppressed. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Settleman: No, you are not expected to translate everything. You should just translate the relevant portion which is being used to support the text in the article. This is what I understood Nishidani's objection to be. The basic idea is being able to check whatever is being written against the source. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants specifics, I can address that. The problem was the chapter might not be about Susya at all and as I said, Susya appears in the map and a note and the whole chapter is about South Mount Hebron where Susya is located.

Nishidani, your contribution about the old synagogue is great. No one can take it from you. The issue starts when you cramp info that belongs in different articles into one. There are no more 'interwoven realities' between settlement Susya and Khirbat Susya than with Itamar and surrounding villages. Why should it be different? because they share the name? And what continuous history? There is no source that supports people living there continuously but quite the opposite, that people started again to live the area in early 19th century. The edit history shows the article was started about the settlement and the rest was added later with resistance so obviously it is controversial. I understand the fight for who gets the prime 'real estate' of Susya which is why I proposed ambiguous redirect page. Settleman (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are virtually the only person who, after 7 years, has expressed dissatisfaction that the article includes all three realities on the same terrain. The analogies fail because Susiya's ruins formed part of a Palestinian hamlet. I see you admit that technically, you synthesized two distinct sections of Havakkuk. I personally am not worried by that content, but by the fact that it is, technically, as far as I understand, frowned on to conflate two distinct narratives from one book unless the link is made in the separate sections by the author. This Havakkuk may have implied, but unless you show otherwise, it does not appear to be, on your testimony explicit, and such inferences are usually disallowed.

What is it exactly that bothers you? What two narratives?? It is one chapter and then just the survey with specific numbers from another page. Settleman (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The narrative flow has been broken up by complete disregard for an orderly chronological development of the history of Khirbet Susiya. One cannot, for example, write of Havakook's thesis, and then jump to 1986 in the next paragraph. This is obvious. At the moment I'm forced to make a silly edit interleaving these arbitrary splotches with the data of the new influx from 1948. It doesn't make sense unless everything follows the same cogent rule of chronological discipline. All this will have to be rearranged in accordance with the logical exposition of the historical data. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding info about the Nawajas arriving (only) in 1948 though I saw it somewhere at 1952. Before we had nothing in between, did we? Settleman (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A master plan was not approved and building permit were not given to Khirbet Susya because there was no sufficient proof of ownership as the documents lack geographic information and based on them, it was "not possible to make unambiguous claims of ownership over the land in question". The Jabor family supports a claim to land near Susya with Ottoman documents dated back to 1881 and the Nawaja family, who is originally from the Tel Arad area and moved to Susya in 1952,[84] has documents as well. Their documents are problematic since the boundaries mentioned were described in terms of geography features which are hard to identify in the field.

This is a total travesty (apart from the stylistic and grammatical ineptness) of the source, rewriting it not-neutrally to recast POVs as facts, and asserting that the Ottoman documents are problematic when Moshe Meiri disposed of that by identifying the features. Are is regavim's viewpoint one assumes, but textually the source said he identified the features, and thus the verb 'to be (are)' must go into the past tense or historic present. It is as if Meiri's work does not change the Regavim 'facts'. Total mess.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for a way to introduce the reader to the importance of land ownership and in light on the latest information, it plays for the Palestinians (and you) but not for Regavim. In my opinion I have made justice to the source. You show in a problem with specific words which I don't see as a huge issue. The Nawaja's don't have documents from 1881 so I couldn't place them in one sentence with the Jabors. The 1952 source is RS which give reference of time which is completely neutral. I have done my best to create an introduction paragraph to the matter and right now this article is closely watched by a few editors so it would be fine-tuned quickly. After your 'bible sentence' compiled of 3 different sources, I'm not sure if you are the right editor to criticize others. Settleman (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. you have a persona view of what editing amounts to, which proceeds independently of what mastery of policy demands of the rest of us. You are arrogating to yourself liberties of free reinterpretation that other rule-compliant editors cannot exercise, making for an improper advantage. Your 'answers do not address the point made I.e.you talk past or over any objections others raise. The tabu material you removed was perfectly consonant with the rules an your inability to see that shows you still cannot grasp WP:R. It will be restored. Editors who consistently refuse to comply with policy burn up their credibility and end up with a very short wiki life. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time right now to assess all the edits going on on this page, but the paragraph flagged is simply a violation of WP:OR. Israel almost never gives permits in Area C to build, or create master plans, with various reasons given. Is

Can someone translate the Al-Monitor article? It is in Hebrew. Google translate does an ok job, but I can't figure out whether the paragraph in the article is based on it or not. Does the article add anything new, which is not present in any English source? I do not have time to get into this matter now, but hopefully soon. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't add the source. I hope this solve this. Settleman (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman, this was good work. I was absolutely certain that I had asked for this ref to be checked, because I added it years ago, and found several days ago I couldn't revisit the exact page. Now that you have enabled us to access it, it turns out to not back the text which it has been used to substantiate. How this happened is beyond my recall but, whatever, I cannot find the section I can remember writing to request it be checked, so I must presume I failed to make the edit stick. You don't have to believe this. But the consequence is that the source must be removed from the text it putatively supported. On the other hand, what it does say is that (relying on two kibbutznik activists apparently) Susiya was ‘a village of permanent cave homes’. (Ehud Krinis and Erella Dunayevsky, ‘Transportation of school children from Susia to Tweni,’ 2006) Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like in the past it was used to support other claims.

Your comment about the kibbutzniks make me wonder if we understand each other. It is very clear to me by now Susya is permanent village (leaving the legal issues aside). The question is when it became that way. Havakook is very clear about the fact it wasn't permanent between 1977-1984 and with his description of the way the region evolved it seems like it was never before (this is my conjectures).

Now, can I ask you to reward me for it by inserting Havakook in the lead. You didn't like my wording and simply deleted it. Please take a shot at it and I will see if I agree. Settleman (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I simply don't know most of what I either would like to know, or intuit might be the case, with regard to these places, whereas, I believe, you approach this as a passionate student of the issue who makes inferences from good sources that are interesting, but incomplete. On Wikipedia, many articles take years to get into some semblance of comprehensives, and one learns to wait. For example, after 1967 many Israeli archaeologists made preliminary investigations of the site, and then began several excavations. Being archaeologists, not ethnographers, they were interested in the past, not the present. Did they make notes, or refer to the situation? I don't know. We know that when the place was fenced off, Susiyans tried to get back under the fence to retrieve goods from their sites, homes in ruins etc., which implies some sort of sense of fixed use. What arrangements or decisions were made over the decade 1967-1977 regarding those people who had permanent or transitory use of the site, if any? Excavations are carried out in the summer period, when many Susiyans are in the farther slopes and hills predominantly, which does not mean they weren't in the contiguous caves. Any reader asks himself these questions, and finds no response. A wikipedian cannot infer from silence what might have been the case before Havakkuk's observations. My family's oral memories go back 2 2 and a half centuries, and oral memories among these populations are very strong, but appear not to have yet been the object of collection and analysis. Until that is done systematically, with the right questions asked, all this history will be obscure, and we cannot fill in the gaps by inferences or guesses from stray remarks even in good sources. It may well be that your inference is correct, but unless sources state explicitly what one is tempted to infer one cannot write it. It's frustrating, but the rule is basic to Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the specific request, I'm not the dominus here, with some unilateral right to determine what can and cannot be done, and things particularly in leads should reflect talk page consensus. Havakkuk probably shouldn't go into the lead for the simply reason that WP:LEDE, leads summarize the details in the main body of the article and should be lapidary. Details, esp. controversial ones or individual research perspectives , are kept for the appropriate section. Let's see what others think.Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The seasonality of the village is an important part of the current legal battle. You can't just bury it b/c you don't like it. Academic research is usually done with far less then 1st hand experience. Havakook uses both previous literature and his own experience. You contradict that with pimply activists who misrepresent his work and have the guts to call them RS. Settleman (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'pimply activists'. This translates as indicating you should not be editing this or related articles.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the mirror brother - the assumption that a non-existent God was a real-estate tycoon dispensing favours to non-historical figures like Moses and Joseph whose fairy6 tales. Settleman (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the archaeological reports and modern accounts indicate there was a mosque among the ruins. Since the population is Muslim and is said to have lived among the ruins, one would expect that the mosque retained, even if ruined, part of its historic function. Some sources I prefer not to use (Allison Deger( say the mosque was dismantled in 1986 to bring out the synagogue. This is worth pursuit, though it will be a long one, given the poverty of sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the elephant is hiding behind a needle but I just can't see it. There is a gap of several 100s of years between the Muslim community of the early previous millennium and the current Palestinians who live there. The synagogue is the mosque and in this recent event at Van Leer Jerusalem Institute a settler who gives tours of the site say he speaks about it with visitors. The synagogue/mosque was excavated recently so maybe we settle on 'the elephant is buried in the room'. Settleman (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about contemporary practices, not some presumed continuity between Muslims of 1000 C.E. and those that dwell there. Susiyans are Muslim, the site where they lived had a mosque with Arabic inscriptions, and it is natural to wonder whether that mosque played any role in the Susiyans life before they were expelled from the site. Be it noted that Susiyans are reportedly not allowed back to visit the mosque, even if they pony up the visitors' fee. I.e. they are denied access to what is part of their cultural history.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I see any source that writes on the matter, I will bring it. Meanwhile, it might be useful to break section into two to highlight this fact. For the facts about entrance, it should be mentioned but here is where having one article is counterproductive b/c we need another section in modern history section. Here is what I suggested to finish the archeological site separete article which could be extend by this info

In Khirbet Susya, a Palestinian community of shepherds had lived in caves in and around the site during grazing time[45] until 1986, when the site was declared an archaeological site by Israel Civil Administration, and the Israeli army expelled the inhabitants.[46] A religious Israeli settlement, Susya, was established nearby in 1983.

I think it was balanced but only a 1st draft. Settleman (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'During grazing time' is still unsourced as a generalization for the period implied (1830s-1986): you are combining multiple sources. The statement must reflect the known period early 19th century to 1986, and one cannot for numerous reasons use Havakook's 1977s-81 observations to generalize retroactively for the long historical period that preceded this. Many things happened. I can't help but repeat what others also have said: you write in Wikipedia by transcribing data from successive soureces without combining data from separate sources (WP:SYNTH), which is the temptation you are succumbing to. I can't see any malice: to the contrary. But you do not grasp adequately the severe limitations under which idiots like myself are obliged to work if their contributions are to stick.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Havakook is an academic and his research is more extensive than everybody else. The wrote "Shulman is trained in scholarly methods of evaluating evidence..." but Havakook isn't? Why? B/c you don't like it? He doesn't put a period on it so neither should we. You conflict his words with either 'interpretation' of his own work by an activist in an editorial or RHR who falsify Grossman. This in absurd. I am removing the material and invite you to take it RSN. Settleman (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. You admit it is a conjecture from Havakkuk. Havakkuk's credentials are like those of Shulman (who has however longer experience of the area and, I expect, is familiar with Havakkuk's work). I've absolutely no objection to Havakkuk's work - as you can see I haven't removed it. Your private telephone calls to unidentified people in RHR re Grossman are not grounds for acting to remove what is a technically valid POV. The only other time someone tried this was when Jaakobou used to phone Kiryat Arba in 2007 to 'confirm' some vague report. It was not accepted then and isn't now. Your edits this morning are 'stupid'. Hasson has no more authority than RHR, and 'decades' is a choice from one of many sources that range from centuries to weeks (Ari Briggs). You are meddling to assert a POV where sources are in conflict, and therefore the edits will have to be reverted, as selective POV profiling.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B'tselem activist is not a RS to tweak Havakook words. Not when Havakook is available to us. Not that I regard Shulman as an authority on the matter but has a reputation to protect so if he say Susya was there from 1830, you might have a case. But some random B'telem dude is not RS when academic sources contradict him. Take it to RSN.

None of the activist sources used here are RS for historical facts. My phone call revealed an actual RS which doesn't support their claim. Your story about Kiryat Arba is irrelevant. Find the actual RS which supports the 1830 myth and then we can keep this conversation. 1830 sat on the susya page for years unquoted and who knows how many of them just use wikipedia as their source. Settleman (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about According to Ari Briggs writing in the Jerusalem Post, Havakook also states they were there for only two weeks a year. Maybe Havakook say it somewhere else, no? I won't be able to keep straight face arguing that for very long b/c it is obviously absurd. It is almost the same as Eyal Hareuveni. Settleman (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Havakook is not wp:rs. See below. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This man fails to comply with WP:RS. He is not a scholar nor a journalist but just got a MSc. At best he is a primary source for alledgely living in caves at Susya in the West Bank but given what he published (a book denouncing the terror of Islam - not Islamism...) and a book published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence, he is "hard" to define by other words than "an activist".

Who among the specialists and scholars on the topic (history of Arab settlements in Judea during Ottoman Empire area quote him) ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new one :)

1. You completely mistranslated the book name and it is "Terror by the name of Islam, Profile of the Hamas Movement". Considering Hamas Covenant at the time, I see no issues with it.
2. Show me the policy where his credentials and publications aren't enough.
3. Activist??? His book is used by B'tselem to prove at-Tuwani was a permanent village and thus be legalized. The book is over 200 pages and the sides reference a few paragraphs.
4. His book is mentioned by the UN and B'tselem among others.
5. The book about Hamas is part of the syllabus at Hebrew U, Bar-Ilan University, Beit Berl and a booklet by Haifa University (p.40).

Settleman (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is not a single specialist on the topic who quotes him.

That means he cannot be considered as WP:RS per WP:RS. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is his education? And from what University? The (thin) article does not say, Huldra (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I added a list of his degrees.

Pluto, his book was published by a major publication. If you unsatisfied, take it to RSN. Settleman (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need. He is not wp:rs. I will delete any reference to him when not appropriate. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Settleman: (or someone else who can read Hebrew) Can you translate the relevant portion where the UN source quotes Havakook? The B'Tselem source simply says that Israeli govt. relied on his research as part of their case, and says that even by this source, some of the villages are permanent communities. It does not endorse the research by Havakook in any way. Also, it is not talking about Ottoman-era status of the villages. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: The paper isn't about Susya but Tuwani area (same as the B'tselem report you mentioned weeks ago). The text (pg.3) reads "Most harmed communities existed in the area before 1967" then comment 3 (pg.10) says "See for example Yaakov Havakook "life in Mt. Hebron caves". I hope this helps. Settleman (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In my opinion, Havakook can generally be used with attribution for the period of 1970s/80s when he conducted his research. Many people cite him for this, for instance the NYT and B'Tselem. I don't exactly know what he says, if anything, about the earlier Ottoman time period, so I can't say in general. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother pointing out academic books to the other editor for obvious reasons. Google books show him on some books by Mankind Quarterly[1], Studium Biblicum Franciscanum[2] and Commission on Nomadic Peoples[3]. Other spelling of his name will probably result in some more hits. Settleman (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of this useless op-ed (David Bedein, Op-Ed: It's Not Just the Temple Mount; They Even Claim Susya Arutz Sheva 24 August 2012, totally unreliable for anything factual)from the radical settler mouthpiece Arutz Sheva is unacceptable for any historical argument. The number of errors made in it are contradicted by the detailed additions to the article made, additions that emerged since 2012. No evidence exists for Susya in the 19th century? yet by 2015, we now have documented on the page (Zero) that maps attest to the existence of Susya in the mid-19th century. Meiri has shown they have Ottoman legal title and you are still adding crap sources denying it. The caves in Susya are under the ground on the archaeological site, not visible to aerial photography, which is pointless. If you want Frantzman who at that date knew nothing of the map evidence, nor the legal title, you must cite his book directly. If his remarks were the record of an interview, based on memory, they are useless.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it -- really poor source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'radical settler mouthpiece' - and how do you call RHR, Ta'ayush or whoever. Let me guess - human right NGOs. I will go hug a tree now.

Ownership documents do not mean village. So don't make your own interpretations. The maps Zero found are indeed interesting and were properly introduced as primary source without interpretations. Beyond that, it is OR. Settleman (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The maps Zero found indicate it was registered as a village at that time. This doesn't require interpretation. It does mean that arseholes who insist that there is no evidence there was a village earlier are ignoring the documentary record or lying through their teeth.Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the documents are available for people to check but somehow, with all the money poured in by foreign governments, RHR, b'tselem and whoever aren't able to produce a clear evidence. They reference Havakook to the page for at-Tuwani, when he can be used to support the Palestinian claim somehow for Susya they don't. Censuses from 22,31,45 & 61 don't even mention Khirbet Susya as well as the map by 'Palestine Exploration Fund map'. All you need to do is find an actual RS which brings primary sources to support the claims for historical facts. A biased organization founded a few decades just doesn't cut it. Settleman (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're being silly again. Please stop repeating yourself.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see one map and you dismiss scholars right away??? Only when Shulman writes on a subject unrelated to his academic area , we should accept whatever bias material he presents? Settleman (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding every source you can find to note Susya is a ruin is totally pointless for an encyclopedic articles. It is not disputed that Susya is a ruin. All of the Susya houses were in underground caves beneath those ruins, and not visible. Many early censuses were not based on valid modern census techniques, and demographers still argue over the numbers through to 1947 (when the Jews were said to be 34%, but the census stated 31%. Bedouins and transhumant populations avoided census takers, because they feared that being registered would make them liable to military service. Only Arik al-Aref went out and persuaded many there was no such threat, but then some argue even that excellent historian exaggerated figures. One needs a general synthetic statement, not successive periods of 'ruin' 'village', which looks suspiciously like an attempt between two POVs to prove or disprove a thesis. The history of a place is simply not documented anywhere in the encyclopedic world by adducing a succession of sources that read: it was a ruin in the year dot, a ruin a decade later, several times over. This is, frankly, 'moronic'.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about Susya article, right? I must confirm b/c you mentioned 'encyclopedic articles' and this article was far from it a month ago and still has ways to improve. It is filled with repeating unsorted material with only one aim (which is not improving an encyclopedia). All of the sudden, a few lines about historical documents are too much for the article to handle. Give me a break!

There are two major holes in you theory, (1) the Palestinians in the region aren't Bedouins but originated from Yatta according to both Havakook and Grossman. (2) nearby places like Tuwani appear on both map and census. Settleman (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a theory. To the contrary. You are wrong on your assertions, since at least two sources say they came south in the early 19th century: the Yatta theory does not mention specifically the Susyans; some Susyans in the immediate postwar period came from Arad, going back to a clan family link earlier with Susya; and, if you want to know, the Arad group came from the Negev Jahalin, who, in the same mid 19th century travelers accounts are said to control property in this area, esp. at at-Tuwani (which we cannot connect on WP:OR grounds, but which is obviously relevant). The simple fact is that the available studies, as far as we are familiar with them, do not provide us with sufficient detail to establish the full picture for Susya, its origins, the constancy of residence in the area.

What we have sufficient sources to attest to is that

• Several maps in the 19th century define Khirbet Susya as a village.
• Susyan families have Ottoman title to 730 acres in and around Khirbet Susya from at least 1881 (Moshe Meiri)
• Title to the land and possession, and habitation in a 'village on the site' prior to 1986 is attested by Plia Albeck (1982).

That the settler movement working for their perpetual eviction and replacement by Jewish settlers ignores these 3 elements, and makes a complex argumentum ex silent by adducing their ostensible non-presence from the silence of Ottoman travelers' reports (which registered conditions of passers-by on treks in summer when their transhumant culture would have had them in the hills), on the British censuses in the Mandatory period (which are known to be flawed), and on aerial photography which ignores the fact that their homes were in the caves underground, and invisible to such surveillance.

The bias developing in this article, that they were a transhumant culture, 'transient' and not fixed permanent settlers, is an Israeli-Zionist premise related to the theory about Jewish permanent attachment to the land (which has no legal title but is a theological mythos) wholly ignores the only argument that is valid: that legal title exists which is valid for establishing right of ownership both in international and Israeli law, as Plia Albeck noted.

Yes, this is not encyclopedic yet, because edit-warring has not allowed a serene rewriting of the available evidence, coordinated thematically, to expound both what we know historically and what POVs are at work. That is the aim, and it will be achieved, when editors stick to real evidence and not partisan insinuations built up from the accrual of absence of evidence.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above "travellers account" is far more than that: it is Robinson and Smith 1838 travel. I have added the refs to the biblio section, to be included as you like. (Robinson and Smith 1838 travel came in countless editions, and various authors have used different version, thereby giving different page-numbers for the same material. It has been a total mess to try to find given Robinson & Smith-refs at times. I am trying to impose a strict rule: we stick to the first edition. (And no: later edition did not expand the material (until the 1852-travels).) Huldra (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to

the Palestinians in the region aren't Bedouins but originated from Yatta according to both Havakook and Grossman

You are again guessing. The very traveler's report (Tristam) we quote says that travels precisely in this area were disturbed by menacing Bedouin.

We rode rapidly on through Susieh, a town of ruins, on a grassy slope, quite as large as the others, and with an old basilica, but less troglodyte(!!!) than 'Attir. Many fragments of columns strewed the ground,

We arranged to make a considerable circuit on our way to Kurmel (Nabal's Carmel), where we were to camp, in order to examine the ancient cities of the hill- country, Jattir, Eshtemoa, Susieh, and Maon. Nor were we sorry to depart early, for the Bedouin around us began to be very surly in their demands, and told us plainly that, but for the presence of Abou Daliiik, they would not have allowed us to draw water.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And Robinson clarifies that the Jahalin Bedouin were of the Arad area were all over precisely this area of the South Hebron Hills. Speaking of the area of Carmel and Zif, Hebron in late May as follows:

'The country in general is not fertile. though it is in some parts used for tillage, and affords tolerable pasturage. The grass which earlier in the season had been good, was now dried up; and very few shrubs or trees appeared throughout the whole region. This is the country of the Jehâlin, who were now gathering in their scanty wheat harvest. . . The main encampmenbt of the Jehâlin was at this time high up on the southeast side of the mountain, on a small shelf or terrace of cultivated land, overlooking the wide plain. -..consisting of seventy or eighty black tents arranged in a large circle. There was said to be one other small encampment, which we did not see. The whole tribe belongs to the Keis party, and was said to muster about one hundred and fifty men. (They are illiterate, do not assemble for prayer on Friday) . .On being told that the Ta'amirah have a Khatib, they said that the Ta'amirah were Fellahin; implying that of the real Bedawin none learn to read. . .Only water available was at Carmil, when their own cisterns dried up they went to Carmel with their flocks, sharing the water with the Ka'abineh.

This is of course not usable, but it throws light on the Arad/Jahalin mentioned in the Susian Nawaj'ah family's memories of moving back to Susya in 1952. Editors should try to ascertain far more than our WP:OR rules admit into a text, just to ensure that, in assessing the statements in acceptable sources, we do not fall into some POV trap.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the theory (and the passion) but this is nonsense. You describe Susya as the Ottoman version of Neve Shalom, where the local Arabs and the Bedouins, who usually raided the villages and took Bakshish (protection) of the caravans (Havakook referenced from Moshe Sharon), lived together in harmony. Find a reputable source that says anything about those matters and then we can keep the conversation going. Meanwhile, the time you put into putting this together, can be used better somewhere else. Settleman (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I give backgrund material and you wander off into adjectives and hysterical readings. Don't tell me how to use my time, esp. when I like to understand subjects, as opposed to arguing on behalf of organizations with an ethnic cleansing programme. Either stay focused, shut up or piss off. Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani Watch for NPA.

Or better, delete your senseless accusations. 14:40, 31 August 2015

Settleman (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reread what you wrote, in response to a reasoned study of background material.

You describe Susya as the Ottoman version of Neve Shalom, where the local Arabs and the Bedouins, who usually raided the villages and took Bakshish (protection) of the caravans (Havakook referenced from Moshe Sharon), lived together in harmony.

Nowhere in anything I write is there the slimmest basis for this extraordinary dumbwitted inference. Therefore it is a fantasy conjured out of nothing, offensive as it is stupid. Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani Are you going to remove your comment "arguing on behalf of organizations with an ethnic cleansing programme. Either stay focused, shut up or piss off" or not? I presented information supporting both sides and not leaving this article with false information is my right or rather duty. Settleman (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out as inappropriate the suggestion that, if you are unwilling to be focused, you should be quiet or go away. As to the other Regavim statement, it is impersonal, and does not name you.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not illiterate and I can't see anyone else to whom it may have been directed. I have been patient but there is only so much condescending treatment I can take. Settleman (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interject here, with some experience in excessively focusing on one WP page in the past (in my case, it was the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict). Some disputes are intractable by simply discussing. After a while, talk page discussion becomes less and less useful, and becomes more and more personal. It is best to simply focus on content. Talk pages are just a method of getting consensus, articles are what matter. As far as I can make out, this is an argument about whether the Bedein op-ed should be added. Why not just start an RfC on that, and short-circuit the interminable discussion? Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, there is content dispute here. Nishidani decided to share a theory and when I pointed out the holes in it I was rewarded with a personal attack. Settleman (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on the article. I outlined no theory, and you did not manage to point out holes in anything. The text as you left it is in technical violation of a strict reading of the rules: the impression is that Havakkuk lived several years with the Susyans etc., but he didn't; Havakkuk had a master's in anthropology and oriental studies, worked on military history for the IDF and his book was published by the Ministry of Defense without academic oversight, or 'peer review' were he an academic,which he isn't (you need a Phd for that): Pluto was quite correct to question this, yet I think a certain flexibility based on consensus can leave some elbow room. We still have no sufficiently discussed use of his book; the passage from Havakkuk speaking generally of Yatta herders etc., since it does not specifically adduce Susya is again, WP:OR; the attribution to him of the theory of 'seasonal habitation' is incorrect since Havakkuk draws on a book by Nathan Shalem, The desert of Juda, [In Hebrew], 1967/8 (pp. 24-6) for this. Shalem's notes were made in the 1930s, and his emphasis is quite distinct from Havakkuk's: Havakkuk suggests seasonality over winter for several months (from 6 to 8 months) whereas Shalem, his authority, suggests a 2-3 month break over the hot summer as the period when the herders left Susya for some roaming with their herds; the article is disarticulated out of its proper thematic chronological order so that the logical order of evidence is broken up; my background reading simply threw light on what our RS do not say, and was not intended for use in the article (which would be WP:OR as your attempts to disprove the 1830s assertion are).

These are the content issues to be researched and addressed. You might consider looking at those pages in Salem. One doesn't hurry here, as editors tend to do.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: (to '10:10, 30 August 2015')

• "if you want to know, the Arad group came from the Negev Jahalin, who, in the same mid 19th century travelers accounts are said to control property in this area"

Not exactly: here is what Robinson wrote:

Our guide also said that at Ma'in and Tawaneh, there are wells of living water belonging to the Jehalin ; and other similar ones at Deirat and Abu Shebban belonging to the Ka'abineh ; while both tribes water at Kurmul in common. This however does not accord with the account given us by the Jehalin themselves.4

I'd propose to all of us do not make such guessworks by ourself (wp:OR), but to use only the works of experts, such as Havakook, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(caught on-the-go): Vol 7-8: Quarterly statement - Palestine Exploration Fund, р.18-19

5. Susieh, marked on Mvirray's new map, seems nevertheless not to have been visited. It is the largest ruin in the country, and seems to have been divided into two quarters, each containing a principal building. Though seemingly Christian, it is probably earlier than the former. Its linteljstones have more correctly classic mouldings, its capitals are more graceful in outline, and, curiously enough, nothing...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. read pp.96ff of the same book.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "pp.96ff"? "Yawnp", p.96 "NOTE ON THE SOUTERRAINS, JERUSALEM" - "the road passing by Jerusalem and BotMelieni" ?

Pls, quote. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: The hole is both grossman and Havakook say cave dwellers came from the main villages of Yatta and Dura. You bring in the Bedouins. The fact those two were enemies and fought for the territory means 'hole', this is before I go into - does taking 'protection' from travelers means ownership of any form.

How did you come up with without academic oversight, or 'peer review'?? Do you know Who was Havakook's mentor during his research? The name is Prof. Gidon Karsel.

Read about the publication before asserting anything about it. Do you know anything about the it or what book it published? But for someone claiming Israel Hayom isn't RS, this of course doesn't surprise me.

Havakook mentions Nathan Shalem but his description of Susya is based on his own experience. Read the translation is the source which reads "Whoever travel in South Mount Hebron even today, when this book is written, in early 1984, in Khirbats like... Khirbet Susya." He can't be more specific than that. Nathan Shalem's book wasn't available at the library I visited but I was told it is available at Hebrew U - National Library. Not sure when I'll get to it.

Still not over your personal attack. Please delete it. Settleman (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the part about "academic oversight" etc. is being mentioned. Nishidani is of course correct in their statement. Just because someone supervised an MSc. thesis does not mean that it is peer-reviewed academic oversight. For a PhD thesis, you typically have external examiners who evaluate the material. Your own advisor is only part of the committee for this purpose. Anyway, this is all beside the point. Nishidani already said that Havakook can be used because we are allowing some flexibility here, since there is a dearth of research on this subject, and Havakook is cited by many people on his experiences in the 1970s/80s. I have no comment about the other material in dispute because I don't understand it yet. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why is it mentioned either. Probably b/c of the Pluto affair. In an area full with mediocre information pulled of newspapers that are thrown out the next day, questioning a published book must be a joke especially when its notability is so clear by the wide sources who refer to it. Settleman (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See Peer review if you can't grasp the point
• Gidon Karsel may have been an advisor to Havakkuk, who only obtained a master's, but that is not peer-review.
• Havakkuk worked for the Ministry of Defense. The Ministry of Defense runs also the Israeli Civil Administration
• Havakkuk did not live for several years in Susya. He did private fieldwork there over several years, while employed by the Ministry of Defense.
• whose Israeli Civil Administration prepared the eviction of the inhabitants of Susya, the creation of an archaeological park on their land, and the development of a Jewish exclusive settlement while one of its own employees was studying precisely the herders of the South Hebron Hills, and the folks at Susiya. That means there is a conflict of interest.
• particularly given that the Ministry of Defense published his book, and
• drew on its employee's research to justify its expulsion of the Susyans
• Gidon Karsel, whom you cite in favour of Havakkuk's reliability, challenged Havakkuk's conclusions, in a written communication to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel

The caves that were at first used seasonally by some of the families that grazed their flocks in the winter became permanently populated over the years by some of those families. That is, even if the extended families of the said cave residents had relatives living in homes in villages near the caves, that did not mean that they had the right to use the houses in these villages. It should, then, be recognized that the caves are their homes and the center of their life, and they should be allowed to return to live in them. (14 January 2000)

You undoubtedly have read this ( B'tselem, Means of Expulsion:Violence, Harassment and Lawlessness against Palestinians in the Southern, July 2005 ), but neglected to cite it in the article. We thus have selective quotation from a non-peer reviewed partisan source like Havakkuk, whose work is used by the very army that persecutes the Susyans, and is cited as evidence for why they should be evicted, a work by a man whose ‘advisor’ disagrees with him in affirming that the caves are the Susyans’ homes, that Havakkuk’s Yatta story, recycled by the army, is invalid because houses of relatives in Yatta does not mean that was their primary address.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1)*The B'selem document you mention says specifically it isn't about Susya.

(2)*The are probably 100s of history, archaeology and geography books published by the publication. Find any source that supports your 'suspicions'.

(3)*Havakook didn't work for anyone at the time. He did his research.

(4)*His book support Tuwani inhabitants claims. so civil administration should probably fire him! LOL

(5)*Gidon Karsel quote speaks to another point. Give b'tselem the credit that if they can use it for Suysya they would would have.

(6)* How do you even come up with all of this? Gideom Levy is reliable b/c he 'writes for Haaretz' but Havakook book isn't???? Especially with so many people mentioning him?? Utter nonsense! Settleman (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edited in pages from Havakook not specifically about Susiya but generally South Hebron herders mentioning Yatta and Dura, and this is precisely what B'tselem's report deals with. You entered onto the Susiya page Habakkuk's general conclusion about the South Hebron Herders cave-dwelling culture (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH) arguing by inference that it applied to the Susyans, yet dismiss B'tselem's general analysis of the South Hebron herder, the Yatta residence (of herders like those from Susya) theory, and its use of a critique of Havakook's only academic supervisor as not relevant. This is a rather blatant example of selective use of sources to strengthen one POV, which is that of Regavim. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use Havakook's un-Susyan specific generalization, and ask editors to accept this inferential interpretation, but oppose B'tselem's evidence on precisely the same issues, you are not using policy guidelines coherently. The whole basis of your dismissal of the Susya-1830s argument was that this regarded SHH herders, not Susya (who belong to the same category). It was in your view an inference, and then you defend your own inferences re Susya from Havakook. If you use Havakook in this way, then B'tselem and Gidon Karsel are automatically relevant, because in both cases, we are dealing with inferences. You can't have it both ways.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having hard time understanding what am I having 'both ways'. I see no contradiction between Havakook and Karsel as they both say it started seasonal and in some cases it became permanent. Havakook gives a few examples for permanent vs seasonal and Susya is an example for a place that is still seasonal. Where is the problem? Settleman (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. let's do this in simple style

The passage you cite from Havakkuk for 'seasonal' specifically mentions Susya?

In early 19th century, many residents of the two big villages in the area of South Mount Hebron, Yatta and Dura, started to immigrate (sic =migrate) to ruins and caves in the area and became 'satellite villages' (daughters) to the mother town.

Where on pages pp.26-31 does Havakkuk mention Susya as an example of this?Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained here. He also repeats it it in page 56 which is what referenced for seasonality. He mentions al-Burg, beit-Mirsam, deir-tsamit and khirbet karmil as permanent and khirbet susya, khirbet uwina at-takhta, khirbet uwina al-fuka and khirbet jinbaa as seasonal. Settleman (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked where does he specify on the pages dealing with 'In early 19th century, many residents of the two big villages in the area of South Mount Hebron, Yatta and Dura,' that the Susyans formed part of that movement? Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.28 "Even as time passed and with changes of ruling powers, the ties between dozens of settelite villages and mother villages, Yatta and Dura, remained until this day. Big part of those seasonal villages became 'real villages', permanent settlements with population of 100s of people⁸, at the same time significant number of seasonal villages remained the same way, meaning they were temporary villages who served the residents of the mother villages, the ship owners, and the phalahin who work the land there for several months every year⁹. Note 9 specifies Susya among other places. Settleman (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the usual IP problem:edit summary 'Anonymous Youtube video and opinion article in Mondoweiss are unreliable sources to state facts'.

Well one might question Allison Deger's article, which says Susiyans trying to buy tickets to enter the site were rebuffed. The problem is that the Youtube piece is a documentary filming Nawaj'ah père et fils, the latter in the Susiya ticket office, talking in Hebrew as he purchases tickets, walking over the site, as the father points out underground the cave where they were born and where they lived prior to the 1886 expulsion. Of course this may be all made up. But the documentary substantiates the Deger point, in that a military armoured vehicle appears, a soldier challenges them, and the father is seen walking out, as behind him the armoured vehicle keeps behind them,the engine roaring periodically when the old man slows down, stopping when he stops to rest, and then stopping when he finally gets to the outside of the village. If Deger refers to this some details are wrong: the visual documentary, professionally done by known cineastes, leaves little room for doubt that the Nawaj'ahs bought tickets and were, after a brief walk, accompanied out of the village. I can see absolutely no basis for challenging the documentary's removal because it is on Youtube. It is professional, and gives the reader a far more concrete visual sense of the area we are reading contradictory and often confusing descriptions about.?Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might have forgot but numerous sources say the Nawaj'ah arrive to Susya from Arad after 1948. Settleman (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment has nothing to do with what I wrote. Try to be more focused on the talk page than your edits on the article, which are completely indifferent to the problem of cogent and coherent narrative flow. Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your 1886 instead of 1986 confused me. Sorry. Settleman (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's another, not IP, problem :)

See my "Nishidani, you managed to surprise me..." below. --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Nawaja family, who is originally from the Tel Arad area and moved to Susya in 1952.'

I think I corrected 1952 to 1948 (http://rhr.org.il/eng/2012/06/the-origin-of-the-expulsion-a-brief-history-of-palestinian-susya-guest-article/ RHR), and the edit was initially accepted by Settleman

(Thanks for adding info about the Nawajas arriving (only) in 1948 though I saw it somewhere at 1952.Settleman (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)).

Now it is changed back to the later date. After a few minutes he changed his mind:

The 1952 source is RS which give reference of time which is completely neutral. Settleman (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the Hebrew article is by Shlomo Eldar, and he is usually very good on details, so there is a source conflict. I n any case, the English version must be given (Shlomi Eldar, 'West Bank villagers deliver final plea to save homes from destruction,' Al Monitor 20 July, 2015

We have a direct oral source in an interview with Nasser Nawaj'ah about his family's origins, though the source may not be RS.

I had mentioned to Nasser earlier that morning that I wanted to see Old Susya. As a foreigner, I could purchase a ticket to the archaeological site and enter without any problem. For Nasser, a Palestinian, it was a different story. He had tried twice to visit the site of the village and cave where he was born without much success, but decided to try again with me. This time he would bring along his six-year old son. Nasser’s parents were born in El-Jaretain, a village in the Naqab desert in what is now Israel. They were pushed out of their home in 1948, during the mass displacement accompanying the founding of that country. After their expulsion from El-Jaretain, they joined relatives who had lived for decades in the ancient caves of Old Susya. . . Salah’s father, Muhammad Nawajeh, told Al-Monitor, “We used to live in the area of Tel Arad [in the eastern part of the Negev Desert]. We had been there all our lives, since the times of the Ottomans and the British. We stayed there even after [Israel’s 1948 War of Independence]. In 1952 we were banished for the first time and then we built our village in Susiya. We dug caves and water wells. In 1986 we were expelled from there, too. Now we are being banished for the third time. I’m already 70. I’m old and tired. I was born before Israel was founded on this land, and this is where I want to die. All I can remember from the Jews is banishments.”' Jen Marlowe, "They Demolish and We Rebuild" MintPress News 13 June 2015 .

Again source appear to conflict (while have supplementary material that complements each narrative): one of the sons seems to say 1948, the father says 1952 (the father is probably more reliable, and the son refers to the expulsion from El Jaretain, the father to the subsequent move to Susiya (where relatives already existed, according to the son).

There are problems of RS, but, as often, no reason to doubt that the interviewer gives the family's own oral memory of their place of origin,El-Jaretain (not Arad generically) adding that they joined relatives in Susiya, meaning the family that has apparently Ottoman 1881 papers of title in Susiya didn't, as implied in our article, blow in in 1948/1952 .part of it was there.

(2) It should be noted that the text Settleman introduced saying Israel will allocate good state land to Susiyans in Yatta was odd because yatta is in Area A, and Area A is Palestinian land, not land claimed by Israel (Area C). Shlomo Eldar writes:

According to the state, these structures are illegal. Israel plans to relocate the residents of Khirbet Susiya to Area A in the environs of the village of Yatta.

Settleman's edit imagines Israeli gifting Susiyans other Israeli land. If Eldar is correct it is sending them to live on land controlled by the PA.

(3) On the IP removal of the statement that Susiyans had been repulsed from the park, our Jen Marlowe interview with Nasser Najaw'ah has:

Nasser first attempted to return to Old Susya several years ago, accompanied by his father and an Israeli friend from the human rights organization B’Tselem for which Nasser works. The Israeli army kicked them out, but not before his father was able to show him the cisterns where he had watered his sheep and the cave in which Nasser had been born. A few weeks before my visit, he tried a second time, buying tickets to the archaeological park and briefly getting in. Once again, he told me, Israeli soldiers wouldn’t let him stay. “They told us Palestinians were not allowed in, that this is a closed area, and kicked us out.”

I.e. just the Najaw'ahs tried to get into the archaeological park, were repulsed once, got a toehold the second time and were kicked out (filmed on the documentary). They managed successfully the third time, on video here. Nasser was born in 1982 inside a cave under the archaeological site, 4 years before the expulsion.

(4)Seasonality. Jen Marlowe's interview cites what Nasser Najaw'ah's mother, Um Jihad, recalls of this period:

Each summer during the harvest, the villagers would travel to their agricultural lands to pick figs, olives, and grapes. At the end of the harvest, they would return to Old Susya. One summer, when they tried to go back, she remembers, they found that “the Israeli army had fenced off the village and locked us out.” Bulldozers had blocked the caves and destroyed their homes.

So, in this account, the seasonality refers to summer movements, while their basic home was in the Susya caves. Their possessions were inside. The eviction process took place in their absence. On returning from their agricultural lands at the end of summer, they found it fenced off, and rendered inaccessible.Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I didn't want to argue about 1948/1952 b/c both sources seem OK and with the other more important issues on the article, like extra 120 undocumented years, it seem minor and OK either way.

For what it worth, the only issue I have with the admission text is the armored truck which is OR. The rest seems legit.

MintPress publishes Richard Silverstein which is a redflag for their lack of credibility. Also, the article refers to RHR falsified 1830 claim. Settleman (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use Regavim arguments here.

• If you edit out material to support your Regavim/personal thesis 'extra 120 undocumented years' I'll just automatically revert. This thesis is broken by the map evidence from Zero. Colomba stated that date independently of RHR for 1830 - they do not speak of 'documents', as my analysis showed. They state a thesis not dissimilar to Grossman's.
• You cannot condemn a source by association. I said I had my doubts about MintPress News, though I do think a personal interview with Nasser there useful for editors. To mention Richard Silverstein's presence as disinvalidating MintPress is obviously stupid. He's a very good journalist, with the same style and acumen as Shlomo Eldar. We don't use his material on his blog because it fails RS, but that says nothing about the man or his work.

The evidence I gave shows that 1948 refers probably to the Arad expulsion, and 1952 to the eventual move to Susya. The father's testimony is obviously more reliable; since he was present. The puzzle of source dissonance is resolved.

The armoured personal carrier is filmed throughout the documentary following Najaw'ajh père on the first visit of three. There is no WP:OR, as far as I know, is describing that vehicle as such because the film, which is a serious documentary, filmed the whole expulsion.

Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A serious documentary? Wow you have a low standard. The background in part with the truck at the end lead me to believe it is outside of the site. If this isn't OR, I'm not sure what is.

For silverstein, it is probably enough to see the criticism section in his article. He is the 'lottery news guy'. All he does is serving as a pipe for frustrated journalists in Israel who want to break a gag order. On a recent piece on MintPress he writes "Other reports claimed he was a key operative involved in the capture and detention of Gilad Shalit" but the source he links says "Abducted Gazan may have info on Shalit" how Silverstein made him into a 'key operative'? We'll never know. Settleman (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(After I've made possible a normal text size & may read it)

Nishidani, you managed to surprise me. To waste so much time on this non-encyclopedic (to be very polite) fiction?

Try at least for a moment to imagine your own reaction if a same story has been presented from Jewish, not Arab side.

Or you already have no normal sources, at least at the level of infamous B'tselem & RSC? ):)

I'd advise you to assess critically your previous sources, till it is done by others. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have understood nothing of what I have written. I have to struggle foraging in my memory to recall you making either one solid edit or one readable and intelligent/intelligible comment. Could I remind you that I undertook to ignore your comments as a waste of editorial time, being unfocused and invariably personally hostile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 August 2015‎

(ignoring your next wp:NPA) I may remind you something, but but it's a pity to waste my wiki-time for your attacks.

As usual, my guess about your chronic desire to push Mondoweiss & other such ones to articles proved to be correct. :) See "Talk:Susya#Mondoweiss?" here, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, there is in the article this sentence:

In the Survey of Western Palestine, based on an observation in 1875 on the area of the southeastern slope of a hill west of Susya, Charles Warren and Claude Conder labeled Susya as an 'Important public structure'. German accounts later stated that it was a remnant of an ancient church.

It is cited to:

• Vilnai, Ze'ev (1978). "Susiya—Judea". Ariel Encyclopedia (in Hebrew). Vol. Volume 6. Tel Aviv, Israel: Am Oved. pp. 5352–5353. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Now, I don´t see any reason why SWP should not be cited directly to archive.org sources (they are all in public domain, these days.) If it is the SWP- ref already in the article, then the observation was from 1874, (not 1875), and it was by Claude Conder and Kitchener, not Warren. And Conder and Kitchener compared the ruins with those of Byzantine monasteries, (not church). And they mention nothing about "public". Someone with access to the above Vilnay-source should check what SWP-ref he gives, and also find those "German accounts": refs, please! Huldra (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I'm at the library I will check this. Settleman (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I´m also @Ynhockey: (who added the material way back in 2009, Ynhockey: do you still have access to Vilnai? Huldra (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is everything but reliable. He made his career at the army and has political links. Regarding the editor (Ariel Encyclopaedia) and the date (1978), what is this exactly ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if Vilnai has references to older material, then we should look up those sources, don´t you think? Presently the article mention Charles Warren: I have never encountered him outside Jerusalem before (he did a lot of work there). And those German sources Vilnai mentions? Again, I would like to see them, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Susya references "Survey of Western Palestine III, 1883 p.414 - Susieh". It then adds "80 years later, a German visited and believed the ruin is an ancient church³" but there is no reference 3 :(. In the last volume that has additions/updates he writes about Tristram. So both Ottoman era sources are already included and we have an unknown source for the 60s which could be very interesting and relevant. Settleman (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking that up. So it is as I suspected then; Charles Warren has nothing to do with Susya: he should be removed from the article. Nor did Conder and Kitchener "label Susya as an 'Important public structure'." ....that is Vilnai´s, partly false interpretation. I suggest that we return what Conder and Kitchener actually wrote, namely that they compared the ruins to those of Byzantine monasteries. And they visited in 1874, (not 1875).

Next task: getting hold of the 1937 L. A. Meyer and A. Reifenberg- reference.... L. A. Meyer is usually *very* meticulous in naming his sources; it would not surprise me if he named some sources still unknown to us. So...; does someone have access to "Avraham Negev, Shimon Gibson: Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, p. 482"? (I cannot see a preview of that page), Huldra (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra I have added a new book but now google won't let me see most pages. A search for 'mayer' gives results in 158 which is defiantly (did I spell it right this time?) about Susya but 183 and up might belong to another site. Can you see the relevant pages? Can anyone else? Settleman (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the full section on Susya from Werlin's book. On 158 it says "The British survey team in the 1860s recorded a gap in the north wall, and although they misidentified the feature as a well dug into the wall at a later time, they measured the extent of the feature to be 2.0-m across, too small for the niches projected by Yeivin. The feature was noted by Mayer and Reifenberg during the excavation of the synagogue at Eshtemoa in the 1930s." There is no reference, but on p183 (in the Eshtemoa section) there is this: "See L. A. Mayer and A. Reifenberg, “The Synagogue of Eshtemo’a: Preliminary Report," in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 19 (1939-40), p. 316: and idem, [Hebrew: The Synagogue at Eshtemoa]," in Yediot: Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 10/1-4 (1942-43). PP-10-11." Zero^talk 10:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Settleman: Lol, you definitely need to sort out the difference between defiantly and definitely (According to http://translate.google.com defiantly is "בהתרסה", while definitely is "בהחלט").

User:Zero0000: Werlin, p. 158 is rather sloppy work. Firstly, the "British survey team" was there in 1874, not "1860s", and they recorded the well as being in the "north-west corner of the chamber", not "north". (See Conder and Kitchener, 1883, SWP III, p. 414)

And I see that Warren is still mentioned in the article, and Guérin is referenced second-hand, instead of directly....

Also, I see on p. 137 in the Werlin-book: "While a twelfth-century record undoubtedly refers to the site, the name Susiya probably goes back to the Early Islamic period and possibly the Roman period.(11)" Where note 11 says: "For an overview, see Amit "The Synagogues", pp 38-39. The twelfth century source mentions a land-grant of Baldwin I to the Hospitalers; see Michael Ehrlich, "Identifications of the settlement at Horvat Susiya" Cathedra, 82 (1996), pp. 173-4.

Now, I would also love to see that Ehrlich, "Identifications of the settlement at Horvat Susiya", Cathedra, 82 (1996), pp. 173-4.-source. I suspect the original source (of the land-grant of Baldwin I to the Hospitalers) would be in RHH; and it would be really nice to have a direct link to it. Huldra (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: RHH is

• Röhricht, Reinhold (1893). (RRH) Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII-MCCXCI) (in Latin). Berlin: Libraria Academica Wageriana. )

There are lots of journals called Cathedra but this one is a Hebrew journal that can be downloaded for free here. The link for the relevant article is here: Michael Ehrlich, "Note regarding the identification of the settlement at Khirbet Susieh". It includes this quote:

"...Preterea laudo et confirmo supradicto Hospitali quoddam casale, quod dedit ei Gauterius Baffumeth, et vocatur Sussia..."

with the citation "J. Delaville Le Roulx, Cartulaire général de l'orde de St-Jean de Jérusalem, I, Paris 1896, no. 20, pp. 21-22". There are several other Crusader references in the discussion. Settleman, please tell us if the article says whether any of the other references mention Susya by name. Zero^talk 00:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the identification of Khirbet Susieh with crusader Sussia is suggested in an article by Röhricht, ZDPV vol. 9 (1886) p243. My German is crap, alas. Zero^talk 00:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will incorporate the info. (and Huldra - I gave reasons for my removal of material. Only the last one is matter of common sense, the rest is policy based). Settleman (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero: That must be Röhricht, 1887, vol 10, p. 243 (The 1886-page is Gottlieb Schumacher writing about the Jaulan), and Röhricht basically just identifies the Crusader "Sussia" with *this* Susya. Oh, and he mentions it among the lands belonging to the Hospitalisers. Searching for Sussia, I found two sources in RHH; the first is the same as referred to in J. Delaville Le Roulx, 1896 (...and I have never found an online example of that book: very irritating), namely Röhricht, 1893, RRH, pp. 12-13, No 57. The second is from year 1154: Röhricht, 1893, RRH, p. 74-75, No 293; (mentions Baldwin III and his mother, Melisende), As my Latin is non-existent: User:Nishidani: could you possibly tell us what that 1154 source says? ...I´ll probably just insert a sentence saying "Susya was also mention in in 1156 in Crusader sources, in connection with Baldwin III and his mother, Melisende"....and then leave it to Nishidani to "flesh it out". (And Settleman: that is *your* interpretation of the text, only. Some tweaking of the text would have been needed; not mass-deletion! ) Huldra (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, agree about Röhricht; I forgot there are two volumes in the same file. About Delaville Le Roulx, there are lots of his works at Gallica; did you search thoroughly there? I see other works of his about l'orde de St-Jean de Jérusalem. I also see multiple works of other people on that order, including what looks like catalogues (but my French is crap too). Zero^talk 15:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero: No, I haven´t looked much at the Gallica-source: will explore that later. I have found quite a lot of his other books, though.

Also, the present info: “...1110, Baldwin I granted the land of Sussia to the Hospitalers.[68][69][70] Gauterius Baffumeth, who donated the village, was master of Hebron from 1107 therefore Sussia is identified with Khirbet Susya” ….sounds very strange: If Baffumeth donated the village, how could King Baldwin grant the same?? I suspect this *actually* say what these deeds normally say: Baffumeth donated the village, but the King had to sanction it, or confirm it, in order to make in legal. Also, the title “master of Hebron” seems totally wrong: I have never come across such a title for a Crusader before. However; “Lord of Hebron” would be a typical Crusader title.

Also, presently in the article: “In the 12th–13th centuries Crusaders garrisoned at nearby Chermala and Eshtemoa, and, in their wake, a few families, moved into the ruins to exploit the rich agricultural land”, sourced to: Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, The Holy Land: an Oxford archaeological guide from earliest times to 1700, 5th ed. Oxford University Press US, 2008 p. 351 I am not able to see that page; can anyone see which sources he use?

The whole “Conversion to a mosque” part, including the title, is still *very* messy, and the should be changed, IMO. What about more standard “Early Islamic and Crusader era”? Or ; “Umayyad, Abbasid and Crusader era”? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests noted. Unfortunately, weighed down with travel considerations (Umbria) and will not be online for much of the week to look in detail into these sources, since I don't have an ipad or any computer device other than this one at home, and never use the internet while wandering about. Just clicking on a few things above now, some rough help:

(a) Preterea laudo et confirmo supradicto Hospitali quoddam casale, quod dedit ei Gauterius Baffumeth, et vocatur Sussia.

Moreover I approve and confirm(the assignation of) the hamlet/farm to the afforementioned Hospitaller, which Gauterius Baffumeth gave to him and which is called Susia.

(b) 1154: Röhricht, 1893, RRH, p. 74-75, No 293 - about Baldwin the third, that's just the registration of his confirmation of assigned properties 'with the consent of his mother Milesand,' and then among the list, naming Susiya 'quod dedit Gualterius Basumeth' ='which Gauterius Baffumeth gave'.

(c)The German text 1887 n.3 (p.2,3O) ='evidently chirbat süsiye, east of medschdel jābā . . a place of the same name lies directly south of Hebron, north of old Beersheva, and so probably too far away,'(the last being our Khirbet Susya)

I'll review this rush stuff when leisure permits, so don't take it as ascertained.

By the way, Huldra, I too should give you a barnstar, not good at getting an appropriately individual one. But pick one saying, 'For your unparalleled dedication to the precise erudite reconstruction of Palestinian history, as a public and global service', and I'll sign it when I get back. You're patience and nitpickety nose for getting complex issues right is on a par with the chap with all of those noughts to his name. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot User:Nishidani; both for the kind words, and the translation: Yeah: that confirms my suspicion that Baldwin just *confirmed* the gift..and my just finding out, re-reading the 1887-text, that Röhricht actually thought that the Crusader Sussia was by Majdal Yaba..not *this* place. (I have 0 Latin, but some German). Röhricht *was* occasionally mistaken though, and we have later WP:RS which identifies it with *this* place. So, we still want the RHH-sources in, methinks. I guess I could add something about Sussia still being in Hospitalliers hands in 1154, when bla-bla confirmed the gift of Baffumeth, etc.... And yes, I am definitely *extremely* "nitpicky"! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to get Röhricht wrong. On Murphy-O'Connor: he rarely gives references and doesn't this time either. Zero^talk 01:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presently the article has a sentence (unique on Wikipedia):

"1922 census of Palestine,[70] 1931 census of Palestine[71] and 1945 census of Palestine[72] do not mention Susya."

I propose we take this sentence out.

• Firstly, it is simply not usual to mention that a place is *not* mentioned in a source (The above sentence could be entered into each and every Israeli settlement on the West Bank, for absurdity.)
• Secondly, there are a lot of places which were mentioned in those censuses, which have not been identified (And I know: I have probably added more data from those 3 censuses to Wikipedia than any other editor.) Especially in the Hebron region: they went by their tribal name, and not the name of the place. (And in the 1945 data the tribal data are cut out altogether; they were simply not counted.) In the Jordanian 1961 census only places with more than 100 people were counted.
• Thirdly, this area were semi-nomadic, they have a long tradition for taking their herds elsewhere when they heard that that tax-collectors, or census-collectors or military conscriptions were approaching; typically over the Jordan. (See e.g. Bani Na'im)

(Btw, it is interesting comparing Guerin and Socin (where Guerin is an explorer, not working for the Ottoman empire, while Socin published an official Ottoman list.) Guerins numbers are so much larger than Socin when it comes to the number of inhabitants at a place, look at :

• • Kudna: Guerin: 500, Socin: 40x2=80 (The Ottoman only counted the males, so you have to double the numbers)
  • Idhna: Guerin: almost 500, Socin: 108x2=216
  • Artas, Bethlehem: Guerin: ~300, Socin: 60x2=120

The numbers were collected within a decade, and there is no reason to believe that Guerin inflated numbers.)

Again; I propose we take the above mentioned sentence out: there is simply too much uncertainty, and it does not add any knowledge about Susya. Huldra (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not say that Susya is not mentioned, then those sources are not pertinent for saying that Susya is not mentioned. Doing so would be WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I should of course have mentioned WP:OR; I tried to get whoever put that into the article to understand, how, well, useless that "info" is. Huldra (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point. Settleman (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wrong revert. Read the article and you won't find anywhere it ways it is 'military body. You obviously confuse it with 'military law'. Please self revert. Settleman (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In English a civil administration does not imply a military-run organization, and the phrase, though standard, is a misnomer. To gloss the link, or add an explanation that this is not a civil society institution but an extension of a military government is quite unexceptional.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not run by the military but by the ministry of defense thus it is wrong. Also, if Shulman shouldn't be mention as Ta'ayush activist where it is highly relevant (his book was originally called "Dark Hope: Journal of a Ta'ayush Activist") because it is in the article, it is true for this as well (and for Regavim on Susya article). Settleman (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli civil administration is indeed a military body. See for instance, here ("the civil administration, the Israeli euphemism for military administration"), here. The matter is discussed in more detail here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article before posting this? All your sources show is that you too confuse this with 'military law'. The lead says Israeli Defense Ministry's Civil Administration which is both accurate and make this repetition. Please delete. Settleman (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The civil administration is a military body that takes care of the civlian affairs in the occupied territories.

That's normal given else Israel would have to annex these territories to apply her own civil admnistration.

There's nothing bad with that. This is what Geneva Convention requires.

(By the way, the details of the 'chain of command' are given in the second source provided by Kingsindian.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is wikipedia a textbook for 3rd graders? It is not a military body. The military of Israel is the IDF and the civil administration isn't part of it. Why this takes so much time?

And why mention it again if it is already in the lead? Settleman (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neve Gordon, Israel's Occupation, University of California Press, 2008, p.107 disagrees with you.

Do you have sources showing he may be wrong ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to state the obvious again. Regardless, it is extended in the lead so shouldn't be repeated or else we'll have David Shulman as activist whenever we reference him and same for the other orgs.Settleman (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The civil administration answers to the Defense Ministry, so technically it is not a military body. However its authority derives from a military order, and the local IDF commander retains a higher authority for creating legislation. So a lot of the work of the civil administration consists of enforcing military orders. The ambiguity between civil and military affairs is an intentional part of the design. Zero^talk 10:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This makes 'military body' inaccurate and duplicate of Israeli Defense Ministry's Civil Administration from lead. Settleman (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is already discussed in the last source I gave, which Pluto discussed in his comment as well. I quote from the Neve Gordon source: All the civil branches ... did not have to respond to military commanders. In reality however, the Civil Administration was subordinate to the military and GSS. This was true not only in the matter of appointments, but also in the matter relating to licenses and permits...Legislative powers to set policies continued to be held by the military. As Thomas Friedman says, accurately for once, it is just an euphemism for military administration. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: Civil Administration sits under COGAT which sits under Minister of Defense. Is that the best way to describe it in a few word? It is inaccurate and non-NPOV. I suggest 'ministry of defense body'. Settleman (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That description adds nothing of any value. What is the reader expected to know about COGAT? NPOV is to reflect what reliable sources write on the topic. And they say that the Civil Administration is really an euphemism for military administration. Here is another source which says precisely this. I know of no source which contradicts this. There is nothing violating NPOV about describing a situation as it is. Perhaps one can phrase it as in the last source: "formally separated from the military, but subordinate to it", or something like that. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue it is completely incorrect (see Zero's comment). The sources are good and should probably be included in Civil Administration article. In fact, the guy who heads it is an army officer and there are many correlations. But the fact remains, the CA doesn't answer to the army (did not have to respond to military commanders) and is not part of it. If someone thinks Israeli built the system this way for a reason, well - maybe. A short description suppose to educate the reader and not plant some inaccurate info in his head, therefore should be as accurate as it come. If you can look me straight in the (virtual) eyes and say "this is the best I can come up with" for the description, I will just give up. Not agree, but give up. Settleman (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the exact phrasing "military body" is not important. The main thing to be made clear is that it is part of the military administration, and is linked to and subordinate to the military and GSS. I have provisionally added the qualifier I proposed to the lead and removed it from the body. Feel to discuss changes/revert etc. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss is more akin to a personal blog than a news site, and doesn't seem to exhibit that much editorial control per http://mondoweiss.net/about-mondoweiss. -- Avi (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham: First, some background on the edit-warring over this reference. This reference was deleted twice by socks of AndresHerutJaim, one of whose main aims on wikipedia is to delete references to Mondoweiss on sight, even for totally uncontroversial material, which can easily be corroborated elsewhere. The basic tactic is to ensure that such information would then be unsourced, and then someone else would simply delete it. You are of course not responsible for the actions of the sock, and indeed socks make legitimate edits sometimes, but I'm just letting you know.

Now, to the specific case here. As WP:BIASED says, reliability is always in context. Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. There is nothing really controversial or disputed here. The fact that Israel declared this part a National Heritage site in 2010 is not controversial, it is even linked there. The remaining part is simply a short statement (Palestinians in 2010 who bought tickets to archaelogical site were denied entry). This is just direct testimony from Palestinians, and is about such a minor matter, that you are not going to find any WP:RS discussing this specifically. There is no reason at all to doubt such testimony, it is even consistent with past history, since nobody at all doubts the initial expulsion which took place in 1986 was when Israel declared the original Palestinian village an archaelogical site. If you wish I can add some attribution, "according to Palestinians interviewed by Mondoweiss", or some such thing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Note I didn't change any text, assuming that the first reference is sufficient. Is the first reference sufficient on its own? If not, maybe some attribution is helpful, or perhaps better yet, a note inside a comment tag adjoining the reference, which would only be visible upon editing, to clarify what is special about this instance which allows the use of Mondoweiss as opposed to other places. Does that sound reasonable to you (and Huldra and everyone else?) -- Avi (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2015 :::(UTC)

The text on Mondoweiss which everybody agree should be used carefully is "Palestinians from Susiya have tried to purchase an admission ticket to now archeological Susya a handful of times. They say they have been denied entry each time." Then we have an example that it is not true. So instead of throwing it out, we add an exception. WHY??? The part about the armored truck is also OR. Settleman (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Weiss seems to be notorious and his collaborators too (if this is right : [4]). But he describes himself as anti-Zionist.

I think :

• no-controversial stuffs do not need to be attribuded;
• controversial stuffs should be attributed if there are clues or arguments (even 1st sources) that could make doubt of his reports;
• his analysis and opinions should be attributed.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avi. We have extensive sources for Jewish/Israeli points of view, far more than for the P of I/P. Some of them, like the Algemeiner and several others, look rather pointy, but I don't challenge them, except of course if the specific article is obviously questionable. As to Mondoweiss, I've asked RSN twice about using it with attribution recently, for specific contexts. Unfortunately the usual line-up on each side (some socks) disenchanted external advice, but on each occasion, one independent editor or so would say that it can be used in context, depending on the quality of the article and its editor. The same holds for +972 magazine (Mairav Zonszein is published by the New York Times, most of the contributors have worked on desks at Haaretz and Jerusalem Post etc.,) As Kingsindian noted, the idea that there is an absolute veto, and that editors who (caught out twice in my memory) never examined the article they removed from that source, but see 'Mondoweiss' or '+972' and revert, is peculiar. I certainly don't think once should consider them automatically RS but in borderline areas, a courtesy note on the page discussing the article and editor, and crosschecking to see if the claim is exceptional, or merely one of those things underreported by the mainstream, but not in itself improbable, is what is required. At Skunk sometime back a now banned editor challenged the idea that that liquid was only used against Palestinians in the West Bank. He came up with an article in Hebrew in a non-RS source that had a photo that confirmed that Haredis had been at least once, in Israel (West Jerusalem) sprayed with it. So, I re-edited that source back in. It looked, whatever RS rigourism might say, a fair documentation of a fact otherwise difficult to establish in mainstream sources. Commonsense should be the rule.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments that common sense should be the rule, but that is often difficult in contentious areas. I am not averse to having these explanations for sources—which in general are not considered RS, but allowed in specific instances—regardless of provenance. My concern is that the next step is that Ali Abunimah or Meir Ettinger are considered reliable, unbiased sources for the general I/P conflict. If the consensus for now is that this is a far fetched concern, so be it. As long as we remain vigilant in upholding our policies and guidelines, in both spirit and letter. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avi. I don't think we quite have consensus. All I suggest to editors is to look at the article, examine it to verify or challenge the utility of the information, and then discuss it, in these cases. All sources on both sides are, in my view, biased, or selective. It is advisable to use multiple sources, not just the first that turns up and, with these borderline sites, use them rarely, with talkpage discussion, when one cannot find mainstream sources for information that otherwise looks useful. I don't use most of the Pro-Palestinian sources I read, but at the same time, I expect less automatic reverting, and more querying on talk pages, as we have had here. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, you like policy so I dug some. The way I read WP:NOYT the video can be at most primary thus you truck comment is OR. It contradicts mondoweis which is so-so RS and I believe it is more then enough to dismiss it. The source reads "Palestinians from Susiya have tried to purchase an admission ticket to now archeological Susya a handful of times. They say they have been denied entry each time." and you brought an example that contradicts it. Here you removed material because of it. What is the difference? Settleman (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians Susyans have reportedly been turned back from visiting the archaeological site, even after trying to purchase admission tickets. One visit, with purchased tickets, featuring Muhammad Nawaj'ah and his son Nasser, had then accompanied from the park by an IDF armoured truck

You have Allison Deger referring to Palestinians being turned back. You have a documentary of an identified Palestinian buying the tickets to the site, walking with his father round Susya's ruins, and a military truck/vehicle turning up, a soldier examining them, telling them not to talk to him, and the father then walking out of the site, with that vehicle driving behind him, stopping when he stopped, revving the engine regularly when he stopped or slowed down. I didn't write 'forced them out'. I said the 'truck' accompanied them. If 'truck' is the problem, then 'vehicle' can be used. Unless one does not wish to accept the evidence of one's own eyes, the video corroborates the report that a Palestinian buying tickets was turned back. Note that I say 'reportedly'. WP:NOYT has nothing to do with this: WP:OR neither, since I simply sum up the contents of two sources of information in two sentences. As I say, if 'truck' is not to your liking one can write 'vehicle'. It is a vehicle, isn't it? They are Israeli soldiers, aren't they? The vehicle does 'accompany' them (no mention of constraint) out of the park doesn't it? It does stop at the entrance as they move further away doesn't it? This is commonsense. And the only objection to using the video to independently gloss Deger's remark is that provides visual evidence for what she noted, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. By all means change 'truck' to 'vehicle'.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case. the original IP edit summary removing the video was inproper.

• the usual IP problem:edit summary 'Anonymous Youtube video and opinion article in Mondoweiss are unreliable sources to state facts'.

Gesher Multicultural Film Fund is devoted to healing rifts in Israeli society. It produces preofessional work on all sides.

That it cannot be dismissed as some ‘anonymous’ or partisan organization seems obvious from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s favourable comments on the work they do.

The soldier on the video says at 8:24 minutes into it, ‘I didn’t come to argue, just to say you are not allowed here,’ after which father and son move off, clearly accompanied by a military vehicle that follows them to the exit, stopping when the father does and moving when he does. That is direct visually and audially registered information from a reputable Israeli Fund documentary of the reliability of Allison Deger's remark.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOYT has nothing to do with this(YouTube video) - Are you serious? Can someone else please note on this? Settleman (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally avoid using YouTube as sources. WP:NOYT states that Youtube should not generally be used because people can manipulate the videos. However, videos from official youtube channels can be used. This does not seem to be the case here - it is uploaded by a random user. However, I also do not see any signs of manipulation in the video, which seems rather straightforward to me. (I am of course not an expert in detecting manipulation). If we assume that the documentary was made by a reputable organization, I do not see why it can't be used, just as a supporting reference, for (it seems to me) a rather minor point. There is also the matter of copyright: I don't know the status here. One of the makers of the video, Yoav Gross, is part of B'Tselem's camera team. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman, WP:NOYT says generally, meaning there is no outright ban on youtube material. It sets conditions. In 9 years this is the first time I've used youtube. I did so because I happened on the video and found it filmed precisely the situation reported by Deger, and because the organization that produced it is highly regarded. There is, content wise, absolutely not a shadow of a doubt that what Deger says happened is clearly shown in that video. Only the ideologically purblind deny the evidence of their senses. The only issue is copyright, however note that it has all the appearances of being uploaded by yoav gross, one of its producers. If a producer puts his own material on youtube, I would not expect this to be a copyright violation. In any case, why not contact yoavxxx? or Dani Rosenberg? Kingsindian?Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian Can you please serve as a third opinion? - Does Nishidani's commentary about the video constitute of OR based on WP:NOYT? @Nishidani: (1) I don't believe there are copyright issues though I'm not familiar with the rules. (2) How can it filmed precisely the situation reported where she says they are not allowed in and the movie shows them inside the site??? There is the interaction with the soldiers but the end of it, is edited out. (3) The part with the truck, I believe, is already outside of the archaeological park (note the stone wall) and thus is irrelevant. (4) I initially didn't oppose the part b/c I can see Palestinians being limited in entering the park the same way they are limited from entering settlements. But in truth, the source is bad (who on earth is Allison Deger??? another activist who published only on activists media.) and your OR make it worse. Settleman (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Deger is a Mondoweiss assistant editor. As mentioned above, this is not technically WP:RS because Mondoweiss is not WP:RS automatically, like the NYT is. I generally find this whole matter to be minor, I only reverted the sock on this (per WP:BLOCKED), which I do on principle, except if the edit is unambiguously useful. Can we write the following, just dropping this "truck" business altogether? "According to Palestinians Susyans interviewed by Mondoweiss, they been turned back from visiting the archaeological site, even after trying to purchase admission tickets." I generally find the claim to be minor and not particularly controversial, so I don't know what the trouble is about. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as said, Mondoweiss is borderline. There I found the statement:-

Palestinians from Susiya have tried to purchase an admission ticket to now archeological Susya a handful of times. They say they have been denied entry each time.

It struck me as worthy of note, people being denied access to Susya though born there. So I looked around and found the video, which is not some vagrant piece of activist propaganda, but a documentary financed by a major Israel NGO, and directed by well-known Israeli people. It corroborates what Deger said, visually and verbally. So, Deger is not using idle hearsay, but reporting something which is not only confirmed independently, but can be examined to assess the veracity of her statement. The video therefore lends credibility to the Mondoweiss source.

Nothing you say, Settleman, makes sense except as carping at my wording, rather than examining the two pieces of reportage serenely.

The video is in conflict with Deger's report in that she says they have been denied entry on each occasion. The video gives vivid direct visual evidence that on one occasion, Muhammad Nawaj'ah and his son Nasser managed to purchase tickets, visited the site, and were explicitly told during the visit by representatives of the IDF they were not allowed there.The vehicle accompanied them to the exit. To state as Settleman does,

(3) The part with the truck, I believe, is already outside of the archaeological park (note the stone wall) and thus is irrelevant.

is contrafactual. The video shows the vehicle arriving with the synagogue in view, before they are accompanied to the exit.

The film introduces itself by telling of the expulsion and that Muhammad Nawaj’ah and his son Nasser have not entered the village since that day. The film is dated 2010.

• 1)The son buys tickets, and is recognized as a Susyan by the settler in the ticket shop.
• 2) At 4:23 they tour the synagogue which is covered with a roof.
• 3) At 5:06 you see the synagogue t behind the father as he enters their family home.
• 4) As they enter the family cave at 5:55 a military vehicle appears.
• 5) At 8:10 the soldiers are waiting for them as they emerge from the cave
• 6) At 8:24 the soldiers says: ‘I didn’t come to argue, just to say you are not allowed here.’

Scepticism is unwarranted. Deger's report, and the video complement each other, and both were used because, despite differences, it is evident that Susyans have either been denied entry after trying to purchase tickets (Deger) or, on one occasion, purchased tickets, and were told halfway through their visit that: 'you are not allowed here' by a soldier. To lop off the video is to impoverish Deger's report, and possibly mislead the reader. To keep both out is to cancel a native Susyan Palestinian reality, enriched by the father's own brief narratives of their life before 1986. I have no problem with textual modifications that manage to correct Deger

Tweaking Kingsindian's suggestion suggests to me something like

"Susyan Palestinians interviewed by Mondoweiss state they been turned back from visiting the archaeological site, even after trying to buy admission tickets. A video documents one such attempt to visit the site after tickets had been successfully purchased, when two Susyans were told by an IDF soldier they were not allowed there."(Mondoweiss +video link)

Readers can draw their own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a first step. As for the rest, like I wrote, it probably have some truth to it, so I am not gonna fight it thought the source, like you said, is not really RS. I just find it amazing that editors who embrace this kind of source with both hands will fight Arutz 7 with the same passion. There is nothing neutral about it! Settleman (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the previous one then it contradicted with Nishidani's edit. I'm not skeptic about the facts but rather about the commentary on the movie. The video can stay as WP:CONVENIENCE link but anything else is against policy. Settleman (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'commentary on the movie'. It notifies the reader, for the reasons given, that one can judge the reliability of a borderline source (Deger) by examining a documentary funded by an Israeli NGO that is not regarded as partisan, and made by very competent Israeli cineastes. As to editing with a 'passion', I think I/P editing is a 'melancholy science', and both adjective and noun do not add up to 'passion'. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipdeia is not a notification service. How about you time stamp the video at whatever time you wish so if the reader is interested enough, s/he will see the relevant part. You are bloating info from sources Kingsindian agreed are not exactly up to the RS standard. Enough! Settleman (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The questions that you arise here have been answered on the noticeboard:

• A7 is not wp:rs given its advocay purposes because to be reliable an information from there should be crossed with a more reliable source and therefore it is wiser to use that latest. But this doesn't prevent a "reknown journalist" who would edit on A7 to be quoted for an analysis but not for his reliability, just for his notoriaty. In any case, he wuold not be reliable, even if what he says is true.
• Mondoweiss is a source of information without agenda but with a bias and a strong opinion. It is maintained by two journalists with notoriaty and reknown. The fall in the category of wp:rs with the necessity to attribute when what they reports is controversial (eg if another source would state the contrary).

As soon as we try to attribute reliability proportionnaly to notoriary and reknown, everything becomes much more simple. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it "advocay" or "mouthpiece" all you want. It is a large news org. Saying Mondoweiss does not have an agenda does not worth a response. Settleman (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the source that explained why it is an advocacy and neo-zionist group.

If it hurts you and prevent you to edit a constructive way on wikipedia, eg because you would be a settler and because this newspaper reports what you have deep in your conviction, you may be unable to contribute to a collaborative project of developing a free encyclopaedia and should maybe find another hobby.

If you think Mondoweiss has an agenda, explain us why, based on sources, reknown, reputation or clear mistakes or false reports from them coming from sources with a higher standard. That's easy too (or primary sources in which they denounce themselves.) If the only argument is that they are on the left, like Ha'aretz, we cannot anything for you.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence is the right place to bring it up instead of senselessly repeat what was written in countless discussions. Settleman (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat : if you think Mondoweiss has an agenda, explain us why, based on sources, reknown, reputation or clear mistakes or false reports from them coming from sources with a higher standard.

If you don't answer this question, I think we should not try to discuss with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not go into too much into agendas and so forth - it is useless: people do not change their political opinions based on internet debates with strangers. But people can still write WP together. The basic point here, I reiterate, is that this is a rather minor detail in a much larger story. If Mondoweiss had made some big claim, like Israel killed someone, say, I would of course not use it without corroboration. Here, there is a simple testimony by Palestinians, about a rather minor matter. I just apply common sense here. A7 is typically used on WP to document some sensationalist claim about Palestinians. This is the same reason, for example, why the Daily Mail usually is not preferrred on WP: it is a trashy sensationalist tabloid, though it sometimes does good work. See the RSN discussion here, which is typical for the Daily Mail. I do not rule out Daily Mail totally, similarly, A7 can be used for minor claims in its area of focus, like internal settler matters. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible (I also was thinking actually of the Daily Mail's pallywood spin on the Nabi Salem incident, soldier and boy). It is getting to be a funnel for stuff it does not independently control. Deger interviewed in depth that same family. Though I won't use that interview, it shows area competence and field work vs. office editorial POV spinning, and yet Mondoweiss is probably generally regarded as less reliable.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mondoweiss and +972 are blogs and as such are not acceptable references for facts of any sort, although the independently notable bloggers on each site can be used as a source for their own statements of opinion. The difference between Mondoweiss, +972 and a highly political, opinionated publication like the Guardian or The National Review is that the latter exercise editorial control over their news pages (columnists are different) but you can cite a fact to an article (not to a column) in The Guardian and you cannot cite a fact (such as: Palestinians who tried to purchase tickets were turned away) to Mondoweiss. period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the criticism section on both those blogs. Nothing else should be said. Settleman (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit, originally made by Settleman, reverted by Huldra, then re-reverted by Donottroll, whose justification makes no sense and who has never participated on the talk page. The revert has multiple parts, none of which was explained on the talk page. I will take a stab at it:

• The quote from the Palestinian. It is strange that this was removed, while the quote from the Israeli official just below ("Noah's ark" etc.), directly responding to this "narrative" was not. The Israeli official's quote makes no sense without the Palestinian quote.

• The part about 60 sheep etc. As mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph, the circumstances of the killing of the Palestinian are murky. There are various details here: "the guy carried a grenade", "the grenade was taken away from him" etc. The AP source cited quotes the settlers and the army for these claims. The other source is a piece by Zvi Bar'el in Haaretz, who is part of the editorial board there. Since the circumstances are unclear, what is the problem with including this?

• Eyal Hareuveni's piece in JPost. This was discussed earlier, I don't see any consensus for this either way. I have left it out for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: You are completely right about the quote. My bad. I missed the one below. Clear case of DUE.

For the 60 sheep in an editorial - well, it is an editorial. It was also written a decade after the event and I find it doubtful, they got lucky with finding a guy with a grenade. But my opinion aside, editorial are "rarely reliable for statements of fact" and this seems like a classic case where it isn't.

For Hareuveni, later in the article he writes "The Civil Administration also ignores evidence of the existence of dozens of communities in the area, some inhabited seasonally like the cave-dweller communities in the South Hebron Hills, but nonetheless dating back at least to the 19th century" which is the correct way to describe Havakook book. The first time he messed up. Saying this can be attributed as his "impressions of reading Havakook's book" is desperate. Settleman (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I think it is best to leave out the Hareuveni statement. Regarding the "60 sheep", you are correct that editorials are generally not used for statements of fact. The details are rather murky, and the only statements presented are some conflicting statements made by the army and the settlers. The "60 sheep" thing seems rather minor to me, and quite plausible (he could have stolen the sheep, earlier, and was armed with a grenade later, there is no contradiction between these things). I will not object if this is removed, though as I said, it seems a rather minor detail in a rather murky story. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see little conflict about the grenade. Whether it was removed before or after he was killed. I will correct the text. I will appreciate it if you remove it and if anyone disagree we can discuss it. Settleman (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to go for Pedahzur version. Settleman (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're way over 1R.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self reverted. Please remove irrelevant info and clarify who are 'Susyans'. I now see it has been used twice more in the article. Since some editors insist all 3 articles should stay combined, please clarify who those are. Settleman (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not irrelevant, it is in the cited article as general context for what happened in Susya. Just as Havakkuk's general argument re South Hebron herders is used to frame Susya even where he does not specifically mention it, so the article frames the Susya landgrab at that time as part of a general phenomen (2,774 dunams of land by 2008, B'tselem) It is part of the whole story of the two Susyas,and why they cannot be extricated. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how did you manage to get Havakkuk living in the area 'for several years' after saying 20 days earlier: He lived in the area continuously between 77 and 79 then visited a few more times until 84 Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal English usage, though understandably you are not familiar with it. It's in sources already on the page, i.e. Shulman here. I don't know what Israeli settler usage is, but for English descriptors of Palestinian villagers, the inhabitant of a place is often called by an adjectival variation of the name of that town, city I.e., Hebronites, Nablusites, Bethlehemites, Gazans, Jerichoans,Qalqiliyans, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "60 sheep" part for now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

77-79 is several years but also, when I wrote it the first time it was based on what I remembered from the book where there was some ambiguity about it (and I didn't take photos of where he wrote it) but in his testimony on Regavim document he says 77-81.

The background about Susya is directly related to the locals. How does land confiscations 100 kms away related to the murder? Do you even listen to yourself?

In Jerusalem, who are the Jerusalemites? The Israelis or Palestinians? Obviously a reader cannot tell. Here too, both Jews and Palestinians can be Susyans. Settleman (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources fror Susyans as settlers of Susya refer to them. I have sources using the term of Palestinians, and showed that this is based on a normal general naming principle. Secondly 'several' means 'more than two' in my native language. The source says 2, hence it is a nuanced and pointy misrepresentation of the original reference to 2 years.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a rather insignificant dispute. If someone writes "Palestinians from Susya" instead of Susyans, I don't think anyone would mind. You can just make the change if it bothers you. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

last one

• "According to David Shulman, Ta'ayush activist^[1]..."

Dear group, have you any arguments excusing your revert of so clear fact? --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commonsense. David Dean Shulman is (a)one of the leading Indologists in the world. We don't mention that; he is a pacifist, we don't mention that; he is a human rights activist (not only for the Southern Hebron Hills people), we don't qualify him thus; he belongs also to Ta'ayush, we don't mention that; he is a Guggenheim fellowship holder, we don't mention that; he is an award-winning author, we don't mention that; he is a poet, we don't mention that; he is a member of the American Philosophical Society, we don't mention that . . . etc.etc.etc. You are attempting to reduce a man of great distinction to just one standard 'activist' profile, and it is very pointy.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the "Indologists, poet", etc. to other aricles. We're talking about Susya's case here.

And the commonsense says that we have to mention his involvement in it as Ta'ayush activist. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense says you've completely missed the point Nishidani made. Wilfully, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The silly habit of using 'activist' as a descriptor of anyone in the world who works actively to assist, help Palestinians, while abstaining from using it for virtually anyone else who works actively to assist and help Israel's cause, is something that ought to be dropped. Dore Gold is an activist, so are numerous lobbyists, journalists etc. It is not a descriptor I object to, after all, to be active in assisting someone in a plight is meritorious, though the way it is used unilaterally of people helping Palestinians suggests it conveys, to those who use it, the nuance of 'ratbag'.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "while abstaining from using it for virtually anyone else who works actively to assist and help Israel's cause" ??

Wiki is full of such "Pro-Israel" definitions:

• "journalist, actress, entrepreneur and a Pro-Israel activist"

Nobody of distinction, and mainly professionally engaged in pro-Israeli causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 September 2015

• "In 2004, a pro-Israel activist organization, the David Project, produced a film"

nothing to do with George Saliba, who was attacked by an activist organization. So what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 September 2015

• "Pro-Israel "activist" Stephen Flatow, writing in the Algemeiner Journal in 2014"

Stephen Flatow is not desacribed on his page as an activist, but called thus in inverted commas, an "activist" on the Death of Binyamin Meisner page by some editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 September 2015

• "a Christian pro-Israel activist, and a foreign policy analyst"

Jonathan Calt Harris is a rather nondescript activist, professionally, for AIPAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 September 2015

• "According to one pro-Israel activist, Benny Katz of the Zionist Freedom Alliance (ZFA)"

Suda headgear?!!! You've got to be joking again. Some editor called Benny Katz an activist. Well, he is an activist by profession, but a source there doesn’t say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 September 2015

• ...

So it's unclear why are you so shy to specify such Shulman's activism. Or you're worried that here is a conflict of interest? --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link them and I will reply in detail. The point you missed is that I stated I am generally against using 'activist' as a descriptor, and that applies to all sides, unless it is a distinguishing feature of one's life. Shulman spends, overwhelmingly, more of his time in southern India and at academic forums, conferences and in lecturing than he does in the South Hebron Hills. Secondly, he is the author of a major descriptive work on that area and the way it works, in a book regarded by several reviewers as one of the best works of 2007, issued under academic imprint. That means he is far better introduced as 'academic' or 'academic and Gandhian pacifist' than as a member of Ta'ayush. It is no more relevant using activist of him than it would of Ron Prosor, Dore Gold, Michael Oren, Dani Dayan (a settler 'advocate' not an 'activist' nota bene), Naftali Bennett, Menachem Froman, Moshe Levinger, Dov Lior, Yitzchak Ginsburgh, Yitzhak Shapira, Meir Kahane, and hundreds of others who actively advocate, promote funding, using their political influence to secure more settlements etc. Even a violent extremist like Baruch Marzel is described, not in the outset, but at the end of the lead, as an activist by attribution. The list could be multiplied indefinitely, and only shows the pointlessness of stereotyping with dubious labels. Ezra Nawi is, without objection, an activist because it is the centre of his extra-curricular life, as is the case with many solidarity workers who go to Palestine and protest for the period of their stay. Though there is no clear wiki distinction, one cannot just go about pushing 'activist' on anyone you think has a partisan support or rejection of settlements. Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I was touched by your comparisons. :)

Let's be more simple and take it from his author page:

• "David Shulman is the Renee Lang Professor of Humanistic Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an activist in Ta’ayush..."

++ I've added links to "pro-Israeli examples" (noting that in another case, you did not). --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows that you cannot write :

• Mr X, a very bad guy, says that...
• Mr Y, a recknowned scholar, comments that...

The use of epithets is possible but must be done with care and only to give more information without reducing the weight of the argumentation that would follow.

(Could you please tell us how old you are ? That's a real question.) Pluto2012 (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igorp. Please stop wasting editors' time. I have replied to the 'examples' you gave, marginal figures or figures or organizations called 'activist' by Wikipedia editors without sourcing. I won't reply further on this garbled pettifogging, though you are welcome to keep posting of course.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, next time pls distinguish your replies from original text. This is what I had to do now instead of you.

I'll check them later after my return to Internet ~ 16-17.09. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igorp_lj I accepted Huldra's argument that we don't to title an object if there is a link to the article. If we did, Ta'ayush activist is most defiantly the right description since the book most quoted here, Dark Hope, used to be called "Dark Hope: Journal of a Ta'ayush Activist" so it is more relevant then his other scholarly activities. All articles in which I changed his description (which were swiftly reverted) were related to his volunteer work and not his academics. Settleman (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok & let's see... --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]