Talk:Yitzhar

stating the current situation between Yitzhar and surrounding arab villages isnt vandalism

I added stating that the relationship between yitzhar and surrounding arab villages are hostile, then my addition was marked as vandalism, so I protest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaramouchia (talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it seems that you are ignoring the comment I already made when I reverted a previous edit by an anon user. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rv

I reverted the edit by the LibiBamizrach account as its a blocked account that has been blocked because its either a sock and/or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for his actions with several accounts = abusing multiple accounts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arutz 7 as reliable source/Arson attacks

I don't think that Arutz 7 is considered a reliable source for this kind of news in the English WP, at least not if it is not supported by other sources. I have added "According to Arutz 7", to the sentence for the time being, but I suggest that those who want it to stay in the article, go looking for a more reliable source. Arson attacks on Yitzhar residents during Shabbat should make the Ynetnews and the Jerusalem Post, even if Haaretz doesn't report it, which normally they would. If nothing comes up, I'm going to remove the passage, if nobody else does. Ajnem (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Arutz 7 is of course the settlers' own news outlet. Of course it is not a reliable source for anything related to settlers. And, dear Tritomex, it has been on WP:RSN lots of times. Zero^talk 09:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Arutz 7 is not an the "outlet of the settlers" but a right wing Israeli media. I do not know any official Wiki position that Arutz 7 is unreliable. It has as much reliability as Maan agency or any other involved news agency or sources which are btw used in numerous articles. I do not see any difference with Arutz 7 nor I am aware about any decision to exclude Arutz 7.--Tritomex (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My reply in a similar situation copied from another talk page (links not all rechecked): Zero^talk 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

All of the following books from university presses identify Arutz Sheva as an operation of the settler movement. To use it as a source of fact on a subject which directly involves the settler movement is a clear no-no.

• "group of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories who were opposed to making peace with Palestinians in those territories launched an ideological competitor called Arutz Sheva" Amit Schejter (2009). Muting Israeli Democracy: How Media and Cultural Policy Undermine Free Expression (History of Communication). University of Illinois Press. p. 30.
• "associated with the right wing of the religious Zionist movement" Tamar el-Or and Haim Watzman (2002). Next Year I Will Know More: Literacy and Identity Among Young Orthodox Women in Israel. Wayne State University Press. p. 17.
• "religious-nationalist station, voicing the ideology and interests of the settlers in the occupied territories" Motti Regev and Edwin Seroussi (2004). Popular music and national culture in Israel. University of California Press. p. 37.
• "the settlers' radio station" Motti Inbari and Shaul Vardi (2009). Jewish fundamentalism and the Temple Mount: who will build the Third Temple?. State University of New York Press. p. 158.
• "settlers' radio station" Colin Shindler (2008). A history of modern Israel. Cambridge University Press. p. 262.

This association is so clear and undisputed that the content of Arutz Sheva could be used as a source on the settlers' opinion, if it is presented that way. However it absolutely cannot be cited as if it is a reliable third-party source. Zero^talk 05:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone but everyone knows Arutz Sheva is a settler mouthpiece. Here are just a few articles in Haaretz that describe it as such explicity, or even as "owned and run by settlers": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. And one from Ynet: [13]. And JPost [14] Zero^talk 14:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And adding more like that would be easy. But it isn't necessary. Zero^talk 10:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not deny that Arutz 7 is associated with right wing in Israel However, even if this would be correct, and Arutz 7 would be unreliable the balanced approach would demand that all medias associated with Fatah, Palestinian Authority, or with reputation for being Pro-Palestinian should be considered unreliable. While this is not the case, I do not see rational arguments for picking medias associated with one side in the conflict and declaring them unreliable, while medias with identical connection to other side of conflict are declared reliable.--Tritomex (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My my, as far as I know, the Israeli government is not yet quite on the same line with Arutz 7, as Tritomex suggests, but anyway, there is no need for arguing. If those who want the item in the article come up with another source, it stays, otherwise it goes. If there is anything to it, it has to be mentioned in other Israeli sources. Arson attacks on Shabbat against Jewish settlers by Palestinians - or rather Arabs, according to Arutz 7 - don't go unnoticed, even in settler-unfriendly papers, Ajnem (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, your equating of the right wing settler movement and the Palestinian National Authority (the recognized representative of the Palestinian people) gives us some insight into the limits of your personal understanding of these issues, but it doesn't have any relevance to the point under discussion: the unreliability in Wikipedia terms of the settler news network Arutz Sheva. Dlv999 (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nicely phrased, Dlv999. I rather liked my interpretation of Tritomex's stance, but you are probably right. But in earnest, personally I should like to know if there is anything to those arson attacks - and on Shabbat - or if the settlers are just making them up and spreading it. Ajnem (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The vagueness of the claims doesn't give much to work on. When I searched Haaretz around that time all I found was more stuff like "This week the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar near Nablus was again shown to be a powder keg that threatens to ignite the occupied territories. A video clip released Monday by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem shows a group of settlers, a few of them masked, shooting live ammunition and throwing stones at residents from the adjoining Palestinian village, Asira al-Qibliya, who responded with their own volley of rocks. A group of Israeli soldiers looked on at what was happening , but did not intervene to stop the ammunition fire, which injured a Palestinian villager, who was hospitalized." (May 23, 2012). Actually it would be easy to list several dozen incidence of violence committed by the settlers, even restricted to those reported by the mainstream media and third parties. That's why this settlement has such a bad reputation, no surprise for a place whose religious leaders teach that non-Jews aren't human. Zero^talk 13:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ajnem. (ec) It's rather more complex than that. I'd often noted there's a correlation in certain events and the time period, for certain settler activists. Settlers are not all people who observe the sabbath. Some settlements particularly, like Yitzhar or Esh Kodesh (despite its name), appear to use the Sabbath to indeed launch attacks on Palestinian fields.

• Tovar Lazaroff, 'Palestinian. settler violence caught on tap again,' at Jerusalem Post 29 May 2012
• Arson in the fields, attacks and confiscation of land in Jalud: the Price Tag near the Esh Kodesh outpost reads:

The violent, saddening incidents this past Saturday indicate again and again that the area around the Esh Kodesh outpost is explosive and prone to violence and destruction. However, as a result of one-sided media reporting, we hereby present the Palestinian version of the events in the village of Qusra, which has reached us: Last Saturday a group of settlers entered the Qusra village fields with malice aforethought, following days of attacks, violence and the beating of an old man and his six-year-old grandson in the nearby village of Jalud. The tension and costly damage caused by the settler attacks, along with the restrictions of the military occupation, prompted dozens of youths from the village to angrily descend on the settlers, whereupon stone-throwing occurred in both directions.

I.e. I know there's a lot of leverage to be got by framing disturbances ascribed to Palestinians as occurring on the Sabbath (often omitting context, esp. in notably biased news sources). The press however does not correlate known and filmed settler violence during Muslim fast breaks, Ramadan etc., in the same way. Suffice it anyway to replace in your search engine 'Shabbath' with Saturday (West Bank/village), and you get a very large volume of hits which, if opened, show some settler activists are quite active during this period. The specifics of the Yitzhar community's behaviour is well summed up in the following source which however is not RS.

• 'Settlers target Palestinian car in arson attack for the second time,' International Solidarity Movement January 31, 2010 ISM activists maintain a period presence in the area, particularly on Saturdays when the Jewish holiday of Shabbat gives rise to the most violent manifestations of settler harassment. Saturdays, the Jewish religious holiday of Shabbat, typically sees Yitzhar settlers roused to fever pitch zeal, wrecking havoc upon Palestinian villages unfortunate enough to live in its shadow.' ('roused to fever pitch' is silly, of course. These guys calculate their acts quite 'rationally'. Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of each sources related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be discusses at WP:RS and a non selective general decision about each sources should be made, if it is necessary through third party involvement. It is more than obvious that in each question related to this conflict, the same editors are appearing each time with same positions.--Tritomex (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A majority of editors disagree. So you undermine their judgement by insinuating they are a mechanical clique, and biased. (You aren't) cf. WP:AGF. Since this is an exceptional claim you should also see this. Aruttz Sheva is not such a source, and since Yitzhar activists are highly media canny (see links) and manipulate events, using a settler vehicle for an extraordinary settler claim, particulary from a community famous for its violence, is wholly unacceptable. Lastly, the burden of proof or convincing others atr RSN lies on you. In the meantime it must be reverted per several policies (WP:CONSENSUS, etc).Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A7 is not WP:RS for a fair description of an event or the reporting of an analysis.

I add that A7 may even not be notorious enough to report his mind : "According to A7, ...".

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just added the "According to Arutz 7" to prevent an imo useless edit-war until consensus is reached. And I dont' see any need for using the Arutz 7 piece, BBC [15], the Jerusalem Post [16][17] and probably others report it quite extensively, including the settler's stance, who claim that it's the Palestinians and always the Palastinians, which of course they dont't call Palestinians but (PA) Arabs, who start the trouble, and that they only respond in self defense [18]. As for the Shabbat, is there any information, why the settlers start arson and other attacks on Shabbat? Is it because that's when they have the time to do it, or is it to put the blame on the Palestinians, claiming that they, as observing Jews, wouldn't do such a thing? In any case, it's interesting, if correct, that the settlers, who claim to fulfill God's will, break the Shabbat to do it. The Torah has a death penalty on breaking the Shabbat. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That was not appropriate since there is no consensus to have the material at all. Actually there is a strong consensus against it. Also WP:ONUS tells us that material without consensus is out by default, not in by default. Zero^talk 09:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Just on cue, a new article in the premier Middle East journal: "Israel National News (Arutz Sheva), a radio station and website organized by and for the community of West Bank settlers and their supporters" (Lustik, Middle East Journal, vol. 67, no. 2, 2013, p188.) Such description should accompany any use of an opinion from there, if any. Zero^talk 09:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, I don't understand your above post and your deleting the passage in question, Zero0000. When I added the "According to Arutz 7" to mollify the passage inserted by another user, there was no consensus in any shape or form. As a matter of fact there was no discussion about it before I started it, but just a edit-war in the making. And there is no doubt that the settler's claim, that it's the Palestinians who start the riots/arson attacks has to be included, as reliable sources such as the Jerusalem Post and the BBC (see links above) report it in detail. Or do you not consider the BBC reliable enough? I suggest that you either rephrase the passage you deleted in the article or self revert yourself. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no citation to the BBC, nor to JPost, on the material I removed. Why do you mention them? Zero^talk 10:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Arutz 7, Yitzhar residents have reported dozens of arson attacks by Palestinians, primarily on Fridays and Saturdays when women and children are often at home while men are in synagogue.

We agree by a clear majority that Arutz Sheva is a settler outlet for settler views, and not RS.

The statement by Yitzhar residents is very odd given that large documentation exists that Yitzhar residents actively harass surrounding Palestinian villages, and create incidents in the fields, on the Sabbath.

• WP:ONUS reads:(a)'Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article..' (b)'However, do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or groups, and do not move it to the talk page.' (the reputation here is of the actual contemporary Palestinian villagers coping with this settlement's declared and programmatic endeavour, since it has local rabbinical sanction to drive them off their land).

On the overall state of the article: in the last section only four incidents are cited to illustrate affairs there, among the innumerable clashes that have occurred over the last decades. Three of them represent Palestinians as the lethal provocateurs, whereas sources note that settlement's reputation for (unprovoked but provocative) violence. This highlighting of the Yitzhar settlers as victims responding to violence as often as not is selective, and in no way represents the balance of maintream news reportage (one could easily create a list of events that overwhelm that impression by evidence to the contrary).

• Settlers torch car, assault villagers, at Ma’an News Agency 9 April 2011
• Yitzhar Settlers' West Bank Rampage Caught On Camera.Channel 10 aired footage on Sunday that showed West Bank settlers rampaging through a Palestinian village on the previous day.
• Haggai Matar WATCH: Settlers shoot Palestinian in head while soldiers stand by +972 (not RS though) 20 May 2012 (the incident occurred 16:30 Saturday (before the star-rising that ends Shabbat).
• 'Yitzhar settlers burn crops, shoot and injure a Palestinian in the presence of Israeli soldiers who fail to stop them,' 27 May, 2012 Saturday, midday.
• Yitzhar settlers are here feeding a settler partisan source to put over a generalization for the benefit of the larger orthodox settler community, evidently, and it happens to be counter-intuitive. As I said above per policy Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The edit fails all these criteria.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, while you guys are spending your time preaching to the preached, I made some changes in the article. Next comes the issue you are getting heated up about, which is documented by B'Tselem, the BBC, the Jerusalem Post and what not, and that's how it's going to be presented in the article as per NPOV. I hope you like my corrections, update and additions. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

References

content

Very little of the article is about the settlement itself and much of the material seems to not be relevant to a geographical article. Drsruli (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)