Talk:Efrat (Israeli settlement)

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

Name[edit]

This page should be joined with Efrat, as they are both referring to the same place. 129.98.196.159

The conventional reference to this community is "Efrat." Perhaps we can make that the standard internal ereference within the article? Tewfik 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this back to Efrat, as that is what its referred to on Hebrew Wikipedia, with the official name of Efrata noted. The former is the name which the municipality identifies itself with on its website (despite the URL, which like the roadsigns, is imposed by the national government). Additionally, there are 882,000 Google hits for Efrat, and only 96,600 for Efrata, not that that is really relevant. 129.98.194.133 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status under international law[edit]

Ynhockey, you removed a section in the body and a line in the lead on the illegality of this settlement under international law on the basis that it was "undue". Could you please explain? A consensus was established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements that said, in part, that articles with multiple sections, if they contain a section on the legality in the body, should also contain a sentence in the lead. You removed the section in the body without any basis at all. Keep in mind that similar editing has brought other users extended topic bans. Please self-revert your edit in a timely fashion as it is made against an established consensus. nableezy - 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's if they contain a section on the legality in the body. Seeing as how you added the section, which should not be there in the first place, there is no problem to remove it. Moreover, if you continue threatening other editors on Wikipedia with bans, you will be reported. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is if. That if does not entitle you to remove a section so that you can remove the sentence from the lead. What is your justification for completely removing a well-sourced section? You cite WP:UNDUE. What position was not given its due weight in that section. But that aside, how exactly can you claim that such a section should not be included. I am not "threatening" you, but please feel free to report me. I am informing you that similar biased, and baseless, editing by other users has resulted in topic bans. I'll quote a line from the close of the discussion on the inclusion of such material: there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct. Your above comment on such a section not being included pretty clearly puts in you in "the body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted". You are entitled to feel that way, you are not however entitled to edit in such a manner. Absent actual evidence that WP:UNDUE justifies the wholesale removal of a well-sourced section on the illegality of this settlement under international law I will be restoring it. nableezy - 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ynhockey regarding the UNDUE nature of the overemphasis on the claimed illegality. Just going around to add the claimed illegal nature of the entities without adding anything else of substantive is the classic sign of a pov-pusher. If this continues it should be brought up to AE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't a "classic sign of a pov-pusher". AE is for reporting violations of the discretionary sanctions rather than reporting people for implementing policy and an established consensus. I think there are a bunch of articles about settlements in the West Bank in the Religious Israeli settlements category where the legality information hasn't been added yet. Editors should be able to add the information to those without being accused of anything apart from helping to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and established consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"classic sign of a pov-pusher" in a comment that contains the following: "the claimed illegality", "the claimed illegal nature of the entities". That was just funny. nableezy - 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two people have now claimed that UNDUE allows for the removal of a section on the legal status of this colony. What in UNDUE supports this position? A simple statement that it just does is not a valid statement. I would rather not take this to AE, but, if you all have not noticed, I am not exactly shy and will do so if there continues to be such disruptive actions that disregards the consensus established on this issue. nableezy - 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the section, as nobody has given any indication of showing how it violated UNDUE. If it is removed again, well, we'll see what happens. There is a clear consensus, in the WT link above, for the inclusion of this material. nableezy - 12:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, the burden of proof is on you why the section belongs, because you wanted to add it (it had not existed before your edits). Please show us why this section should be there, and a simple sentence is not enough. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. When discussing a controversial edit, it's generally good form to give other editors sufficient time to reply before making the edit. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:BURDEN? The burden for inclusion is having verifiable sources, that is more than met. But I will, strictly to appease you, expand on why such a section should be included. The status of Efrat, indeed all settlements, under international law is one of the most notable aspects. Many sources, when even just mentioning a settlement such as Efrat, will say that settlements are illegal. For example this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Im sure you know I can go on like this for a while. WP:UNDUE says the following: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. The determination of due weight is based on the prominence of views in relation to each other. It means that a section should not include only one view and disregard another prominent one. It does not mean that you can reduce a section on the basis that the topic it covers has too much "weight". And even if it did, it does not allow for the wholesale removal of a reliably sourced section on grounds that there is an "overemphasis on the claimed illegality" of the settlement. WP:UNDUE would allow you, if there where an actual issue here (there is not), to add additional material from the viewpoint of those that dispute that the settlement is illegal, so long as you do not give that viewpoint a disproportionate amount of weight compared to the super-majority view that the settlement is illegal. But that due weight was already there, the sentence in the lead said Israel disputes the judgment and the section in the body gave a more detailed explanation of Israel's objection. Finally, there is an additional reason for the inclusion of the material. A consensus was established that said that this material should be covered in articles. That consensus stipulated that multi-section articles with a section on legality should include the line in the lead. A new game is apparently being played in which to remove the line from the lead the section from the body is also removed. That is not amusing, and very obviously goes against the consensus established in a months-long discussion. If you, or brewcrewer, do not like the fact that such a consensus was established you are free to attempt to establish a new one. However, you are not free to disregard what is the current consensus. Regarding your P.S, this is not a "controversial" edit. This is an edit that has the backing of an explicit consensus. You can also blame your pal's spurious removal of the NPOV tag for the restoration of the section. Yall dont get to violate NPOV and also remove a tag alerting others to the issue. nableezy - 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One last point. The close of the discussion that established the consensus for the inclusion of this material reads as follows:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

This article is a "multi section article" and thus the single sentence belongs in the lead and it should be expanded upon in the body. The linked to discussion very clearly establishes a consensus for the inclusion of this line in the lead of this article and for the expansion of that material in the body. I await an actual reason as to why either UNDUE prohibits the inclusion of the section in the body or why the very clear close of that discussion does not apply here. nableezy - 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following changes should be made for completeness and balance:

  • In the sentence "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Efrat is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this," the word "considered" should be replaced by "widely considered", since Israel does not consider them illegal and the United States policy on their legality has varied with different administrations.
  • In "Israel disputes that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Palestinian territories", replace "Palestinian Territories" with "West Bank" so as not to prejudge the resolution of a political dispute (and change "them" to "it" accordingly).
  • Change the description of Israel's rationale from "as they had not been legally held by a sovereign prior to Israel taking control of them" to the following more complete description of Israel's rationale:

for the following reasons:

* The Fourth Geneva Convention was intended to prohibit forcible deportations and mass transfers of peoples, like those perpetrated by Nazi Germany during World War II, not to restrict the voluntary decisions of individuals to move into occupied territories.[1][2]

* In any event, the West Bank had not been legally held by a sovereign prior to Israel taking control of it, so it should be considered disputed territory rather than occupied territory.[3][4]

  • In "This view has been rejected by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.[5]," change "by the International Court of Justice" to "in an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice", move the reference to just after "International Court of Justice" (since the citation does not refer to the Red Cross), and add [citation needed] after "International Committee of the Red Cross".

Nhcohen (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Baker, Alan (5 January 2011). "The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
  2. ^ publisher=Commentary title=The Illegal-Settlements Myth date=December 2009 https://www.commentary.org/articles/david-phillips/the-illegal-settlements-myth/ publisher=Commentary title=The Illegal-Settlements Myth date=December 2009. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help)
  3. ^ "The Geneva Convention". BBC News. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
  4. ^ "Israel announces plans for 1,400 new settlement homes". BBC. 10 January 2014. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this...Israel's housing ministry issued tenders for the construction of 801 housing units in West Bank settlements, including Efrat, Elkana and Emanuel, and 600 in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem.
  5. ^ "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 9 July 2004. pp. 44–45. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 July 2010. Retrieved August 24, 2011.

Palestinian land claims[edit]

Both sides of the story should be presented. Add the following at the end of the section:

According to CAMERA, Efrat was built on state land and some private Jewish land, following a thorough review of land registries during Ottoman, British, and Jordanian control of the territory, which determined that there was no private Palestinian land in the area.[1]

Nhcohen (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Adam Levick (July 25, 2021). "Guardian Falsely Suggests Efrat Was Built on Palestinian Land". CAMERA.

Photos[edit]

Why the removal of the photos: "PikiWiki Israel 6078 Efrat settlement.JPG", "View of Efrat from the highway (Efrat137 3773.JPG)" and "Roman aqueduct from Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem.jpg"? And 3 photos replaced by what? A hazy photo of an empty highway with a road sign, light poles and some snow with "beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance. --@Efrat (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry that you don't like my choice of photos. If you look at how it was before, you'll see that I only replaced one “"beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance” by another “"beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance”, but one which has the advantage of showing the “road sign” reading 'Efratah' as mentioned in the article. I first put the "View of Efrat from the highway (Efrat137 3773.JPG)"- picture in the infobox, but then discovered the one with the snow. (Yes, I like snow.) One picture of the town is imo enough, it's not Paris, New York or even Tel Aviv, and I removed the "Roman aqueduct from Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem.jpg"-picture because 1, there is really no room for more than one picture, and 2, it dosn't say what the photo has to do with Efrat. But let's not fight about it, I'm perfectly happy with a different choice. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like snow, too, but you must agree that the quality of the picture is poor mainly because of the contrast. It is fine for giving a feeling of a bleak winter day, but this is not an article about weather. LOL. I do, however, have a much more serious problem with the photo from an editorial point of view. Focusing on the center of Te'ena Hill (a very small part of Efrat) with the huge antennas kind of gives the feel of an armed military camp. Efrat is a sleepy bedroom community (commuter town) though I know that many consider all towns in Judea and Samaria to be military camps. There is already text to satisfy that point of view. Do we also need a photo to clobber people over the head with that point? Especially since the photo focuses on one small part of the town to make such point. It borders on deceptive propaganda.
Efrat is about 5 km long. The photo "Efrat137 3773.JPG (View of Efrat from the highway)" at least shows a truer nature of the town's size, stretching into the distance along the ridge. I wish I could find a photo from the road sign at a different angle to inlude both Te'ena Hill and the rest of Efrat all at once. (As for the snow, Efrat only gets it once every few years for a day or two, so its really not indicative of its true nature, just an rare oddity.) I am fairly certain that some of the residents of the town will change the picture soon. Time will tell. --@Efrat (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:Efrat137 3773.JPG is better too. I wouldn't worry about the huge antennas though in the other picture. They don't say "military camp" to me, more like "inconvenient topography". Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not because I'm afraid of “some of the residents of the town”, but agreeing that the snowy picture of (part of) Efrata “borders on deceptive propaganda”, although not in the sense @Efrat meant it, I replaced the picture with the one you two prefer. And if anybody can give a referenced reason why the Roman aqueduct-picture belongs to Efrat, please add it, now that there is room for it, but I don't see any indication, that the picture was taken where Efrat stands today (s. here). Ajnem (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2020[edit]

TEXT TO CHANGE: The second paragraph of the introduction states, "Considered the capital of Gush Etzion,[6] it had a population of 10,088 in 2018. Although geographically located within Gush Etzion, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council, and Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."

CHANGE TO: "Efrat it had a population of 11,800 in the start of 2020[1] and is geographically located within the Gush Etzion Block. However, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council and is defined as a Local Authority with its own independent municipal status and jurisdiction.[2] The Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."

[1] "Statistical Data of Efrat" (Hebrew), National Insurance Institute of Israel. [2] "Table I/2 - Area of Jurisdiction, Municipal Status and Geographic Location in Jerusalem, Cities with Population Greater than 200,000 and Jerusalem's Surrounding Local Authorities, 2008," Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research.


XXXX REASONING XXXX While the current reference stating that Efrat is "considered the capital of Gush Etzion" is an article in the NYT from March, 2015, there is NO ONE in Efrat or Gush Etzion who considers Efrat part of Gush Etzion in any way! The municipalities, local elections, schools, libraries, sports centers, municipal departments etc. are entirely separate! Very few people in Israel would even consider Gush Etzion to have a a capital!! (I say this as a resident of Israel and a resident of Gush Etzion.) Sholhur (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "i live ther and this is my opinion" is not, unfortunately, recognized as a reliable source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Efrat" is the name for many things, including many people and at least one organization. The settlement is by no means the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and this page should be moved to make way for the disambiguation page to move to the base name. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efrat_(Israeli_settlement)&oldid=1196534163"