Talk:Israeli settlement

Haaretz article: "Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie."

Haaretz - Yotam Berger - Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie, 28 July 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZScarpia (talk • contribs)

Security isn't a "pretext"

Under 4.2 Settlement Policy, the article reads "The government abrogated the prohibition from purchasing occupied land by Israelis; the "Drobles Plan", a plan for large-scale settlement in the West Bank meant to prevent a Palestinian state under the pretext of security became the framework for its policy."

The dictionary definition of pretext is something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse.

The provided citation doesn't support the copy in the wiki article. The document doesn't say that security was a pretext. The document says security is one of several reasons to develop the settlements. The cited article reads, "The following are the principles which guided the plan: 1. Settlement throughout the entire Land of Israel is for security and by right, A strip of settlements at strategic sites enhances both internal and external security alike, as well as making concrete and realizing our right to Eretz Israel..."

So the article isn't even denying that it assumes that the Israelis have some sort of biblical or historical right to Israel, BUT it also argues that the settlements would improve security.

There is also the matter that the same section of this article implies that these cited documents were written by representatives of the Israeli government; they were not, they were written by departments of the World Zionist Organization which is an NGO and not directed by the Israeli government. It was essentially written by a think tank advocating a certain perspective but the article casts it as from the central government planning office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.105.157 (talk)

colonies as an alt name

"Israeli colonies" is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory. And it is simply untrue that it is only used by Palestinian sources (eg here), and when exactly did we disregard sources by ethnicity? Are Jewish Israeli sources banned here or did I miss a memo? nableezy - 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The only question about the use of colonies as a descriptor is the frequency, is it frequently, widely, often, sometimes, rarely used? My instinct is sometimes (perhaps more so academically due to it being a synonym), let's see if we can firm that up. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Abu-Laban, Yasmine; Bakan, Abigail B. (2019). Israel, Palestine and the Politics of Race: Exploring Identity and Power in a Global Context. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83860-879-8. The ongoing occupation has been heavily shaped by the issues of land confiscation and the building of Israeli Jewish settlements (or what Palestinians often refer to less euphemistically as "colonies").

  That it is often referred to as colonies by one of the involved parties is sufficient for inclusion as a significant alternative title. nableezy - 22:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See our French Wikipedia article Colonies israéliennes. That is the common name in French. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure if that matters a lot but Polish main stream media uses term “colonies" ( kolonie, kolonii etc. in Polish) while referring to Israeli settlements. -->[1], [2] including liberal dayly Gazeta Wyborcza --> [3] quote --> Najbardziej jednak palestyńskie oczy kłują położone nieopodal izraelskie kolonie = However, it is the Israeli colonies located nearby that prick the Palestinian eyes the most. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

All names in other Wikipedia is pretty much irrelevant we english wikipedia. The term colony in English language is rarely used toward Israeli settlements as we don't use Israeli POV like "communities in Judea and Samaria" the usage of such term is clear violation of NPOV --Shrike (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

When you say 'in English language' (meaning, I guess, 'in English sources) you probably meant to state 'in English-language newspapers'. In English-language academic sources, many written by Israeli scholars, the term 'colony' as in 'colonial-settler' (state) is quite common, in keeping with the fact that historically Zionism conceived of itself as a colonial project (Jewish Colonisation Association etc.etc.etc). The word 'settlement' is an Israeli/US euphemism born of the necessity to camouflage or underplay the fact that the old ideology is still kicking (out Palestinians) for lebensraum. Other languages are not subject to the same pressures as are English mainstream sources, esp.in countries which are still mindful of their own colonial past. Euphemization is not 'neutral'.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify when you say "lebensraum" what do you mean? Shrike (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean what Arnold Toynbee meant by the term when he applied it to Zionism. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't make it clear you sent me disambiguation page Shrike (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The claim that the term "colony" is rarely used is bogus and based on nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. We have provided numerous sources both using the term, in English, and defining it. Likewise, the claim that including a significant POV "is [a] clear violation of NPOV" fails the most basic reading of NPOV. Finally, we do not use "colony" in our narrative voice, we say that it is a significant alternative name. Take a look at West Bank and see very prominently displayed that Israel refers to it as Judea and Samaria, making that just the latest in completely bogus arguments that fail even the most trivial examination. nableezy - 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The article for the West Bank says Israel administers it as "the Judea and Samaria area". It does not say "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", as here settlements and colonies are put forward as equivalent names. The analogous description would be to note that the settlements are considered by persons/organizations XYZ to be colonies.

Regarding how rarely it is used, this has an objective answer. See the relevant Google Ngram search. Use of "settlement" is ~73x more common than "colony" -- i.e. if one of the two is used, there's a ~99% chance it's "settlement".

For contrast, "West Bank" is only used ~12x more than "Judea and Samaria", and if one of the two is used, the probability that it will be "West Bank" is only 93%. By your logic then, it would be reasonable to rewrite the article for the West Bank to read, "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria". Peaux (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Colony is anyway a synonym. When we write Settler colonialism or Zionism as settler colonialism, the idea of colony is implicit eg Massad, Joseph (2006). "Post Colonial Colony: time, space and bodies in Palestine/Israel". The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. Routledge. ISBN 9780203965351. (notice this example does not say "Israeli colony" as used in your Ngram and nor do two of the 4 cites given in the lead, it is a very specific usage, I would think colony used in the Israel Palestine context in general is more common) That there exist some Arab settlers is exceptional but you have asked below for that to be covered and it has been done. WP:WESTBANK covers usage of Judea and Samaria so that argument is not relevant here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, colony may be used without "Israeli" when context is clear, but the same is true for "settlement". I see no reason to suggest that the ratio of unqualified "colony" to unqualified "settlement" in context is any different from the ratio of "Israeli colony" to "Israeli settlement". I've provided evidence that "settlement" is by far the more common term; you "would think" that it is not, based on no additional evidence.

In Zionism as settler colonialism, it is clear that it is one paradigm of multiple/many, not some sort of general truth. Use of "Israeli colony" as equivalent to "Israeli settlement" in this article unduly elevates the status of this one paradigm. And insofar as this paradigm is primarily associated with a particular partisan/activist camp, it seems a violation of NPOV to be taking it as given. Similarly, in Settler colonialism, it is clear that Israel being settler-colonial is the viewpoint of some academics and activists; it does not claim to be objective truth.

Whether the words are synonyms is irrelevant. (I disagree that they are, but even if they were.) Presumably you wouldn't use that argument to change Ash Wednesday to read "Ash Wednesday, or Ash Hump Day", even though the words are synonymous. The name of the holiday is "Ash Wednesday", so that's how it's referred to on Wikipedia. For a better-in-some-ways-worse-in-others example, Itô's lemma is not referred to as Itô's theorem, even though a lemma is a type of theorem. That's just not what it's called. Or the guy's name -- it would be just as accurate, if not moreso, to call him Itō, using the standard Japanese romanization scheme of today, but we use Itô instead, because that's what he used and what the literature uses.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "two of the 4 cities given in the lead".

Finally, the naming conventions for West Bank seem to support my point, not yours. Usage of unqualified "Judea and Samaria" is rightfully considered a violation of NPOV, as it's only used to refer to the West Bank by partisans. Similarly, the settlements are referred to as colonies only by partisans on the other side. Therefore the end result should be the same, that articles should not be using "Israeli colonies" without qualification to refer to the settlements, as this article does. Peaux (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• cites. I have nothing more to add to the discussion above.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"Israeli" is not the only adjective: "Zionist" and "Jewish" are also extant prefixing terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I'm not sure what you mean by "cites". If you're asking for citations, I've given Ngrams, which is a more relevant data point than any number of examples of one usage or another -- data not being the plural of anecdote, as the saying goes.

Iskandar, thank you for the comment. Here is a more complete Ngram. In 2019, 6.0% of all references to any of the six bigrams in question used "colony" in, while the other 94% used "settlement". Notably, "Israeli colony" makes up only 0.3% of the total, the least common bigram of all six.

That said, I think it's a mistake to include "Jewish", since it's impossible to differentiate in the data between Jewish settlements/colonies in Palestine and those elsewhere; e.g. Jewish agricultural colonies in New Jersey or Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire (while neither of those include the particular bigram in question, it's reasonable to think it might turn up in those discussions). As far as I can tell, there seem to be fewer references to Jewish settlements that aren't in reference to Israel (even though I can imagine they might come up in work on history), but to be conservative, I'll exclude those too. Then, the new Ngram. Here, "Israeli settlements" is by far the most common, making up 95.9% of the total. Both "colony" bigrams make up 1.6%, and just "Israeli colony", which in this thread has been put forward as a commonly-used NPOV synonym for "Israeli settlements", makes up only 0.6% of the total.

Even restricting ourselves to "Zionist", which is much more common in partisan usage relative to NPOV speakers, "settlement" is used a large majority of the time, 72% to 28%.

Any way you slice this data, it is much more common to refer to them as settlements than colonies, and the phrase "Israeli colonies" specifically is one of the least common ways to refer to the settlements.

Even the UNRWA, viewed by many to be a party biased towards the Palestinian narrative of the conflict, doesn't refer to the settlements as colonies except, apparently, in a single document, once. HRW also uses "settlements" and not "colonies". The AP, Reuters, BBC, &c. use "settlements", not "colonies". Happy to provide citations for any of those.

Even the UN as a whole, which many allege to be systemically biased against Israel, seems to use "settlements" much more often than "colonies" (in English). I can't share the search link, but using their Official Document System, I get 500(+?) hits for "Israeli settlements" (full-text search, English, "find this phrase") and only 33 for "Israeli colonies" (in the same box with the same settings). That's, at most, 6.2%. For a similar heuristic, see International law and Israeli settlements, where there are no usages of colony/colonial/colonize/&c. outside of quotes/references, and no uses of "colony" or "colonies" at all. Contrast the 204 uses of "settlement(s)" in the same article.

So, all in all, I find no evidence in favor of the claim that "Israeli colonies" is a commonly-used synonym for "Israeli settlements". Even if I accept the argument that it's non-partisan when it is used (which I don't, but it's very difficult to quantify that, at least on mobile and/or in my free time), I see no justification for it to be used as a synonym in the article. With all that plus the NPOV concerns, I maintain it should be struck. Peaux (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just reread, I see what you meant by "cites". Peaux (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Id just as soon remove "Israeli" and just say also known as colonies. They are commonly referred to as colonies by itself. nableezy - 00:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Not from what is perceived to be a NPOV in the English language, as I have shown. Peaux (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That isnt what ALTNAMEs are based on, see WP:ALTNAME. We are supposed to include all significant POVs, and the POV of the Palestinians that these are colonies is significant. nableezy - 06:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Then the lede of West Bank should read "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", in order to include all significant POVs. Instead, it has been (rightly) decided that that was not NPOV, and so it was moved to a later sentence describing that some refer to is as such and such. We're going in circles here. Peaux (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

WB has nothing to do with this discussion, that circle can be closed. Selfstudier (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I bring it up as useful precedent. The cases are similar, so it seems reasonable to adopt the same conclusion -- especially because those guidelines were developed as a result of arbitration. Peaux (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a precedent. Selfstudier (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You have made no argument in favor of that claim, instead simply asserting that

• "WP:WESTBANK covers usage of Judea and Samaria so that argument is not relevant here",
• "WB has nothing to do with this discussion", and
• "It isn't a precedent."

It is a case where one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refers to something one way, and the other another. It went to arbitration, where it was decided to use the most common term, and to restrict usage of the partisan term "Judea and Samaria" to specific uses. Here, we have another case where one side of the conflict refers to something one way, and the other another. It seems common-sense to adopt the same remedy -- i.e. use the most common term, and restrict usage of the partisan term to specific uses. Peaux (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to make an argument, WP:WESTBANK is the argument. Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Then you're saying nothing. I don't understand what you're trying to say, so it is pointless for you to keep bringing the same point up if you refuse to clarify what you mean by it. Peaux (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to clarify WP:WESTBANK and I still have no idea why you are bringing it up. Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I have detailed exactly why I am bringing it up, multiple times. You have made no argument as to why you claim it is incorrect to do so. Peaux (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Because I don't need to, WB has nothing to do with Israeli colonies. Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, re Selfstudier's point above about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead"), sure, but we're specifically talking about what the name of these things is -- it doesn't matter what they actually are or what they are considered to be, only what they're called. Maybe "Israeli colonies" is more accurate, but if they aren't referred to by that name, then the article shouldn't claim the contrary. Peaux (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Another data point: 18,300 hits versus 471 on Google Scholar (2.5%). Peaux (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The exact weighting is rather besides the point. Both terms exist and have scholarly usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Then why should we include "Israeli colonies" and exclude "Jewish settlements", "Jewish colonies", "Zionist settlements", and "Zionist colonies", all of which are used more frequently than "Israeli colonies"? Also, I wouldn't consider ~500 papers to be much in the way of "scholarly usage". Peaux (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is missing the point. Of course it is not as commonly used as Israeli settlement, which is why the article is titled Israeli settlement. If it were as commonly used than we would be arguing that the title be changed. ALTNAMEs is about including significant alternate names, not about supposedly neutral ones. nableezy - 06:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead") that's not what I said, I said that 2 of the 4 cites use "colony" alone although it is clear from the context that they are referring to Israeli settlements. One says "Jewish settlements (colonies)" and the other that they are known (less euphemistically) to Palestinians as colonies. Settler colonialism in an Israeli/Palestinian context is a separate but related point "Many scholars have also conducted monograph length research that expands the spaces studied under the moniker "settler colony" to include Israeli settlements in the West bank". Taken together, I think this results in Israeli colonies (or just colonies) constituting a valid alternative name and I do not support that being removed from the intro. Selfstudier (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. "Jewish settlements (colonies)" is not the same thing as "Jewish colonies". You could describe me as "Peaux (John's son)", but that does not mean that "Peaux Johnson" is a valid alternate name for me -- no one calls me that, because it isn't my name. A descriptor is not the same as a name. You have given plenty of evidence that there is scholarship that considers the settlements to be colonies, the Zionist project to be a settler-colonial one, &c. We already knew that. What is under dispute is whether "Israeli colony" is a commonly-used name for the Israeli settlements. On this point you have provided no evidence, and I have provided plenty against. Of course, the fact that they are considered as such should be mentioned in the article, but not as an alternate name. Peaux (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we wait and see what other editors might want to say, at the moment you have not consensus for your view. Selfstudier (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there going to be any other editors? It seems to just be the four of us who care about this. Peaux (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a well watched article, people may chip in. If they do not, one might assume they are content with the status quo. Selfstudier (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If you lived in a society where that was still the naming convention, then yes, you absolutely would be 'Peaux Johnson', just like how if you were in Russia you would be Peaux Ivanovich. But more importantly, you seems to be getting confused between proper names and descriptions. Here, everything is descriptive, i.e.: both "Jewish settlements" and "Jewish colonies" in your example. Neither of these terms are proper names; both are in the same category of descriptive phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

And if this were French Wikipedia, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, as they would be uncontroversially referred to as colonies. But we're on English Wikipedia, and I don't live in a society that uses patronymics. Regarding "names" versus descriptions, I see nothing in MOS:ALTNAME that suggests this is the case: "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." This seems to fit none of those cases, nor does it seems similar. In WP:POVNAMING: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." As I have shown in this discussion, this alternate name is not widely used in English sources. It continues, "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue"; the use of "Israeli colonies" clearly suggests a particular viewpoint. It takes the view that they are colonies as given, rather than as a subject of debate (in violation of WP:IMPARTIAL). Hence my proposed remedy of describing the claim as in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV rather than putting it forward as NPOV, which it is not. Peaux (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

But it is widely used, objectively, i.e.: in hundreds of scholarly sources. So yes: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." You said it yourself. The text you are quoting points out that just because a term may be 'biased', or in your opinion POV, does not rule against it. NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds is not "widely" when the sample space is tens of thousands. There are 28 million Christians in India -- by any measure, a lot -- and yet it would be wholly inaccurate to refer to India as a largely Christian country, just because there are a lot of them. They are a very small proportion of the population.

You are using "objectively" and "subjectively" incorrectly. Both absolute and proportional metrics are objective measures. Neither are subjective.

So yes, if "Israeli colonies" were the most common name for the settlements, even if some believed it to be biased or partisan, then that policy says we should use it. But it isn't widely used, so the "even though" clause is irrelevant. Peaux (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course you may edit as you see fit but I would be interested to know why it is that you have such an interest in this issue? About a fifth of your total 94 edits are now here. (btw, canvassing other editors as you did here is not the done thing.) Selfstudier (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't. It just appears that way because this is the first issue I've had with an article that I haven't been able to fix myself, so I had to step into the talk page to join what is now clearly, let's say, a spirited discussion.

And yeah, I wasn't sure about that. It felt like there were only the same few voices here, so I wasn't sure if anyone else would see this (as I mentioned earlier). What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion? I see various options, but I don't know in what situations exactly those are used. Peaux (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion? As I said, given that this is a well watched page (378 page watchers), it is reasonable to assume they are not that interested or at any rate, not interested enough to want to participate.

You could post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration but tbh, I think your time might be better spent racking up the necessary 500 edits that would allow you to participate constructively in this topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are simply juggling dubious analogies and shifting goalposts at this point. No one is claiming it is the most common name, not have they done. It is an alternative name, this is all. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I wrote incorrectly. I'll restate.

Yes, if "Israeli colonies" were a common name for the settlements, even if some believed it to be biased or partisan, then that policy suggests we should use it. But it isn't widely used, so the "even though" clause is irrelevant.

Regarding your comment that "NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources": I have no problem noting that such and such people/organizations/movements/whatever believe that the settlement project should be considered a colonial one, or that the settlements should be called colonies, or however you want to put it. That is an accurate reflection of reality. Using "Israeli colonies" as an alternate name is not. Peaux (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: You very much did not participate in this discussion, let alone achieve any consensus for this removal - what exactly do you think you are up to? You need to look (at talk) before you leap, and an outcome here was not concluded. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Risible edit, though I modified it to just also known as colonies per the cited sources. The sources are clear they are almost exclusively Jewish, and the pretending that oh Israel is a state of all its citizens and all of them can live in the villages of Judea and Samaria is just that. So is the change on recognition of the Golan on being Syrian territory. nableezy - 16:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

place Template:lead too long at top. Mach61 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli settlements map should be updated

under the 37th governments of Israel there has been a dramatic increase in settlements and legalization of outposts https://peacenow.org.il/en/%D9%8Dsettlements-map-2023 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

An article was recently published with significant new arguments relevant to this topic. I suggest changing the following sentence: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." to read "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] and others[136] have disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." The reference that I have labeled [136] is to the following article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israeli-settlements-are-not-illegal Israelgale (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline. An opinion piece in Tablet (such a neutral source) is presenting new arguments? There are no new arguments, just endlessly recycled old arguments (by Kontorovich, among others). Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Change (update) the 2020 OCHA West Bank settlements map (the first image visible on the page) to the 2023 version.

It is available here: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 Jefeljefe (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Melmann 08:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Boilerplate "illegal" comment on every settlement article in Wikipedia

After reviewing some recent protection requests, I noticed that every settlement article in Wikipedia appears to use the same boilerplate paragraph in the lede with regards to the international community's views on settlements and Israel's stance. Certainly this topic should be covered in this article, but it seems a bit heavy handed to stamp it on every individual settlement article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That came as a result of WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. As far as heavy handed, its often the most noteworthy thing about any of these settlements, and sources such as the BBC have a policy of including such a statement every time a settlement is even mentioned. nableezy - 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

To support Nab on this, it is only one sentence and without this convention many articles on settlements would have a much larger section on the illegality. The illegality is a notable feature of every settlement so to have some mention in every such article is reasonable. Our convention actually reduces the total. Zero^talk 00:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)