Talk:Susya/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

An indication of how difficult it is to get stuff right

'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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

SWP

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More mess-ups

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)

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

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

'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)

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)

:::::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)

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

::::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)

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)

:::::: 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)

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)

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)

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)

:::::::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)

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)

:::Nishidani Watch for NPA.

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

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

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)

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)

:::: 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)

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) :::::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)

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)

@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)

(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)

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

• "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)

@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)

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)

:::::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)

• 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)

:::::(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)

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)

::::::::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) 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)

:::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)

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)

:::::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)

Reverts of three edits

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)

:@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)

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)

::: 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)

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

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

::::::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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Huldra, Nomoskedasticity & Pluto2012 reverts

last one

• "According to David Shulman, Ta'ayush activist..."

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

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)

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)

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

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)

• "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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

RfC: Should Susya article be split and become a disambiguation page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus. The arguments on both sides were good and made good points. But the discussion is to evenly split. AlbinoFerret 11:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

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)

• 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)

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)

* 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Yes per E.M.Gregory —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

  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)

*::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)

• 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)

@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)

@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)

• yes per Settleman, E.M.Gregory & Number 57. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• Yes per Settleman, E.M.Gregory, Number 57. Donottroll (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

* 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)

• No - what should happen is the primary topic, the Palestinian village and its history ("the archaeological site") remain in this article and a dab notice added for the settlement. nableezy - 08:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

*Comment - I have posted 'Requests for closure' a few hours ago so people might want to give final thoughts. Settleman (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Susya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091015060544/http://www.comet-me.org:80/act_completion.html to http://www.comet-me.org/act_completion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susya. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=616

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)