I guess what confuses me is the meaning of the word "Palestinian".
- A Palestinian is any long-term resident of the Levant, the region often called "Palestine" throughout much of history.
- A Palestinian is an Arab living in the Palestinian homeland, which is defined as the territory bordering on Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon -- that would explain the maps labeling this territory as "Palestine"
Is it one of the above, or something else?
- Both and neither. Both in that Palestinian can be used to describe A and B. I know many Israeli Jews born in Mandatory Palestine, who birth certificates make them Palestinian. Neither because the two definitions are not exclusive. Palestinian means a lot of different things to a lot of different people (see what I did with nomenclature on the Palestine article). In the contemporary world, it is, however, most frequently used to refer to the latter option. Perhaps this is not an ideal situation, given the multiple meanings of the term, but one of the principles of self-determination is that peoples have a right to call themselves whatever they want. As for Palestinians and Jordanians (Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.), yes, they are all Arabs, as are Algerians and Saudis. There are, however, regional differences, whether dialectical or cultural--the Jerusalem dialect of Arabic is closer to the Egyptian than the Syrian dialect (Jerusalem is al-'Uds, not al-Quds). There are different local customs and traditions, different historical narratives, local differences of cuisine and costume, in fact all the elements of distinct cultures. One would not think of lumping all Eastern Europeans together as Slavs, nor should they lump all Arabs together either. Danny
- Agreed (though I do think the percentages are significantly different). What was important about Nusseibah's statement though is that it was an important example of a prominent Palestinian leader condemning violence from his own side in a meaningful manner. This has been done on many occasions by Israeli leaders (note the vocal peace movement in Israel). I think the media jumped on it because it may signify a turning point among some of the Palestinian leadership and the possibility of a peace movement emerging there too. Let's face it. Both sides are going to have to make painful compromises that extend beyond their current positions and red lines. Danny
- I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not sure about the part where you say the Israeli leadership have condemned their own side's violence. There is an important distinction between the two sides in that the people who are perpetrating the violence against Palestinians are the IDF, directly accountable to the Israeli government; the violence against Israelis comes from maverick militant groups. I don't remember reading about anyone in the Israeli government condemning the actions of the IDF. But that aside, how can we fix that bit of the article? It is a bit odd at the moment. (It is too daunting a task to attempt to fix the bias in the rest of the article). I favour just deleting that sentence. GrahamN
- As I see it, the political leadership in Israel includes the Knesset, where Meretz, the chief opposition party, has condemned the violence. Similarly, Peres and prominent members of the Labor Party have also rejected Sharon's policies, but for reasons of their own decided to remain in the coalition (ostensibly to act as a "moderating factor"). Furthermore, some, but not all Palestinian violence is by maverick militant groups. Other acts have been arranged, sponsored, etc. by the Palestinian leadership under Arafat, or at least Mr. Arafat and his deputies turned a blind eye to them preparations. Attacks committed by Fatah, teh group headed by Arafat, are an example. Anyway, that's my declaredly POV perspective. More importantly, I would agree withe deleting the sentence if that would resolve the bias issue. Danny
- I would agree to only one of the two: remove the quote altogether (anyway, it only represents Nusseibah and about 200 people who have signed his petition), or alternatively disclaim that he and his followers are a tiny minority. Representing him as some sort of a serious participant in the political apparatus of the PA is fallacious, and that I won't support. --Uri
Scanning the content about the Palestinian conflict I see that it is purely pro-Israeli. Any other information is promptly removed, rendering it meaningless for an unbiased person to participate. Only the "truth" that all Palestinians are murderers is allowed on Wikipedia. NPOV as usual. - A.
- Speak about specifics. Is Sari Nusseibeh's opinion one representative of a majority? Is Haifa occupied Palestinian land? I only delete trolls; I discuss topics worthy of a discussion. --Uri
A., I think you are mistaken: if anything, the anti-Israeli view is given great prominence. My pro-Israeli additions are routinely neutralized, and several other Jewish or pro-Israeli contributors constantly add information on Arab points of view. I haven't seen "all Palestinians are murderers" or anything like it. Is there some specific factual information or spokesman's viewpoint you'd like to see included? Ed Poor 07:42 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
Why is there a detailed timeline on this entry? It seems to serve no purpose other than as a dumping ground for biased descriptions of every terrible thing that happens in the region. We don't have WWII timelines listing German citizens killed in Dresden. I don't think this can be managed objectively, and I don't think it belongs
I agree. And since this Israeli propagandist timeline is all there is in the article, I propose that the whole article be deleted. GrahamN
- It's funny that you had no problem with that when you added Nusseibeh's quote. Talk about propaganda. --Uri
Everything above "Timeline" seems fine to me. Everything below should probably just be wiped out. Timelines should give major events that help someone understand the issue at hand, not a tit-for-tat recital by advocates. Marknau
- Actually I can see the problem with the timeline, do we want it to contain _everything_? I thought that what I added (information about the attack on gaza city, which probably started this discussion) was something major. But now that I think about it, the most important thing for Wikipedia to provide is for example good (background) information about Gaza City. If someone comes here looking for background information on Gaza City after the attack, they will of course already know (or at least have a general idea) about how many people who died in the attack. pty 13:22 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
- We could split off the timeline and rename it "Violence in the Levant" or something like that, with a link from Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ed Poor
Look, this is silly. Even if the time-line were hived-off to a different place it would still be a full-time job for someone to prevent it from being a mouthpiece for the Israeli Ministry of Defense. And meanwhile, we are none of us getting on with writing an encyclopaedia. The subject is so current and controversial, that it is literally impossible to write a NPoV article about it. It is just not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. I propose that the whole article be deleted. Do I have a seconder? GrahamN
- I don't mean to pick on Graham, but a big part of the problem is people bringing their agendas to the pages. When you find yourself writing things like "mouthpiece for the Israeli Ministry of Defense," that is a major tip-off that you are not able to write objectively on this topic, and should just steer clear of it. Marknau
- I don't think it's impossible at all. So far we haven't been able to do it, but just because it's difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. Take Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. The talk page for that article had one of the most heated arguments I've ever seen on wikipedia, but the article is now (IMHO) one of the best we have. This may or may not happen with Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we can't just give up! Anyway, why bother arguing about whether the article is NPOV or not when nobody's even written an article yet? I say do away with the timeline and the list of links and let's try to write an actual article! djk
Hi. I have an idea: What about just removing all articles that have anything to do with the Middle East conflict? They are all clearly NPOV one way or the other, and the opinions and emotions of both sides are so strong and entrenched that I don't see how it can ever be sorted out. I feel the entire issue is pulling Wikipedia down. There are people I've begun arguing with who I really think I'd like and enjoy working with otherwise. :/ -- GayCom
- I think that the Middle East articles are generally of good quality and reflect well on Wikipedia. We don't have anywhere near this level of detail on many other subjects. Sure, they are not all neutral and contain plenty of biases one way or the other. But articles in other encyclopedias (not to mention newspapers and TV) all have their own sets of biases too. The Wikipedia articles on the Middle East are not perfection, but are surprisingly good given how Wikipedia works, and stack up well against the competition. We can be proud of them. Enchanter
--- I removed the following. It is a violation of NPOV, as it represents the Palestinian's view; further, this view already is stated in detail in a number of entries already in Wikipedia. There is no reason to state it yet again, in an NPOV fashion. RK
- Many people judge that the term the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is like talking about the British-Indian conflict or the Dutch-Indonesian conflict or the French-Algerian conflict before India, Indonesia and Algeria gained independence from their respective occupying colonial powers. This is why many would consider a more neutral term to the violence to be the Occupation of the (Palestinian) Occupied Territories by Israel.
- It is an undeniable fact that Israel has occupied the land previously known as Palestine. You may think this is justifiable and moral, but that doesn't alter the fact that it has happened. I think the paragraph should be reinstated. 193.132.79.6
- I agree that it should be reinstated. It is formulated in an NPOV fashion, it represents an important view as a view and it is relevant here because it pertains to the title of the article. That it is repeated elsewhere is simply irrelevant. -- Jan Hidders 08:42 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)
In particular if the vague "many people" could be replaced with a more specific term. What many people? Palestinian sympathisizers? Getting specific helps the quality of articles. --The Cunctator
I think it would be perfectly accurate to start the paragraph "It is clear to everybody except Zionists that ... ", but I guess that doesn't help much. :-( GrahamN
Let's break the passage down into two sentences:
- Many people judge that the term the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is like talking about the British-Indian conflict or the Dutch-Indonesian conflict or the French-Algerian conflict before India, Indonesia and Algeria gained independence from their respective occupying colonial powers.
- This is why many would consider a more neutral term to the violence to be the Occupation of the (Palestinian) Occupied Territories by Israel.
Sentence #1 is perfectedly neutral by itself.
Sentence #2 needs attribution of the "many", as in "Palestinian Arabs and their supporters regard the terms occupation of the Palestinian territories and the occupied Palestinian territories to be neutral, objective statements of fact.
--Ed Poor
How about "Every major government and international body - including the UN, the EU and the governments of the UK and USA - regards the terms occupation of the Palestinian territories and the occupied Palestinian territories to be accurate descriptions of the situation." Jacob
- Jacob, what I like about your suggestion is that it's so specific about who advocates the term occupied, thus making it clear that not the Wikipedia but rather the various governments, et al., regard Israel as "occupying" the territories. Nonetheless, I would prefer not to see over-use of the term occupied Palestinian territories in place of neutral terms such as West Bank and Gaza Strip. We should not assist anyone's sloganeering, but merely describe their point of view. --Ed Poor
- Do all those governments use, or accept, those terms? Occupied West Bank doesn't mean "Palestinian territories," it can mean "occupied portion of the Kingdom of Jordan." Not a trivial difference. Vicki Rosenzweig
- AFAIK, the term the occupied Palestinian territories means "the lands which Israel controls with its military although they really belong to the Palestinians", which in turn depends on the meaning of the term Palestinians (see Palestinian). --Ed Poor
- How about "the Occupied territories", which is short, snappy, accurate, clear, to the point and is usually used by (eg) the UN, the US, the UK, the EU, the BBC and unbiased commentators. It's probably the most commonly used formulation outside the Israeli government, and is certainly used by - eg - the US government in press releases. Jacob
Go ahead, if you think it's neutral. But bear in mind that the idea that Israel is "occupying" the territories in question is a key premise in advocacy for the establishment of a (or another) Palestinian state. It is actually a loaded term, you see, while the term Gaza Strip carries no connotation whatsoever about who owns it, who controls it or anything like that: it's merely the name for a specific area. Everyone agrees on where the Gaza Strip is.
When quoting advocates, such as Yasser Arafat or a UN commissioner, if THEY use the term occupied terriories or occupied Palestinian territories then it is perfectly accurate to use their quote.
I'm not saying Israel is right or wrong to have its military forces in the West Bank. Some say it's justified for self-defense; others say it's totally unjustified (imperialistic, genocidal, or just plain mean and nasty).
Why should the Wikipedia take sides? Just say that Hyman Sputz thinks Israel ought to hang on to the West Bank for dear life, while Al Akbar thinks Israel better let go or his group will do blah, blah, blah... Or whatever the various advocates say. --Ed Poor
What the hell happened to the formatting of this article? It is horrid. You never subdivide an article with lines unless you are dividing the page for separate meanings of the same word. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of style. --mav
Yikes! I don't know what to do with all the badly formatted and named subarticles to this entry. Much of this should be all refactored into standard Wikipedia format timelines and articles. Israeli-Palestinian conflict timeline already exists. --mav
With the new addition of the history section I think this article is in much better shape now. This is one of the most often visited articles in Wikipedia. It is important for us to have a good telling of the history here. If and when this gets too long, then somebody can summarize the history, leave that summary here and move the longer version to a History of sub-article. --mav
timelines? This misses the point, and is in the spirit (like i told cuncator) of giving the highest British attention to the wrong detail..
The point of the reformat was to 1 create a uniform header that could link to a limited number of main summary articles. Thanks alot, you completely, without even dicussing it with absolutely anyone, changing something that was beginning to make sense in accord with a style sheet. horizontal lines serve more than one purpose, and i used them to graphically eliminate the vertical pit that the page was to begin with. 2. to summarise in three parts major events in the region for the last eighty years. at least you didnt change all this, but now, instead of a summary, its an entire article, mislinked the the other parts, and typically awful to read. So spirit of the law, vs letter of the law, where do you stand? Im restoring my changes until theres been adequate thought given to the changes. -Sv ,