Talk:Struggle over Palestine

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

I disagree with the vote to delete this page. I do not understand the reasoning.

Policy is that info should be preserved.

This deletion smacks of censorship.

The occupation of Palestine and Israeli occupation of Palestine articles are as accurate and neutral as I can make them. If anyone can point out any sections which are inaccurate or biased, please do so. That would be better than simply eliminating the articles.

The info in those articles has not, AFAIK, been moved into Arab-Israeli conflict or any other suitable article. Until it has been, a summary REDIRECT is out of line. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, there is nothing stopping you from moving this contents yourself, definitely not the fact that the page is now a redirect. Please clean after your own mess. Gadykozma 15:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why this page should be a redirect. That option got only 29% of the votes - far less than a consensus.
The usual practice is: move the info first, then replace the old article with a redirect.

If you're trying to impose your will and disregard the vote, I may have to report this to the, er, authorities here. Please don't make me do this; I'd rather work with you then see you get admonished, or worse, banned. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The consensus was quite clear Ed; get rid of the content, either by pure delete or by re-direct (see Cecropia's comments on the Vote to Delete talk page). You've gone off on your own tangent here with an entirely new article (make that pair of articles), and now appear to be abusing your admin status in order to enforce your preferred solution. It is you who is imposing your will and disregarding the vote, and any consequences which devolve from that might well be applied to you as a result. Jayjg 15:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, Jay, and I will withdraw from any article edits whatsoever for the indefinite future. I consider myself chastened. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, there was not a clear consensus to "get rid of the content":

Delete (18)
Redirect (4)
Redirect or Delete (1)
Keep (13)
and Ed's vote to move.

That's 23-14, and a good number of the people who said "redirect" were objecting to the title and the separation, not to what it said, and were explicitly suggesting that Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the right place to take this up. -- Jmabel 17:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, you somehow missed 8 votes for "redirect and protect", which makes 31-14. That's almost 70%, which is considered a consensus for this purpose. Gadykozma 19:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By "get rid of the content" I meant there would be no independent "Occupation of Palestine" page; i.e., the "Occupation of Palestine" page itself would have no content, whether it was simply deleted or whether it was a re-direct. There was a large majority in favour of this; in fact, the consensus was quite clear, as I stated. Incorporating the content back into the original Israeli-Palestinian conflict was of course, always an option; indeed, as a person who voted delete, I suggested doing so several times, on the very day I put up the VfD notice. Anyone can contribute content to any page, whenever they like. However, this is not relevant to the vote itself, which is really about what happens to Occupation of Palestine as an independent page, and not about the ultimate fate of the content in it. Attempts to characterize this vote in a narrowly legalistic sense ("delete" vs. all other options) are disingenuous at best; I encourage all editors to re-read Cecropia's comments under Consensus demonstrated in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine on the topic. Jayjg 18:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to have this page. The issues being described are either about the Arab-Israeli conflict, about the Palestinian Authority, or about some other number of issues. The term "occupation" is inherently problematic as a location of an article, and the issues being described here don't naturally all fit together, IMO. --Delirium 18:10, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I made the final choice to keep this article. I did not read the debate, but the box listed votes as being 18 delete, 13 keep, and 12 redirect. There was no consensus to do anything, thus the article had to be kept. While some might argue there was consensus on the middle option because "25-18 voted against deletion" or "31-13 voted against keeping." I consider it a very bad idea to choose the option with the fewest total votes because of a failure to reach consensus. If this became standard practice almost every contentious article would end up being redirected. We have many VfD votes along the lines of 5 delete votes, 3 keep, and 1 redirect. If what is being proposed became standard behaviour all of these would be redirected, despite it being an unpopular option. We must respect that 31 people, for one reason or another, felt that a redirect was not appropriate. I am also certain that this page will appear on VfD again in the future. If at that time consensus is reached towards deletion I shall gladly delete it, or if the consensus is to redirect I shall with equal delight create a redirect. Until that time, however, the wiki system has decided this article should stay. - SimonP 16:10, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh no you don't. It's a fairly safe conclusion that most, if not all, of those who wanted to delete the article would want it redirected instead of being kept as is. It'd be patently illogical to do otherwise. The wiki has decided, 31-13, that this article should go, and no amount of wiggling on your part (short of another vote, or an alternative consensus here) will change that. Sometimes we lose deletion votes. It sucks. Deal with it. Ambi 22:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dislike your accusation that I somehow like this article or am in favour of keeping it. I do believe in the VfD process, however, and for many months now I have not been counting deletion votes as being in favour of redirection. I am not going to suddenly change because some people feel a certain vote has gone against them. If you want this page deleted or redirected relist it on VfD and hope for another outcome. Others who have objected to the results on close votes, such as for European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics, have taken that route rather than debase themselves by engaging in edit wars. - SimonP 17:42, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, I think you do need to read the page. A number of people have stated explicitly that if there's no majority for delete, redirect is their second choice; There is a section that suggests this interpretation (i.e. that delete should count towards redirect) that was there during most of the voting stages and raised no objections; etc. In short, your interpretation is uninformed. Gadykozma 18:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

The current redirect is POV and unhelpful. It equates Occupation of Palestine to the current conflict, which is inaccurate. I propose that it should become instead a disambiguation page, pointing to both History of Palestine for previous occupations and Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the current positions. The page is currently protected, and I believe it would be an abuse of sysop powers for me to edit it. As soon as it can be unprotected let's give this a try. Andrewa 09:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with that but you really should ask the other side. BTW, see my "special disambig" text on Hebrew Bible, maybe you can use it here too. Gadykozma 09:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle. However, I agree only on the basis that this stays a disambiguation page. I don't want to have to have this discussion every time another POV warrior comes along and wants to make this a rant page. Ambi 10:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with all three of you :-) --Uncle Ed

You guys can do whatever you want with the page, but leave it alone until saturday PST. Thanks for understanding. Christopher Mahan 16:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm under Martha Stewart-style house arrest until Monday, confined to my lovely estate in the Hamptons. Me only haunt talk pages till then. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because Ed's been so conciliatory, I'm happy to leave the article as it is. However, I strongly disapprove of Chris' unwanted and unrequested attempt at playing arbitrator. Ambi 01:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually did ask him to arbitrate, though he said he wouldn't, so I am not sure how he defines his current activities. Gadykozma 01:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another compromise attempt

How about putting discussions on the term occupation under the title Occupation (Israeli-Palestinian discourse)? Gadykozma 02:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Ambi 05:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, relax. I meant an article describing how the term occupation is used by Israeli and Palestinians, which is what Pir, Node and Ed wanted, if I understood them correctly. Gadykozma 12:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, Node and Ed, in opposition to myself and thirty other Wikipedians. Sometimes the consensus goes against you. Tough. I don't think the disambiguation idea was too objectionable, however. Ambi 12:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, those 30 Wikipedians (including myself, if you remember) objected to the text as it stood with that title. Not to the very idea of discussing occupation on Wikipedia. Gadykozma 12:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Create the thing, and we'll have another vote. Happy? Ambi 12:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, threatening should come after an attempt to negotiate. Please state your objections to such an article so we can refer to them (and see also my reply to pir below). Thanks. Gadykozma 13:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not threatening. I'm just not keen to go through this again. Ambi 22:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Me neither. Jayjg 02:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good attempt, but we should agree on some guidelines first, so that everybody's concerns are addressed. I suggest the following principles:

the article is not to be an alternative account of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may include a brief summary of the conflict and should refer to that article ;
the different meanings and definitions (as far as they are relevant to the article) of "occupation" and "Palestine" should be explicitly stated ;
all the main different views of the concept of "Occupation of Palestine" should be described (NPOV), attributed to named people/political movements/organisations/institutions, and sources provided ;
criticisms/responses addressed at these views by opponents should also be described, attributed and sourced.

Feel free to criticise and improve these. - pir 13:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, your 3rd & 4th points make this quite similar to the Occupation of Palestine. I had in mind a more discourse analysis page than a political one. It's difficult for me to explain exactly because I'm not a humanist myself. However, one thing for sure, the last thing we want is something similar to the "views" section of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That might be a solution for POV wars (and it might formally comply with Wikipedia NPOV policy) but it is disasterous for the reader. It conveys the information in a way which is almost impossible to read, and adds no insight to what you could get from the five o'clock news.

So, pir, do you like this views section? Gadykozma 13:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem with the Arab-Israeli conflict article is the organisation, it is just split in two halves. But the content itself is important and not that bad. I think for that particular page, it would have been much better to contrast the two views item by item (e.g. by chronology of historic events). I don't really understand what you mean by "discourse analysis", but note that analysis itself cannot be NPOV because you can only analyse something based on a certain world view and certain political assumptions. MAybe you could explain how you envisage this? - pir 13:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, about the views section, yes it would be much better arranged by topics. Maybe we can get to it after a vacation of 2-3 months.

About this paper, what I don't want is discussion whether or not Israel occupies and what. Not even as an exchange of quotes. Not because its POV - because it is just plain boring. Spreading this kind of material over endless pages will make the reader leave Wikipedia. It should be concentrated on a few select pages, like the Arab-Israeli conflict. Smaller pages (not in the sense of length, Deir Yassin massacre is not short, just specific) should concentrate on bringing to the reader information he does not have.

So, I am only really familiar with the discourse of the Israeli left, but here the term occupation is used in many interesting ways (like the link I sent you ;-)) and I think that it can be expanded to an interesting section. Could you find interesting uses of the term occupation on the Palestinian side? Gadykozma 14:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean now. Could be very interesting. Need to ponder the question. - pir 14:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this page is going to look like any more. Jayjg 02:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, what I have in mind is to somehow make a coherent article that will contain facts like these:

Yeshayahu Leibowitz was the first to warn that occupation might lead to moral corruption. (Actually, I might start by translating his page in the Hebrew Wikipedia).
Menachem Begin removed the term "occupied territories" from the official media (I really need more info on this piece of trivia. when? why? what was the replacement? what were public reactions?)
Stop occupation [די לכיבוש] is an important left NGO in Israel

etc. I know it doesn't come together to something coherent yet, but I hope it might have some potential. Does this help at all? Gadykozma 03:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the article supposed to explain? What area of knowledge will it cover? Jayjg 03:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a discourse analysis article, i.e. an article that explains how people use terms, expressions, what is their cultural and political meaning etc., for occupation. Gadykozma 03:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of a "definitions of..." series of articles which I've created. The Definitions of Palestine article has stood the test of time, and has NOT ONCE had an edit war problem.

It's because it's an article which is only about the various definitions of terms. There are no factual discussions in it, so no 'accuracy disputes'. And so far, everyone has been happy to see "the way THEY use the word" defined in black and white.

So maybe we need a Definitions of occupation page. Since I'm still making delicious pastries and finger food with Martha Stewart at her Hamptons estate, I can't create the article; but house arrest should be ending for me, any day now.

Occupation of a territory means military control by a sovereign nation of land outside of its recognized borders.
An illegal occupation is similar control which the UN or other nations generally declare to be against international law.

If the info in the above bullet points is already at Occupation then maybe we don't need it. But these are just MY definitions. And I'm no expert on anything. --Uncle Ed 01:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but it would (or should) probably be covered at Occupation, I'd think. Ambi 01:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitions of Palestine has had it's share of reverts, and has probably only not been involved in an edit war because very few people have found it. It lacks definitions of Palestine pre-1917 and 1917-1922, which are quite important, and misses the 1923 Golan Heights transfer. Jayjg 02:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, just start writing under your user space and leave a link here. Martha will be pleased. Gadykozma 03:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We made some lovely lace doilies Sunday night, so I was released on parole. I'm back to editing articles again; want to be my parole officer? ;-) --Uncle Ed

Factual Inaccuracies ??

Many countries

Many countries do not recognize Israel as a nation, so the non-Gaza, non-West Bank, non-Jordanian parts of Palestine are seen by some as "occupied territory".

Hmmm....Israel is recognized by the the United Nations and many countries. The block of Islamic countries (Organization of the Islamic Conference) has a number of countries that do not have recognize or exchange diplomats with Israel. Yet a number of OIC countries, do including: Jordan, Egypt, Morocco. (Please note that Egypt recalled its ambassador but has not revoked the credentials of the Israeli ambassador to Egypt...kind of a both sides of the fence position.)

I would like to change the "many countries" to "some countries, particularly those of the Organization of the Islamic Conference". Lance6Wins 14:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, a fact! Yes, facts are always welcome. It's POV that causes so much fuss.... --Uncle Ed 17:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Based upon you note Uncle Ed, i'll go ahead and make that change. Lance6Wins 17:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I wont...seems that the page is protected.

Pilate to crucify Jesus

How about this one?

a fact which is significant for Christians because a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus.

Hmm...."a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus." is this a fact? It is certainly a religous belief and may well be recorded in the Gospels (with being able to provide chapter and verse, i won't say "is recorded"). Are we to declare Scripture to be factual? Whose scripture? What of scriptures that disagree, say Christian Bible and Muslim Koran? Could we delete these words from the article? If not, I would like to add factual material based upon Scripture. Lance6Wins 17:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Web search produced this, if someone could validate it?

Tacitus says (Annals 15:44): To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.--Jirate 19:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jirate, excuse me I was not clear in my statement. What basis do we have for this statement: "Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus". To the best of my knowlege the only source we have is Scripture and other writings based upon Scripture. Lance6Wins 19:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

Lance asked me to either add the protected page notice, or unprotect the page. It poses a minor dilemma for me. I don't think it would be "fair" for me to add the "protected page notice", because:

I would (technically) be "editing a protected page", as well as endorsing the protection of my own favored version of the article.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the page should be 'unprotected'...

Let's hear some discussion. Meanwhile, of course, if some other admin 'unprotects' the page that ought to settle it. --Uncle Ed 19:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, why don't I just 'unprotect' the occupation of Palestine article. I hope that no one will turn it into a redirect without first moving the info somewhere good. But why do I feel like I'm leaving my homework on a seat in the high school cafeteria? . . . --Uncle Ed 20:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page is now unlocked. --Uncle Ed 20:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it for the time being, but you can always get the information out of the history. When do you plan to move the information, Ed? Ambi 23:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

16:44, 28 Sep 2004 (hist) Occupation of Palestine/temp (some info which is crying out for integration - Who can merge it in a good place?) (New) [rollback] --Uncle Ed 19:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge, move, redirect, etc.

Thanks for bearing with me, Ambi. I'm not planning any sudden or swift changes. I'm still trying to get up to speed on what "Palestine" means, and how this affects the various proposals made for the disposition of Palestine.

I only found out this month, that the term Palestine had been redefined! It turns out everyone but me has known all along that Palestine no longer includes Jordan. So when people argue that "there ought to be a Palestinian state" for "Palestinians" they just naturally never consider Jordan. After all, it's not even IN the region!

I've been laboring (rather ineffectively) under the misapprehension that Palestine included Jordan. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say:

the eastern portion of what used to be called "Palestine" is today's Jordan; and,
the region that used to be called Jordan now consists of two distinct territories: (1) Jordan and (2) modern Palestine.

Either I'm behind the times, or someone's trying one of those "shifting ground" arguments. (It could be a bit of both...)

The key problem, still, seems to be the clash between two very appealing arguments:

that the Jewish people desire or even deserve a Jewish homeland; and,
that the non-Jewish residents of 'the region known from ancient times as Palestine' ALSO desire or deserve a homeland

What makes things a bit tricky to understand, is that so many people use the term Palestinians to mean NOT 'any resident of the region known from ancient times as Palestine' but ONLY a certain subset of that population (what some newspapers call "Palestinian Arabs"). --Uncle Ed 00:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where's THE Occupation?

Apparently everyone occupied Palestine but Israel.

Palestinian resistance is described as 'unrest in the area, variously described as a "war", an "uprising", a "terrorist campaign", or even "anarchy".

But Israeli occupation is just "varying degrees of military and administrative control".

Come on, guys. HistoryBuffEr 07:06, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

As I've said before, according to the people promoting this page Palestine is a region that can only be "Occupied". Every single country and group which has owned it and lived there is apparently an occupier. This means that both the Palestinians and Israelis are "occupying" it now. Jayjg 16:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Buff, I see your point: there's a double standard. So, help us out here and write an article on definitions of Palestinian resistance, in the form of resistance by X to occupation by Y.

resistance by Palestinian Arabs to the Occupation of Palestine#Israel

Is this (a) the meaning you had in mind, and (b) the only significant meaning used outside of Wikipedia talk pages? --Uncle Ed 18:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Democratic?

What's "democratic" got to do with facts in the sentence "The democratic government of Israel and the PLO-dominated Palestinian Authority each claim a patchwork of areas" --- other than to bias the reader to favor the party with such attribute (also note the "PLO-dominated", apparently intended as a slur).

Not to mention the fact that a country that treats its minorities as dirt cannot be called democratic at all. HistoryBuffEr 07:12, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

The word "democratic" describes the government of Israel, and the word, "PLO-dominated" describes the PA. Where is the bias? --Viriditas 08:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It does have the appearance of poisoning/sweetening the well. Gazpacho 08:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd have to disagree. We don't say here that democracy is good and (whatever form of social system PLO runs) is bad. In dry encyclopedic manner we describe the factual difference in the form of governance between two neighboring territories. The rest is in your head, as they say. Another attempt by HB to discredit Israel. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's not fight. History Buff is correct about the connotations of democratic and PLO-dominated. When I wrote those words, I was conscious of favoring Israel's side because it is democratic; and of disliking the PLO. If someone thinks this is poisoning the well, they have every right to bring this up on the talk page.

Anyway, Ambi is probably going to REDIRECT the occupation of Palestine article to another page. And I have withdrawn my objections to that. --Uncle Ed 13:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, the alleged "connotations" of "democratic" and "PLO-dominated" exist in your mind. Regardless of what you or the troll known as HistoryBuffEr thought or favored, it is not biased to observe the structure of a government and state it as such. Aside from the democratic republic of Turkey in Anatolia, democracy is very rare in Arabia and the Near East, which makes it even more important to state it as such. --Viriditas 21:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing Occupations

We seem to be missing some occupations, the Crusades for one. Shall I add it? Lance6Wins 13:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I've been wondering (for years!) when someone was going to get around to pointing out that Christians (not only Jews) have thrown their military weight around, in the Holy Land. (I'm not sure why I didn't just bring it up myself...) --Uncle Ed 16:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changed "Historic occupations" to "Occupations prior to 1948". Added sections for Rome, Crusades, Ottoman Empire, Great Britain using the Main article: Crusade style that is common on country pages such as Jordan.

Why? so that the information regarding each occupation is in one place. that way we can not end up with pages contradicting each other...and there is a lot? of information that would have to be copied here otherwise. Lance6Wins 16:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

If anybody makes this page into a redirect, I would like them to state explicitly the reasons for doing so (reasons related to the content of the article, rather than any previous discussions), in reference to relevant Wikipedia policies if possible. - pir 13:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, Gad, Lance, Jay, Buff & everyone -- please see my new article on Definitions of Palestinian occupation. I hope it will (or can) make a few things clear. I tried as hard as I could to suck all the POV out of it, particularly my own POV. But I know from experince that the hardest bias to detect is that which I put into my own writing ("I thought that was a fact!"). --Uncle Ed 15:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Hashemites are Arabian tribal leaders, and hereditary rulers of Mecca and Hejaz there, who were kicked out of Arabia by the ibn Saud family, and were given 70% of Palestine and all of Iraq by the British in compensation. They are currently occupying that 70% of Palestine; your article says nothing about that. Jayjg 16:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should that info go in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, or in an un-redirected occupation of Palestine article, or . . . ? --Uncle Ed 16:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or in Definitions of Palestinian occupation or in Palestine or in History of Palestine or in Jordanian occupation of Palestine or...? Who knows, once you break logically connected content up into a bunch of tiny overlapping articles, then there are all sorts of choices, none of them good. Jayjg 18:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You caught my attention with that. I'm actually against breaking up logically connected content into a bunch of overlapping articles. In fact, I heartily dislike overlap -- more so of late, since I read a book about refactoring computer software.

I like info to be in one place: the place where reader is most likely to look for it. Duplication should be minimized, because if you have multiple copies of the same info then you have to keep track of each copy so that when you update the info in one place you'll remember to update it in others.

The only excuse I can think of for overlap would be (a) as a temporary measure (b) to help us repair an article that's all tangled up somehow.

I'm trying to straighten out the tangles in the reporting about the events and viewpoints regarding the disposition of Palestine. I don't want to shred a good article into confetti. (Now, a nice hot plate of spaghetti would hit the spot about now! -- but that's another story ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just "caught your attention" with that right now? That was one of the primary reasons I objected to the "Occupation of Palestine" article in the first place! Jayjg 19:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Losing NPOV marbles to bullies

We have a handful of pro-Israeli extremists here holding entire sections of Wikipedia hostage to their whims.

What most of the world says,
What international laws say,
What the UN charter and resolutions say,
What the Israeli Supreme Court says,
Even what their Fuehrer Sharon says

does not mean anything to these crybabies -- they want articles titled and written exactly as they say, or else this gang will incessantly mutilate, delete, redirect or revert articles until they get their way.

Are we going to keep compromising and handing over NPOV marbles to colicky bullies kicking up the sand because we don't want them upset? Or should we simply write what MOST OF THE WORLD agrees on and let them cry, as they will always do? After all, there are probably more Believers in Flat Earth than there are Deniers of Israel's Occupation. HistoryBuffEr

Thank you for demonstrating the argumentum ad populum. I think it's quite clear who is the bully, here.--Viriditas 03:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The big question now arises as to why User:HistoryBuffEr is now resorting to personal rantings rather than contributing facts and staying rational and logical rather then taking on arguments that sound like classical Anti-Semitism. Makes it sound like he would vote for the "Final Solution" if that was possible. IZAK 06:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you IZAK and Viriditas for answering the roll call and confirming my point. HistoryBuffEr 18:21, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Personal remarks

Let's not use any of the following phrases to describe other Wikipedians:

troll
crybabies
colicky bullies kicking up the sand
resorting to personal rantings rather than ... staying rational and logical

How about using phrases like these?

Excuse me, I meant ...
one of the primary reasons I objected

Thank you. --Uncle Ed 12:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would definately add gratuitous accusations of anti-Semitism, and even racist genocide to that list. It's an extremely offensive remark to most people, especially when made gratuitously, and it trivialises anti-Semitism and racism in general. It also qualifies as a personal attack, a violation of Wikipedia policy - pir 12:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right, of course. And the next step, if policy violators don't take the hint from Let's not, is to drop a notice on their user talk page. I just hate to do that, because (a) it's so time-consuming and (b) I tend to wander away from compliance with policy myself from time to time (Hi, Jayjg!). --Uncle Ed 13:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different text

HistoryBuffEr, I'm going to request again that instead of replacing large portions of text with entirely different texts, you please bring suggested changes here first for discussion. This has been perhaps the single most difficult problem with your edits ever since you joined Wikipedia. You know these pages are highly contentious at best, and contentious edits are best worked out on Talk: pages so that edit wars do not develop. I have yet to see you actually propose a change on any page before going ahead and making it, and this is, in my view, a recipe for continued strife. Jayjg 16:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It takes two to dance.

When you post in Talk what you disagree with in my edits, instead of reverting the entire article, and
When you post your edits to Talk for prior approval,

then you'll have some grounds to complain. HistoryBuffEr 18:26, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

My edits tend to be small in nature; a few words changed, or two or three sentences. Yours are wholesale replacements of entire articles with completely different texts. Wikipedia norms do not support replacing articles or sections with radically different texts, essentially completely contradicting everything that was there before, and then saying "O.K., now lets debate the new article". The existing articles have been arrived at through a long process of negotiation and compromise; you can't just pre-empt the Wikipedia discussion and debate process because you think the final product is POV, you have to work with it (and the existing editors) to produce NPOV. Jayjg 20:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really? Facts are not on your side:

I had posted my objections in Talk (see "Where's the occupation" and "Democratic?") before editing a small section of 6 short sentences.
You had posted nothing in Talk before completely rewriting my much longer text.
IZAK and Viriditas had reverted the entire article (to remove my text) several times without posting anything in Talk, but you didn't complain about that, did you?

Case closed, try peddling your hypocrisy elsewhere.

HistoryBuffEr 22:55, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

While you raised objections, you didn't actually propose new text.
Rather than simply deleting your POV text this time, in the spirit of compromise I NPOV'd it instead. I did not insert my own text.
Since your text was a wholesale POV re-write and insertion, as previously mentioned, it is not surprising that those editors did so.

As I've mentioned several times, if you try working with other editors, rather than doggedly insisting on inserting and reverting radically new texts without consultation, you will find the Wikipedia process much smoother. Indeed, case closed. Jayjg 02:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Er, would you both be willing to follow my example? Last week, I messed up. Gady and Jay both scolded me, and I took it. In fact, I voluntarily confined my edits to talk pages for the rest of that week. --Uncle Ed 17:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV or Zionist extremist POV?

Unlike the pro-Israel POV warriors who revert entire articles if they disagree with a single word, let's list some POV problems with the current version here first:

"Occupation of Palestine is a controversial phrase"

Not controversial as far as most of the world is concerned. It may be controversial only for a few Zionist extremists.

If it wasn't controversial, there wouldn't be a controversy, let alone soap-box hate rant such as below. Somehow anything Jews do or wherever they live for the last couple of millenia causes "controversy". Isn't it amazing how they manage to be both vicious "Zionist extremists" and eternal victims at the same time? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Humus, could you please stop equating a particular political ideology with a particular ethnic-religious group? It is plain BS, factually and logically wrong. It can be seen as a poisoing of the well attack. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having said that, HBE's constant references to "most of the world" are unhelpful too. There is obviously controversy about this term. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point is: There is a clear consensus in the world regarding most of the issues here. Wikipedia articles are based on consensus, so saying there is a "controversy" about something disputed by a tiny minority is POV and silly, just like saying that there is a controversy about whether the Earth is flat or not. Opposing opinions should be presented, but characterized appropriately and given space and prominence in proportion to the quantity and credibility of those holding such opinions.

In this particular example, deniers of occupation are a tiny minority and should be labeled as such and mentioned briefly, rather than given the weight and prominence of a widely held opinion. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

The issue here is the definition you put on "Palestine"; while much of the world agrees that there is an Occupation of Palestine, by "Palestine" they mean "West Bank and Gaza Strip". You, on the other hand, mean "Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip"; on this there is indeed a great deal of controversy, and your opinion is in the distinct minority. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Many Arabs and their allies use it as a description for the Israeli presence"

Actually "Arabs and their allies" comprise most of the world. The word "presence" is used only by a few Zionist extremists.

If you think the word is POV, please provide a NPOV term that is likely to be acceptable to all sides. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying "most of the world" is like saying "everybody knows"; claims must be attributed. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"When Israel and its allies hear this phrase ..."

What about when Palestinians hear the violent Israeli occupation called "Israeli presence"?

There is enough space for all relevant reactions to be described. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) Ditto. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was that only one side was presented, thus the article is biased. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

So add the opposing view. That's the way Wikipedia works. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Israelis may also perceive this phrase as a hostile statement meant to paint them in a negative light and delegitimize them."

What about the euphemism "presence" delegitimizing Palestinian Arabs?

There is enough space for all relevant views to be described. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point, again: only one side is presented, thus the article is biased. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

So add the opposing view. That's the way Wikipedia works. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Numerous occupation subentries.

This is apparently an effort to spam the article to bury the current occupation. As these subentries are ancient history they should go into something like History of Palestine occupations.

All of these articles are as legitimate as this one. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was readability, not legitimacy. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Why are a series of sections on different Occupations not readable? Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intifada, Separation Barrier, Road Map

This section is apparently intended to preempt the "Current status" section below. The entire section is written from an Israeli extremist POV.

Please provide examples. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Current status"

This section should actually be named "Current occupation", in line with the previous section discussing historic occupations.

Don't assume bad faith. Poisening th well attack. A violation of Wikipedia policy. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point: All other historic occupations are called occupations, but the current occupation by Israel is not called occupation at all. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Ideally none of them should be called Occupations; it's part of the propaganda war being waged on various pages which will one day, with luck and good faith on all sides, be NPOVd. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most of the recent section edits by IZAK and Jayjg are written from an Israeli extremist POV. Some examples:

"... because [Israelis] believe it was promised them in the Balfour Declaration or that Arabs lost these areas in a wars of aggression ... "

These are laughable propaganda excuses.

Using Balfour as an excuse is a new joke to me. No one has the right to give away other people's land (see the U.N. Charter), plus Balfour only promised to help create a home for Jews in Palestine, not that the whole Palestine will belong to Jews.
The war gains argument is equally silly as no territory can be forcibly gained under int'l law (see above).

If this is the strongest reasoning that can be provided to support the Zionist argument, then readers will conclude that it is a weak argument. Stating it is perfectly NPOV because it describes the views that are held, and it is not propaganda. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ditto; you can't NPOV their views, you can only present them. Also, Talk: pages are not for the purpose of debating the conflict itself, but for discussing ways the article can be improved. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point is: Views of some extremists are here presented as views of (all or most) Israelis, which is both inaccurate and POV. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Nonsense; the sentence clearly says "some Israelis" not "most or all Israelis". Some Israelis, the ones who feel the territories belong to Israel, do indeed feel that way. If you feel they have different reasons for feeling this way, please present them. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"West Bank barrier, which generally follows close to the 1949 Armistice lines"

This is a bold lie. The wall does not and was never intended to follow even the 1967 lines (See Israel Says West Bank Wall Will Not Follow 1967 Boundary). And it cuts deeply into the future Palestinian state in many places, not just some.

Agreed. This should be changed. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at the map on Israeli West Bank barrier; the existing barrier generally follows the 1949 Armistice lines. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maps used in Palestinian schools:

Have you ever seen any Israeli maps claiming all of Palestine? I've seen many of those everywhere, here is just one example Map of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which labels the West Bank as Judea and Samaria.

So, either mention maps of both sides or none at all.

Agreed. I think both are a bit trivial. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The entire section is devoid of any factual information about the occupation itself: the killings, the destruction, the oppression, the occupation colonies, etc.

Agreed. Should be mentioned, evidence attributed, supported by sources. If written in a NPOV manner. This should take up a space that is proportional to its relevance to the article. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And, of course, what we'll end up with is an article essentially identical to Israel-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 04:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I could go on and on, but in short: this article is obviously written from a Zionist POV and needs a major rewrite.

Just try to improve it in the manner laid out by the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And because this highly POV version was written by the resident Zionists they should disqualify themselves from further editing of this article and limit themselves to suggestions in Talk in the interest of Wikipedia. HistoryBuffEr 06:37, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Stop disenfranchising other Wikipedians. Everybody has a right to contribute, as long as they make an effort to write NPOV articles. Many editors have strong and sincerely-held opinions and these may taint their ability to write in a NPOV manner, but as long as they make an effort to write NPOV and compromise, that's OK. - pir 11:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point was precisely that these highly biased contributors are not making any efforts towards NPOV and are persistently getting in the way of other people making this article NPOV. HistoryBuffEr 19:36, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

You keep accusing others of being "highly biased" and calling others names when in fact it is you yourself who is demonstrating great bias and an inability to write from a NPOV. Your point is refuted. --Viriditas 22:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, his point is confirmed by your "refutation". It seems that nobody is willing to even respond to the concrete points he has raised here, which would be the very least effort towards NPOV. - pir 23:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I respecfully disagree with your POV. His "points" consist of calling people names, distorting evidence, and maiking illogical arguments. People are willing to respond, and by claiming they are not you are appealing to the argumentum ad ignorantium. HistoryBuffEr is not interested in a NPOV and his edit history demonstrates that fact. A stopped clock might be right twice a day, and so it is with some of the "points" raised in this discussion. --Viriditas 02:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, stop assuming bad faith and engage with the points he's making. - pir 10:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maps and what they mean

The map presented as "claiming all of Palestinian territory for Israel" is a terrain map, not a political map. I failed to detect the word ISRAEL anywhere on it, and it did not show any cities in Jordan.

Now, it does raise a legitimate question:

Is this a non-partisan map? Or,
Does this map constitute a claim that the West Bank and Gaza Strip do not exist?

When I wrote that I had seen a P.A. map of "Palestine" which omitted Israel, I was mentally recalling a political map, not one which shows a multitude of terrain features.

Let's find a political map from an official Israeli source or used in any Israeli school, public or private -- and then resume this discussion.

I don't want to use the Israel and Palestine series of articles to prove any point. I want each article to be neutral, i.e., not endorsing or opposing ANY point. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, that was just one example (the first I stumbled on to provide a hyperlink); there are maps satisfying your objections. However, even this one supports my point:

Word "Israel" is specified in the link text ("Map of Israel");
Judea and Samaria are political, not geographical terms.
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a geographical society, any map they post is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 19:43, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I had assumed that the Judea and Samaria were merely considered geographical areas, due to a steady diet of references to "the West Bank" served to me by American journalists. The possibility that anyone, anywhere, thought of these as political divisions had escaped me. But to be fair, I think I dimly recall that some Israelis regard Judea and Samaria as still being part of Israel. Is there a border dispute going on? Can you show us some maps? The maps I'm familiar with show Israel as the land remaining when you subtract Jordan, West Bank & Gaza Strip from the British Mandate of Palestine (with Golan Heights variously assigned to Syria or Israel).

There are no current political entities named "Judea" or "Samaria"; rather, these are geographical regions which in ancient times represented political units whose borders varied significantly over time. Jayjg 09:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've got to go now, one brief point:

Judea was never a purely geo term, as it means "where Jews live". Using this ancient ethnicity based term today is inherently political. HistoryBuffEr 20:28, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

All geographic terms are political and "Judaea" was a geographical province of the Roman empire. Your point is refuted. --Viriditas 22:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally judea does not actually mean "where jews live". it is derived from juda, which is the name of one of the jewish tribes, - the one that lived there (kind of like a state - e.g. new york). Xtra 06:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A problematic phrase

Deleted from article:

...in order to end the occupation by Israel of Palestinian areas

Two problematic terms:

"occupation"
"Palestinian areas"

If the word 'occupation' is used in a legal sense, then it's disputed (by Israel, at least). If it's used in a purely military sense (troops control the area), then it's okay. This should be clarified.

We can't used the phrase Palestinian areas here without endorsing the POV that the areas Arafat and the PLO were seeking are correctly defined as "Palestinian" in a political or nationalistic sense. I think it's pretty clear that the sentence is not talking about Israeli withdrawal from either:

both sides of the Jordan River (i.e., all parts of the British mandate of Palestine); or,
the western portion of Palestine (i.e, the non-Jordanian parts)

If it's not clear, then "occupation ... of Palestinian areas" is inadequate. We should say more precisely what we mean, e.g., "pull back from all or part of the West Bank.

Better link to an article explaining just precisely what Arafat was asking for. Would that be in Oslo Accords or Israel and the PLO, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, what do you mean by "we can't use the phrase Palestinian areas without endorsing the POV?

Israel is also disputed by some, so what about terms "Israel" and "Israeli areas", aren't these terms POV as well ? HistoryBuffEr 19:47, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

In what sense is the term "Israel" disputed? --Uncle Ed 19:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ever heard of "Hamas" et al? HistoryBuffEr

You just contradicted yourself, again. A few sections above you wrote: Wikipedia articles are based on consensus, so saying there is a "controversy" about something disputed by a tiny minority is POV and silly... --Viriditas 02:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep talking... --Uncle Ed 20:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I believe I've shown many times that the term "occupation" is not really disputed by Israel (as evidenced by Israeli Supreme Court ruling, Ariel Sharon's speeches, Israel's signatures on peace plan proposals calling for withdrawal, opinion polls of Israelis, etc.) but only by a tiny minority of extremists.

As deniers of occupation are a tiny minority they should be mentioned as such and mentioned briefly, rather than given the weight and prominence of a widely held opinion. HistoryBuffEr 20:12, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Do you understand what a NPOV means? I've read every article you've ever edited, and every comment you've ever made, and it appears that you don't understand the term. --Viriditas 22:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do you measure "tiny minority" and "extremist"? What land do you consider to be "occupied"? What do you consider "occupation" to be? Jayjg 09:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'What do you consider "occupation" to be.' Surely that's a quastion for Sharon and the Courts as they use the term.--Jirate 12:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The courts and Sharon consider any territory controlled but not annexed by Israel to be under military occupation. It is a technical designation. Surely this is different from the meaning that HistoryBuffEr intended. Jayjg 17:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the context of countries, named peoples or armed forces, on both sides, I think any use of occupation other than to mean 'military' would require explanation. 'Israel occupies a strip of land at the eastern end of the med' doesn't imply it as their is not contesting party.--Jirate 18:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Irate, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you possibly re-state it? Jayjg 01:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean that it is NPOV to state that the West Bank and Gaza are under military occupation by Israel? - pir 17:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many would not agree that the territories are under any sort of "occupation". I'm just explaining what the Israeli Supreme Court and Sharon mean by occupation, and even they wouldn't agree that all of the territories are under "occupation".Jayjg 01:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that "tiny minority" and "extremist" bare pretty unhelpful characterisation in this context. However all these problems can be solved by attributing views, stating what groups/movements they belong to, and clarifying what people mean by the words they use if need be. - pir 12:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality policy

Viriditas raises an interesting point about HistoryBuffEr's writing. At the risk of making a personal remark, I'd like to ask Buff if it's okay to discuss his understanding of NPOV. If you say NO, I'll shut up about it. But if you say YES, it might help us all to cooperate better on the Arab-Israeli conflict series of articles. --Uncle Ed 13:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will the real NPOV please stand up

It appears that some here do not really understand NPOV (esp. those who keep refering me to it.) Here are some actual NPOV points applied to statements in dispute here:

1. NPOV intro:

... we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute

Note the fairly, not just "represent all sides". Let's apply it to our discussion:

Stating that terms Palestine/Palestinians are disputed in the very first sentence but omitting that Israel is also disputed is neither fair nor it represents all sides. (Burying this tidbit at the end of the page or in another section violates the fairly part.)
Omitting that the majority does not dispute either term does not represent all sides.
Stating that "occupation is controversial" does not fairly represent all sides. It equates extremist views of a tiny group (this is not mentioned, btw) with the clear consensus of the world. (This also violates the next NPOV commandment.)
Statement "Most Arabs and their allies object violently to the Israeli presence" has more NPOV flaws than words.

It implies that only Arabs and their allies oppose Israeli occupation, which is not true.
It implies that anyone opposing Israeli occupation is an Arab ally, which is not true.
"Object violently" implies that most Arabs and their allies are attacking Israel, which is not true.
It mimicks a favorite canard of Zionist extremists who call anyone supporting the Palestinian cause an Arab-lover or a Jew-hater.
It is not mirrored with "Jews and their allies", but with "Israel and their allies". "Arabs" is an ethno/racial term so a fair mirror term should be "Jews", not "Israel".
"Arabs and their allies" and "Israel" are a minority compared to the world, so the views of the majority should be mentioned first.
"Israeli presence" is a pro-Israel POV term disputed by most of the world, so it does not fairly represent all sides.

2. Space and Balance:

Different views don't all deserve equal space.

This comandment is violated in Arab/Israeli articles in almost every sentence. Views of a tiny minority (usually Zionist extremists) are regularly given equal, and often more space than views of the majority (or anyone else).

(Side note: in sciences, popularity of a view alone does not determine its importance, but in politics majority almost always determines consensus.)

3. Be careful with weaselspeak and Avoid_weasel_terms:

This rule is violated in Arab/Israeli articles more times than I can remember.

Most Palestinian views are preceded with weasely POV attributes such as "they claim".
Israeli violations, when mentioned, are often preceded with the weasely POV "alleged".
Abuse of "some" and "many" is rampant, almost always in favor of the Israeli POV. Examples:

"Many Israelis challenge the notion that the "Palestinians" ever had a right to this land". In fact, only a minority of Israelis endorse this view.
"some Israelis ... believe it was promised them in the Balfour Declaration". "Some" is here an exaggeration because "a few" (extremists) do not really equal "some Israelis" , just like "some believe the Earth is flat" would be an exaggeration.
"at some points cuts deeply into the West Bank". "Some" instead of "many" here mistates the facts (to minimize Israeli violations).

4. Attribute assertions

Many examples mentioned above also violate this rule. Few examples:

"Many/some Israelis" in most cases can and should be replaced with "XXX, the right-wing pro-Israel advocacy group". This would avoid equating and tarring many Israelis with views of a tiny minority (precisely what these extremists want.)
"Some countries ... do not recognize Israel as a nation, and would like to see it destroyed". Same thing in reverse: if there is a country that has stated that it "would like to see Israel destroyed", such country should be named, to avoid equating and tarring many countries with views of one or two.

5. Integrate, don't append:

The subsection "Intifada, Separation Barrier, Road Map" is just a pro-Israel POV version of the text in the section "Current status" below. This subsection should be either merged into "Current status" or titled "Israeli view".

6. Don't overwhelm readers with detail up-front:

Most readers assume that Occupation of Palestine means "the current occupation of Palestine". Writing about historic occupations is useful, but these ancient stories just impede the reader who wants to get to the present.

Many countries have long histories of being occupied but none are so heavily jammed by occupation histories before getting to the present. To improve readability, these historic entries should go into History of Palestine occupations, or maybe OccupationS of Palestine.

7. Last but not least: NPOV is Consensus of the Reasonable (from The basic concept of neutrality):

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

This highlights my often repeated point that Arab/Israeli articles should not be held hostage to a few extremists.

Moral of the story: Check the actual NPOV policy rather than assume that your edit is endorsed by it.

HistoryBuffEr 18:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

"Palestinian"

Uncle_Ed, I see you have sprinkled quotation marks around Palestine and Palestinians all over the place. This is, to put it mildly, both silly and offensive. HistoryBuffEr 18:58, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Sorry about the scare quotes, but people use the word Palestine in such jarringly different ways that I have to do something to indicate the differences. Also, there is a POV that the true Palestinians (note, no quotation marks) are are a particular group -- i.e., not all historical residents of Palestine but a subset which is significantly smaller than the whole. Moreover, the definition of "Palestine" (sorry, have to use quotes here) has been consciously changed (see definitions of Palestine). In the mid-twentieth century, the meaning of the term Palestine was changed (as I suppose you may know) so that the lands east of the Jordan River were no longer considered part of Palestine.

There's also sometimes confusion between Palestine the region and Palestine the prospective nation. I can use parentheses if that's more polite than quotation marks.

As for your detailed remarks on NPOV above, I really thank you. I actually agree with some of those remarks 100%: Like the use of alleged and claimed should be consistent. Other points are at least well-founded and clear, even if I don't agree.

I wish people would stop bad-mouthing you, and instead look (as I have done) for ways to cooperate. I'm not the best writer here, and certainly not the fairest or nicest, but if we ALL were te TRY to fair and nice, we could whip this series of articles into shape together. --Uncle Ed 19:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to consider views of others.

The Palestine/Palestinian manner of citation is not a vexing issue: pretty much everyone, including Israel, never uses quotes for these terms because the meaning can be easily derived from the context. So, no need to argue over these widely accepted terms.

I've taken a break from this article to let others move the article towards a neutral POV, or at least some consensus (meaning text acceptable to those outside of the pro-Israel extremist gang who have made a joke of this article), but I haven't seen any major outside edits and the gang keeps littering on and on.

Wikipedia needs neutral articles on these topics if it is to have any credibility, so I'll be back with a sharp editorial axe. HistoryBuffEr 03:20, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Primary meaning; citation

I haven't been involved in this article, and I can see it's a powder keg, and there is too much else I'm doing for me to give a lot of time to contributing to an article where probably most of my edits will be deleted, but I do want to say: it would seem to me that the intro should include something like, "In contemporary political discourse occupation of Palestine most commonly refers to the presence and/or hegemony of Israeli military and civilians in the portions of historic Palestine outside of the generally internationally accepted borders of Israel. The expression is particularly (but not exclusively) used by opponents of that military and civilian presence."

Given Jayjg's remarks below, revise the proposed passage to "In contemporary political discourse occupation of Palestine most commonly refers to the presence and/or hegemony of Israeli military and civilians in the portions of historic Palestine outside of the generally internationally accepted national territory of Israel. The expression is particularly (but not exclusively) used by opponents of that military and civilian presence." (Italics not proposed for article, here just to indicate what is changed.) -- Jmabel 18:33, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
I also think it would be useful to track down a variety of citations of the usage of the phrase, including some by Israel's supporters (I believe that George W. Bush at least once has referred to Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank). I'd also think it was useful to try to find citations for anyone who controlled Palestine before the British being referred to as an "occupier" in any context not intended as commentary on the present situation. I suspect that we may be guilty of a neologism or an anachronism in referring, for example, to Ottoman presence in Palestine as "occupation". If it's an anachronism but not a neologism, that's fine, but it deserves citation. If it's a neologism, then at the very least we should be clear about that. If there is a consensus among those actively working on the article that tracking these down would be useful, let me know on my talk page and I will start assembling a representative set of citations. I'm not interested in starting that just to have it ignored, though, so I'd want to know that consensus was there. -- Jmabel 06:59, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
The only internationally accepted borders Israel has are those with Egypt, Jordan. It also has armistice lines with Syria and Lebanon. The 1949 Armistice lines are not borders, internationally accepted or otherwise. Jayjg 07:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Anyone can refer to military control of territory as "occupation". In its simplest meaning, occupation is merely shorthand for "control by military forces". The issue is really whether Israel's control of West Bank, Gaza Strip (or maybe also Golan Heights) is an illegal occupation - either as defined by international law or as claimed by various parties citing international law. (And don't forget that Jordan "occupied" West Bank for a while, too.)
It's the connotation of the phrase occupied territories which is at issue. If it's routinely used as a synonym for "territories which Israel occupies illegally", then I think we should spell it out, rather than assuming our readers will figure out the fine points via context. --Uncle Ed 14:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Are the parts of the West Bank and Gaza which are military occupied by P.A. and Hamas forces also "occupied"? Jayjg 17:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
1. Jmabel, one link to Bush's speech referring to Israel's occupation was posted during the VfD discussion here.
Yes, by me, before I got the general sense that a lot of people didn't want to be "confused by facts". -- Jmabel 18:28, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

You got that right. "Facts are stupid things" [Ronald Reagan]. HistoryBuffEr 18:36, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
2. Let's not waste time on sophistries (Is Israel occupied by Jews?).

No rational person is disputing that there is occupation. A handful of extreme Likudniks have used "so called occupied territories" for legalistic reasons, to avoid implicit admission that Israel is subject to U.N. resolutions; the few loonies who sincerely deny occupation are just that. HistoryBuffEr 18:17, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Taking Jay's question as "WB & Gaza ... militarily controlled": then I'm not sure how Wikipedia ought to characterize that control. Should we say that they "occupy" them (in the legal sense), or not? I hope the Occupation of the West Bank article will answer this question. AFAIK the last "occupier" of the West Bank was Jordan, then Israel wrested control from them. From there, viewpoints diverge.
Some say the entire area is a legal no-mans land. Others say the Oslo Accords govern, i.e., are the "law". Still others say that whatever the UN declares ought to determine it. Before Wikipedia says who is right, it will have to list the various different legal opinions. Er, actually, even then Wikipedia won't be able to endorse any of those. It could, however, say how many people or how many UN General Assembly reps support any particular view. --Uncle Ed 18:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Uncle_Ed, we are not a Legal Arbitration Body on ME. Let's just assume that the U.N. is and take it from there. HistoryBuffEr 18:36, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)~~
~~Context~~
~~The usual context of occupied Palestinian territories is in the following argument, which goes (roughly):~~
The true Palestinians are the non-Jordanian, non-Israeli Arabs indigenous to the British Mandate of Palestine.

The world owes this group a homeland.

The homeland should be a sovereign nation.

This sovereign nation should be called "Palestine"

Anyone illegally occupying a territory should give it (i.e, return it) to its rightful owners.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip rightfully belong to the "true Palestinians".

Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
Therefore, Israel should give the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the "true Palestinians", so they can create a sovereign homeland in these areas, to be called "Palestine". --Uncle Ed 14:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Uncle_Ed, you are on the right track. You have practically rephrased U.N. Resolutions (the main diff is that Israel has grabbed much more territory than any resolution allowed). HistoryBuffEr 18:26, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
Israel has not "grabbed" anything! Israel was willing to live in peace but: In the 1948 The Arabs attacked Israel; in 1956 and 1967 Egypt blocked the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, a provocation inviting retribution. Israel withdrew from Sinai in 1956, and in 1976 after the Camp David Accords, gave back to Egypt what it conquered; Israel subsequently signed a peace treaty with Jordan and commenced the Oslo Accords with the PLO to hand over the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians (who nevertheless prefer "Jihads" to real peace)....all of these actions by Israel are the exact opposite of "grabbing". Syria remains hostile and the Golan Heights are controlled by Israel until such time as Syria is willing to "normalize" relations with Israel in the same way that Egypt and Jordan did. Israel also pulled out of land in Lebanon...so the notion of "grabbing land" is such sheer hog-wash... IZAK 21:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~Authority of the UN~~
HistoryBuffER (may I call you "Buff" for short? :-),
I take it that you consider the UN to have the legal standing (or authority) to make legal judgments about the land disputes in Palestine (er, the region). Perhaps we should mention UN votes or policies, then, as in:
According to a UN Security Council resolution, Israel must...; or,

A General Assembly vote urges Israel to...
~~That is, it would be the point of view (POV) of the United Nations that Israel is obligated to do this or that. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed~~
Fine by me.

Note that the pro-Israel lobby likes to dismiss the U.N. (and, implicitly, most of the world) as "biased", but forget that Israel was created by the U.N.

(P.S.: Funny how they insist on disclaimer "non-binding" for G.A. resolutions condemning Israel, but omit that disclaimer for the also non-binding G.A. Partition resolution, which created Israel.) HistoryBuffEr 19:10, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC
Yes, the 1947 Resolution was non-binding, which is why, in fact, the U.N. did not create Israel. Rather, the (future) citizens of Israel themselves created the country, in an act of auto-emancipation; the U.N. itself did nothing to help that process. Jayjg 22:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No-one is "forgetting" the UN's role in 1947 in assisting with the creation of the State of Israel for which most of world Jewry is very grateful (even though all the Arabs at the UN voted against it then). However, since then the UN has been inundated with over one hundred new states mainly in the Third World (some of these "countries" are just islands with a few hundred thousand people in them) who would gladly recognize and accept help from Israel in large numbers, but due to the pressure, blackmail, and fear of terrorism from the mostly Anti-Semitic Islamic Arab nations (and previously also from the now defunct Anti-Semitic Soviet Union) the bulk of these poor nations cave-in to pressure from the oil-rich Arab states' hate for the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. IZAK 21:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
~~I am "forgetting" it; all the U.N. did was vote, the rest the local inhabitants had to do. Jayjg 22:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Food for thought~~
~~Jay, Buff, IZAK, great debate points all around. Now can we take the ideas you three just expressed, and add them somehow to the relevant articles? --Uncle Ed 13:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
Yes, provided that the views of the U.N. (ie. most of the world) are featured prominently, not just casually mentioned and buried behind the views of Jewish and Islamist extremists (which is the case in current articles). HistoryBuffEr 18:08, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
~~Maybe we can introduce United Nations POV like this:~~
According to the UN, Israel's control of the West Bank is an "illegal occupation". A vote by the GA or Security Council condemned, etc.

Attempts by Israeli military forces to move suspected terrorists from their homes has been condemned by the UN as "genocide" or "crimes against humanity" (okay, this sentence obviously needs some work).
Even though I often think that the UN is wrong -- consisting, as it does, of many dozens of small third world countries who vote en bloc for resolutions which IMHO violate the UN's founding principles -- still, I don't think Wikipedia should SAY that the UN is wrong or EXCLUDE its points of view. If it indeed represents much or most of the world's opinions, then our articles should say so and include those opinions!
Like:
Hardly anyone in the world protested when Jordan occupied the West Bank, but condemnation has been swift and steady for Israel. Its control of many areas of the West Bank has been called an "occupation" so often that people interested in the Middle East are liable to forget that Syria occupies Lebanon.
~~I'm not offering FULL cooperation -- I think you and I may be at odds on certain points, but if we can agree on NPOV we can make a start. --Uncle Ed 19:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Occupation is THE Cause~~
~~To be NPOV, articles on Palestine must present a big picture based on facts:~~
Israel's Occupation Is The Main Cause of this continued conflict.
~~NPOV is consensus, and consensus is what most of the world thinks. Thus:~~
If Israel were not occupying Palestinian lands it would be able to claim self-defense. As Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, Israel's claims of self-defense (implicit or explicit) must be placed in proper context.
~~Only Palestinians can legitimately claim self-defense under the international law; this point should precede and counterbalance any such Israel's claim.~~
If Israel were not occupying Palestinian lands it would be able to claim it was being unjustly attacked. As Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, claims (implicit or explicit) that attacks on Israel are unjust or result of irrational hatred should be preceded and counterbalanced by the fact that Israel has refused to withdraw, and continues to bomb, kill and destroy Palestinian people and infrastructure.
If Israel were not occupying Palestinian lands it would it would undoubtedly have support of most in the international community. As Israel is occupying Palestinian lands, any claim that the Arabs, the Muslims, the U.N., the Europeans, and most of the world are biased must be placed in proper context.
Israel is in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions (resolutions supported by Israel's best friend, the U.S.) and continues to kill Palestinian civilians in plain sight of the world every day. These facts should precede and counterbalance any Israel's claim of bias.
~~HistoryBuffEr 18:47, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)~~
~~POV of just one side~~
~~Buff wrote:~~
To be NPOV, articles on Palestine must present a big picture based on facts: Israel's Occupation Is The Main Cause of this continued conflict. NPOV is consensus, and consensus is what most of the world thinks.
~~I disagree for at least two reasons:~~
It is not an objective fact but merely one side's point of view that the main cause of the conflict is Israeli "occupation". Another widely held POV is that Arabs are using the refugee problem and the nationalist aspirations issue as excuses to destroy Israel; i.e., no concessions Israel makes will satisfy the Islamic world (give them in inch, they'll take a mile, as the old Arabian saying goes).

NPOV is NOT consensus. It is not "a viewpoint which everyone can agree on" but "an agreement by everyone to include all viewpoints"!
But I do agree that articles on Palestine should present a big, fact-based picture. That is, I believe what you just said, and if you believe it too then we agree.
The big picture, if based on fact, should consider that three wars were fought; that Jordan and other Arab countries aren't helping resettle or assimilate Arab refugees; Jews in Islamic countries aren't treated NEARLY as well as Muslims in Israel, the US and other democratic countries; etc. --Uncle Ed 19:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)