Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 1

The merger dispute

There are several related disputes that have raged on the pages Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories, Talk:Zionism and Talk:Occupied territories. The issue that should be resolved first, in my opinion, because it is completely blocking progress, is whether this article should be merged into Occupation of the Palestinian territories or vice versa. No one has expressed support for keeping both articles. Once we have one article, we will have a single place to address the related issues, particulary what is the proper usage of the terms "occupied territory" and "disputed territory" within Wikipedia articles.

So far, Jayjg, Viriditas, Humus sapiens, and SlimVirgin seem to feel strongly that Occupied Territories (Israeli) should be merged into Occupation of the Palestinian territories. Me, Marsden and (I think) Grace Note believe that Occupation of the Palestinian territories should be merged into Occupied Territories (Israeli). The reasons I believe this is the way the merger should be done are:

1. The subjects are different: OofPt is specifically about the West Bank and Gaza whereas OT(I) is about not only those areas but all the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war. It makes sense to merge the specific article into the more general article.
2. Merging OT(I) into OotPt would require substantially rewriting or removing a lot of the material in the OotPt article, material which makes sense only in the context of the narrow scope of that article. However, merging OotPt into OT(I) would not require rewriting much in OT(I), just adding whatever is relevant and non-redundant from the former.
3. Much of the history and talk in Occupation of the Palestinian territories was produced by editors who believed the article was about occupation of the Palestinian territories. Expanding the scope of that article to include the Sinai and Golan Heights would make much of that history senseless. I am particularly thinking here about the topic Jmabel's thoughts on what the article should be, at the beginning of Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories, which neither Jayjg, Viriditas, Humus sapies, nor SlimVirgin have ever responded to, despite that the fact that their thoughts on what that article should be are completely opposed to Jmabel's.
4. Quite frankly, the OT(I) article is better written and, if anything, closer to the NPOV standard than OotPt (which is not to stay it could not stand improvement in that regard).

I suggest we defer discussion on other issues, particularly what the title of the surviving article should be, until the merger issue is resolved. Once we have one article, we can then discuss how that article should be titled. Also, while the merger discussion is going on I urge that there be no unilateral actions, like major rewrites, blanking, or renaming of either of the articles in question. I hope we can resolve the matter among ourselves, but I am prepared to take this through the Wikipedia mediation process if necessary.

Brian Tvedt 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, if we're all agreed that the contents of the two articles should be merged, then I think the real issues are what the scope of the article should be, and what the title should be. I agree with you that the scope should include all territories captured by Israel in the Six-day war; does everyone else agree? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that that is the best way to approach it. But whatever we include, your article should be merged into this one. The other one is hopelessly biased. Any article on this subject should take as its base the understood, majority view on the territories. It should include the Israeli viewpoint but it should not give it undue weight. Wherever it is put forward, it should be clearly stated that it is the view of the Israeli government and its supporters, and not a fact nor a widely held view. That's what NPOV demands. Grace Note 01:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Your article"? I haven't written any articles on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Another policy you don't understand is the one that says that we don't own articles just because we write them. Even if you had written one, it still wouldn't be "yours" in that sense, Jay. "Your" article is this POV monstrosity, into which you insist on merging anything that suggests that Israel is occupying the territories known to nearly everyon e on this planet as "the occupied territories". Grace Note 07:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the article is called, the official positions of both Israel and the PNA concerning the controversy over how the territories are referenced needs to be accurately presented. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My original concern when I wrote this article was that the term "Occupied Territories," used to refer to the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War, had been entirely orphaned on Wiki. This in spite of the fact that it is broadly used here, as in Talk:Israel, where the term is used in a link with no less than eight sub-links. And Jay, Slim, and I spent quite awhile yesterday repairing links that clearly refered to the OT(I) but which had been left pointing to the generalized-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness occupied territories article.

The occupied territories article was originally about the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War, but its meaning got diverted into being about the meaning of the term "occupied territory" generally, something for which there is, in my opinion, almost no need whatever.

In that respect, I still strongly feel that somehow the term "Occupied Territories," used to refer to the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War, must not be orphaned, in spite of Jay and Slim's efforts to the contrary. It has been used essentially ubiquitously, and the only people who have ever objected to it are those who want to promote ultimate Israeli possession of part or all of them: this is hardly NPOV. Even if it is disputed that "occupied" is legally accurate, there can be no reasonable question that the term has been very broadly used, historically, and to pretend that this is not the case is to re-write history. I have already made this argument at Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories.

This (Occupied Territories (Israeli)) article is, by design, very matter-of-fact in its writing. I don't think any of what is in it is in any real sort of factual dispute; there are objections to termology, which are addressed, and there will probably be objections to disclosure and prominence of certain information, but I don't think it is appropriate of Wikipedia to censor.

The Occupation of the Palestinian territories article, on the other hand, is a ranging and disorganized editorial. It seems mostly to be reporting on statements of different opinions, with relatively little about the underlying facts. There should be, in my opinion, somewhere on Wikipedia statements of the differing opinions on what the correct moral and legal positions regarding the concerned territories are, and what the ultimate disposition of them should be, but there should first be a straight-forward statement of what the facts of the situation are. Occupied Territories (Israeli) aims at this; Occupation of the Palestinian territories does not.

Marsden 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to continue to debate with you and assume good faith while you have nonsense on your user page about how many Wikipedians are "evil". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Espousing ethnic cleansing is evil. Debate that. Marsden 19:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Which Wikipedians are espousing ethnic cleansing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Directly, User:Guy Montag is. He writes,

• "Transfer is the only solution. I am of course talking of transfer of Arabs, either through incentive or law out of the territories and Israel,"

adding,

• "Now don't take it the wrong way." (!)

And indirectly, you are, Slim. So glad I could clear that up for you. Marsden 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought for one horrible minute I was being accused of POV editing, violating policy, or making spelling mistakes. I'm so relieved it's only ethnic cleansing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Indirecty she is? Do go on. Somehow, it isn't cleared up for me. El_C 10:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should email him and ask him to explain? It can't help the article any to discuss it, can it? Grace Note 07:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Geez louise, Marsden, good eye...NOT. If Slim's an ethnic cleansing proponent, then what is this guy? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see. So a person cannot be a thing if there is someone who commits a worse offence. So if my wife accuses me of sleeping with her sister, I need only point to a guy who raped someone else's sister and say "now that is what I call sleeping with your sister" and I'm off the hook? Grace Note 07:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg's "oops" and "no good faith" edits

Jayjg, your edits seem a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. You should not be making edits to this page solely for the purpose of retaliation against another user for changes that user made on a different page, whether that user violated an "agreement" or not. I have provided specifc reasons why the more specific article should be merged into this one. You have not provided any reason for doing it the other way. In fact it doesn't make sense, since you say you want an article on the more general topic. Brian Tvedt 02:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Brian, how do you feel about Marsden's subsequent reversion of your article merger, and move of your article back to its old name - "good faith"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Although there was consesus to merge the articles, the title change was done without discussion. I agreed to it, but Marsden did not, and he certainly has the right to speak for himself on the point. He should not have reverted the text of the article just because he disagreed with the title, though.

That being said, Marsden is a relatively new user. You, on the other hand, are a sysop and a member of the arbitration committee, and therefore your misbehavior is of far more serious concern.

I have to say, if you were in favor of the merger, your repeated blanking of the agreed on target page was not very helpful. Brian Tvedt 11:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Merged from Occupation of the Palestinian territories

This is a true merge, integrating the text of the other article into this one, not a simple blanking and redirect. There are still rough spots and I may not have removed all duplication.

There seems to be consensus on the direction of the merge, as nobody raised any specific objection to merging in the direction I proposed and argued for. Also, we all apparently agree that the scope of the article should be territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war.

As to the title, I favor Territories under Israeli control which seems neutral, and doesn't suffer from the objections of "occupied territory" or "disputed territory". Brian Tvedt 02:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll point the other article here as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Territories under Israeli control" is just silly, and very POV. Isn't Tel Aviv a territory under Israeli control? "Occupied" will, of course, face objections from the rightwing extremists here, but it is the only accurate term that describes the situation in a NPOV fashion. It is the term used by all non-Israeli governments in the world, all major academic institutions, all major news agencies, etc. This isn't Fox News, we shouldn't create our own 'fair and balanced' presentation, we should present the factual situation (and note objections from significant minorities). --saxet 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. The entire world, bar a very small majority, calls these the "occupied territories". Naming this article according to the minority view would be similar to having an article called the supposed deity named God or the false theory of evolution. Grace Note 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, we can certainly agree on some sort of name, but Marsden's continually creating POV forks is getting out of hand. Let's have one article, and we'll work out the name and contents of that one. Brian has merged everything there, this is the best starting place. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Why "occupied territories" should be used in Wikipedia is because: United Nations uses it, Amnesty International uses it, U.S. Department of State uses it, the CIA uses it, the Human Rights Watch uses it, Reuters uses it, and so forth. --saxet 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur - they are called the Occupied Territories. The current title is a ridiculous euphemism. john k 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've started a copy edit but now can't insert it because Marsden keeps reverting, so I'm pasting it in here until he stops. It's absurd that you're now holding up improving the article, Marsden, and keep reverting to a version with poor writing for the sake of making whatever your point is (I've lost track of whether you even have one). I'm pasting here what I'd done before his latest revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Supporters of Israel object to using the term "Occupied Territories" to describe these areas, preferring to call them "disputed territories" or, with reference to the West Bank, Judea and Samaria. They argue that to refer to the territories as occupied precludes Israel from claiming parts of them as its sovereign territory, and that being an occupying power would invoke the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the protection of civilians during war and occupation. Israel holds that the Convention does not apply to the territories.

For Palestinians, the Syrian residents of the Golan Heights, and their supporters, the term "occupied territory" reflects their view that Israel is a foreign presence in control of areas over which they have no sovereignty. To support this view, they cite:

• Israeli military administration over Palestinians and the residents of the Golan Heights
• The view of the world's governments that this is an occupation
• The legal interpretations of the International Court of Justice, other UN bodies, and the Supreme Court of Israel that it is an occupation

Supporters of Israel believe the term "occupied" expresses prejudice about the situation which, they argue, has no basis in international law or history. They consider the area "disputed," based on the following:

• No borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders.
• The United Nations uses the term "disputed" about all other contested areas in the world — even those for which a stronger case for "occupation" can be made.
• Historically, Jews have at least as strong a claim to the area as Palestinians do, and possibly stronger.

• The Land of Israel plays a far more important role in Jewish history than in Palestinian or Arab history.

If only the article were about Israeli bitching about the rest of the world calling the territories it is occupying "the occupied territories" and not the occupied territories themselves, this would all be tremendous! Why not go and write a POV article about how we're all wrong to call the territories "occupied" and leave this one for the facts about the occupation? Grace Note 07:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Consistent with democracy

Do Israeli supporters say that this situation is consistent with democracy? If so, okay, but if no source is made handy, it should probably be rephrased. El_C 12:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, they say that Israel is a democracy and seem to be saying that the West Bank is part of Israel. Brian Tvedt 01:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding POV terms

In line with the elimination of any reference to "occupation" in the title, I'm going to change all direct uses of the term "Israel" to "the Zionist Entity," or some variation of that. As most of you probably know, many countries do not recognize the State of Israel, and many people throughout the Muslim world do not acknowledge its existence, so it would be POV to use that term: "Israel" is pro-Israeli POV; "Zionist Entity" is NPOV; and things like "den of vipers" or "blight upon the earth" are Palestinian/Arab POV.

While some of you may think that this is outrageous, it really isn't, or at least it is less outrageous than the fait accompli of eliminating direct references to "Israeli occupation" because that term is POV. It is official Wikipedia policy that cultural bias is NPOV, and worldwide, there is much more dispute as to whether the State of Israel is legitimate than there is as to whether Israel occupies the Occupied Territories.

Obviously, I'm going to have an awful lot of editting to do all throughout Wikipedia in order to eliminate the POV term "Israel," so I'll welcome help from wherever I can get it. I'll allow a day or so for people to comment. Marsden 13:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm been working to clean up the Israel/Palestinian articles from what I consider to be a pro-Israeli bias. I'm a secular jew and feel that quite a few of the other editors are hardcore right-wing Israeli Nationalists (who let their personal POV saturate the articles). But this suggestion from you is beyond pale, and I will help make sure that you don't have any success with your enterprise. Of course it is outrageous that the hardline group has almost managed to erase all references to the fact that territories are/have been occupied. It doesn't excuse any effort to eliminate the name "Israel", which all countries recognize as the name of Israel, even if some countries do not recognize the legality of Israel's claim to land. --saxet 13:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, mistaken about all countries recognizing the name "Israel," unless you mean it in the sense only of understanding what it means. You can research that if you like. It really is, from a world-wide perspective, more outrageous to eliminate references to "Israel's occupation" than to eliminate references to "Israel." You can research that, too. I would like very much not to have to replace "Israel" with "the Zionist Entity" throughout Wikipedia; frankly, I agree with you that, however much different people may object to it, "Israel" is still a broadly used and internationally and legally recognized term and everyone understands what it means. But if POV sensitivities are such that references to "Israel's occupation" have disappeared, it should be clear that neutrality demands that references to "Israel" itself should disappear. I'd prefer that they both stay/be replaced, but it's a battle that is being lost. Would you be willing to lend a hand in restoring references to "Israel's occupation?" Marsden 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:POINT is my comment at this time. El_C 13:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Can I infer from this that you are willing to help restore references to "Israel's occupation?" Marsden 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not from this you can't. But, yes, I am in favour of such references. El_C 20:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Having announced a deliberate plan to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, knowing full well it is contrary to policy here, please consider yourself warned that to do such is vandalism; do it even and you'll be blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• You'd be totally out of order to do so. It is true that "Israel" represents a POV, albeit a very widely held one. Marsden argues that it is one coherently. All you do is bluster and threaten. What does that tell us? You can't answer the substance, so all you have left is your blocking button. Courageous stuff, your defence of Wikipedia. Grace Note 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You have a serious issue if you believe that a country (and its Name) recognized by the UN are POV. I will do my best, within Wikipedia limits, to avoid those changes to stick. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You have a serious issue if you don't understand that any POV is a POV, regardless how widely it is held, and that if Wikipedia agrees, as it does, that POVs that are very widely held are acceptable as "facts", it agrees to that for all such POVs.Grace Note 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And what have you two worthies done about the effort to eliminate any direct reference in Wikipedia to Israel being an occupying power? Does your selective outrage have something to do with skin color? Marsden 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Suppress an anti-Israeli viewpoint, get appointed to the arbcom; suppress a pro-Israeli viewpoint, you're a vandal. Draw your own conclusions. Grace Note 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I have to interject here - we argued vehemently once before, and reached accomodation that allowed us to work together on a contentious article; I thought your ideas were valuable, and the improved opening paragraphs of the Zionism article reflected that. When the Occupied Territories fight started on that page, I tried several times to develop compromises, but have since dropped out of that debate because I didn't want to get involved in an edit storm that would drive me crazy, and because it seemed like the chance of achieving reasoned discussion and consensus between the two sides was unlikely. So, with this as context, I have to tell you that I find your proposal quite troubling, in that it is definitively a WP:POINT issue that goes far beyond your ongoing arguments over the issue of the occupied territories or whatever you are fighting over. If I understand you, you are threatening to remove the word Israel from the articles on Jewish history or Berihah or the Irgun or any one of the thousands of other pages not related to your dispute because you are having a fight on this page? I know you are frustrated, and that you are trying to make a point with this, but trying to make a point by attacking other articles is exactly the kind of destructive behavior that threatens the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and draws in editors like myself who would otherwise have at least listened to a more reasonable debate on the topic. You are not going to convince anyone with this approach, and attempts to point out contradictions in people's positions through over-the-top proposals is not an effective argumentation technique, it undermines any points you might have, and makes it seem like you are not acting in good faith. Please reconsider your approach. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Polonius, do you agree or disagree that Wikipedia should have a consistent policy about what terms are not directly used because they are POV? All I'm asking for is consistency, and if "Israel" and "Occupied" are not to be used directly together, then the term "Israel" itself, which, world-wide, is far more objected to than "Israeli occupied," must also be. Marsden 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, my problem is that you are not asking for consistancy, you are threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. No matter how right or wrong you are, I think it is absolutely terrible precedent to allow the sort of threat you made to work as a rhetorical device. If this approach to resolving arguments is used repeatedly, Wikipedia will either fall apart or become so annoying to edit that no one will want to do so. I would have been willing to weigh in on the issue of Israeli occupation under other circumstances (for example, a request on my Talk page), but I will not do so under the threat that otherwise you will systematically vandalize thousands of articles. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate WP:POINT. Not that it isn't absurd that the term Occupied Territories has been banned. john k 04:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fact v argument

Brian, in the terminology section, these positions are not stated as fact, but as argument. In attributing that argument to the settlers and their supporters, you're qualifying it. The section already says that these are arguments used by Israel's supporters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I now accept that you are attributing it to "Israel's supporters". That being said, I don't think it's a valid summary of what "supporters of Israel" believe. There are many people (such as Peace Now) who consider themselves supporters of Israel, but don't assert that Jews have a "claim" to the West Bank that trumps the 3+ million Palestinians who live there. Attributing this argument to the settler's movement, as I did, is more accurate. Brian Tvedt 10:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because we list the arguments that are among those used by Israel's supporters doesn't mean that all supporters use all the arguments. The point is that not only the settler movement uses those arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the wording, so it is now about people who object to the term "occupied", which is more accurate anyway, since there are supporters of Israel who do object to the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Marsden, did you do a cut and paste move of this talk page? That's a big no no. john k 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Why is it a big no no? Marsden 13:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but we've lost the page history (of the article), and I can't find a way to restore it. I moved the page back when I saw Marsden had changed it, but I didn't realize he had made a cut-and-paste move, so maybe something I did caused the history to disappear. I'm seeing that there are 117 deleted edits, but when I go to restore them, it says there is no page history. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Jayjg's fixed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves destroy the history. They are always to be avoided. john k 14:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I've managed to restore the history as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Aquifers

Marsden keeps inserting this paragraph into the article:

A central strategic concern of Israel in the West Bank is maintaining control of the Mountain Aquifer, which supplies over a third of Israel's fresh water resources. Israel has strictly limited Palestinian well-digging in the West Bank, resulting in water access for Palestinians there that is near the limits necessary to sustain human life, as reported by the United Nations. These limits help to preserve the Aquifer for Israeli use.

Can someone explain what this original research strategic analysis is doing in the middle of a discussion of the political history of the territories? Did the Sinai Peninsula section discuss the "strategic concern of Israel" regarding Oil supplies, for example (the Sinai Peninsula had Israel's only working oil wells, as far as I know)? And why the focus on water, and not, say, on military issues (e.g. strategic depth)? The entire rest of the article discusses the political and legal history of the territories in question, why is this out-of-place argument being inserted? Is this article to be a reprise of the Arab-Israeli conflict article, or West Bank article? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly original research, and its germane to the discussion of the territories. Marsden 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Water lies at the core of the problems in Israel. This is why [the Israelis] are interested in the occupied territories; not for the territory, but for the water within that territory." -- Former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. No reason Sinai section should not mention oil; I doubt any of us do not know that Israel gave up its only oil production in making peace with Egypt. Marsden 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first is the narrow focus on water resources as being the key issue, which is a highly POV approach. There are many issues in the conflict. For some the issue is purely religious; this is land that they believe God promised them. For others the issue is about Jewish ownership of the land, and Zionist ideals. For others the issues are all military (strategic depth). For others, the issues are mostly political (don't give up something for nothing). Your focus on one narrow view of what it is about (water) creates a distorted POV for this section. The second, larger issue is that this is not an article about what various people think are the "real" reasons why Israel insists on controlling the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but rather a simple description of the political history of the territories in question. Attempting to shift the focus of this article for just this small section is another way of POVing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My words were "a central strategic concern." This is not the same as "the key issue." Also, most people do not consider religious concerns nor Zionist ideals to be strategic concerns. Is User:John McW really your sockpuppet? Marsden 16:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you returned to silly personal attacks instead of honest discussion? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, "a central strategic concern" is not the same as answering the question of why Israel continues its occupation. As you note, there are many factors to that. Among them, water is a central strategic concern. I don't think anyone honestly disputes that. As much as you have protested against "POV forks," I don't think you have the moral position to proclaim what the article is "about" and to insist that anything beyond what you understand it to be "about" is improper. Marsden 16:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is not a strategic analysis of the reasons why Israel holds onto the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which, as I have pointed out, are multifaceted. Picking out one specific one out of at least a half-dozen critical ones is POV. If you're looking for an article to discuss the reasons why Israel is holding on to these territories, this article doesn't appear to be it, since none of the rest of the article discusses anything like this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was planning on inserting something about the Sinai oil fields, but haven't got around to it. Of course the water issue is relevant. Brian Tvedt 11:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Of course"? Could you elaborate please? Would you also suggest sections discussing the reasons for holding on to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It probably would be appropriate -- in order to prevent POV forks, as you like to say when it suits you, Jay -- to have sections about both the practical significances of the territories and about the conditions there. This isn't a matter of just red states versus blue states, after all -- there are real consequences both ways in the situation. Marsden 13:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comment began with an irrelevant personal attack, so I didn't see any point in reading the rest. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Article title dispute

Can we try to separate the article Title dispute from the article contents wars? The article was originally called "Occupation of the Palestinian territories". Marsden created a different version of the article called "Occupied Territories (Israeli)". Brian merged the two and called the result "Territories under Israeli control". Can we have some discussion here about what the ultimate title of this article should be? The opening paragraph can certainly be changed to reflect whatever that title is or becomes. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, please continue to move the discussion around. "Territories under Israeli control" is just silly, and very POV. Isn't Tel Aviv a territory under Israeli control? "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" will, of course, face objections from the rightwing extremists here, but it is the only accurate term that describes the situation in a NPOV fashion. It is the term used by all non-Israeli governments in the world, all major academic institutions, all major news agencies, etc.

I guess it depends how you define "territory". Some use the term to describe only areas outside the country proper. For example, the Australian Antarctic Territory is part of a territory, while Sydney is part of Australia's territory but isn't part of a territory. (Reminds me of a certain UN resolution...) Andjam 15:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't Fox News, we shouldn't create our own 'fair and balanced' presentation, we should describe the factual situation (and note objections from significant minorities). Why "occupied territories" should be used in Wikipedia is because: United Nations uses it, Amnesty International uses it, U.S. Department of State uses it, the CIA uses it, the Human Rights Watch uses it, Reuters uses it, and so forth. --saxet 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dervish, the article itself points out that there is a dispute regarding the neutrality and accuracy of the term. Opponents of the term raise arguments on that very point - for example, noting that the Gaza Strip and West Bank were never called "Occupied" during the 19 years that Egypt and Jordan controlled them. It has never been disputed that "Occupied territories" is a commonly used term, and that various organizations use it - the fact that you bring many examples of the same certainly bolsters a "common use" argument, but does nothing for a NPOV or accuracy argument. I note, however, that the U.N. itself does not use the phrase "The Occupied territories". Regarding your "Fox News" analogy, I don't watch TV, but I haven't seen anything that indicates to me that there is much difference between Fox News and, say, CNN, except that one is right-wing and one is left-wing - they're pretty much mirror images. Next, the claim that the territories are "occupied" is not a "fact", as you put it, but a legal argument which has not been decided in any court of law with proper jurisdiction over the matter. It certainly is a fact that Israel military controls the territories, but (in the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip at least), whether or not this makes them "occupied" depends on a whole bunch of factors which are unique in this situation. Finally, regarding your describing other editors as "the rightwing extremists here", I'd avoid pejoratives if I were you, since they are viewed as personal attacks, and in any event are completely inappropriate ad hominem arguments. I do note, however, that more right-wing Israelis/supporters view the territories as "liberated", and it appears from the Talk:Israel page (and the history of the article) that someone is making an argument for just that terminology. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We've already been over this, Jay. "Nigger" is not by any reckoning NPOV, but it has an entry. What you seem to want is to keep someone from searching wikipedia for "Occupied Territories" from ever finding that this term is often used to refer to the Israeli-Occupied Territories. Marsden 15:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied territories would still appear in the text, so a person searching would still be able to find them. Was your accusation made in good faith? Also, the n-word analogy would only work if it were the page used if you wanted to look up info on African-Americans, rather than about the use of the word. Andjam 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg , I honestly do not care about your POV or your original research. Cite sources instead. As for the extremist [1] John McW, that you are refering to as "someone" who is making an argument for the word "liberated" on Talk:Israel page, it should be noted that "John McW" is actually you, as confirmed by two upper level admins. My grandparents died in the Holocaust, if they knew that their grandchildren would carry on the sad human tradition of ethnic cleansing, they would weep. --saxet 16:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"John McW" is actually you, as confirmed by two upper level admins. This claim is even more outrageous than your previous ones. Provide evidence of this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied Territories, with "Territories" capitalized, seems good enough to me - are there any other places which are referred to as just the "Occupied Territories"? And I agree with Saxet's reasons why the term is NPOV. john k 14:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Stating that your grandparents died in the Holocaust is not very helpful in aiding discussion of what the article should be called. Andjam 09:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are examples from Google news of other places (Azerbaijan, Western Sahara) which are referred to as "the occupied territories":[2] [3] [4] Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That, in Azer Baijan, the term "occupied territories" is sometimes used to refer to Azeri-occupied territory, and that in Western Sahara, the term "occupied territories" is sometimes used to refer to occupied Western Saharan territory, is hardly reason to claim that the term "Occupied Territories" is not widely understood to mean the Israeli-Occupied Territories. Marsden 15:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people, probably the majority, would think of the Israeli occupied territories if someone talked about the occupied territories. But significant proportions would think of some other occupation. In addition, the use of the word "the occupied territories" implies that the Israeli occupied territories are the only occupied territories in the world, an opinion very few international lawyers would support. In summary, I feel the term "The occupied territories" does not represent the world wide view, and is not accurate. Andjam 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we must have a disambiguator, I'd prefer Occupied Territories (Israel) to Occupied Territories (Israeli). Israeli Occupied Territories would also be acceptable. john k 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to include in the article that the UN, Amnesty etc have referred to the territories are "occupied," just as we note in Hamas which governments have designated the group "terrorist." But just because the overwhelming majority of specialists and members of the public would call Hamas a terrorist organization doesn't mean we can call the page Hamas (terrorists). NPOV has to trump the common-use argument. We have to report majority and significant-minority positions in articles, and make clear which is which, but in titles, we should use neutral names and phrases. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that the entire world is being incorrect when they are refering to the Occupied Territories. If that's the case, become politically involved, write newspaper articles but do not change Wikipedia articles to conform with a view that is held by less than 0.5 percent. If the U.S. State Department is happy with Occupied Territories, if Jewish newspapers are happy with Occupied Territories, then it doesn't matter what your POV is. Just like I shouldn't change "the armies of six Arab nations attacked the State of Israel" to "semi-organized units of people of Arabic decent uninvited visited the State of Israel". --saxet 15:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So following your argument, we should move Hamas to Hamas (terrorists), in case by omitting that word we're implying that practically the entire world is incorrect? Do you accept that that is a consequence of your argument? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually Hamas are not referred to as terrorists by the entire world. It's mostly an Isreali-U.S. phenomena. But that's irrevelant; the name of Hamas is Hamas - this is recognized by all (including Sharon and Bush). And the name of the occupied territories is the Occupied Territories. --saxet 16:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Hamas are regarded as terrorists by the United States, Canada, Israel, and the European Union. And the term "occupied territories" isn't a name. It's a legal description which, in this case, is disputed because it appears not to fit the legal definition. The article can outline the pros and cons of it, but we shouldn't beg the question, pre-judge the issue, with the title. If you're going to rely on common-use arguments, you'll find that lots of other article titles would have to be changed to make your position consistent. You'd also have to define "common use". Would you mean commonly used by ordinary people? In which countries? How would we count them? Or commonly used by governments? Which governments? How could we be sure we were correctly reflecting all views? If most governments did start to call Israel "Zionist entity," would that mean we'd have to follow suit? Your argument has implications that you're not taking on board. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Irrevelant, that the name of Hamas is "Hamas" is recognized by the United States, Canada, Israel, and the European Union. The Occupied Territories is a name. A widely recognized name, recognized by the United States, Canada, and the European Union. As we shouldn't "pre-judge" the issue, it's not our role to "judge" it either. Your POV regarding legal definitions and such is completely irrelevant, as is mine. You're attempting some form of original research, and also Shifting the Burden of proof. You have to prove that your inarguably minority view is shared by enough people to warrant inclusion in the article. I've already proved that governments, new agencies, academia, encyclopaedias, etc use the name Occupied Territories, I don't have to prove it further. If all governments in the world (except Israel) started to refer to Israel as "the Zionist Entity" I would hate it, and fight those sentiments - but it wouldn't do no good to pretend that it wasn't happening. Better to operate in the real world than to create a fuzzy warm fairytale version here on Wikipedia. --saxet 18:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If common use arguments worked for all titles, then the Taiwan article would be about the Republic of China, and the China article would be about the People's Republic of China. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Straw man. Except, of course, that Republic of China and People's Reublic of China are commonly used by governments, academia, etc. --saxet 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Straw man" in what sense? Aren't you arguing that article titles should reflect common use? If not, what exactly are you arguing? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In the sense of a logical fallacy. Taiwan and Republic of China are both common use names; Taiwan by newspapers and such, Republic of China by governments and such. Any name used, other than Occupied Territories for the occupied territories, would be extremely far from a common use name. And not factual. And not NPOV. --saxet 16:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself, saxet, but without developing the argument. First, a straw man argument isn't a logical fallacy (not in any strict sense), and secondly, Jay's point didn't amount to a straw man argument anyway. Third, the description "occupied territories" is based on a legal definition that this situation arguably does not fit, so it clearly isn't "factual," whatever that means. And fourth, we're arguing here about whether that title would be NPOV, so there's no point in simply stating that it is. Please argue for it, so we can see where the argument takes us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure it is, so is the False dilemma. What you fail to realize is that it doesn't matter how you interpret the legal technicalities regarding international law and the occupied territories. If I brought fifty friends aboard Wikipedia and we all agreed that the real NPOV name of the territories would be "Strawberry Fields Forever", we could temporarily have the name changed to that, but it wouldn't change what name people in the real world use. So my argument is that none of us is credible enough to name/rename the territories and that we should go by the name that is preferred by all governments in the world (except Israel), and by (roughly) 99.9% of all academic experts. --saxet 17:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Jayjg/John McW seem to be back to their pattern of just perpetually extending arguments, so that they can claim that the discussion isn't finished if anyone changes the article from their prefered version. It looks, however, like the censorship of "Israeli Occupied" doesn't have very broad support. Marsden 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be back to your pattern of personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims, and I'm getting tired of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet -- not me -- noted that John McW is actually you, Jay, and that this had been verified by "two upper level admins." You now -- after my comments, and after I directly asked you if John McW was your sockpuppet, and you declined to answer -- call Saxet's claim outrageous, again without denying it. I might also note that you, Jay, have quite a colored history of accusing people of being sockpuppets of each other, often in the face of what seem to me to be pretty pained and sincere insistences that it is not the case. If this be personal attack, then you are the master of it. Marsden 17:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I also note that in spite of your "Shock! Shock!" that I could "accuse" (actually I only posed it as a question to Grace Note) you of working for Dore Gold's organization or something very like it, you've never denied that, either. It is odd, at the very least, that you quite often post pretty heavily for nine hours straight, often for pretty much the same nine hours day after day. Not very many people would do that without getting paid for it; most wouldn't do it for any amount of money.Marsden 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Saxet didn't "note" anything, he made some ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, as have you, and outrageous and false claims don't require any sort of response. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you should be signing off in a little bit, so I'll be able to make the changes I want without worrying about any sort of response from you ... ;-) Marsden 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? And yet here I am to respond to you. Mind you, I do find your rather obsessive monitoring of my editing patterns, times, minutes per edit etc., rather, oh, what's the word? Right: "creepy". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Obsessive? Creepy? Ehhh, rather, oh, what's the expression? Right: "It takes one to know one": [5] Regards, yours truly, Huldra 08:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry is "obsessive"? That's an interesting slant. Andjam 09:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! And how did you happen to discover that particular edit of mine, Huldra? How ironic - another new editor with under 150 edits is suddenly combing through my many, many edits, and accusing me of being obsessive. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well! Thank you for giving us such a nice example of "ad hominem" argument! And I´m sorry to disappoint you: no, I do not "comb[] through [your] many, many edits", the link to [6] was simply 1 link away from your talk-page. But that you do not want us to note your [7] is noted. And quite understandable. I obviously hit a raw nerve? (again). Regards, & have a nice day Huldra 16:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, and now you've shown up and edited another article that you've never edited before, but which I've just reverted. What an amazing, non-obsessive, non-creepy coincidence! Jayjg ^(talk) 11:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Jay, do you recall your friend Slim's first "contribution" to the Occupied Territories article? I do. Marsden 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderful demonstration of Wikipedia:Assume good faith! Thank you! :-D Actually, what this is doing under Talk:Territories_under_Israeli_control is absolutely beyond me, but for the record: I started the day correcting a wrong link in [8] -then removed an obvious wrong link in his mother-in-law´s page, [9], then did what I had started with wanting to do: inserted inf. in the page of his son [10]. I had edited none of these three pages earlier; that you had previously edited one of them (=the mother-in-law´s), seems quite unavoidable, given "[your] many, many edits." Is your message that I should not even remove/change undisputed wrong information on any page you have edited?? Regards, & continue to have a nice day Huldra 16:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, quit the sockpuppetry allegations, all your other ad hominem comments and personal attacks, and the disruption, and engage in the debate properly. The only reason the argument continues is that no one who disagrees with it is actually prepared to follow it, which suggests you're acting on the basis of prejudice and nothing more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As is your want, Slim, you have begun dither your "argument" into meaninglessness: "a straw man argument isn't a logical fallacy." Puh-lease! Marsden 17:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A strawman argument is not regarded by most philosophers as a logical fallacy (and by none as a fallacy in the strict sense). It's a rhetorical device. And the example saxet gave wasn't even a strawman argument — but then he seems to believe there's such a thing as an "upper level admin" so he's not the best of sources. Please address the substantive issue, Marsden, instead of dancing around it, as you've been doing since you arrived at Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The "substantial issue," which I have never danced around, as you know very well, is whether or not it is POV to use the term "Occupied Territories" or even "Israeli Occupied Territories" to describe (duh!) the Israeli Occupied Territories. You have been presented, and have ignored or deflected or obfuscated, arguments well beyond any limit of reason on this, and yet you cheerily repeat over and over and over again your original position. It's very tiring, but of course, that's your intent, isn't it Slim? Marsden 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that appears to be your intent, along with POVing articles, and making personal attacks and baseless accusations. I'm going to have to return to my previous policy of only discussing this with less disruptive editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Hamas analogy is absurd - to begin with, there is no need to disambiguate the terrorist group Hamas from other groups called Hamas. As to the Occupied Territories, on what basis is it POV to say they are occupied? They have not been annexed to Israel, and they are under a military occupation. Does the Israeli government even explicitly deny that they are occupied territories (lower case)? john k 17:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli government disputes that they are occupied; see the sources provided in the article, or read this: [11]. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John, the Hamas argument was intended to address what I see as an inconsistency in the common-use argument that Marsden and saxet (and presumably you) are advancing. If there were another group called Hamas (let's say an Arab feminist group), and we therefore had to disambiguate, would you agree that we should call the articles Hamas (feminists) and Hamas (terrorists)? To use the word "terrorist" in the title would reflect the majority view of the nature of Hamas (probably the majority view of the English-speaking public, and certainly that of Western governments), and would therefore be consistent with the common-use argument. If you would not be prepared to disambiguate Hamas with the word "terrorist," you're admitting to an inconsistency in the argument. You're admitting, in other words, that common use is not always consistent with NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But there is no other group called Hamas - the argument is moot. Find an actual example, and I'll discuss it. As it is, there is no need to disambiguate Hamas, so I see no need to entertain the question. That said, calling a territory "occupied" and calling a group "terrorist" are not equally defamatory. I would suggest that the word "occupied" is not defamatory at all. Jay - thanks for the link to the Israeli position, but I don't think their definition of an occupation is tenable. Gaza and the West Bank are territories which are under military administration, and which are not part of the State of Israel. This is, by definition, an occupation. And the term is used in Israel as well. See Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. john k 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John, the point of an argument is to tease out inconsistencies in a position, so it makes no difference whether the example is a real one. The word "occupied" is disputed, and whether it's defamatory is beside the point. Also, what you gave is not the definition of "occupation." Iraq is under military administration (to all intents and purposes, though the U.S. denies it), and has 147,000 U.S. troops in it, and yet it isn't regarded as occupied. But regardless: the word is disputed, and I have given you another example of a disputed word (terrorist) that's in common use but is avoided when possible. Would you mind addressing the Hamas-title argument, even though it's not a real example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John, you should look through some of those links you posted a link to. In the case of the Jerusalem Post, most of them are not what you think, but rather are quoting people, or are opinion pieces, or even bulletin board comments. In the case of Haaretz, the same applies, or they are articles taken directly from other news sources, like Reuters. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I regard U.S.-occupied Iraq as U.S.-Occupied Iraq, let's see the United States Department of State self-reference that! :) El_C 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jay - I know that some of the google searches are not turning up actual articles. However, we do have this article in Haaretz, which says "Ha'aretz's position ever since the 1967 war has been that Israel should espouse a policy of returning the occupied territories to the Arabs in return for peace." So I think we can say that Ha'aretz, at least, accepts the use of the term "occupied territories" as valid. This article seems to me to be a Ha'aretz news article that uses the term "occupied territories." This article, after using the term in quotations several times, then uses it in a narrative passage. So Ha'aretz clearly does use the term. Obviously, Ha'aretz is fairly far to the left side of Israeli opinion, but it is also quite clear that it does not view use of the term "occupied territories" as controversial. This op-ed from the JPost, by somebody who calls Arafat "one of the two arch-terrorists of our times" refers to the occupied territories. [This http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113272267394] article, from the science section, also uses "occupied territories" unproblematically. Do I have to continue with this? NPOV does not mean that we have to treat all POVs as equivalent. Even if we take the dubious official Israeli position as a given, and add to that the opinions of crazy settler types, that still doesn't match the fact that every other country in the world, major NGOs, and the United Nations all use "occupied territories," including the United States. And that this term is used unproblematically by major Israeli newspapers, including in op-eds by people obviously unsympathetic to the Palestinians. At a certain point, whatever name we use will be POV, to an extent. The term "occupied territories" is so widespread that not using it seems like we're whoring for the Israeli POV. If the Jerusalem Post can, on occasion, at least, use "occupied territories," I don't see how it's too POV for us. john k 04:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Was the term "occupied territories" in common use before 1982 (which is an issue since the Sinai is included here)? In any case, since redirects from shorter titles can be easily made, why not place the article at a cumbersome but bland—and thus less controversial—title like Territories captured by Israel in 1967 or Territories captured by Israel in the Six-Day War? Whatever the "correct" title is now, I don't believe the historical fact of their capture is in dispute. Kirill Lokshin 04:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term was in common use before 1982. And very few people made any bones about it. I think the first instance that dispute over the terminology ever became prominent was in the Camp David negotiations in the mid-1970s, when Menachem Begin insisted on referring to "Judea and Samaria" rather than to "the West Bank." And the Americans and Egyptians involved in the negotiations thought that was really odd, but they wanted to accomplish something and didn't really care about the terminology, so they didn't challenge him. Marsden 14:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The term was apparently never used before Israel got control of the territories; when Jordan and Egypt were controlling them, somehow they were not "occupied". Very odd, that, unless one assumes that Jordan and Egypt have legitimate title to the territories, or that the Palestinians are not a people, but merely Jordanians and/or Egyptians. But somehow I don't think the people who describe Israeli control as an "occupation" are assuming that. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not so odd at all, really. The Palestinians are Arabs as well as being Palestinians. You might recall that for a brief time, Syria and Egypt were merged in the United Arab Republic. The occupation -- and it was occupation -- of the West Bank and Gaza by the Jordanians and Egyptians would have been more akin to Britain and the US "occupying" France in WWII after driving the Germans out but before French civil government could be restored. The difference, of course, was that at least the Jordanians did not want a Palestinian government ever to be formed, but instead wanted the Palestinians to become Jordanian. This is still, however, a stark contrast to the Israeli attitude to the Palestinians, whom Israel does not want at all to become Israelis, but would rather have disappear. I doubt it takes much imagination to understand the difference between being occupied by a country that wants you, as people, to join it and being occupied by a country that wants you, as people, to leave. Marsden 15:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The situation in the Gaza Strip certainly seems analogous. The Egyptians wanted no part of the Gazans, their situation under Egypt was worse than under Egypt, and the Egyptians were pretty much hated. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Jordanians annexed the West Bank. Although this was not recognized by anyone else, it does mean that the area was administered as part of Jordan, which is most certainly not true of the West Bank's treatment by Israel at present. The Jordanians also offered Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinians living in its territory. That being said, you are right about Gaza. But it is a minor point. The world isn't fair. Even if Gaza's status under Egypt and under Israel were the same (I'm not convinced of this), the basic fact is that, as you point out, Gaza and the West Bank were not called "occupied territories" when they were under Egyptian and Jordanian control, and they have been called it since 1967. We can't call Gaza and the West Bank "occupied territories" when they were under Egyptian and Jordanian control, because nobody used the term. People have used the term since 1967 (including, once again, major Israeli publications, specifically including the Jerusalem Post, which is no friend of the Palestinians). The question is not "is it fair that the term was not used when Arabs were in charge of the area, but are used now that the Israelis are"? The questions to ask are 1) "Is it common usage to call them the occupied territories?" The answer is obviously yes. This is how they are most commonly referred everywhere in the world outside Israel. 2) "Is it especially misleading to call them the occupied territories?" I think the answer to this is not really - their administration is certainly describable as one of occupation. Obviously, definitions of occupation can vary, but I think that one can say that the term fits. 3) "Is it betraying an anti-Israel POV to refer to them as the occupied territories?" I think the answer to this is also not really. The US government and the Jerusalem Post both use the term (at least occasionally in the latter case). I'm going to continue with "a phrase cannot be anti-Israel POV if it is used as a straightforward term in the Jerusalem Post. (For more examples another op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post from someone whose viewpoint appears to be best described as Sharonite - supports the Gaza pull out, but because of relatively hardline views. Here's another usage, from 1991, in what seems to be a timeline article. This article also uses the term. I have yet to see any evidence that "occupied territories" is not only the most commonly used term worldwide, but is also a commonly used term in Israel itself, and not only by the left. Again, the official bargaining position of the Israeli government and the rantings of a few extremist settlers do not trump the common usage of the entire world, and the fact that said usage is not "fair" because people didn't use it about the Egyptians or the Jordanians is completely irrelevant. john k 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well said. In the Encyclopædia Britannica, we find such titles as The PLO in the occupied territories and Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Try randomally searching through this and see how many instances it relates to the Israeli-Occupied Palestinian Territories. El_C 09:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Israel originally called them, "Enemy Territories." Marsden 12:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving on ...

It seems that Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Andjam are the only ones directly insisting against a title using some combination of "Israel," "Occupied," and "Territory." Brian Tvedt, based on his actions, might choose to join them. I, saxet, John K, Grace Note, and El C, among the people commenting here on the matter, are in favor of it. Five to (at best) four, although perhaps making the motion I'm about to make will get more people out of the woodwork.

I suggest that we decide on a name for the article that incorporates the above term, and make the name change.

At one time, I had made an "Occupied territories" disambiguation page between "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" and "Occupied territories (general meaning)," and we might do something like that again. Marsden 19:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Aye?

• Marsden 19:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• saxet 20:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nay?

It's too early for voting, which is a bad idea in any event. Rather then closing down discussion after, oh, about 4 hours and 5 participants, why don't we wait for a full discussion of the topic, with many others having a chance to weigh in. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) (Vote "Nay," then, Jay.)

I find Slim's argument compelling: Leave inflamatory/disputed terms out of the title (i.e., "occupied" or "disputed"), but directly address the disputed terms in the article. That seems most in line with being neutral. The title is a label, and to favor one over the other would have Wikipedia take a position on which "side" is in the "right". There *is* controversy over the term. The article itself, however, would provide more room to present the various perspectives without it appearing Wikipedia takes a particular position. I think there should be a disambig redirecting both "Occupied Territories" and "Disputed Territories" to a more neutral titled page. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree about having pages using occupied and disputed redirect to a third, neutral title, and developing a rigorous article about the nature of the dispute, without begging any questions. I also agree that it's too early to vote, and that voting is probably not a good idea anyway. This is Marsden's way of trying to stifle debate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Came here from the VFC and I don't have an opinion as yet. But it does appear that someone is trying to stifle debate. Voting in this case is inappropriate, IMO. (at least, at this point it is) Can't you reach a compromise? Danlovejoy 22:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for almost two weeks, and across several different articles. Marsden 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, are you still threatening to delete the word "Israel" from every article if you lose the vote? I am confused as to the nature of the debate here. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No; I think there has been enough influx of people to the debate here that a reasonable outcome is likely. In my experience, when Jay and Slim have numbers on their side, they won't debate at all; when the numbers are uncertain, they'll try to keep their prefered version of an article intact while they wear everyone out with circular and tangential debates; and when they're outnumbered, they'll actually discuss things ("as they have been trying to do all along," don't you know). They make hook up some reserves and fall back into their obdurate behavior, but I think the fact that the POV that they are trying to dictate is distinctly in the minority is bearing out. Marsden 23:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am not sure to proceed here in evaluating your proposal on its merits, due to the nature of this discussion. I feel that your announced intention to deface multiple articles is not an acceptable way to debate on Wikipedia, and that supporting your proposal would justify the means you used. I may not always agree with Jayg and Slimvirgin, and know that you found interacting with them frustrating, but you seem to really be gunning for them personally (calling them "evil" etc.), which I also find troubling. How would you suggest that I reconcile ends and means here? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, number one, for the same reason you reached your current impasse, you should probably be disinclined to do whatever I suggest anyway. Still, you should play the game, not the player. Say whatever you need to to me, but procede otherwise with whatever you think is the right thing to do. Marsden 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can take this to your talk page if you want, but I want to know whether I am encouraging your recently combative approach if I were to support this vote, or any other proposals you make in the future. I would hope to see something like what El C talks about, an end to the constant sniping at Jay and Slimvirgin, and especially to stop threatening to disrupt Wikipedia as a result of your debates with them, which I feel you have never responded to. You are unlikely to achieve a friendship with Jay and Slimvirgin, I know, but the current apocalyptic situation is untenable, and is not conducive to our hobby of writing an encyclopedia. Realize that Slimvirgin and Jay have a long history of great editing, and your constant vitriolic attacks ("evil" "bullies," etc.) are not likely to be ultimately helpful, whatever the value of your cause. So, is there any chance you can tone this approach down considerably, please, so it doesn't distract from the issues that we are actually trying to discuss? --Goodoldpolonius2 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please realize though that this isn't all that black and white. I agree with a lot of what you wrote but it isn't fair if Marsden is portrayed as the troublemaker. Sometimes it takes quite a few people to tango. If you're sensitive and react strongly to racism and social injustice it is hard to read this conversation between Guy Montag and Ramallite, that also has a couple of comments by Jayjg. For me it was painful to read that stuff, Guy Montag who calmly explain why ethnic cleansing of Arabs is necessary. Or have comments like these directed at you. And other stuff I'm sure, that I'm not aware of. Or just the fact that you have to live with the knowledge that if an uneducated person looks up articles about the Palestinians in Wikipedia they are going to read stuff that says that their territories aren't occupied, that they enjoy full political and civic rights, that their claims are outrageous and that the world doesn't really see a problem with how the Palestinian people (if there really is such a thing) are treated. (Stuff that goes against what 99.9% of the world says, including Encyclopaedia Britannica and the U.S. State Department.) --saxet 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, I don't usually work on modern Israeli-Palestinian issues because I do not want to get involved in this sort of fight, there is far too much to do on WP and contentious articles rarely ever become readable, anyway. I became involved in this case because Marsden, who I had built a working relationship with, stated that he wanted to vandalise WP, including articles that I do edit. That, in my mind, is against the very nature of Wikipedia. There is a difference between objecting to someone's views and personally attacking them by calling them names, and an even bigger difference in threatening to attack articles outside of the debate to make a point. The first is normal discourse, the second eats away at the civility required to make WP run, and the third is out-and-out destructive. As I think I have made clear, I am not asking Marsden to stop arguing with SlimVirgin and Jayg, but to agree to stop with the frequent insults (the "evil" assault on his userpage) and most especially retract his threats to vandalize. If he does these two things, he can continue to fight whichever fights he wants, and I'll even support him in some of them, but I don't like being threatened into a position ("support me or I'll vandalize"). I keep reiterating this point, as does, I think, El C below. Interestingly, I just met User:Jimbo Wales today, and the conversation convinced me more than ever that establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else, and I would like to see that meta-issue resolved before we move on. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree whith all that you wrote here except the last phrase "establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else, and I would like to see that meta-issue resolved before we move on". I don't know what to make of that. I wanted Marsden banned for his support-me or-I'll-vandalize position, but this issue regarding Occupied Territories isn't about Marsden. It is something I've fought for, and many other editors. We shouldn't have to settle for the 'old language' beacuse of your reservations regarding Marsden's means & motives. --saxet 12:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, saxet. I don't want to be threatened into voting for Marsden's proposal, regardless of whether I think he is on the right side, and I don't want the tone of every discussion to devolve into this unusually rancorous debate. There are a lot of contentious issues on WP, and if this is the way they are discussed, the project is not going to be a lot of fun in the future. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Where and when did you fight for it, saxet? You've made only 35 edits to articles and 127 to article talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very curious about me, I'll try to answer any questions you might have on my talkpage. --saxet 17:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not curious about you as such. Just noting that this page is effectively being held hostage by two editors who between them have made 206 edits to articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I'm doing a terrible job then as a hostage keeper since my POV is that the name of this article should reflect the name used by (almost) the entire world, yet this page is still named Territories under Israeli control. --saxet 18:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! Pretty creepy, huh Jayjg? Marsden 17:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Meaning? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Doing a quick check of total number of edits? Nah, that takes 2 seconds with Kate's tool. On the other hand, if SlimVirgin did a lengthy analysis of the times of day Dervish/saxet edited, and how many minutes he took per edit - yeah, that would be creepy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I would prefer if you referred to me as Dervish Tsaddik (Dervish Tsaddik) or saxet, instead of Dervish or Dervish/saxet. Thanks. --saxet 17:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, Wikipedia norms, like Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. That would preclude things like speculating about the motives of others, describing them in various negative ways (e.g. "hardliners"), making false accusations about them, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. --saxet 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I know one way to proceed. A concerted effort on Marsden part to start exhibiting good faith, and much, much less venom. El_C 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

With Jay and Slim, any assumption I had of good faith was beaten out of me long ago. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They are just nasty, and not only with me -- I am appalled at some of the veiled threats they have made against users who are making their very first contributions here; they must scare away dozens of potential contributers whose only mistake is thinking that their input might be welcome. When it comes to their pet topics, they are bullies, pure and simple. Marsden 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable response. If you feel you have grievences that need addressing, proceed through the appropriate channels, this article talk page is designed to discuss the pertinent material, not provide a venu for personal diatribes. If you keep up the "they are just nasty" comments and so on, you will be blocked for disruption. Please take that as a final warning. El_C 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If that's not an "acceptable response," you'd better ban me, El C, because SlimVirgin and Jayjg really are just nasty. And I have little patience for the continual threats -- many from SlimVirgin and Jayjg -- about how I am "being disruptive" and how they are "warning" me, etc., etc., etc. El C, I don't need Wikipedia, and I'm not going to put up with bullshit from anyone. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are just nasty in how they protect their POV here. That's the fact, as I see it. I won't pretend otherwise. Strike your colors, El C. Marsden 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What? Why? Anyway, there's no need to ovenuance so much. It isn't about what you think or in playing pretend, it's how you choose to express yourself, and where. Even if you follow this through the propper channels, by outlining your grievences within the framework of a clearly documunted exposition, the rules are that you must conduct yourself with disciplined moderation viz. personal comments. I fail to see how that hinders you from raising any relevant point. The rest my response can be read here. El_C 12:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I take your threat against me to be an effort to disrupt debate. You are frankly, El C, commenting on something you don't know very much about, and making an ass of yourself in doing so. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are dishonest debaters. I can document that. If you don't think that's nasty, I suspect that you are in the minority in your opinion. What did you expect to accomplish by making your empty threat against me? It seems underhanded and dishonest to me, El C. Marsden 13:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you feel this way, but I fail to see a reason why you should be allowed to direct personal insults at anyone, nor how these somehow amount to an integral component of your position. El_C 21:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how any legitimate purpose is served by pretending that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are not really nasty bullies when they in fact are really nasty bullies -- should we pretend that pit vipers are just big caterpillars, too? I wish someone had let me know that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are really nasty bullies when I first encountered them; it would have saved me the time I spent trying to be reasonable with them. Frankly, if participating in Wikipedia requires subscribing to a falsehood, I have better things to do. Marsden 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This becoming highly circular and repetitive; you must adhere to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, this isn't negotiable. El_C 23:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Should I hold my breath while I wait for your apology for implying that I have not been exhibiting good faith, and that I have been exhibiting "venom" -- echoing SlimVirgin's personal attack against me, by the way? Or are these rules that I have to adhere to, but you don't? Marsden 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I find that a peculiar interpertation of WP:NPA, since I refered to what I felt you were exhibiting (or lack thereof), not who or what you are. Good faith notwithstanding, I'm not inclined to take anyone at their word. Again, please refer to the procedure for a resolution, aiming at a clearly-documented exposition. El_C 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, huh. And how peculiar do you think Jayjg's various "personal attacks" accusations against me on this page are? And, for that matter, I was only commenting on Jayjg's and SlimVirgin's behavior: they were being nasty bullies. This, like "not exhibiting good faith" or "exhibiting venom," is something within their control. Marsden 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen various personal attacks; perhaps you should aim at presenting the pertinent diffs at this point, rather than arguing ancetodally. El_C 03:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[12], [13], [14], [15]. , and [16]. Has it ever occurred to you, El C, that Admin-ship should be used as a salve rather than as a club? Marsden 12:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Irony is a harsh mistress; no, it had not occured to me. At any rate, I am unimpressed with your evidence. Perhaps you should seek input from other admins, there are a few hundreds of them. El_C 13:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I was ready to go out of my way to have you banned/blocked/whatever, to make sure that none of your ideas (even if I happened to agree with some) would ever be implemented ; because I read that infamous suggestion of yours as antisemitic. When I realized that you were trying to make a point, and when I didn't find any antisemitic stuff in your edit history I cooled down and started to evaluate your ideas in a more objective manner. Point is, Wikipedia editing is politics (shouldn't be, but is) and it's dumb to lose battles simply because you alienate potential allies, and give the moral highground to people who doesn't deserve it. When you get frustrated, you lose composure and play into the hands of the pro's. To make these articles NPOV will take a while, and it will require that other admins/editors here on Wikipedia (where are you guys?) notice what's actually going on here. My suggestion is that you play it smart (i.e. play nice) and let the actions of the hardliners speak for themselves. Just my two agorot. --saxet 01:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Do you even imagine that describing people who disagree with your POV as "people who don't deserve the high ground" and "pros" and "hardliners" is gaining you any of the high ground? Perhaps you should get some advice on that from those "two upper level admins". ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

An optimist laughs to forget, a pessimist forgets to laugh. I see you're trying out the 'power' of argumentum ad ignorantiam. --saxet 13:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this you following the advice you gave Marsden to "play it smart (i.e. play nice)"? Oops, it's an argumentum ad contradictiam, closely related in your case to argumentum ad odium. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you think you know what you're talking about but I don't think you do. --saxet 13:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

• Please note that someone has been forging my signature and previous comments that appeared under this heading with my name were vandalism. I am abstaining from this vote. Brian Tvedt 03:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  Noted and blocked for 72 hours for impersonation. El_C 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

In the Terminology section, I think that the case for or common usage of the term "Occupied Territories" should be listed first since it is the most commonly used phrase. It seems strange to read objections to the term before it's been introduced. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course...that's assuming the article title remains neutral and that the term "Occupied Territories" hasn't been introduced yet. If the article title takes a position instead of being neutral, then my comment is obviously moot. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But is not taking that position counts as a position in this dispute? Not to enter into a play over semantics, but the side that objects to the use of the word occupied is not insisting on using disputed in the title, so much as they ... object to the use of the word occupied. El_C 23:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you bring up a valid point, in that it's certainly a huge (maybe insurmountable) challenge to come up with some sort of neutral resolution. The whole thing sort of reminds me of the BC-AD/BCE-CE debate. The BC/AD terminology, while commonly used, represents a specific religious idealogy and belief which many people who use the term do not necessarily espouse. So it would seem more neutral to use terminology (like BCE/CE) that makes no declarations about deities, one way or the other, etc. And yet many perceive any terminology that would replace BC/AD to be an anti-BC/AD statement, not a neutral statement. So it apparently makes a non-position not possible, since there is a forced bias one way or another. There's no easy answer, the same dilemma occurs any time there is an attempt to replace a broadly used (but loaded) term (in this case "Occupied Territories") with a neutral one, since the "neutral" replacement term can be interpreted as a biased rejection of the initial or common term : ( --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, MPerel, and I think you've summed up the situation very well. Whenever I try to find a word to replace "terrorist," I'm not making a biased rejection of the word (often, I agree with it), but instead just trying to find a completely neutral word instead. In the case of this article, part of the subject matter will be whether the use of the term "occupied" is fair or accurate, and who agrees or disagrees, and why the Israeli government prefers "disputed." Therefore, the title should contain neither "occupied" nor "disputed," but something that accurately describes the situation without the POV baggage of the terms used by either side. I find this so obvious that I'm having trouble understanding the opposition's vehemence, and wondering in particular why suggesting it makes me a nasty, evil, right-wing, nationalist, bullying ethnic cleanser. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The ethnic cleansing part, I believe, is from when Guy Montag advocated ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians, Jayjg backed Guy Montag, and I think that you made some comments than someone interpreted as silent consent. As for the other labels, I don't think those have anything to do (at least not on my part) with your title suggestion. I must say though, I try to assume good faith but I can't understand why you don't reply further up on the page where the arguments for/against this very suggestion of yours have been made. It seems to me that you keep reiterating your argument all over this page, and keep ignoring the counterarguments (not just mine). I urge you to read/reply to the arguments made by me (and/or the other editors).

Quick reply here to your suggestion: there isn't any real dispute (outside of Wikipedia) on whether the occupied territories should or shouldn't be called the Occupied Territories. Or whether "the use of the term "occupied" is fair or accurate". The entities/people who do dispute this are in such a small minority that we needn’t consider them when we name this article. Just as the entities/people who dispute that the Holy Grail really is holy (this includes me), or that Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park has anything to do with peace, needn't be considered in regard to the names of those pages. --saxet 05:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The dispute isn't over whether "occupied territories" is the more popular usage, but whether it's a NPOV. (But if you're interested, (Israel "disputed territories" -"occupied territories") gets 49,600 hits.) If popularity ruled, Chemical Ali would be a main article name (as oppoed to Ali Hassan al-Majid), rather than just a redirect. Andjam 06:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not "back Guy Montag", I disputed one claim that Ramallite made. Please get your facts straight. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison shopping

Just to see how Wikipedia has dealt with other "contentious" terminology, I just looked up Armenian Genocide, which some of you may know the Turkish government denies ever happened and pressures other governments around the world to refrain ever from referring to it. The title of the article is plainly, "Armenian Genocide," though it has a POV flag and the opening paragraph includes the sentence,

"Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I."

(On the talk page is a quote allegedly from the Turkish embassy website that uses the term, "the Armenian experience," which I believe was also the name of a band that played at the Monterrey Pop Festival in 1968, although I may be mistaken about that.) The next paragraph begins,

"Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide."

I'd call that a very weak sentence, actually: it would be more accurate, I think, to write that only a few scholars, most of them from Turkey, dispute that the events constitute a genocide, but the Turkish government has managed to persuade many other governments and the UN not to make reference to it. The reality of the situation is that the term "genocide" was coined specifically to refer to the "Armenian experience;" it's something like the Xerox corporation protesting not against people referring to photocopying with other machines as "xeroxing," but against people referring to photocopying with Xerox machines as "xeroxing."

Anyway, MPerel made a suggestion about having a "neutral" title, with links to it from the various "non-neutral" names, and even SlimVirgin was agreeable to that, which is great progress, really: previously, she and Jayjg had been attempting to obliterate any links that suggested Israeli occupation. Had this suggestion been made long ago, I probably would have gone along with it. But at this point I think it would just end up being a resting position, where most people would think the matter had been settled and would stop paying attention to it. Then after a while Slim and Jay and a couple others would get their daggers out again, and fully restore their POV censorship. So now I think it's more important to keep the light of day on this censorship effort.

So, I think that if Turkey can have the label "genocide" stuck onto something it is responsible for but denies, and something that it has largely managed to avoid UN and other governmental reference to, then Israel should have little complaint about having the comparatively minor label of "occupation" stuck onto its situation, which is probably even more agreed upon than the Armenian Genocide.

Marsden 14:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Not an analogous situation; the Turkish government denies that the Armenians were killed in the first place. On the other hand, in this situation there is no doubt nor disagreement that Israel controls the territories, the only question is what is the most neutral way to described that control - thus it is analogous to the "terrorist" designation. Your continued personal attacks (e.g. Slim and Jay and a couple others would get their daggers out again, and fully restore their POV censorship) are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and you have been apprised of this many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(I wonder if I'm banned yet?) Actually, the Turkish government's denial -- if we may believe the Wikipedia article -- is mostly that it was a planned and organized undertaking. Marsden 15:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I should have said "deliberately killed". They dispute the numbers killed as well, making significantly lower estimates than others. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This is really very similar to the "Occupied Territories" issue, then: if Turkey cops to "genocide" (meaning deliberation and planning were involved), then there are potential consequences of reparations, ceding territory, etc. If it's just "the prior unpleasantness," then Turkey is not responsible and there are no consequences to it. Similarly, if Israel is an "occupying power," then they have no right to build settlements, extract water, etc. But if the territories are just a blank place on the map, then Israel gets to skate by on pre-Geneva Convention, 19th century notions of justice, as exemplified by the (genocidal) US westward expansion and the (genocidal) colonization of Africa, Australia, and parts of Asia. Marsden 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A more analogous situation may be Tibet Autonomous Region (I tried Western Sahara Desert but it was currently having edit wars of its own), which has nary a mention of occupation or annexation (not what I'm asking for with this article, just that the legal judgements are not made in the title itself). The map in the article uses the neutral word "administered". (I'm not opposed to discussions about the legal status of Israel's actions, I'm just asking that a NPOV article title is used). Andjam 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Another form of comparison shopping: A much more informative online article on the Occupied Territories than Wikipedia is likely to manage: Countrystudies:Israel:The Occupied Territories

Include pre-1967 Israel in article

It was previously argued that the article didn't make sense because the article definition would include pre-1967 Israel. Maybe the article could be renamed from "Territories under Israeli control" to "Territory under Israeli control" and include pre-1967 Israel. This'd make information more contiguous, rather than splitting between pre-1967 and post-1967 areas.

Splitting between pre-1967 and post-1967 implies that the pre-1967 borders aren't disputed. Most of the Palestinian militant groups don't see pre-1967 Israel as undisputed. Andjam 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If pre-1967 Israel were included, the article could also be renamed to "Territorial disputes involving Israel" to avoid giving the territories themselves a single title. Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Should this proposal be put to a vote? Andjam 00:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to say that turning an article about the occupied territories into an article about Israel's territory in general because somebody, without consensus, moved it to such a title, is getting things ass backwards. Beyond that, whatever you think of the legitimacy of the State of Israel, there are nevertheless objective differences between pre-1967 Israel and the West Bank/Gaza Strip/Golan Heights. Pretending that "it's all disputed" because many Palestinians believe the whole thing is Palestine isn't terribly helpful. john k 00:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There's something to be said for "ass backwards", sometimes. Do you regard "it's all disputed" as unhelpful because there are portions that you think are rightfully disputed, and portions you think are wrongly disputed? Wouldn't that be POV? Andjam 01:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it's unhelpful because the "occupied territories" are a unit which deserve an article of their own, because they are quite distinct in numerous ways from pre-1967 Israel. Furthermore, whatever you or I think, the world, including not only the United Nations, most world governments (including even a few Arab states like Egypt and Jordan), and NGOs but also Israel itself distinguish between pre-1967 Israel and the territories occupied after the Six Days War. john k 01:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of the world regards women as inferior creatures, but that doesn't mean our article Woman should reflect that POV, or be re-named in accordance with it. You keep repeating the common-use argument, John, but without actually arguing for it, and without dealing with the inconsistencies I've tried to point out. I like Kirill Lokshin's suggestion of "Territorial disputes involving Israel." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

How about if we name the article OdododododPI, it's very NPOV I think. Whatever suggestion you will come up with SlimVirgin, it will be something that people will have to be able to understand. Which means you will have to use some form of common-use rationale. The name Territorial disputes involving Israel is based on this as it contains words like "Israel" and "disputes". Problem though is that when you put all four words together it forms a title that could include anything, and wouldn't necessarily have to include the Occupied Territories. It could include a dispute Israel had with Tunisia over fishing rights in the Mediterranean for example. Someone could put in so much information regarding different historical and current disputes so that the section about the Occupied Territories would drown. None of the great encyclopaedias/reference libraries in the world say that women are inferior creatures, and none of them have named the occupied territories Disputed Territories, or Liberated Territories. --saxet 05:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

None of the great encylcopedias of the world follow a common-use rule either. I take your point about Territorial disputes involving ... perhaps being too broad. But Territories under Israeli control isn't too broad, and you're objecting to that too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Gush Dan (named so because the area was the territory of the tribe of Dan) is a territory under Israeli control. Would that territory be included in the article? --saxet 06:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you rather it be in a separate article, "territorial disputes involving Gush Dan"? Andjam 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused, do mean that Tel Aviv (part of Gush Dan) is occupied, or do you want to create a duplicate of Geography of Israel? --saxet 08:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Not occupied, just disputed. Andjam 05:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If the info is being drowned out by fishing disputes, then splitting is justified. Not beforehand. And ignore what the great encyclopaedias/reference libraries do - we're aiming to be better than them. Why are you talking about entitling articles "Disputed Territories" or "Liberated Territories", anyway? No-one is arguing for them to be the title. Andjam 06:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment about "Disputed Territories" or "Liberated Territories" are what is known as a "straw man argument"; amusingly enough, used by someone who previously incorrectly called other arguments "strawman arguments". As for your suggestion, I think it is a good one; there are certainly plenty of groups both inside and outside of Israel who consider either everything outside the 1947 partition plan to be "occupied", or more commonly all of Israel itself to be "occupied". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, with you and Andjam as enemies, who needs friends. Note; that wasn't a straw man argument but a argumentum ad odium, could maybe also be considered a argumentum ad hominem. --saxet 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You might think of me as your enemy, Dervish, but I am not your enemy, and you certainly aren't my enemy. Also, your latest comment was pure argumentum ad hominem, specifically argumentum ad personam. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don’t Jayjg, I used an allegory as a rhetorical device. --saxet 08:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

The fact that there seems to be substantial support for turning an article about the territories that came under Israeli control after the 1967 war into a general article on - I'm not sure what - the fact that Arabs don't recognize Israel? - is most distressing. I thought I'd try to lay out a rationale for naming the article "Occupied territories (Israel)" or something along those lines.

1. There should be an article about the territories occupied by Israel after 1967. They form a discrete group, and there are issues worth talking about in general.
2. The article which does that is this article.
3. If we want to create an article to highlight the fact that Palestinians and many Arab states do not recognize the state of Israel as legitimate, this is not that article. It already has a clear purpose, which would not be served by expanding it with this vague mandate.
4. The article needs to have a title which explains what it's about, both including everything which ought to be included (Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai), and excluding everything that ought to be excluded (pre-1967 Israel). The current title does not do that.
5. The article title ought, if possible, to be the most commonly used name.
6. It is clear that the most commonly used name is "occupied territories." This is used by most of the world, and is used to an extent within Israel itself (as I noted before by reference to Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post's use of the term, which nobody has yet commented on).
7. Alternative terms in some use are "Disputed Territories" (used by the Israeli government) and "Liberated Territories" (used, I take it, by some in the settler movement)
8. All three of these terms might be considered in some sense POV. Almost nobody outside the Settler movement really believes the territories to be liberated; few outside Israel would consider them disputed; and many in Israel, including the government, object to referring to these territories as occupied.
9. It is not, however, wikipedia's job to come up with NPOV alternative titles. In some instances, the common name rule trumps a very expansive reading of the NPOV policy. Thus, we have Louis XVII of France, who was never king of France, because no other title would be recognizable, even though using this title might imply a legitimist POV.
10. Of the three terms in use to refer to the territories in question, only "occupied territories" is potentially usable as a title. The other titles are not in wide use, and are of questionable relevance in referring to the Sinai and Golan Heights (which are hard to describe as either "disputed" or "liberated").
11. So, the matter comes down to "how POV, exactly, is occupied territories?" I don't see how it's all that POV. As I've noted repeatedly before, the term is used by right wing Israeli papers (at least sometimes), and is used by the US government, which is the most pro-Israeli government in the world. Furthermore, the term "occupied" is not a terribly prejudicial word. The question of whether it is appropriate to describe these territories as "occupied" is a semantical argument, not a substantive one Is some sort of "semantical NPOV" to be regarded as at the same level of importance as substantive NPOV?
12. The only alternative to "occupied territories" is some sort of manufactured title, made up by wikipedia. The current title is an example of this, but a poor one, because it doesn't really communicate what it should, as it seems to imply that it is also about the pre-1967 territory of Israel. But even if an adequate title could be found, I've never thought it was wikipedia's job to make up its own titles that aren't in use anywhere beyond wikipedia.
13. Furthermore, use of an artificial title of this sort does not mean we have solved the problem of POV. When a name is common enough, as "occupied territories" is, not using it, even if one is not using a propaganda name preferred by one party, can be inferred to be representing a POV. In this case, using "Territories under Israeli control" or something similar, but better ("Territories conquered by Israel in 1967"? That's a real mouthful) is basically implying that the commonly used name is wrong. By avoiding use of the very commonly used "occupied territories," we are essentially saying that they are not occupied.
14. Given the basic fact that avoiding some small level of POV in the title seems to be essentially impossible (and I wouldn't give more than a small level of POV to something like Territories conquered by Israel in 1967), the NPOV rule is essentially neutralized, and we come back to the common naming rule, which clearly dictates that the article should be at some sort of "occupied territories"-based title.

Anyway, that's my basic feeling. A few final points, and then a proposal:

1. Can everyone please avoid straw man arguments? I'm looking at you here, Slim, with your "most people view women as inferior" argument. Do you really think that comment made a valid point about anything, and was at all relevant to this discussion? If we are going to try to analogize, it would be best to analogize to issues that don't have emotional resonances. It would be even better to try to make analogies that are actually relevant.
2. It is true that Marsden has behaved rather abominably. Threatening to change all references to Israel to "the Zionist Entity" in retaliation was utterly indefensible, and his conduct since withdrawing that threat has not been very good either. But a lot of people seem to be using Marsden's conduct as a way of avoiding discussing the substantive issues here. This is not a terribly useful way to resolve a content dispute. If you want to open an RfC against Marsden for threatening to violate WP:POINT and for making personal attacks, feel free (although it should be noted that he did not actually violate WP:POINT). But that does not excuse you from engaging those of us who have not violated any wikipedia conventions.

Finally, it doesn't look to me that this is going to be resolved by discussion. I think that Marsden's proposal of a vote was probably the right way to go. Obviously, we shouldn't just start a vote, as Marsden did. But perhaps we should try to come up with procedures for a vote that could resolve this issue. Anyone with me? john k 15:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good list. I don't know what the preferred Wikipedia procedure for this would be, but is it possible to start a vote on a separate page (without archiving this one)? As for us straw people, assuming good faith, SlimVirgin didn't try to disrupt the debate but rather make a point and bring attention to the way Wikipedia use/misuse the common-use argument. I have, on a couple of occasions, used exaggerated metaphors to illustrate a viewpoint so in the spirit of self-interest I feel that we should just move on and debate whatever is left to debate and then vote. --saxet 22:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

John, my argument was far from being a strawman argument. I've tried, using the woman example and the example of terrorism, to get you to examine the weaknesses of the common-use argument, which you simply ignore. There's no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to go along with the use of terms, no matter how commonly they're used, if they're used inconsistently, and are disputed by one of the parties — particularly when the article is, in part, about whether the term "occupied" is correctly used in relation to the territories. As for Marsden and WP:POINT, he started this article as a POV fork because he didn't like the contents of the existing one that dealt with the territories, so he's been WP:POINTING from day one. I agree with you that a vote is probably needed, as the art of argument seems to have died. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim - I am not ignoring your criticism of the commun use argument, but I don't find the examples you use relevant. The woman example is particularly irrelevant, since it's based on the faulty idea that the fact that nearly every world government and the UN use the term "occupied territories" is somehow comparable to the fact that there's a lot of people who think women are inferior to men. These simply are not comparable. Furthermore, as I've noted before, naming policy is a different matter from general NPOV issues. We are discussing naming policy, and your woman example had nothing to do with naming policy, unless you are suggesting that "inferior creature" is a more commonly used name in English than "women." That's why it's a straw man. As to "there's no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to go along with the use of terms, no matter how commonly they're used, if they're used inconsistently, and are disputed by one of the parties," I don't think that is a very accurate representation of wikipedia naming policy at present. Things being "used inconsistently," as I noted previously arguing against Jay, is not an argument at all - terms are always used inconsistently. That's the way of the world. Some European monarchs have their names usually anglicized, others do not. It is not wikipedia's job to impose a false uniformity. The second point is valid to an extent, but there are very frequently instances where there is simply no name which is not "disputed by one of the parties." This is, for instance, the case with American Civil War - southern partisans prefer to call it the War between the States, or occasionally the War of Northern Aggression or the War for Southern Independence. But we still use American Civil War, even though it might be considered vaguely POV, because it is by far the most common name, and there is no other title that would be more NPOV. This basic issue seems to be the case here. Here's what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has to say in the "don't overdo it" section: Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives. So far so good. The extent to which "occupied territories" is "commonly regarded as offensive" to Israelis seems questionable to me, if the Jerusalem Post uses it, but let's even grant that it might be so considered. The problem is, there are no "widely known alternatives." The only moderately alternatives are the even more unacceptable Disputed Territories and Liberated Territories, which are much more clearly POV (do you think a Palestinian newspaper would use "disputed territories" in the way the JPost uses "occupied territories"?) It seems to me that, just as the common usage of American Civil War and lack of obvious alternatives necessitates leaving that article where it is, so the common usage of occupied territories and the lack of any natural alternatives means that this should be the title of that article. Feel free to take issue, but I'd be interested to see how you feel the American Civil War issue is different, and to see if you can provide any real examples of your understanding of naming policy in action. john k 16:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, John, that "avoiding some small level of POV in the title seems to be essentially impossible". I conceded as much to El_C above in my analogy the BC/AD-BCE/CE debate. Since some small level of POV seems unavoidable whatever title is used, maybe the argument is really about where on the spectrum does the POV-sounding common use term "Occupied Territories" fall? Is it so POV, with no acceptable alternative, that we have to come up with some neologistic title to describe what the article is about? If "women are inferior creatures" was a common use phrase, we might agree it fell on the too-POV side to be an acceptable title. Maybe "American Civil War" doesn't sound so aggregiously POV. "American Civil War" probably reflects more the outcome of the war; if the victor had been the South, "War for Southern Independence" would likely be more appropriate. Since we're going to end up being POV no matter what we do, it seems we have to make some sort of subjective decision. I find the analogies are helpful in trying to be consistent in where to draw the line for an unavoidable POV title in common use, we should look for more of these.

I would like to see more discussion before a vote is taken, with feedback from more editors. I think the focus on personal gripes about editors has taken up too much space on this talk page and it should be taken elsewhere so that discussion about this topic can proceed. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

MPerel, thanks for the comments - I think you are basically right in saying that this is basically an issue of trying to determine how POV Occupied Territories is. I still find Slim's example about women useless - it doesn't have to do with naming conventions in any obvious way, and oughtn't be the basis of discussion. I would suggest that Mormon Church might be a good example, save that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a perfectly well known and acceptable NPOV alternative title. I'm having a hard time thinking of any article where we have created a neologistic title due to the absence of any sufficiently NPOV term - perhaps someone could find an instance? I've argued in the past for a neologistic title for the article currently at Western betrayal, but this is because Western betrayal is not only a POV title, but also not a commonly used one - seeing that title, one is not even clear what the article is about. And, in spite of that, the article is still at Western betrayal, so that's not a terribly good example. But, if we are to continue discussion, I think a good counterpoint to American Civil War is needed. What is another article where the issue of what the title should be is so contentious that we have resorted to a wikipedia neologism? If someone can find such an example, then we can begin to weigh where on the line "occupied territories" falls. If there is no such example, then I think that speaks for itself. john k 18:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Weighing in briefly, I think John is correct regarding wikipedia naming conventions, but is being rude and overbearing. We choose from the most common terms first (things readers are likely to type in), and then out of those try to err on the side of NPOV. Creating neologisms is O.R., but "useless" is not a polite way to describe someone elses analogy. Sam Spade 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Sam, glad to see you still think I'm rude and overbearing. Also glad to see you agree with me on the substance. But the way you criticize my behavior is totally unfair. It's just like the way Stalin would silence dissent in the Soviet Union. (This analogy, I'm sure you'll find, was extremely useful in stimulating discussion). john k 19:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

please, please, to ALL, can we put aside personal comments, and try to talk to each other respectfully instead? We'll make more progress that way.  : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being snide. I was purposefully trying to come up with a deeply offensive, and nonsensical analogy to show that one might call an analogy "useless" without being rude. But it didn't help matters at all. john k 19:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

A thought that occured to me... There actually is a psycho-linguistic empirical method of quantifying the level of "loadedness" of a term, which we should perhaps consult and discuss. Let me see if I can find something on that. Also, we should discuss how Middle East scholars refer to our subject. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but what is a "psycho-linguistic empirical method"? Does it involve MRI or CT scans? Because if it does I'm out. I would also like to object to your usage of the term "Middle East" which is extremely POV, and inaccurate. Using the cardinal direction of east to describe the region is a colonial habit and pointless since if you are in China you could refer to the region as the Middle West. --saxet 21:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Middle East should be renamed The zone from Morocco to Iran, a more NPOV title. --saxet 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also curious as to what this would mean. john k 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I’m married to a psychologist which makes me an expert of course (cough). I only have a peripheral sense of all that psycholinguistics entails, but I was specifically thinking about prejudice in the connotations of words. Saxet gave a prime example, "Middle East", being an English word (or words), naturally developed with geographical notions relative to most English-speaking people.

I did find the test I had in mind, though it may only be marginally interesting to the discussion here. The measure is more on people’s attitudes in their association of words, rather than something empirical about the words themselves. Here it is, The Implicit Association Test. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fun stuff. I did the Countries IAT, and got "an 'inconclusive' result". Which means, I guess, that I'm declared NPOV by Harvard. My first reaction was that all this is very irrelevant, but then I remembered that Noam Chomsky is the authority in this field, and I suppose (if john k's I4 points are not be considered) that we could name the article with Chomsky's opinions as our guiding light. --saxet 01:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"The fact that there seems to be substantial support for turning an article about the territories that came under Israeli control after the 1967 war into a general article on - I'm not sure what - the fact that Arabs don't recognize Israel? - is most distressing."

As well as those seeking the destruction of Israel, there are also those who argue the land gained by Israel during the 1947 war is negotiable. Were you deliberately trying to set up a False dilemma?

"If we want to create an article to highlight the fact that Palestinians and many Arab states do not recognize the state of Israel as legitimate, this is not that article. It already has a clear purpose, which would not be served by expanding it with this vague mandate."

I don't think it's helpful having them as separate articles.

"It is not, however, wikipedia's job to come up with NPOV alternative titles. In some instances, the common name rule trumps a very expansive reading of the NPOV policy. Thus, we have Louis XVII of France, who was never king of France, because no other title would be recognizable, even though using this title might imply a legitimist POV."

The name seems perfectly NPOV to me. The title does not say that he's king, and Roman numerals does not a king make: William Henry Gates III is not a king, despite rumours otherwise. The "of France" does not imply that he's king of France, any more than "of Arc" says that Joan is royalty.

"When a name is common enough, as "occupied territories" is, not using it, even if one is not using a propaganda name preferred by one party, can be inferred to be representing a POV."

Rejecting POV should not be seen as POV.

"Because if it does I'm out. I would also like to object to your usage of the term "Middle East" which is extremely POV, and inaccurate. Using the cardinal direction of east to describe the region is a colonial habit and pointless since if you are in China you could refer to the region as the Middle West."

Neither "middle" or "east" are legal terms or pejorative terms, whereas "occupied" is. Andjam 04:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Like the word "occupied", both "middle" and "east" can be legal and/or pejorative terms depending on in what context they are used. The Middle East is a name with a eurocentric connotation[17]. This is 2005, not 1984 (yet) - it would be absurd if Wikipedia would use Newspeak to appease fringe viewpoints. If we replaced Middle East with The zone from Morocco to Iran, Woman with Gender XX Human, and so forth. --saxet 05:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see examples of "middle" or "east" as intrinsicly legal and/or pejorative terms. Yes, "middle east" is Eurocentric. So is "The occupied territories", which is one issue I have with the term. But Eurocentricism isn't as bad a problem as other POV problems. (Incidentally, "Gender XX Human" wouldn't cover Klinfelter syndrome or triple X syndrome individuals, or XY females.)

How about Gender O Human? I'm confused, how is the name The Occupied Territories eurocentric?

"Middle East" in pejorative context pdf, "middle" used in a legal context [18] (second sentence of the preface), "east" as in renegade/liberated country East Timor. --saxet 06:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Gender O Human would be a neologism, (in case you wish to ask, "territory under Israeli control" is not, even Abu Mazen has used those words). The Occupied Territories is Eurocentric because there are several separate places described as occupied, and different people would think of different places with the phrase The Occupied Territories. The link you mention about "Middle East" doesn't say that the term is intrinsically pejorative, it's just that some people dislike Middle Easterners (incidentally, the paper claimed that the film "The Sum of All Fears" has negative stereotyping of Middle Easterners or Muslims, but CAIR ensured it did not), "middle" was not used in a legal term (by your reasoning, "the" would be a legal term), and "east" to mean "renegade/liberated"?!? Andjam 09:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I adore the idea that Israel just happened to "control" the territories. It's not quite descriptive but Orwell would have loved it, I think. "Hey, look, we've just acquired Samaria! Amazing! How did that happen?" America has come into control of Iraq. Germany came into control of Poland. Do you think I should rename Partitions of Poland to Changes in control of Poland? "They involved Prussia, Russia and Austria dividing up the Polish-Lithuanian lands between themselves." That looks viciously POV to me. Perhaps it should be rewritten "The state that some described as Prussia {we must allow for those who feel that states are illegitimate and those who opposed the Prussian state in particular}, the state some described as Russia and the state some described as Austria coming into control of parts of what had previously been controlled by the states known as Poland and Lithuania by some". Or are we only destroying the English language in the case of Israel? Grace Note 07:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Partition is a lot less negative than Occupation. You're wanting wikipedia to be more negative about the state called Israel than it is about the post-Weimar state called Germany. I wonder why? Andjam 09:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? On what basis do you say that partition is less negative than occupation? I would call both of them "mildly negative." Is there a negative connotation to the U.S. occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II? How negatively do we perceive the German occupation of northern France after the Franco-Prussian War, or the allied occupation of the Rhineland after World War I? I can probably think of dozens of other occupations that aren't viewed especially negatively. Obviously, there are other occupations that are bad - notably, those of the Germans during World War II. But the word "occupation" itself is reasonably neutral. Certainly no worse than "partition." john k 20:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments pro and con

Marsden has inserted the following argument:

The "continuous Jewish presence" in the Land of Israel sometimes claimed by supporters of Israel was, prior to the beginning of modern Zionism, largely "maintained" by the profoundly anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group

This appears to be entirely original research; that is, an argument invented by Marsden to specifically counter other arguments in the article. I note that all the arguments on the "Disputed" side are fully and properly sourced, yet many of the arguments on the "Occupied" side have no sources whatsoever. While I wouldn't dispute the argument that most of the world's nations and press use the term "Occupied", this particular argument of Marsden seems quite dubious. Can someone source it please? I've asked for sources, but so far the only response has been to revert out the request for citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be OR. If they're not sourced, they should go. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sourced. Marsden 20:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood how to properly source items in that section. There is no question that some Orthodox Jews then (and now) opposed Zionism. However, the section is question is about proponents (or opponents) of the term "Occupation", or of the viewpoint that the territories are "occupied". Sonnenfeld obviously never commented on whether or not the territories were "occupied", since he died decades before the term was ever used regarding them. Original research is using facts, even cited, to produce a novel conclusion or counter an existing argument. In this case, you have used the fact that Sonnenfeld opposed Zionism to try to refute an existing argument, or perhaps make the novel argument that Sonnenfeld insisted that the territories were occupied. Instead what you need to find are relevant sources which make the argument that the territories are occupied for the reason you have given. Please provide a proper source for that argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What relevance does the issue of a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel have to this article at all? It seems to me that this statement is completely irrelevant to the article, whether or not it's original research. john k 19:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with john k. --saxet 23:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Proponents of the term "Disputed" use this as one of their arguments. That you think it is an irrelevant argument is, to put it a little bluntly, irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Proponents of the term "disputed" may also like to talk about a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. I don't see how these issues are even slightly related to one another. I have seen the "continuous presence" argument used as an argument in favor of the existence of the State of Israel. Can you provide a citation that this is used as an argument with respect to the use of the term "occupied territories." I'm really confused here - there was no mention of the issue of "continuous presence" until Marsden added it along with a partial refutation of it, was there? I thought I was agreeing with you that Marsden's addition should be removed. john k 01:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree that Marsden's insertion needs to be properly cited; so far, it has not been. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Can various editors (e.g. Huldra, Dervish) explain the rationales behind their blind reverts? For example, they insist on stating that the designation is "disputed by Israel", when it is obviously disputed by far more than just Israel, and at the same time many within Israel do not dispute it at all. Also, they seem to be ignoring the lengthy discussion above about the POV pushing that inserts a strategic argument about water into the middle of the text, but ignores 5 or so other compelling reasons why Israel holds on to the territory, and ignores the fact that this is nowhere else an article which discusses strategic reasons for any of these actions. In addition, they are removing requests for citation, which decidely against Wikipedia policy, and creating an introduction that both begs the questions raised in the article, and also doesn't actually refer to the title of the article, both against Wikipedia policy. I could go on, but that's enough for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I agree that blind reverts is a serious violation of guidelines and that any people (that includes me of course) that has done so on more than a few occasions should be blocked. And if they happen to be admins, they admin privileges should be revoked permanently. I strongly support any form of investigation into this (and other related problems), which is disruptive and against Wikipedia policy. --saxet 23:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you "agree" with things I haven't said, and which are, in fact, against Wikipedia policy? And if you don't actually respond to the questions raised, what is the point in talking your making comments here? Please take your nasty implicit threats elsewhere, and use this page for discussing article content. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility. --saxet 01:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, until you actually start making comments that are relevant to article content, I'm afraid I won't be able to respond any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What belongs in this article?

One editor of this article has variously made complaints about, first, what he characterizes as "POV forks (sic)" of a single article on the Occupied Territories, and next, about the "irrelevant (sic)" and "original research (sic)" discussion of the water resources that are significant to the control of the territories.

Meanwhile, the "Terminology" section explodes into the debate about the legitimacy of Israel's presence in the territories, and another section briefly discusses the legal status of the Palestinians under occupation.

There clearly needs to be something in Wikipedia on the significance of water in the Occupied Territories. I don't think it is so complicated a matter that it needs its own entry, but one editor continually objects to any reference to it here. Should water be discussed in this article, or should I start another article on "Water in the Occupied Territories" to address it?

Marsden 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Something which discusses all the putative reasons why Israel holds the various territories listed here might be relevant somewhere; one specific putative reason inserted into one section is simply POV pushing. The Terminology section is indeed all about arguments regarding the legitimacy of the term "occupied", but it is not about the reasons why Israel wants the territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think Jay's view here makes more sense. Obviously, the water issue deserves discussion somewhere. I'm not sure why it ought to be discussed in this article. john k 01:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does the discussion over terminology belong here? Is there an extended discussion at Holocaust of arguments made by those who believe the Holocaust occurred and those who deny that it occurred? Is there an extended discussion at Evolution between those who believe that it is sound theory and those who believe in "Intelligent Design?" Just because the extremists who dispute occupation happen to be active at Wikipedia, does that mean that that an article on the Occupied Territories should devote half of its text to a viewpoint held by barely anyone? Marsden 02:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Neither Holocaust or Evolution are good analogies in my opinion. Those who dispute the Holocaust and/or evolution are considered 'less crebible' by almost all scholars/scientists, while the people/entities that dispute that territories are occupied are not disregarded in the same way. --saxet 02:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers use the term "Occupied territories". Just saying. Andjam 04:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please find more productive, less inflammatory things to say. El_C 05:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do the nanny act, El C. It also contributes nothing except perhaps a warm feeling for yourself. Grace Note 07:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a point that needs arguing. The minority view on evolution has not forced that article to have a section on "terminology". There is no long discussion in that article about various understandings of the word "theory", unless the creationist POV pushers have had a crack at it. It remains true, whether you like it or not, that very few people hold the view that the territories in question should be described as "disputed" rather than "occupied". It is not actually important whether their arguments strike you (or Jay, or Slim, or Marsden) as credible or compelling. What matters is that it's a tiny minority view, and should be weighted accordingly. If editors here don't support the NPOV policy, I suggest they create their own fork, in which they can give whatever weight they like to tiny minority POVs, and need never mention that Israel has, in the view of practically the entire world, conducted a military occupation of several territories to which it makes a claim. Grace Note 07:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess my point is that, in academia, there is a higher percentage of notable people who holds the position that Israel hasn't occupied any territories than there is notable people who dispute that evolution and/or the Holocaust happened. And those of the latter persuasions are taken less seriously, because although it is a tiny minority view that Israel doesn't occupy territory, the people who argue this are not necessarily extremists (or evil) because unlike creationists they are less likely to (literally) believe what they argue, and has made noteworthy and significant contributions in regard to terminology and such. If that makes any sense. --saxet 08:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I realize my comment is POV speculations. --saxet 08:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about original research and arguments

There seems to be a misunderstanding about original research and arguments. Simply supporting one's own personal arguments with citations does not stop it from being original research. In fact, much original research consists of well-cited facts strung together to come to a novel conclusion. For example, the argument is made that Contrary to Israeli pronouncements, international law broadly holds self-determination to be a basic human right, and recognizes the natural sovereignty of any people in the territory where they live, and the citation given is a G.A. Resolution from 1962. Now, this is a flawed argument if for no other reason than G.A. Resolutions are not binding, nor do they create international law. However, that is not even relevant, because a more fundamental flaw exists: the section in question presents arguments that proponents and opponents make regarding whether or not the territories are occupied. How could a G.A. Resolution from 1962 which mentions neither Israel or the territories, made 5 years before Israel even captured them, possibly be an argument that Israel is occupying them? Compare that with the point I added, that the Israel Supreme Court recently ruled the territories were under "belligerent occupation" - that, clearly, is an argument in favour of the territories being occupied. In order to understand whether an argument is original research, the question that must be asked is "Who makes this argument, and where do they make it?" If the answer to the former is "a Wikipedia editor", or to the latter is "I don't know", then that argument cannot be used as it is clearly original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To be more explicit, from the policy itself: A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas; that is...it introduces an argument without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline... --saxet 01:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

For who/whom is this lecture on original research intended? SlimVirgin, Andjam and yourself has argued quite a lot recently that we shouldn't be so obsessed with sources and references and now you're arguing that we aren't obsessed enough? Andjam said: "ignore what the great encyclopaedias/reference libraries do - we're aiming to be better than them." - you were in agreement with him while I thought/think it is extremely important to use credible sources in a credible way. --saxet 02:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jay. However, the consequence of this must be that we remove the "Terminology" section entirely. The reason for this can be seen by looking at what, at second glance, is an error in part of that section. When the "pro-Palestinian" arguments are presented, the paragraph begins, "For Palestinians, the Syrian residents of the Golan Heights, and their supporters, ..." However, this is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to begin the paragraph with, "For everyone in the world other than the Israeli government, part of the Israeli population, and certain Zionists around the world ...."

But then the problem arises, how do we site arguments by this vast and diverse group? Unlike the "disputed territories" arguments, there is no organized group trying to foist this position on the world; there are no websites maintained, no offices staffed, no fund-raising campaigns. The position is essentially self-evident. No one, not even the Palestinians, thought that there would ever be any serious contention over whether or not the Israeli military controlling a land territory heavily populated by non-Israelis should be considered "occupation."

This is something like the Evolution-Intelligent Design "debate": it is very easy for the ID people to give the appearance of having the stronger argument because they have people spending all day working on shooting holes in the Evolution argument, and publicizing their work, while the Evolutionists pay no attention to the Intelligent Design arguments because they are not based in any real way on empirical science.

So I'm going to comment out the "Terminology" section. I think a better solution would be to give the article a correct name, and include a link to the arguments that "occupied" is inaccurate.

Marsden 02:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Many individuals and groups have strongly argued that the Territories are "Occupied"; all you need do is quote them. I've already given you one example of how to do it. Please don't comment out the section, which contains properly sourced and relevant information, that would be an example of WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no argument to make, Jay. If you want to keep the "they aren't occupied because ..." section, I think that's fine. But, really, the reason they are occupied is because they meet the definition and common understanding of occupation. To try to list off specific arguments is prejudicial for the reasons I hope I made clear above. Marsden 03:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And, yes, I am asserting by implication that the burden of proof is on the "not occupied" camp. We can discuss that, but I think that's where it belongs. Marsden 03:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Jay seriously suggesting we should cite everybody who says that the territories are "occupied"? He seems to be. Jay, are you seriously suggesting that we must illustrate the majority point of view by citing everybody who holds it? "Many individuals and groups have strongly argued that the Territories are "Occupied"; all you need do is quote them." certainly seems to be suggesting that. Why don't you answer Marsden's (very good) point? It seems to me also that if one side spends a lot of time sniping at the other, and the other largely ignores or is unaware of the sniping, is it right to give the sniping undue prominence just because of its vehemence? Doesn't that give it a weight it's not due? Why does your "original research" argument not apply to SlimVirgin's contention that there is no occupation because it does not fit the definition someone or other made etc? She didn't even propose to cite that one, just insisted that it was sufficient reason to revert the article's title to her POV. Do the rules only apply to the "other side"? Grace Note 07:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'continuous presence' bullet point

I agree with Jayjg that the Terminology section should only contain arguments (made by others) specifically about correctness of the term "occupied" for the territories we are talking about. One of the "disputed not occupied" bullet points is:

Historically, Jews have at least as strong of a claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Palestinians do, possibly stronger - the Land of Israel plays a far more important role in Jewish history than in Palestinian or Arab history, and there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for at least three millennia

The link is to a fairly long article by the Israeli MFA. However, only a small part of that article deals specifically with the terminology issue. It does say that the West Bank and Gaza should not be called occupied because they were not "under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War". OK, that's an argument, but it's in a different bullet point. The MFA article doesn't say ANYTHING about the role the Land of Israel plays in Jewish history or anybody else's history. As to "continuous presence" all it says is:

The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.

I don't see how the Israel MFA is offering any kind of argument here that the territories are not occupied. So the 'continous presence' bullet point should be removed altogether, making Marsden's counterargument superfluous. Brian Tvedt 02:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll look for a better citation; if I can't find one, I'll remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's that time of year

This is my first edit to this page, I've been trying to follow it for days and have just gotten lost. It seems to me that the best route is to just forget about making it a full-blown article and be content with it being a "disambiguation-plus" page, the "plus" just meaning that it would have a small intro no longer than a paragraph and a list of links to the various pages. I think most of what is currently in the article is already in the mother-articles as well. Today is Erev Rosh Hashana. This being a page that has brought a lot of people together (for better or worse), I guess it would be a good place to wish those of you who celebrate a Shana Tova! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see a positive comment on this page. Hopefully the first of many. Thanks, Ramallite. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this a googlebomb?

A certain user currently has on the his user page 6 cases of the text "Occupied Territories" linking to "Occupied_Territories_(Israeli)" on a single page. Does this sound like a case of bad-faith googlebombing? Andjam 06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

When Jayjg cites the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is it original research? Marsden 12:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you answer my question in good faith, and provide a hyperlink to him citing the JCfPA, I'll try to answer your question in good faith. Andjam 13:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt very much that google makes any reference to the number of links to a given location on a user page (or from any Wikipedia page) in its rankings. Do you know otherwise? Jayjg's JCfPA link: [19] Marsden 13:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a citation. Why would it be original research? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Beacuse Naomi Slotki, Lenny Ben-David and Elisabeth Mayman says so. Do you dispute their credibility? --saxet 15:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Jayig citing the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is not original research. That does not mean that I think that anyone claiming it is original research is acting in bad faith. Andjam 11:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps people should review Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Saxet, I think perhaps you've misunderstood what original research is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Or, perhaps more specifically, whose original research is proscribed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't what you're talking about Saxet, but it looks like another violation of WP:NPA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you figure saxet's comment was a personal attack? And where does "another" come from? Marsden 19:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

False personal claims about editors are always personal attacks; now both the Marsden and Dervish Tsaddik userids are making the same one. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't think I've ever made any claim about you, Jay, other than as directly relates to your behavior on Wikipedia. I have in good faith asked other people if they think you might work for a propaganda organization, and I think there are certainly reasons to suspect that you do, among them that in all the times you or SlimVirgin have brought it up, you have never denied it. b. Even if anyone had accused you of working for Dore Gold, I don't know that the claim is false. iii. Even if you had been accused of working for Dore Gold when you didn't, is that a personal attack? What's wrong with working for Dore Gold? If someone accused me of working for Mother Jones magazine, they'd be wrong, but I would hardly take it as an attack. It would frankly be a good thing for Wikipedia to have professional writers working on it. Δ. What is the meaning of "the Marsden and Dervish Tsaddik userids?" Do you think that either or both of us are alternative accounts for existing users? I can assure you that I, at least, am not. Marsden 20:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, lesse, you've accused me of both lying, and editing under false pretences as a paid propagandist, but you can't see how those are personal attacks. And you wonder why I don't respond to your canards. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

See Jpgordon's comment below. Marsden 21:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. --saxet 19:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And please do not remove my comment in bad faith. --saxet 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I see Saxet's been blocked for sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, my girlfirend used Tsaddik Dervish, while I used Dervish Tsaddik. She didn't make any edits to this article, so prior to this comment I fail to see how I have violated any policies. Anyways, I didn't mean to attack userid Jayjg - I was wondering about Wikipedia guidelines regarding sources. But I realize that I've worn out my welcome so I wish everybody a wonderful new year. Take care. --DTemail 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You didn't violate any formal rule as far as I can tell, saxet. There seem to be some informal rules at work, however. Happy new year. Marsden 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll see all sorts of criticism towards the behaviour of SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon to be considered a "personal attack" while they are free to do it to others. Your comment, was indeed, a question and cannot possibly be considered a "attack" even under their loose definition of it. --Vizcarra 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think we are making personal attacks, you should protest at the appropriate place, as it is quite inappropriate for anyone, least of all administrators, to make personal attacks here. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is the right place to start. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that comment addressed to Jayjg? I think he's the only one claiming to be attacked. --Vizcarra 21:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Let me hunt for it...checking...Oh, there it is. You'll see all sorts of criticism towards the behaviour of SlimVirgin/Jayjg/Jpgordon to be considered a "personal attack" while they are free to do it to others. Sound familiar? You imply here that I'm making personal attacks with impunity. I don't think I've been making personal attacks at all. If you wish to pursue this, there are appropriate avenues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• When reason fails there's always sarcasm available as a tool. No, I'm not implying that you are making personal attacks, re-read the article and also realize that criticism is not equal to personal attacks. You, SlimVirgin and Jayjg are often involved in criticism, trolling (yes, trolling, you seem to exasperate many people using sarcasm and false accusations, such as that I'm implying something I am not) but are somehow so offended when you are criticised that you consider it a personal attack. --Vizcarra 22:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to go through this page and remove all the personal attacks and comments not related to the article. If anyone objects, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed comments that seem to be nothing other than personal attacks or ad hominem remarks not related to article content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You've removed some of them, even though:

• Removing "personal attacks" is not a wikipedia policy.
• You've in the past have ignored comments such as "Please take your nasty implicit threats elsewhere... Jayjg" which seems pretty ad hominem to me and certainly "not related to article content". That make people believe that you choose who to censor.
• You have been involved in the discussion and "volunteered" to refactor, although it is frowned upon.

--Vizcarra 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism shouldn't be deleted. It is my opinion. It's that First Ammendment thing. --Vizcarra 21:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I object. Also, who blocked saxet, and on what basis? Marsden 21:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The log indicates it was User:David Gerard. El_C 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What sort of sockpuppetry was saxet supposedly engaging in? I didn't know that the kind of sockpuppetry that the block log accuses him of - using variations of the same name - was a blockable offense. john k 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no policy, as far as I can tell, against sockpuppetry, per se. What is forbidden is the use of a sockpuppet to disrupt or to get around rules/polling limits. I doubt that saxet did any of these things: he was in all likelihood banned without good cause. Marsden 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Roadmap for a Vote

I suggest that we have a vote on whether or not "Occupied Territories" (or "Occupied Territories (Israeli)") is the most appropriate, accurate and NPOV title for this article. --saxet 09:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Most accurate and NPOV

• saxet 09:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Marsden 12:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (Really we should restore this POV fork to the Occupied Territories article.)
• Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC), but just "Occupied Territories (Israeli)"
• --Vizcarra 17:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Occupied Territories (Israeli)
• john k 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (with some sort of disambiguation)
• Huldra 16:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (prefer: "Occupied Territories (Israeli)")
• —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (with disambiguation if necessary. Or are we going to find a "more NPOV" title for Armenian Genocide, one that satisfies the Turkish government's vociferous objections to the word genocide?

No, another title would be more NPOV

• Andjam 12:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) neutral title w/disambig redirect pages for "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" and "Disputed Territories"
• Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

• I am against Occupied Territories (Israeli) and also against Occupied Territories (Palestinian). I favour Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories. El_C 20:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Golan Heights are not Palestinian Territories, nor was the Sinai. john k 03:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What is this article about, again? What if I said Israeli-occupied Arab territories? El_C 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That'd be a lot better than the current title. john k 04:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

On t'other hand, this designation would include southern Lebanon, which is not normally considered as having been one of the Occupied Territories, even if it was occupied territory. john k 05:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the title, it was always the intention to include in this article's scope all the territories captured in the Six Day War. Both Marsden and Jayjg agreed there should be such an article; it's best not to spoil that rare point of agreement between the two. As to the Southern Lebanon "security zone", it might be worth a brief mention but there is no pressing need to include it, as it was never part of "Greater Israel" (Israel never built settlements there and never mooted the possibility of extending its borders into it). Brian Tvedt 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to clearly distinguish between all the territories Israel has occupied at one time or another and the territories that are widely known as "the Occupied Territories". The "other side" wants to muddy the water by making the latter include the former in some way, for the rather obvious reasons. Grace Note 04:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Votes are evil. The dispute here is completely spurious. The title should be "Occupied Territories" because that is what they are called. End of story. Grace Note 01:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour of the OT title, but not OT(Is) since I find it somewhat confusing. El_C 01:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What about Israeli-occupied Territories? This seems awkward...Occupied Territories (Israel), maybe? Although that implies they are part of Israel, which they are not...hmm. john k 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, realistically the article should be at Occupied Territories in plain, with a dab notice. Does anyone who speaks English not know what "Occupied Territories" refers to? Occupied Territories (Israel) would be impossible. Grace Note 04:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Has this vote been listed anywhere? If not, it's kind of pointless, since we'll only get votes from the relatively small number of people who have this page on their watchlist, or who stumble on it randomly. john k 16:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. It should be advertised. Andjam 05:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm totally ambivalent. It's made more difficult because of the nature of the argumentation here. I lean toward "occupied territories" because of the familiarity of the term -- it's where people will naturally look when seeking an article on this topic. While I understand the legalistic objections to the phrasing (as spelled out in the existing article), they all feel like me to rationalizing to reduce the emotional impact of the most shameful situation the Jews as a people have been in (for whatever reason -- I'm carefully not assigning blame here) since Biblical days. Being an occupier rots the soul. On the other hand, I'm a legalistic sort; from some perspectives, "occupied" is not an adequate or even necessarily correct term to describe the totality of the areas described herein. On the third hand, if people would tone down the rhetoric, avoiding phrases like "rots the soul", people of good faith would be more able to discover a compromise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But the "correctness" of the title has absolutely no bearing on its being what people call the thing in question! I could argue that it's not "correct" to call the supreme being "God" because, erm, there is no supreme being, but that doesn't change at all that the being in question is widely known as God. I'm about to go all Bertrand Russell on someone's ass if this argument keeps rearing its very ugly head, and that isn't going to be pretty. Grace Note 04:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good analogy. Most people don't believe Zeus exists, but don't have a problem with the name. Andjam 05:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not going to get involved, but it strikes me that this really should be under "Occupied Territories", as the most common name used (Wikipedia:Naming conventions). As you can see at Talk:East Germany and elsewhere, the naming convention cares little about accuracy - if that's what the world calls X, X is what the article shall be called, if necessary with introductory naming explanation. And lo, we have Occupied territories (which should be Occupied Territories as it's being used as a name, not a description), which IMO is what this article should be merged with (rare agreement on creating new article or no). Definitionally difficult things like southern Lebanon can be explained in the text - there's no need to go through contortions over the article name because of them, if the main topic is clear. Rd232 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately ...

SlimVirgin asked if anyone objected to her "removing personal attacks." I objected, as did Vizcarra. She went ahead and removed what she saw as personal attacks anyway. I actually thought, in spite of my reservations, that she did a fair job of it, but that she had left some things in and taken some things out in ways that were not appropriate. So I put a very few things back in, and started taking more things out.

Then El C reverted a lot of what I had done. Since there is clearly bad faith here, I have restored it to the discussion by reverting what SlimVirgin did.

Slim, it was a nice idea, and I appreciate the thought and that you -- as far as I could tell -- sincerely tried to do exactly what you said. But naturally it is unacceptable to me to have you -- with whom I disagree in the discussion -- make unilateral changes to the history of the discussion and then to have El C -- whom I consider an abusive editor and who seems to hold grudges against me and others -- revert my parallel unilateral changes. I couldn't have faith that the discussion had not been prejudicially skewed under those circumstances.

Marsden 02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a smooth move, then? :( El_C 03:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

On the whole, I don't like the idea that personal attacks should be removed. It distorts how anyone who comes upon the discussion later views it. And it often causes ill will, I think. Let's work on remaining civil for the present, rather than worrying about past personal attacks. john k 03:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I'm appealing to you please to consider reverting yourself. I'm going to assume good faith of you, and ask you to do the same to me. I apologize for any negative comments I've made to you, or for being snippy with you or with anyone else (John, I was snippy with you, and I'm sorry). I've found this discussion frustrating because I haven't expressed myself well, and I ended up looking as though I was proposing ideas that in fact I wasn't, and that made me say things I wouldn't otherwise have said. The result is that we have a talk page we can't be proud of, and I'd really like to see these personal comments deleted and forgotten. We can argue the intellectual points without losing respect for each other, which is what Wikipedia is about. I'm prepared to do my best in that regard from now on, and I apologize to everyone for not having done it earlier. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll revert my last change if El C will agree to banish himself from this article and discussions of it for three days. Marsden 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's all up to me! That definitely heightens my otherwise far from insignificant sense of self-importance. :) El_C 03:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to withdraw my request if it means your banishment. My turn to be the gentleman. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there goes that sense of inflated self-esteem. :( El_C 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be back. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to speak up, I'm having difficulties hearing over the sound of my own ego! El_C 00:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Equivalence fallacy (is that the right name?)

There are two matters in the article in which profoundly lopsided disputes are posed in ways that distorts the actual situation of the disputes.

The first is in the second paragraph, which notes that various legal dispute "are all highly contested." This is technically true, but mainly in the way that prisons in America are filled with people convicted in trials whose objectivity is "highly contested." The rest of the world beyond the government of Israel and some of its supporters has seen as much of the arguments over these matters as it cares to, and has decided that the government of Israel is wrong in each of them.

It may have been me that first offered that the paragraph instead end with, "are all contested by Israel." This was reverted, probably by Jayjg. I'd be willing to agree to something like, "are all highly contested by the government of Israel and many of its supporters," but I consider it thoroughly POV to give the suggestion that very many people or organizations in the world believe anything but that the matter is decided, and that Israel's position is wrong.

The second matter is in the "Terminology" section. Ideally, in my opinion, the article should have a name that includes "Occupied Territories" one way or another, reflecting the overwhelming world-wide view of the matter. And then the "Terminology" section can have just the arguments against using the word "occupied."

But even if a title that I think is thoroughly POV in that it avoids the term "Occupied Territories" is used, listing arguments for using the term along with arguments for not using the term again creates the perception that there is something like an equally weighted debate going on in the matter, which is distinctly not the case. Also, as I discussed before, because the consensus that "occupied" is accurate is so broad, it can be made to appear to be the less well-supported position, given that no group or organization has thought that something so obvious needed to have active support. The "Intelligent Design" sniping at Evolution Theory gives an example of how this works.

So, even if "Occupied" is censored (that's the only way I can describe it, folks) from the title of the article, I think that the "Terminology" section should just have the "not occupied" arguments; it is pretty much impossible to argue the obvious.

I'd like also to add that there is a difference between "occupied" in the common use sense and "occupied" in the Geneva Convention sense. I would consider it far less Orwellian if the supporters of Israel's position would concede that, "yes, the Israeli military does control the territories remaining from the Six Day War conquests, and, yes, those territories do/did have existing populations of non-Israelis, and, yes, these facts in combination fit the common understanding of 'occupation,' but, NO, Israel is not an 'Occupying Power' under the provisions of the Geneva Convention etc. for the following reasons: ..."

Marsden 15:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Only a Sith thinks in absolutes. If you're not with Marsden on the title describing Israel as being guilty of occupation, you're in favour of ethnic cleansing (see User:Marsden#Why They Are Evil). If you're not with Marsden, you're censoring. If you're not with Marsden, you're guilty of POV. Andjam 10:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Andjam, this is the talk page for the article currently titled, "Territories under Israeli control." If you need to make comments entirely about me, perhaps my talk page would be more appropriate. Thanks! Marsden 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My comments referred only to comments made by you related by you about this article. Unlike certain people talking about other users' long-term track records... Andjam 04:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you really just quote one of the Star Wars prequels? That's just embarrassing. john k 16:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars? Gosh, I thought it was from Star Trek. I always get the two mixed up... Andjam 04:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Water

Jayjg insists on censoring any mention of the significance of water resources in the territories. I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that water considerations are extremely high in the concerns of all parties to the disputes over the territories; indeed, Jay's complaint has mainly been that other matters of significance were not also mentioned, and in his view this creates a bias in the article.

As much as has been devoted in this article to the debate over the legitimacy of Israel's presence in the territories, I think it is an odd contortion not to mention specific and objective reasons that anyone cares about the disposition of the territories. Jay mentions religious concerns, and there are certainly defense concerns as well. I disagree with Jay's assertion that some other article ought to address such matters; I think it would be pretty silly to have an article about the territories and the disputes involving them, but then to have to go to some other article for basic facts about the very same territories -- I think Wikipedia has generally encouraged combining articles rather than splitting them up over minor considerations.

Barring a reasonable argument to the contrary, I am going to restore the very minor references to the water resources of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Jay, I encourage you to add whatever other considerations you think belong, but I can't agree with your censorship of the water matter: some people have regarded water as the only significant underlying matter regarding the territories. If you think other matters should also be mentioned, mention them. If you think a fork of this article should be created, give your reasoning.

Marsden 21:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained that the article is a brief description of the territories and who has controlled them, and arguments as to whether or not they are occupied. It is not an article about the hydrology or geography of the territories in question, nor is it a discussion of the many, many reasons why Israel wants to hold onto them. If you want to propose a section containing a NPOV, complete discussion of the reasons why Israel wants to hold them here, that's fine, but incomplete, irrelevant, and POV pushing insertions cannot stand. Oh, and if you make any future pejorative statements to me at all (e.g. accuse me of "censoring" or "censorship"), I will simply not bother responding to your future comments. Until now I've been more than tolerant of your many personal attacks and false claims, but there is a limit, and it has been reached. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You would have been more accurate if you had written that you think the article should be a brief description of the territories and who has controlled them, and arguments as to whether or not they are occupied, and not an article about the hydrology or geography of the territories in question, nor about the reasons why Israel wants to hold onto them. I think otherwise, and I think a lot of people will agree with me. What name other than "censorship" do you suggest I give to your repeated efforts to limit the information included in this article, efforts to limit the information in a manner and to a degree that I think defies both objectivity and reason? Marsden 00:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For another matter, Jay, how are simple factual statements about "hydrology" in any way POV??? Does the fact that there are significant water resources in the territories have any bearing at all on the correct resolution of whether the territories are occupied or not, and of who ultimately has sovereign rights to them? In a dispute over ownership of property, how can a simple description of some aspect of the property be POV? You might argue more reasonably that it is irrelevant -- I think the facts strongly disagree with such a position, but it would at least be an argument that could more reasonably made. But to suggest that a simple piece of undisputed information is POV stretches credulity -- that Israel currently gets a third of its water from the West Bank and that many of the headwaters of the Jordan River are in the Golan Heights have absolutely no bearing on whether Israel is a trespassing invader or a divinely sanctioned redeemer or anything in between. How can this be considered in any way POV? Marsden 00:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Assembling a set of carefully selected facts in order to promote a particular point of view, particularly facts that are not relevant to this specific page, is by definition POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You are mistakenly assuming that water is part of a set of facts that I have carefully selected for any reason. I think anyone who knows very much at all about the Middle East knows that water is a critical consideration in almost all territorial disputes there, far more important than oil, and that it is particularly important in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. A couple sentences on this most critical resource would seem to be well withing reason in this article. Marsden

Who's definition is that? yours? POV has nothing to do with actions. You have a POV regardless of any actions you take. What you have given is perhaps associated with wikipedia:NOR. But for sure you are not assuming good faith and are rather assuming inexistent conspiracy theories. --Vizcarra 22:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, a comment such as "somebody is obsessed with hydrology" is way out of place in an Edit Summary. Including a single statement hardly implies an "obsession" with a topic. Water resources are strategic and sometimes as important as oil reserves. You don't need to have an article about "hydrology or geography" to explain the importance of water resources. Including that fact about water resources is hardly POV, removing it is definitely POV. It's interesting to complain about "personal attacks" while writing "somebody is obsessed with hydrology". On a different note, water-related issues have affected Mexico-US relations. I know, I know "this is not an article about Mexico or the US". True, but this is to support the thought that water issues are important to international relations. --Vizcarra 22:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is about certain territories. When describing territories is of course relavent to describe their geography, their demographics, and their resources. I don't see how it's POV to state that the water is there, and that Israel is using it for its own civilian population. It would be POV if the article were to state that Israel's use of West Bank water is morally wrong, but not POV to state to quote legal opinions and UN resolutions (which exist) that state it is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Brian Tvedt 01:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

An argument from outer space.

Historically, Jews have at least as strong of a claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Palestinians do, possibly stronger - the Land of Israel plays a far more important role in Jewish history than in Palestinian or Arab history, and there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for at least three millennia.

This point seems to bear no relation to any of the previous points about whether the Israeli regime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip can be seen as an occupation. Other than this point, the argument seems to be about issues of international law. This point seems to come out of nowhere. Is the importance of Kosovo in Serb history (arguably much greater than that its importance to the Albanians who now mostly inhabit the region) an argument in international law as to what the status of Kosovo is? This argument would seem to be to be an argument as to "why Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza" or "why Israel has a moral claim to annex the West Bank and Gaza" or "why Israel has a moral claim to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and then annex them." But it doesn't seem to bear at all on the question of "are the West Bank and Gaza to be considered as occupied territories under international law."

Again, every other point is a legalistic one. This point seems to come from a completely different argument. I see that this point is made (to the everlasting shame of the Israeli government) on the official ministry of foreign affairs website. I still do not see how this makes it a relevant argument. john k 23:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Repellent as the irredentist argument (or is it revanchist? maybe both) is, it does seem to be a rather big part of the case that the territories are not occupied: a nation can't "occupy" land to which it has Urrecht, eh? (Especially divinely-granted Urrecht.) I don't see why it shouldn't be listed here, separate from the arguments based on international law. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe (and it really is shameful that it's not just right wing crazies, but the Israeli government that is taking this line). And I think the changes you made to the wording improve things. But its current placement really does make it stand out like a sore thumb. If it's going to be mentioned, it should be split off from the legalistic arguments. But God, it's such a disgusting argument. Can we add the "the Palestinians aren't a real nation" argument, the "Jordan is Palestine" argument, and the "there are already 22 Arab states" argument, as well? Because those are really sweet arguments, too. john k 07:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should be separate from the other arguments and have moved it to the end of the section. As to the other three, they suck too but I don't think they're ever used to buttress the bizarre case that the occupation isn't really an occupation. (And yes, it is really disgusting—disgusting in its own right, and doubly disgusting because the government of Israel, of all the countries in the world, ought to know where this kind of ideology can lead. . .) —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The mountain Aquifer

The sentence "The Mountain Aquifer, from which Israel draws over a third of its fresh water resources, is located in the West Bank." is un-sourced and wrong. What is wrong with it ?

First of all the mountain aquifer is not 100% "in the west bank". To say this would be to say that "The Mekong River is in China". The Mekong originate in Tibet as Dza Chu River but i t flows and changes and collect more water else where.

Most of it is in the West Bank, there is a small percentage of it outside. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Aquifers are underground rivers and lakes. The Mountain aquifer provides around 600 Million Metric cube per year. About 360 are from wells which are inside Israel green-line borders. (near the green line itself, in places like Rosh -Hayin) Around 140 MMC are from wells in the west bank.

The eastern side (which is actually a separate aquifer provides another 100 MMC.) So overall, the entire West bank wells generate around 240 MMC of which 180 are used by Palestinians in the west bank and 60 by Israel.

Are you saying that Palestinians use three times as much water as Israelis?Ramallite ^(talk) 17:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In parallel Israel provides some of the water used by Palestinians in the Gaza strip. This I all from personal un-sourced knowledge so it may be wrong and not for inclusion in the article. But what is there now is wrong as well . Can someone provide sources ? Zeq 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And a quick note about water: Israel is near the sea. As such it can never have a water problem. The only issue is cost of desalinization. I have read so much about how the route of the west bank barrier was decided based on water and this is pure rabish. It was decided based topography, )and in some places by the colonies that could be annexed, like in the case of Alfiei Menashe and Rihan) and it is changed by the courts all the time. Zeq 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the far bigger problem has been disproportionate allocation of water to the settlers; they (according to sources) get much more water per capita then Palestinians do, due to Israeli policies. According to this report, The distribution of West Bank water is as follows: Israelis 65%, Settlers 17%, and Palestinians 8%. So settlers, who are less than 20% of the population, get more than twice as much water per capita according to my interpretation of the report. The report further states that: As a result of these policies, Israel, including the settlers, is presently utilizing nearly 80% of the shared waters of the West Bank, while Palestinians are left with less than 20%. To compound the inequity, Palestinians on the West Bank are forced to pay higher rates for their water supply. Sounds like a conflict to me! Ramallite ^(talk) 17:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

(Actually, twice the total amount of water for a quarter the population means that settlers get eight times as much water per capita as the Palestinians. Marsden 06:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

The biggest problem is that it's not relevant to this page; there are other articles that should deal with this. The second biggest problem is that is carefully selected to promote a particular POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1. A description about one of the resources of one of the Territories under Israeli control does belong in an article about Territories under Israeli control.
2. You also mentioned above that this article is "a brief description of the territories and who has controlled them, and arguments as to whether or not they are occupied. It is not an article about the hydrology or geography of the territories in question, nor is it a discussion of the many, many reasons why Israel wants to hold onto them". However, you did NOT create this article, but Marsden rather, so Marsden is more qualified to say what is the purpose of the article. The title does not include the word "brief" and thus does not prohibit someone to expand information about territories. --Vizcarra 22:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, rather than continuing to add the point about water, could you discuss here why you feel it's relevant, as opposed to all the other facts it would be possible to add? If it's agreed here that it's particularly important to mention it, we should talk about other facts that need to be mentioned too. Most importantly, you would need to find a reputable source that says this is a relevant issue, and then stick closely to what that source says. Otherwise it's original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a reference to a Ze'ev Schiff article on the matter from 1989. One blurb on the collection of essays that contains the article reads:

• Border adjustments would be made between Israel and the Palestinian entity. The two prime factors that would influence these adjustments are security and Israel's obligation to preserve its large subterranean water reserve along the coastal plain. It is very easy to damage this important reservoir through the unrestricted drilling of wells on the western slopes of the Samarian mountains.

The article itself is well worth a read -- it all but predicts the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, for example, and describes Israel securing West Bank water resources as "the sine qua non condition of any peace settlement."

Marsden 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only Marsden, but I and at least other person has explained why "it's relevant". And at this point it is unnecessary to explain why the description of a territory is relevant to an article about such territory. --Vizcarra 22:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that "relevant" refers to 'this article' and not the conflict itself (the latter is easy to verify as it's one of the final status issues according to the Oslo Accords), it's one of many. I can list 1) defensible borders 2) biblical ties 3) alleviate population density 4) strategic assets (water) 5) tourism resource 6) airspace . Of course this is all my OR but most should be easily verifiable. Would Marsden and Jayjg agree to include either all or none of these? As you may be able to tell, I am still pretty confused as to what this article is supposed to be about and what other editors think it ought (and ought not) to include. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Could those who advocate that the water issue does not belong here, but should be dealt with in other articles, please specify in which articles, exactly? Thanks, Huldra 22:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the water issue is already being covered in the Israeli West Bank barrier article. In my opinion, that's a better place. And I agree with Ramallite that either all of the issues or none of them should be discussed. Otherwise it makes the article unbalanced and unencyclopedic. Picking and choosing selective bits only feeds the public stereotype of Wikipedia being "an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids" [20]. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is appropriate to discuss the matter in the article on the Occupied Territories because water is a potential deal breaker in any end of the occupation, as noted in Schiff article. I don't get at all how an article on the fence would be a more appropriate place to discuss the water issue -- the water issue is independent of the fence. Marsden 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No issue was discussed. Just a fact about water resources in such occupied territory. No wikipedia should forbid any other for expanding a subject that belongs in the article. If the article is about a territory why shouldn't a fact about the territory be included just because others haven't been included. This is a wiki and everybody should be able to contribute facts. --Vizcarra 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mperel and Ramallite that either a range of issues should be discussed or none, and also that we need to provide reputable third-party sources stating that each issue is relevant, and then stick closely to their arguments, and not create our own. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And I agree with Marsden, Brian Tvedt, Ramallite that the (repeated) removal of the fact about water resources was unjustified. --Vizcarra 01:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the full range of issues need to be discussed, and in the correct article - this doesn't seem to be it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Water: There is widely circulated propeganda that water are at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is pure nonsense. The conflict is about national home and alos a touch of religion.

There is the sea, just next to Israel. Desalinization is just a matter of money. The supply of water is unlimited. It would cost by far less to build more desalinization plants (like the one Israel is building in Ashkelon) than to fight wars over water. Under the negev desret there are also large aquifers of salty water. Again only issue of cost. Zeq 05:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are half right, Zeq, but that makes you completely wrong. Desalinated water is about ten times more expensive than naturally fresh water, and desalinization is not done on a grand scale anywhere, not even (I think) in the parched oil-rich states. I think Israel at one time decided that it would be cheaper to bring tankers of fresh water from Turkey than to desalinate. Marsden 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at this: http://www.water-technology.net/projects/israel/

The Ashkelon facility, on Israel's southern Mediterranean coast, is the first in a series of large-scale seawater desalination units. Others are planned for Ashdod, Palmahim, Kishon and Caesarea.

Zeq 06:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Water again

The statements about water that Jayjg deleted are not in a section called "reasons Israel is keeping the territory" and there was no assertion that they are at the "core" of the conflict. They are simple statments of fact that these territories have water resources and that Israel makes use of that water to meet the needs of its own civilian population.

This article is about the territories and Israel's control over them. One of the characteristics of those territories is that they have water--even my little Berlitz Hebrew phrase book mentions that the Golan Heights contain the headwaters of the Jordan river. One of the distinctive aspects of Israel's control over these territories is that they are not held in custodianship, with the resources of those territories being used to meet the needs of the population of those territories themselves, rather Israel has chosen to make use of its control over those territories in order, among other things, to supply water to Israel proper and to the Israel settlements. Zeq's point that Israel COULD meet its water needs by desalinization instead of taking water from the territories doesn't change the fact that Israel DOES take water from the territories.

As to SlimVirgin's point in the edit comments, where is the "reputable, third-party source" that says Jewish "continuous presence on the land" is relevant? Brian Tvedt 13:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, the reason for them being there is quite clear; read back through the history of the article, and their original wording, if you want to understand that they are, in fact, Marsden's argument that water is the reason Israel holds on to the territories. There are many reasons Israel holds onto the territories, and thousands of facts about the territories that could be included; selectively choosing these specific ones is simply an attempt to create a POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment I'm leaning toward its inclusion (not just it, though, indeed), I just want solid sources on its scope, and I want it to be approached as a benefit of being occupied as opposed to reason for it, while entertaining any notable sources who view it as such. El_C 03:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is legalistic argument relevant to the article title?

I posted this over at SlimVirgin's talk page, but since she hasn't responded, I thought I'd repost it here as well.

You say over at Talk:Yom Kippur War with respect to the Territories under Israeli control article:

The issue there is that the article is in part about whether the territories are rightly regarded as "occupied," under international law.

Seeing it put like that, I am all the more convinced that this is not a valid way to go about deciding article titles. I say this because we use the term "war" in article titles for conflicts which may not be regarded as wars under international law, or, at least, where there have been arguments made that they are not wars. I think specifically of Korean War, which was officially defined by the US as a "police action," and which, I believe, may have been so defined by the UN. It seems to me that the American position that the Korean War was not a war is quite analogous to the Israeli position that the Occupied Territories are not occupied. Many other wars fought by the US are also officially considered by the US not to be wars, notably the Vietnam War and both conflicts in Iraq. Under international law, any of these conflicts may or may not be considered wars - I'm not really sure. But it's a fact that the official position of the United States government has been that none of these are wars, because only Congress has the power to declare war, and the last time Congress did so was in 1941. Therefore, ipso facto, these conflicts are not wars. And there are various justificatoins as to why - Korea and Gulf War I (and perhaps Gulf War II...) are UN police actions; Vietnam was an effort to aid a friendly government against an insurgency. Our articles on these wars should certainly deal with these issues. But our article titles are very properly at Korean War, Vietnam War, and so forth.

To get back to the "territories under Israeli control," the issue you are having seems to be that whether or not the commonly used name is technically accurate is a matter of dispute, with one side maintaining that it is and the other claiming otherwise. This is evidently true. At the same time, the fact that the technical accuracy of the most commonly used name is under dispute, with POV arguments being made by both sides, does not make the name itself POV. So, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Korean War as not being a war, the name Korean War is still NPOV. Analogously, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Occupied Territories as not being Occupied, the name Occupied Territories is still NPOV. It is the name of the article not because wikipedia is asserting that the territories are occupied, but only because this is, as a matter of fact, the name which they are given. Another example: according to the reigning legal theory in the United States, the Confederate States of America never existed. Secession was illegal, and thus, either a) those individuals in state governments who attempted to secede were behaving illegally, and the southern states never actually seceded at all (Lincoln's position); or b) the southern states were in illegal rebellion, and had no legal right to form a sovereign confederacy, even though their rebellion temporarily deprived them of status as states in the union (the radical republican position). Thus, one might say that there is a POV dispute as to whether or not the Confederate States of America existed. But that does not mean that it is POV to have an article titled Confederate States of America.

Anyway, I won't go on, but my point is basically this: even if the Occupied Territories are not occupied under international law, that doesn't mean that it is POV to use the title "Occupied Territories" when this is how they are most commonly known, and when there is no other commonly used name available. john k 19:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is clear that we have more than enough diplomatic, scholarly, and so on, consensus by Wikipedia standards to use occupied by default, but the section on the occupied-disputed naming dispute is not only disputed, it is also lengthy, I find, imbalancing the article. I, therefore, copied and pasted most of it to Occupation naming dispute, slapped a hack job intro, and viola! Yours, the formerly banished, El_C 02:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that you moved a lot more of the case against the applicability of territory being called occupied than the case for applicability of the territory being called occupied. Andjam 03:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not move a lot more, I left a lot less, which (text-wise) is not at all the same thing. I simply could not find as comprehensive passage/s for a summarizing paragraph, and I wasn't about to extend it further by authoring that portion myself, though someone else may. El_C 03:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"because only Congress has the power to declare war, and the last time Congress did so was in 1941" Congress gave the President the power to wage war for the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq, and apparently Vietnam. Your analogy therefore lacks a certain validity. Andjam 03:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

NOt precisely the ability to wage war. At any rate, Korean War is still a valid example. Why is the title Korean War less POV than Occupied Territories? john k 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What belongs in this article (redux)?

El C has moved much of the discussion about the term "occupied" to another article; at first glance, I thought this was a bad idea, but it seems to work.

There is a continuing dispute regarding which qualities of the territories should be remarked upon in this article, in particular water. Jayjg has vaguely remarked that such information does not seem to belong in this article; Huldra has asked in which article such information belongs; MPerel has expressed her opinion that water is better discussed at the article on the West Bank barrier; SlimVirgin and Jayjg prefer that either a range of topics or none at all be mentioned; Ramallite mentions defensible borders, biblical titles, population density, strategic assets, tourism value, and airspace control as relevant matters for this article.

There are a lot of articles on topics related to the territories. There is this article, there are a couple articles on occupation generally, there is an article on the Palestinian territories, there are articles about each of the specific territories, there is a lengthy article on the Israeli West Bank barrier, and now there is El C's Occupation naming dispute article. There are very likely others that I don't know or have forgotten about.

In my opinion, the articles specifically about territories (this would mostly exclude the articles about occupation generally and the sub-articles, like El C's and the barrier article, on particular aspects/disputes regarding the territories) should be focused as follows:

• This article: history of military control and anything germane to Israel's concerns about relinquishing control. This would include water, defensibility, and possibly religious/historical significance -- matters unusual for this territorial dispute, and not just the relatively obvious "more land to expand into" aspects. Probably there should be more on the numbers of natives and settlers in each of the territories.
• Palestinian territories: negotiations/disputes with Palestinian Authority, more on humanitarian situation (which by my understanding is not so much an issue with Golan Heights).
• Particular territories articles: any amount of detail, but steering wide of matters addressed in this article or in Palestinian territories.
• Israeli West Bank barrier: sub-article of Palestinian territories; addressing negotiations/disputes particularly related to barrier.
• Occupation naming dispute/other sub-articles: specific matters that are broad enough to warrant their own articles.

Marsden 13:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of merit in what you say. However, I think it has been made clear by all people who actually have an interest in the topic and knowledge about it (obviously including you, but not including certain editors who are just here for "grudge" reverts because they are on a vendetta against certain other editors) that if the topics are to be discussed, they need to be discussed in a thorough way. Including only small parts of a large picture inevitably produces POV. Since many of these topics will themselves be about the same size as El C's "Occupation naming dispute" article, why not, in the interests of cooling edit wars and NPOV, create sub-articles on the topics listed (e.g. Israel's concerns about relinquishing control). Once the article is built, it will be easy enough to see whether it is small enough to include in this article, or whether it applies to multiple articles and should be kept separate and merely summarized and linked to in the articles to which it applies. As it is, the constant insertion of the water issue looks extremely odd; the reader is left with the impression "One of these things, is not like the other ones..." Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you, then, add whatever topics you think are missing that cause the article to look so odd to you? I would think the more natural progression of an article to having sub-articles would be "information; more information; still more information; sub-article" rather than "information; removal of information; revert war; animosity; stalemate." I tend to be succinct to a fault; I suspect that a dozen or two sentences could cover the relevant topics sufficiently, which I don't think is good cause for sub-articles. In any case, even if there are to be sub-articles, they need to be linked to somehow -- note the sentence I added, the primary role of which is to link to the humongous West Bank barrier article. If there is to be a sub-article on water, wouldn't it have to be linked with a sentence very much like, "Control of water resources in the territories has been an source of ongoing disagreement between Israel and both Syria (with regard to the Golan Heights) and the Palestinian Authority (with regard to the West Bank)?" If you think there should be sub-articles, why don't you work toward having them as opposed to away from having them? I don't think that even you claim that water information doesn't belong at all, but only that its presence creates an imbalance: isn't the obvious response to that to add balancing information rather than to remove the water information? How much progress do you think would ever be made anywhere in Wikipedia if all sides on any dispute insisted that no additional information be added until it met their NPOV standards? Marsden 19:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Immediate reverts to insert information you know to be unbalanced discourages collaboration. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting, Jay. I don't know if you do it on purpose in order to be abrasive or if you are genuinely unaware of it, but on an inordinately large number of occasions you have ascribed your own opinion to another person or to other people. You have said several times that you think the water information is "unbalanced;" this does not make it so, and it certainly does not mean that I know that it is unbalanced. I'm honestly bewildered that anyone who would endeavor to contribute to an article about the Territories would be unaware of the significance that water plays in the conflicts over maintaining control of them, and yet even so I have provided a source that indicates pretty clearly that West Bank water, at least, is an absolute deal breaker in negotiations over the territory, and I have even removed for the moment the comment on Israel's water concern. I think I'm going to have to take a look at whatever there is in Wikipedia regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, and flesh out whatever comments are made on water in it.

Anyway, as I have suggested before, a more reasonable response to what you see as imbalance would be to add balancing information. Wikipedia's NPOV tutorial even suggests exactly this.

Marsden 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I don't think any of it belongs here, so I don't see why I should add to the information. Since you do, please NPOV the sections in question by adding all relevant information on the subject (i.e. Israel's reasons for holding on to the territories); otherwise I will be forced to put POV tags on the sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the ability of any editor to put a POV flag in an article is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia, and I would never stand in the way of an editor doing so. If I were you, though, Jay, I'd just put a generic POV flag up, rather than a "POV because ..." flag. People might get an attitude about you if they saw that you were complaining that a couple simple statements of fact about water resources in an area where those resources are over-exploited constitutes POV. My guess is that the next most important thing to include would be defensibility matters, but most discussions of such things end up being discussions of water. Marsden 20:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice summary, Marsden, helps us focus. I concur in a general sense with your assessment about what belongs where. On the water issue, I'm ambivalent on where it is most suitable to address it. As a standalone, it seems to be a humanitarian issue that might be better addressed in the Palestinian territories article. It also is related to disputes related to the barrier that might be better discussed in the Israeli West Bank barrier. And it also is a subset of a discussion on strategic concerns which could be its own article. I think it does stick out as an odd factoid by itself in this article, so anything done to remedy that works for me: expanding it here (maybe in a separate subsection or subarticle) or removing it from here and addressing it in another article. I'm not completely opposed to leaving it put until one of the other remedies occurs, however. (note: Wikipedia is extremely slow today and frustrating to edit and I'm having trouble even logging in). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Compromise on title impasse?

I have a compromise proposal which I think might break the impasse on the Title argument. Why don't we rename El C's "Occupation naming dispute" article "Occupied Territories (Israeli)"? Those who are looking for an article on the issue will actually get a comprehensive article discussing it; all the "authoritative bodies" which have ruled that the territories are occupied, the lengthy ruling by the ICJ, etc., followed by the four or five lame arguments that it is disputed. The editors who think there should be an article with this title will get an article with this title, which actually lists what the territories are, and a lot of convincing groups saying they are occupied. The editors who think the title is POV will still have to have an article with this title, but at least they get a few (cited) statements at the end as to why they think the terminology is wrong/POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the current name of this article is bad: downtown Tel Aviv, for example, would by any reckoning be a "territory under Israeli control." I think -- in case it comes as a surprise to anyone -- that an appropriate title for this article is "Occupied Territories (Israeli)," but in any case, it would be better to figure out a title for this article before worrying too much about the brand spanking new one. In violation of my own advice just given, however, "Occupation naming dispute" is an ... unfortunate name for an article. Really, the only place that should link to such an article would be this article -- cant' sub-articles be made through article_name/sub-article_name? Why not (using my prefered names ...) "Occupied_Territories_(Israeli)/Dispute_Regarding_Name"? Marsden 19:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Apparently the "/" sub-article convention does not work on regular article pages. Marsden 20:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There used to be sub-articles, but it is now forbidden, as it implies hierarchy. I agree that the new article has a bad title. But I don't see how an article entirely about whether or not the territories are occupied would be an appropriate article for the title Occupied Territories (Israeli). The article which is here seems to be appropriate for that purpose - it discusses each of the territories and their status. If someone looks up Occupied Territories, they are likely looking for a definition, for basic information about what these territories are/were and what their status is. They are not necessarily looking for a long semantical/legalistic dispute. john k 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Three items I'd like to bring up (edit conflict w/John K...looks like I'm overlapping on one point):

• See how the American Civil War article John Kenney brought up earlier introduces in the first paragraph a link to the naming dispute article related to that war: Naming the American Civil War.
• On Marsden's last suggestion, see Wikipedia's stance on sub-article naming convention.
• On "occupation" in the title, note that back in February we moved Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan to Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan for NPOV reasons, and made the first title redirect to the article without "occupation" in the title. I also still think Occupied Territories (Israeli) should redirect to here, rather than be used for another article (Jayjg's suggestion above). On a related note, there is apparently inconsistency about "occupation" in the title: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Jordan annexed the West Bank. It was, de facto if not de jure under international law, treated as part of Jordan. The Palestinian inhabitants were Jordanian citizens. The area was administered as part of Jordan. This was not recognized in international law, but I think the de facto rule of the West Bank as part of Jordan is sufficient to make it so that "occupation" is not in the title. Gaza, on the other hand, was never considered to be part of Egypt, and was in fact treated as occupied territory by the Egyptians. This is, I think, analogous to the situation of the Occupied Territories today, which, other than East Jerusalem, have not been annexed by Israel. john k 03:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the rationale behind abandoning hierarchy of articles? Even the example they give seems silly -- does anyone really think "Transportation" would have a sub-article on "Transportation in Ajerbaijan?" El C's split of the "occupied" discussion is in effect just a grandiose designation of a separate section of the article; I'm wondering if the old sub-article convention was abandoned with the thought that articles should just include as regular sections whatever they need. Britannica articles certainly can go on and on for pages. Does anyone know? Marsden 03:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The name "Occupation naming dispute" is in any case misleading, as it is more then merely a semantic dispute. That article should be renamed into something more appropate, the proposal from Jayjg sounds ok but not excellent, see Johns comments above. However, Marsden has some points regarding _this_ article. Territories under Israeli control is not very specific. If it deals with the territories occupied (or "captured") during the 1967-war, why not use that as the name, e.g. "Territories captured during the 1967 conflict by Israel". Althoug a bit lengthy ("by Israel" might be dropped) this is unambigous and not controversial in any respect. Its also better with regard to territories such as the Sinai peninsula, which is not under Israeli control but _were_ occupied (captured if you wish) during the six day war (and dealt with in this article). Cybbe 22:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What about making "Occupied Territories (Israeli) into a disambiguation page (not just a redirect) pointing to the article about the naming dispute and also pointing to this article titled something like Cybbe suggests Territories captured during the 1967 conflict by Israel, and pointing to whatever else might be related to "Occupied Territories (Israeli)".

I think it's essential that Occupied Territories (Israeli) continue to redirect to this article. In the real world that phrase always refers to a piece of land, never to an argument. I don't see this as a compromise between your position and Marsden's, it actually takes Marsden further from his goal by burying the phrase Occupied Territories more deeply. Brian Tvedt 03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think that Israeli-Occupied Territories is better than the (Israeli) parentheses, which is somewhat confusing, as opposed to a (by Israel), etc. As for the move, I just want to note that the occupied-disputed dispute simply isn't that noteworthy to expand on at such length as was the case, it was simply out proportion for the role played by this particular dispute in reality. El_C 10:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's substantiate here

Alright, since my long post was utterly ignored except for Andjam trying to claim that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution is basically like a declaration of war, I thought I'd try to start discussion along the same lines. For those opposed to including "occupied" in the title...what is your opinion of the following titles...

1. Armenian genocide - the Turkish government objects to the term genocide at least as vociferously as the Israeli government objects to "occupied," and probably considerably more so.
2. Korean War - as noted, the US government maintained (and, presumably, in some theoretical way, continues to maintain) that this conflict was a police action, and not a war
3. Confederate States of America - according to the dominant legal interpretation of the victorious northern states, the CSA never existed. Giving it this title might be deemed to give a legitimacy to the CSA that it doesn't deserve
4. American Civil War - this is a name predominantly used by the north, and mostly disliked by southerners, who call it the War between the States, or other names.

If you accept these titles, on what basis are they to be distinguished from "Occupied Territories" as a name for the territories Israel conquered in 1967.

May I ask a further question? Jay has linked to a page where the Israeli foreign ministry objects to the term "occupied territories." But all of the arguments in use apply only to the West Bank and Gaza. They do not apply to the Golan Heights, and they would not have applied to the Sinai when Israel occupied it. Is there any dispute that the Golan Heights and the Sinai are/were "occupied territories"?

And a further point - if the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the Occupied Territories are, indeed, occupied, how can this be gainsayed by a propaganda pamphlet put out by the foreign ministry? Doesn't the view of the Israeli Supreme Court automatically become the official legal position of the State of Israel? If the Israeli Supreme Court has called these territories occupied, it seems to me that it is not "every state in the world except Israel" which recognizes them as occupied - it is "every state in the world, including Israel." Has the highest court in Turkey ever ruled that the treatment of the Armenians was genocide? I'm fairly certain that the US Supreme Court never ruled that the Korean War was a war. john k 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia naming convention policy reads in part:

• Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

I think that the majority of English speakers recognize "the Occupied Territories," with no further adjective, to mean the territories captured and held by Israel in the Six-Day War, and clearly it would not be unexpected for someone to search Wikipedia for "occupied territories," and expect to find an article on the territories captured and held by Israel in the Six-Day War.

Marsden 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if the opinion of the Supreme Court isn't the official legal position of the state (I'm not well-versed in Israeli law, so I can't say), what are we to make of the court's comment, in Beit Sourik v. Government of Israel, that:

The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area [earlier defined as "the areas of Judea and Samaria"] in belligerent occupation. . .

If the government of Israel is a party to the case, and "all parties" agree that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation, then either I'm misreading this somehow, or the statement that the government of Israel does not regard the occupation as an occupation is erroneous. (It's possible, I suppose, that the government of Israel says one thing in PR campaigns and the opposite in its own courts. . .) —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

One would assume that the government of Israel has to be a party to the case, doesn't it? It would seem, though, that the government of Israel does say one thing in PR campaigns and the opposite in its own courts. If the government of Israel has admitted in legal proceedings that it is an occupation, I really, really see no reason why we should not have this page at Occupied Territories or Occupied Territories (Israeli) or whatever. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Without trying to argue the merits of differences, I'll try to list some of the differences that could be argued in some of the cases:

1. Domestic law vs International law. Some of these examples (eg Korean war) have legal disputes that are mainly to do with US domestic law. To non-Americans, they may be of limited interest. By contrast, Israel is arguing about occupation in the context of international law. And international law generally claims to cover everybody in every country.

   So far as I am aware, the US claimed that the conflict wasn't a war in both domestic and international law. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'd be interested to see evidence of that. Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Legal disputes vs factual disputes. Some would argue that the dispute over occupation status is one of legal interpretation, whereas Armenian Genocide is one of factual interpretation.

   The Turks would disagree. I would add that one might argue that the dispute over occupation status is as much a factual one as the dispute over Armenian genocide. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   What facts are being disputed in the occupation debate? Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Availability of NPOV alternatives. Some would argue there isn't a NPOV alternative term for Armenian Genocide.

   What is the NPOV alternative here? The current title seems to be generally agreed to be an inadequate neologism. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   I mentioned before that Abu Mazen has used the phrase "Territory under Israeli control". Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

4. NPOVness of proposed alternative. Some would argue that "war between the states" is less NPOV than "American civil war". Some would argue that's perhaps that's why it's more popular with southerners, if indeed it is more popular.

   Of course War between the States is less NPOV than American Civil War. But one might argue that both are POV, and thus we should argue that the only proper name is some sort of neologism "U.S. Struggle between North and South, 1861-1865" or something similarly ridiculous. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   As opposed to the struggle between East and West? Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Strength of claims. Some would argue that Israel's claim that it is not technically an occupier is stronger than Turkey's claim that it didn't committ genocide.

   Again, I note that the Supreme Court of Israel has called Israel an occupier. And as Mirv notes above, one of the premises of the decision was that both parties admit it is an occupation. It is hard to see how this claim can possibly be weaker than the Armenian genocide claim, which, so far as I am aware, no official body in Turkey has ever acknowledged. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Because some Israeli government bodies are more self-critical than Turkish government bodies? Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Compared item may be wrongly named. For example, someone might cite a comparison with Yom Kippur War (not listed above, but has been mentioned elsewhere), but someone may argue that both Yom Kippur War and "Occupied Territories" are both wrong.

   One might do so. But I did not. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Potential for incitement. I don't think it's neccessarily a strong argument, but I'll mention it for completeness. (Besides, one wikipedian mentioned the example of Radio Rwanda recently in a personal talk page, so it should be fair enough for me to say what I'm saying) Armenians aren't blowing up Turkish cafes and claiming genocide as a justification. By contrast, Palestinians are blowing up Israeli cafes and claiming occupation as a justification. But others would argue that stifling debate isn't how you stop terrorism, and instead that addressing "root causes" stops terrorism, and vigorous criticism of governments helps address "root causes".

   I don't think this is even worth discussing. The fact that Wikipedia is unwilling to call what all Palestinians know to be an occupation (let's not discuss if this is factually correct or not, but just say that I doubt there is a single Palestinian who doesn't think it's an occupation) an occupation isn't going to make it less likely that Palestinians will blow themselves up to kill Israelis. The problem is not the term "occupation" (which, as I've noted before, is not even a term with a particularly negative connotation.) The problem is the situation which is called, by everyone in the world except some crazy right wing Israelis and like-minded people around the world and some Israeli government propaganda sites, an "occupation." Call it something else and you won't make Palestinians less upset about it. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

   Calling people crazy right wingers isn't very civil. Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Andjam 11:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

May I add that I find it irritating to counter points which you are unwilling to say you agree with. I don't care what someone might argue. I am not stating various things that someone might argue. I am making my own arguments, that I believe in. If I am going to try to argue with someone, I would appreciate it if they would do the same, instead of throwing out a bunch of potential arguments that, if refuted, they can simply pull out of. Do you think the cases are different?

Yes. Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you do, how do you think they are different? Why is Korean War acceptable, and Occupied Territories not? Why is Armenian Genocide acceptable, and Occupied Territories not. On the first, your claim seems to be that "occupied" is a much, much more negative term than "war." I am utterly unconvinced that "occupied" has a particularly negative connotation.

If that's your attitude towards occupation, I'm glad I'm a crazy right-winger. Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep on saying that "occupation" has a really negative connotation, but you provide no evidence of this. Certainly you are not disagreeing with the idea that "genocide" has a more negative connotation than "occupation"? john k 16:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What negative connotation it does have is largely due to the way people view the very issue under discussion - Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Basically, the Israelis themselves have tainted the word "occupation" with their 38 year occupation of the Palestinian Territories, so now the word itself is POV to describe the very thing which made the word have a negative connotation in the first place!

Do you honestly believe that what happened in the West Bank and the Gaza strip is the worst occupation in the world for the past couple of decades? Andjam 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly the one that is reported most in the west - I can't say whether it is the worst one. I know very little, e.g. about the Moroccan occupation in Western Sahara. My point is that most people's conception of "occupation" at present comes from the most well-known currently existing occupation, which is the Israeli one. The word certainly did not have an especially negative connotation as recently as the 1950s, when we had an allied occupation of Germany and an American occupation of Japan. It is simply a neutral word for describing a military administration by a foreign power. If the word "occupation" has a terribly negative connotation now (I'm still not certain it does), the only possible explanation is world reaction to Israel's activities - what other well-known occupations have there been since the days of the American occupation of Japan? john k 16:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

On the second, your claim seems to be the completely incompatible one that "we just know the Armenian Genocide was a genocide, but there's legitimate dispute with occupied territories." A currently existing situation, which has been defined by every relevant international entity, as well as the Supreme Court of Israel itself (and possibly the government of Israel in its court filings - I guess even they knew that their Disputed Territories crap wouldn't sell in court) as an occupation, seems clearly a stronger factual case than a somewhat murky historical event 90 years in the past. But even beyond this, this argument conflicts completely with the "we can't use occupation because it's too pov" argument. Genocide is, I'm sure you'll agree, a word with a much more negative connotation than occupation. Yet you're completely willing to accept it, despite the Turkish government's strong protestations to the contrary. john k 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, there isn't a NPOV alternative for Armenian genocide. Andjam 05:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Side point: does anyone dispute that the Palestinians in the territories are a people under occupation? Clearly, they are afforded no national rights; they have no legal voice in the government of the ultimate authority over them; and the IDF is more concerned with protecting settlers against them than with protecting them. What is the name of their condition, if not "occupation?" And then, how can a people under occupation live in territory that is not occupied? Marsden 16:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Occupation" has a specific legal meaning, which is precisely the issue raised by those who oppose its use. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not have that specific legal meaning in common usage, nor even in a more general legal context (as noted). You are seeking to have a specific meaning weigh more than the general meaning. Back of the NPOV class for you once more, Jay. Please explain why a "specific legal meaning" should take precedence here, but not in "Armenian genocide" or "Korean war". Elsewhere you argue that a title should be allowed because it is the most plainly descriptive for English speakers (who mostly call the 1973 conflict "the Yom Kippur War"), even though it can clearly be disputed that not only is that the technically correct name for the war but that it is the correct name for the day in question. However, here, you wish to set aside the commonly understood name for the territories by appealing to a specific definition of "occupied", not the one commonly used but one that just happens to coincide with your POV. This is the point where you laughably claim that "Yom Kippur War" just is NPOV, "Armenian genocide" just is NPOV, "Korean War" just is NPOV, and "Occupied Territories" just isn't. Your "arguments" are nothing if not utterly predictable. -- Grace Note

"Geneocide" and "war" also have a specific legal meaning. Cybbe 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

War had a de facto meaning long before international law appeared. Armenian Genocide doesn't have any NPOV alternatives. Andjam 05:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that the legal meaning of "war" (which dates back at least to Grotius and the origins of the concept of international law) precedes the legal meaning of "occupation" (which only dates back, as far as I can tell, to the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949). And that there was certainly a de facto meaning of "occupation" long before it was established in the Geneva Conventions. john k 06:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the first sentance, but I'd be under the impression that occupation is a relatively new concept. I would have thought that before the idea of "international law" came about, people didn't bother occupying but just annexed. Andjam 07:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "occupation", both in international law and as a concept, most definitively outdates the Geneva Convention (e.g. it can be found in the Hague Conventions of 1907), and is not a "reletively new concept". From EOD online: "1325 Statutes of Realm in MS Rawl. B. 520 f. 38v, Of purprestures ant of occupaciouns anie imade ope e lord Kinge. 1442 in W. Fraser Stirlings of Keir (1858) 216 To compere befor..the Kyng and his consale..for the wrangwyse occupacioun of the said landis. c1485 (1456) G. HAY Bk. Law of Armys (1901) 295 The wrangwis occupacioun of realmes be unrychtwis title." more: "841 F. JONES tr. K. W. R. Rotteck Hist. World IV. 264 The intention..of appeasing the great foreign powers by suppressing all movements and forces allied to the revolutionary ideas, and of liberating France sooner from the *occupation-army, might also contribute to this." Cybbe 15:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you be able to post the full entry on meaning and history of usage on my talk page please? I'd be interested to know if it has been used between c1485 and the Franco-Prussian war. Andjam 01:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The naming dispute so far

God, this is getting ridiculous. Jay and Slim just tag team on niggling procedural arguments, and we get nowhere. Personally, I'm not going to listen to a further thing either one of them says until they address at least a couple of the substantive arguments I made in the sections "this is getting ridiculous," "is legalistic argument relevant to the article title," "let's substantiate here," and "Legal dispute." Now, I know I made a lot of points, and I don't expect a point by point response. But I do think that if they are going to continue to object to a move, they have to at least give some indication of what they think of these arguments, since I think that a fair number of new points which were not previously addressed were brought up here. If you want to dispute something, especially if you want to dispute it against a clear majority, you have to actually engage with the arguments your opponent is making. Throughout this argument, I've at least tried (I'm not sure I've always succeeded) to understand what those I disagree with are saying, and to take that into account in my comments. For a few weeks now I've been trying to explain myself in different ways to see if I could persuade them, or at least to get a better sense of what their line of reasoning is. All of these attempts have simply been met by silence - no response at all. The "this is getting ridiculous" section saw SlimVirgin respond by taking issue with me saying that one of her arguments was a straw man. None of my other arguments was addressed by Jay or Slim at all. MPerel did respond, equivocally, to this section, and Andjam tried to rebut (unconvincingly, imo, but, obviously, that's just my opinion). After a long hiatus when other things were discussed, and we had that farce of a vote, Marsden again tried substantive argument in the "equivalence fallacy" section. Once again, Jay and Slim ignored it, and only Andjam responded - and he wasn't even responding to Marsden's arguments, but attacking Marsden on the basis of earlier statements. Sometime after that, in the wake of Grace Note's WP:POINT violating attempt to move Yom Kippur War, I posted what is now the "legalistic argument" section to Slim's talk page - no response. I then posted it here. Still no response, except an inadequate one from Andjam. Next major action on the title is Jay proposing a dubious "compromise," which provoked some discussion of what we might call this article if we don't use "occupied." Then I write "Let's substantiate here," which was a direct attempt to engage Jay and Slim in explaining themselves further. Both ignored it. Andjam, once again, was up to the challenge, and responded to my points. We did receive Jay's comment "'Occupation' has a specific legal meaning, which is precisely the issue raised by those who oppose its use," in response to a side comment by Marsden, though. Jay again ignores the point raised in rebuttal that "war" and "genocide" also have specific legal meanings, and that we use these words in article titles on subjects where their precise legal applicability has been under dispute. Finally, I write up "legal dispute". Once again, no response, save one quibble from Andjam, which he offered without any support whatever. Then ElC proposes that we just get on with it and move it. In opposition, Slim refers us back to the poll, which didn't show consensus. Jay joins in more on the poll. I complain about the poll talking. And Slim says the poll stuff is all my fault anyway, and I'm being mean.

This is absurd. Jay and Slim's silence in response to repeated substantive criticisms of their position clearly doesn't arise out of a lack of attention to this page - they are clearly continuing to watch it, and intervene in other content disputes (as Jay has done in the continuing discussions about water), and in procedural based disputes (as both Jay and Slim have done in the most recent section). This is just unacceptable. If you're going to bar the way on a page move that a majority supports, the least you can do is address the arguments your opponents are making. It is one thing to come to a vote and not provide an explanation. It is quite another thing to watch over an article, to continue to make procedural points whenever anyone steps out of line, and to continually ignore substantive arguments. Is this really the kind of precedent we think should be set on how content disputes are to be resolved? Until Jay and/or Slim provide some kind of substantive defense of their position, which they have not done in two weeks now, I don't see why their continued opposition to a move should paralyze us. john k 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you stop the ad hominem remarks? Other than my edit this evening to remove your personal attacks, which you now deny making, I last edited this page on October 13, and before that on October 8. I last edited the article on October 9. If I'm acting as part of a tag team, I'm clealry not a reliable one.

Marsden started the poll, not me, and not Jay. Criticize Marsden if you feel you have to criticize anyone. Better still, don't make personal remarks of any kind. Editing this article to ensure it was NPOV could have been quite an interesting intellectual experience. Instead it has turned into a childish farce. That's why I've stayed away and haven't responded much on talk — because I have to wade through this kind of nonsense. There are editors I expect this from, but I'm surprised to see it from you, though I won't be surprised again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to withdraw from being involved in this article or talk page, for the time being at least. These personal attacks and comments are unacceptable, and yet it seems there's no end to them. Because of them, I feel reluctant to post here, and have largely stayed away, yet my reluctance is now cited as evidence that I'm not seriously engaged in the debate, and am somehow hanging around it in bad faith. It saddens me that it doesn't seem possible to have an adult discussion with some of the editors here about these issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not make a single ad hominem in that post that I am aware of. In terms of personal attacks making you not want to comment, I really don't understand. For days and days I've been putting up substantive arguments and asking you what you think of them. You say nothing. Then, when I get a tiny bit personal in calling you out on this (and I really don't think I got very personal - the tag team comment was perhaps ill-chosen, but was not meant to indicate active collusion, just my own sense of frustration that the two main opponents of the move both seem to be following a similar pattern), and you complain that we can't discuss this topic without personal attacks. If you wanted to have an adult discussion, why didn't you respond to any of the substantive posts (none of which had any personal comments at all, save requests for attention from those who disagree), rather than continuing to watch the page and wait for personal comments that you could complain about. The only reason I posted this is the massive frustration occasioned by this kind of behavior. As to using something as evidence that you're not seriously engaged in the debate, well, kind of. When one side is posting numerous substantive arguments, and the other side mostly ignores them, that seems to me to be a lack of engagement. You can say that this is about personal attacks, and it's true that things got nasty earlier, but it doesn't make sense for the response to personal attacks to be to continue to watch the page, but only to complain about personal attacks. john k 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't I bring up my gripes about your comments while we're at it, John K? Or maybe rather than complain about people delaying things, why don't you either move the page, or put up a proper poll (as you regard the previous one as invalid)? Andjam 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to move the page, but I'm afraid that if I do it, Jay and Slim will attack me for moving the page without consensus. In terms of gripes about my comments, feel free, especially if you feel I haven't addressed your points. As I understand it, you and I have a basic disagreement as to how much of a negative connotation the word "occupation" has. I do not think it has a very negative connotation, you think it has an extremely negative one. I'm not sure we'll get much further on this, but if you think I'm being unfair, go ahead and say so. john k 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone unredlink this please? Andjam 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All you need to do is to copy from the last revision from before the wholesale archiving, paste it into the red-linked renamed archive. and viola. I hope you found my explanation instructive; I'm certain that, in the future, you'd be able to undertake such a task yourself. 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you mean to move "legal dispute" and "Time to rename: follow up to JK" out of the archives and into the current talk page? Andjam 07:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not move from out of the archive and into the current talk page, but again, copy and pasted from the revision history. Click on the history button, then the last revision by User:Andjam, dated 08:02, 16 October 2005 contained the desired content. I hope my explanation (this time) aids in you becoming a more productive editor. 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)