Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues

Guidelines: Current Article Issue Discussion
This page is a subpage of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Please read that page before posting here. You may bring specific dispute issues on articles, categories or templates here. Note other help on reliable sources, point of views, biographies etc. might be found at an appropriate notice board. (See Noticeboard list.) Our discussions are moderated and incivility and other problematic postings will be deleted. Moderators also will move postings about problems with, or suggestions for, the project in general to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration talk page. They will archive resolved or dated issues.

---

Move request for State of Palestine

It has been proposed that State of Palestine be moved. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:State of Palestine#Requested rename (move) to Palestine. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion Criticism of Israel (since 12/26)

This is still being discussed here but get here quick if you want to opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Closed, no consensus. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox maps

I think it is pretty lame to see multiple discussions opened on the same premise on separate articles. This leads to edit warring and uneven consensus (some are changed and some are not). It also appears underhanded since it looks like pushing a POV and it looks like editors are trying to sneak things in whenever possible. I hope that isn't the scenario but I am surprised that this has not come up at AE. Please stop ignoring reasoning on one talk page to insert a particular edit on another when it is the exact same thing.

So on to the problem that is fixable: The use of the Israel map vs the Palestinian Territories map in the infoboxes of certain sites (and who knows where else since it has happened on multiple articles) is a problem. Two examples: Temple Mount and Western Wall. I do not think there is any dispute that it is in "Jerusalem" but who the city (or a section) of the city belongs to is in dispute. There are legal issues, reality issues, control issues, and so on. Everyone here knows it is complex and has caused all sorts of headaches. The infobox cannot address these issues since it is supposed to be a quick and easy summary. I propose one of the following solutions since using either map is not acceptable for various reasons by different parites (both of which have merits).

• No map at all.
  • We do not need a map in the infobox. It is not essential to the readers understanding of the subject. Keep in mind that the subject is not the politics but the the site. Politics are part of the subject but not the only aspect.
  • Explaining why one map is used over the other would not be appropriate and that is too much for an infobox.
  • The principle of WP:MOSICON applies here. This is not surprising since flags have also been bickered over in the infobox. "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." The soapbox part of the policy linked is directly related. We do not need to emphasize the purported nationality of a site.
• Use File:OldCityMapNameless.PNG
  • This is a map of Jerusalem. If a map is needed this fulfills that purpose.

Note that neither of these suggestions supports or even alludes to supporting any claim. The body can discuss the issues but either map is too POV and confusing.Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A map is essential as it shows the reader where it is located. You keep on ignoring the arguments that the IC view that EJ is in the PT. This is not "politics" or a "dispute", its the reality that the IC views it as part of the PT. You have not provided a reason to not use the map it is internationally recognized as part of.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this debate has even got this far. This is getting ridiculous. May I remind everyone, Cptnono appears to be the only one who is not interested in the discussion process at all. Which is evident by this edit he made, well aware of the discussion and the lack concensus that had yet to been reached. He proposed his idea quite a while back (IE - no maps at all). I believe I was the only one who flat out rejected it, along with SD, the other editors taking place in the discussion (most of them in favor of keeping Israel on the map) tacitly rejected it.

What is so abbreviating about this entire debate is the fact that Cptnono seems to want to have it "his way or the highway" per say. These maps have been attached to this article for a while now, why wasn't he championing to have the Israel map taken down when it was up? Why was it only when opposition was raised -- opposition with hard, factual, sources -- was he suggesting that we do no map at all. It is completely disingenuous and quite honestly fake concern for the whole masquerade of wanting to compromise.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, there is an abundance of overwhelming world view sources that myself, ans Supreme Deliciousness have provided explicitly slapping us in the face with the obvious fact, that the Old City of Jerusalem is in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Cptnono doesn't care about that, he cares about pushing his ideas fourth and will rarely even try to debate the hard facts.

Let the process take its course. -asad (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I guess there is little chance to constructive discussion, when there is an atmosphere of distrust and lack of assuming other editors good faith. However when there is no clear consensus on the article talk page, broader audience is required to get a community feedback and balanced decision. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the arguments, I have provided worldview source saying its part of the PT, neither Cptnono or any one else has provided a worldview source saying its not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to express any opinion on the dispute in hand, I just wanted to note that discussion is needed, despite the fact that we're talking about relatively minor issues as mentioned articles go. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@AU, we did it for the settlements. It was some bad times but it stopped the edit warring and created an even consensus.

@SD, you repeated the same argument from previous discussions so I will again repeat that "worldview" is disputed enough that it isn't FRINGE so there is some concern. Furthermore, a map is not "essential". It would be nice but if it over emphisizes a political debate than it is more problematic than benefitial. How good is that map? Nothing else is labeled so it is lines with certain parts highlighted. There is no compass. The reader cannot tell what it really is. It does not expand out to a world view so it is nothing but lines. The reader does not benefit from the map as much as it detracts from the sole purpose of an infobox. But if you really want a map then create one based on Jerusalem without political emphasis. Maybe the districts with the site having a marker. And keep in mind that many tertiary sources do not distinguish fully between Israel and the occupied territories making it even more confusing. Wikipedia is not here to push knowledge of a POV but explain the knowledge. We are supposed to reflect the World Almanac and others to a certain extent and adding these maps is unheard of.

@asad. Really? At least SD tried to offer a reason. Your purely ad hominem argument is even countered since the time I removed a map it was a map of Israel. Pay closer attention.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by ""worldview" is disputed enough that it isn't FRINGE" ? A map is beneficial and it doesn't over emphasize a political debate. It shows the accurate location of where it is located in accordance with the IC view, so the reader will see that its in the PT, that's exactly what an infobox map is supposed to do. Why would we have a map of only Jerusalem without showing that its located in the PT? That doesn't show the reader that its located in the PT, so that doesn't make any sense. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I reverted it back to the map of ISRAEL, not Palestine. Please don't make accusations about being ad hominem. You seem to want ignore my point, that you ignored the discussions and took it upon yourself to edit the article. -asad (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The only source we have been presented with supporting the argument that EJ is part of the Palestinian Territories is from the following line “OPT, including EJ”. That is insufficient. All it provides is an insinuation, not a real statement on the status of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the following sources point clearly to the fact that the whole of the city is deemed by the IC to have the status of a CS. Neither Israel or Palestinians are recognised as sovereign in the city:

• ”The Corpus Separatum solution still applies to both east and west Jerusalem” (UN 1979)p. 74. A UN committee issued a paper in 1979 which mentioned that the legal status of Jerusalem was that of the Corpus Separatum.[1]
• ”In March 1999, … saying that “The EU reaffirms its known position concerning the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum”. 76. p. 33
• In 2000, Saeb Erekat stated “The American position has always been corpus separatum.” [2]

This is all documented in Positions on Jerusalem. Any attempt to show the PT map for sites in EJ is wrong. A map of Israel, whose de-facto administration of the whole city is a fact, and whose control is partly recognised in WJ, is much more appropriate. The US is also of the view that ”united Jerusalem” is the capital of Israel. [3]. Chesdovi (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How is that all your sources are from books with poor citations that I can't even find? Instead of providing books that state something and source it, please provide the SOURCE. You mentioned the EU though, how about something a bit more recent than 1979? -asad (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

After much thought on the matter, I agree with the Captain. Jerusalem is a Wikipedia nightmare: even it's borders are difficult to define with in policy (which is moderately insane but you have the Israeli municipal borders, the CS borders, the 48-67 borders, all legitimate or illegitimate, depending). I've put this off because it's a huge headache but it's not getting any better as every possible venue and angle for the dispute is or has been explored. We need to reach some kind of consensus on how describe Jerusalem and it's locales per policy. I'm not even sure if that's possible, but it's something worth attempting as these fires spread. Sol (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes are serious business, especially maps. Same kind of argument is being conducted also at Mount Hermon. The issue there is I/S and not strictly I/P, though I guess the root cause is the same. The edit warring there by partisan parties which try to force their "correct" map, while waiting for 24 hour and 1 min to revert to be "inline" with 1RR/24hours limitation, appears silly to me personally. It would be nice to stop the edit warring there and to create an even consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not same kind of argument, two different disputes. Some claim worldview is that Jerusalem does not belong to anyone, while no one claims that is the case with the GH. Problems over there are an IP that repeatedly ads a map of a country it is not located in without explaining his edits, and another user who removes a map of a country it is located in claiming "compromise", while not explaining what that is supposed to be a "compromise" for. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Far too much wiki-blood is shed over these issues. The alternative is to have arb-com take on the issue, a la "Judea and Samaria". Either works for me, as long as something gets worked out. Sol (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So does anyone want to actually get involved or should we just start edit warring? Consensus is not consistent across the topic so no one will be happy but a little bit of screwing around won't hurt my feelings. This isn't "Judea and Samaria", some bickering over legality, or anything else. How should we handle these maps. We can ignore it for a month until SD editors and IPS starts edit warring and fights over it or we can get it done now with a simple conversation. Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a reference article called Maps of Jerusalem that explains what the most popular maps mean (esp. ones used on wikipedia) and centralizes debate on the talkl page. Then at least people will have an idea which map is more appropriate for which article and then if someone wants to change someone elses map they'll have a body of opinion to back up what they say, one way or the other. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono, How do you intend to create an environment conducive to forming consensus when you attempt out SD for "edit-warring" in what is suppose to be a neutral venue? Presenting that here, without the context of the situation (SD editing against a sock/troll IP who does not participate in discussion), is very slanderous. I, for one, have no interest in working with you on your proposal so long as you have adopted such an attitude. -asad (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not attempt to out anything. There was edit warring and there will be more from IPs and others probably if we do not fix it. It is an easy fix. I did strike out SD and clarify to be a little more polite though. Care to address the map issue? Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@User:Carolmooredc that could be something to look into but this should work fine as a centralized discussion. I would prefer not to go to individula talk pages and make separate arguments but if this conversation does not work out I will go that route. THought this would be more efficient and open.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguments on categorisation of Hezbollah

Please see [4] for the discussion on whether categories concerning Islamic antisemitism et al. are appropriate. I notice that there have been some calls to rally the troops in selected Wikpedia space, so some neutralish eyes might be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Activist essay needs input

Per my comments at this diff and in this new section I started Wikipedia_talk:Activist#Essay_should_mention_Organized_POV_warriors, I believe this essay already is being used by POV warriors and needs some more input.

Related by User:SlimVirgin's comments is her creation of Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/users which is proving unpopular and obviously could be easily abused. (Announced on main page talk page since seemed more a policy oriented thing. Maybe I'm wrong.) (Added later: Now up for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard .) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Advocacy/Noticeboard was deleted. Some interesting comments on the deletion page, including mine and others' about need to deal with gangs of organized editors on behavioral grounds. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Map tools

Please see

• commons:Category:Commons maps

• Commons:PDF to image files - there are many public-domain maps in PDF format from the United Nations Cartographic Section Web Site: [5].

For example; "UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory." Map Centre: [6]. See: Commons:Copyright tags#United Nations. The image license to use is {{UN map}}. See: commons:Template:UN map. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:UN map for a list of many maps on the Commons that came from the UN. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Nurit Kedar

..the Israeli documentary maker Nurit Kedar[7][8][9] is a redlink. There's a stubby article at he:נורית קידר if anyone is up for adding an English translation/version. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look later, unless someone beats me to it. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've translated the Hebrew stub. Not yet the filmography, but the main text. Now to look at Sean's refs. RolandR (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Blimey, that was quick, thanks! Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone working on Palestine Papers Wikileaks?

Just trying to get the details straight for myself, wikipedia hasn't been too helpful and evidently the relevant details still have to be put in relevant Wikileaks related articles, including Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Region — Middle East) doesnt' say anything. Need to detail who may have leaked them; when did wikileaks make available to media?; when exactly did Al Jazeera release them and contents; and of course the implications as they unfold. Sounds like grounds for an article to me. I note the Template:WikiLeaks doesn't have a "Palestine" entry yet. I'm really hoping someone else is going to do it. Please chime in if you are or suddenly are motivated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See Palestine Papers. Al Jazeera haven't revealed the source of the info. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Like a lot of people I was confused and thought it was a wikileak. Hmmm. It seems to me someone reported Julian Assange said he had a bunch of stuff that other publications wouldn't look at. (Should have saved that article; not sure if did.) Maybe he released it as a non-wikileak to avoid retaliation on other leaks, or whatever. Or maybe he just hasn't gotten it together to leak yet. Too much info, too little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually did some constructive work and put in relevant edit here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Settlements and International Law

Roughly 2 and ½ months ago, a supposed “consensus” was reached concerning language to be employed in the lede and body texts of articles dealing with Israeli communities or settlements in disputed lands captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The closing admin, LessHeard VanU stated that the sentence, "The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this," has consensus for inclusion in the body text with a more concise variant in the lede. The inclusion of this contentious edit was made over the objections or guarded reservations of at least 9 editors including myself, Accipio Mitis Frux, Cptnono, Shuki, Mbz1, Brewcrewer, Jaakobou, No More Mr Nice Guy, Wikifan12345. But my concern is not with numbers but rather accuracy.

The current version makes it seem as though the entire international community views settlements as illegal and that Israel is the lone holdout. In fact, the world’s only true superpower, the United States, has adopted a position that is more in line with Israel’s. On Feb 2, 1981 President Ronald Reagan made the following statement regarding Israel’s settlements, “As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there—I disagreed when, the previous Administration refereed to them as illegal, they’re not illegal. Not under the U.N. resolution that leaves the West Bank open to all people—Arab and Israeli alike, Christian alike." Ronald Reagan, 2 Feb 1981[10]

Reagan’s position was reinforced by W. Bush who stated, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.” W. Bush, 14 Apr 2004[11]

Moreover, the current version is misleading because it does not take into account the views of notable Western scholars who have voiced legal opinions asserting that settlements are not illegal under international law. Among these are Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice[12] Eugene V. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School and former US Assistant Secretary of State[13] David M. Phillips, professor at Northeastern University School of Law and Fulbright Scholar[14] Nicholas Rostow, university counsel and vice chancellor for legal affairs of the State University of New York[15] Professor Julius Stone, international lawyer and author of 27 books on the subject[16] and Ambassador Morris Berthold Abram, US staff member at the Nuremberg Trials and drafter of the Fourth Geneva Convention[17]

No one seriously doubts the ability of the Arab and Muslim bloc as well as their Third World allies to command a majority in the UN. That is precisely why a brief mention of scholarly views is necessary as their views focus exclusively on the legal merits and not petro dollars.

Accordingly and for the reasons noted above, I wish to revisit this issue with the goal of substituting the current “consensus” version with the following sentence, “Many within the international community regard Israeli settlements illegal under international law but the United States and Israel dispute this and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.” This version is more accurate and does not deviate substantially from the current version. I look forward to hearing from all concerned.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I also thought that the previous discussion was sort of haphazardly without proper input from the regular editors. The closure was somewhat confusing and not necessarily entirely consistent with the real consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the US position: Why are you quoting a 30 year old soundbite from Reagan when you have 2009 - 2011 policy statements from the US?

• Secretary Clinton: "Thank you, and thank you for asking. First, I want to start by saying our policy on settlements has not changed. And I want to say it again, our policy on settlement activity has not changed. We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity."
• US State Dept.: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements, and we will continue to express that position,"
• 2011 US speech to the UNSC:"Mr. President, U.S. policy on settlements has not changed and will not change. We believe that continued settlement expansion is corrosive—not only to peace efforts and the two-state solution—but to Israel’s future itself. The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties, along with the other permanent-status issues—but, like every U.S. administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."

Obviously the US is choosing its words with diplomatic care, but I find it a bit of a stretch to say that it "has adopted a position that is more in line with Israel’s". You also seem to be ignoring the EU Court of Justice and the ICJ in your analysis. I am not seeing evidence of this "sharp divide" - the notion that the settlements in the Israeli Occupied Territories are not illegal appears to continue constituting a fringe view. un☯mi 14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the scholars you mention:

• Stephen M. Schwebel seems to have written exactly one piece about this that I could find, and it was in 1970.
• Julius Stone has had his judgement with regard to Israeli matters questioned in several published analysis:

"Given the below explored discrepancy in factual analysis reflected in Stone’s work, the only other conclusion one may reach points to the intentional misrepresentation of the underlying factual realties of the Middle East upon which Stone applied the relevant legal principles of international law. Such a conclusion must, however, be rejected for it accords not with the integrity Julius Stone personified. The conclusion offered herein is that Julius Stone, like the judges he himself studied, perhaps unknowingly imbued his analysis with personal predilections when the process of reasoning presented a ‘leeway of choice’."

— x, x, Andrew DahDal, A REFLECTION ON THE VIEWS OF JULIUS STONE AND THE APPLICABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE MIDDLE EAST

and

"Many of Stone’s positions on critical international legal issues in the Israel/Palestine conflict stepped outside even generous zones of plausible or reasonable interpretations of the law, even on the law as it then often ambiguously stood, and certainly in hindsight."

— x, x, Ben Saul, Julius Stone and the Question of Palestine in International Law

Can you point to currently publishing legal experts who have published views that support your rewording? un☯mi 16:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Unomi. You have proven my point that legal scholars are sharply divided over the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a compilation of sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Sean, I know what the BBC says and I am showing you that the Reagan Administration stated unequivocally that “settlements are not illegal” and no US administration since has reversed the Reagan Administration’s position. On the Contrary, it was reinforced by W. Bush as noted above. [18] Now the US may object to expansion of settlements on policy grounds calling them “unhelpful,” but that’s a far stretch from “illegal under international law.” Aside from the Carter Administartion, (whose policy was reversed) not one US administration, not Reagan, not H.W. Bush, not Clinton, not W. Bush and not Obama has referred to them as “illegal under international law,” and I challenge any editor to provide a reliable source that expresses the contrary. You won’t be able to because it does not exist. Therefore, I reiterate that the version that I propose is more accurate and does not deviate substantially from the current format and it should accordingly be used in lieu of the inaccurate and misleading current format.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a reliable source in the compilation of sources that expresses the contrary. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to add all the new sources listed to the compilation at some point although I think an article about the Luo Brothers is more pressing. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The U.S.'s position doesn't presently "dispute" the illegality, it sidesteps the issue. Reagan's position is interesting as an historical aside but representing it as U.S. foreign policy 30 years later would be bizarre, like using his quote "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." as current U.S. environmental policy, or that the insurgent forces of Afghanistan are still “the moral equivalents of America's Founding Fathers”. No one has refuted these statements but developments make it pretty clear where things stand.

Israel's position is also more complicated. I'm fine with relying on the various quotes from the FM/etc. that they think the settlements are legal under international law, but the actual situation in Israeli courts is vague. The Supreme Court has never (as I recall) ruled the settlements legal under the Geneva Conventions, they've simply declared that the Geneva Conventions cannot be applied in the occupied territories, the covenant (along with the UN charter and various UNSC resolutions) that the international community bases their determination of the settlements' illegality upon. The settlements are legal under the Hague Conventions, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, but only if they meet very specific requirements, the most unusual that the settlements are not permanent. Sol (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sol you have deliberately misrepresented my position which only confirms that yours is weak so you have to resort to distortion. Reagan's position was more forcefully set forth by W. Bush as noted above (for the umpteenth time) and remains current US policy. Moreover, you still haven't provided any source that states that the US regards the settlements as "illegal under international law," whereas I provided reliable sources that say the opposite. You also still haven't offered any explanation why the phrase, "and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," should not be included as it is verifiably sourced and does not prejudice any other statement within the subject sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," is fine by me. I would remove "United States" since it is systematic bias. "Most countries consider" would be cool instead of making it appear as a blanket condemnation as opposed to a majority condemnation.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)