Talk:Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority)

Neutrality

I nominated this article for a neutrality check because the tone is heavily biased against Arafat and the Palestinian leadership. The article does more than just report "facts". Whether or not what is stated in the article is true, the tone still needs to be addressed; otherwise, the article looks like silly propaganda. Rintrah 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

some further reading

Some further reading which may help to improve the article

• • Defending the Holy Land: a Critical analysis of Israel's security & foreign policy By Zeev Maoz University of Michigan press pg 471. ISBN978-0472115402 [1] " 'revolving door policy'wherein they captured terrorists only to release them ..."
  • Human Rights Watch Reports-- here: [2] "'revolving door policy' of arresting alleged members..." here, [3], and here [4]
  • The other side of despair: Jews and Arabs in the promised land - Page 37 by Daniel Gavron -Rowan & Littlefield 2003 - ISBN0742517527, ISBN 9780742517523 "Israel justifiably complained about the 'revolving door' policy of arresting terrorists and releasing them after a few weeks or even days. ...
  • Building a successful Palestinian state RAND Palestinian State Study Team Jerrold D. Green & others 2005 - "Are individuals being jailed or is there a revolving-door policy?" [5] pg 59
  • The Oslo Accords: international law and the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements - Page 225 by Geoffrey R. Watson - 2000 -[6] "Israel has charged that the PA has adopted a 'revolving door' policy of detaining and then releasing known terrorists. "
  • Israel's foreign relations: selected documents, 1947-1974 by Meron Medzini, 1976 Pg 262 - "The US has also committed to Israel that there will be special arrangements to prevent a 'revolving door' policy in relation to these prisoners..."
  • [7] pg 7 Testimony for Congress The Roadmap to Middle East Peace: Can it be Restarted?" Boaz Ganor, Ex Dir International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. "Sometimes they would put up a show arrest apprehending the terrorists and let them go free after a short while through the infamous 'revolving door' policy." Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As part of the discussion on the AfD page, I dug up some news pieces that would appear to suggest that the allegations go both ways. Not something I'm very knowledgeable about, but I guess some mention of this would be appropriate. The problem is that it still leaves me a little sceptical about the worth of the article - it leaves us with a page which is really just about when and where a very common phrase happens to have been used in respect of prisoner releases by both Israel and the PA, often simply in passing in news or online sources. Anyhow the AfD looks as if it will tend towards keep, so that's kind of academic. Here are the links, if anyone wants to make use of them -

• Palestinians slam Israel's 'revolving door policy' on prisoners Ynet
• a spokesman for Hamas, Fawzi Barhoum, dismissed the proposed release, saying Israel was following a revolving-door policy "where it arrests whenever it wants and frees whoever it wants." New York Times
• Israel has institutionalized secrecy about the prisoners, their identities, and whereabouts. It's also traceable to the nation's revolving-door arrest policies Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

--Nickhh (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article name

The article should be moved to "Revolving door policy." Firstly, it remains unclear who exactly are "Palestinians". In addition, nothing indicates that Palestinians as a whole agreed with this policy. They might have felt that the terrorists never should have been arrested or felt that they never should have been released. It was the PLO's policy, not the Palestinian's policy. Finally, the name is somewhat derogatory. I'll be bold and move it and if someone disagrees they can revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See here for further discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the AfD, I boldly changed the name again to Revolving door (Israeli politics). This is in line with the naming for Revolving door (politics), but with a narrower scope in line with the subject of this article. Policy should not be in the title since its an alleged policy. If the scope of the article expands to include Palestinian allegations against Israel that it is the one with a revolving door policy, then perhaps another name change would be appropriate. In that case, perhaps (Mid-east politics) or (Israeli-Palestinian conflict) would be better. Tiamut^talk 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the move but 'middle east politics' might be a more accurate and neutral disam. term as there is also sourcing that it's used as a criticism of Isreal too. [8] Which can probably go in the article under the new title. Revolving door policy should probably redirect to Revolving door (politics) as it's more a more likely target. --neon white talk 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with those suggestions. Does anyone have a problem with them? Or should we go ahead and move again? Tiamut^talk 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops. I just realized that this discussion picked up. Tiamut's rename to Revolving door (Israeli politics) is not ideal because it's not really a political issue. There wasn't much a right/left divide in the Israeli electorate or Palestinian electorate regarding these accusations. In addition, this was alleged by the American and British governments as well (see article) so it would be slightly misleading to call it "Israeli politics". In regards to NeonWhite's concern, we can't really conflate the Palestinian allegations with other allegations. Each alleged policy is a separate can of worms. If the Palestinian allegations meet the WP:N requirement, we should have a separate article on those allegations. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly object to your most recent change Brewcrewer. It's wordy and artifically delimits the topic scope. This seems to be a mutual allegation and it doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles since they are allegations by two sides in the same conflict. For now, I'm not going to move the pages back, since we have both created redirect havoc with our changes. Plus, I'd like to gain consensus on a new title. Neonwhite likes Revolving door (Mideast politics). I'm okay with that too. You seem to like what you've chosen but I suggest we open an RfC on the matter or get more feedback some other way so as to determine a new consensus before making unilateral changes again. Tiamut^talk 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes zero sense to merge the two types of allegations in one article. They are two different and distinct creatures. For one, the Palestinian problem with the alleged Israeli revolving door is not that they are released but that they are arrested to begin with. Contradistinctly, the Israeli problem with the alleged revolving door is not that they are arrested, but that they are released. Initially, I thought that to say that merging the two types allegations makes as much sense as merging World War I and World War II because they're both wars with numbers. At second thought, it's not a good analogy. Unlike the two wars, these two issues have opposite factors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the most recent (unilateral) name change is not a good idea - it's a) incredibly clumsy; and b) sets a precedent for starting 1001 pages about every alleged policy carried out by any state or organisation, which at some point has had a broad and subjective description such as "revolving door" attached to it in passing commentary; and then using that description to define the policy in the title. What next - "Torture policy (alleged Bush administration policy)", "Ill-thought out scheme (alleged UK government policy on ID cards)"? Either each of the respective allegations form a sub-section within more general articles about Israeli and Palestinian prison policies, or there is an article about the use of the term as an accusation in the context of detainees in the I-P conflict. The former seems more sensible to me, but as I said at the AfD, at the moment and with the current title, this page comes across more as a glorified blog post than anything serious. --Nickhh (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick: There are articles on notable governmental policies. You mention torture policies, so I thought I would point out Department of Defense Directive 2310.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - addressed to Brewcrewer - Hi Nickhh!)

• World War I and World War II involved different parties and were thirty years apart. The allegations of Israel against the PA and Palestinian allegations against Israel were made in the same time period as part of the same conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its unsurprising that both use the same phrase while assigning it different meanings. That's no reason to have two separate articles.
• I think it's unfortunate that your rename reintroduced "policy" into the title. I think I made it abundantly clear why that was a problem. To me, having policy in the title makes the article OR or at the very least POV.
• I think the best thing to do once the AfD is over is to gain consensus on a new name. If we can't gain it between you me and Neonwhite, I suggest we open an RfC and/or proceed to mediation. Having policy in the title is a redline for me and limiting this article only to Israel accusations when there is source material indicating there are Palestinian allegations against Israel of a revolving door "policy as well is another redline. They are redlines because of my concerns about OR and NPOV.
• Titles should not be as long, wordy and redundant as this one is right now. Revolving door policy (alleged Palestinian Authority policy) uses the weasal word "alleged" and repeats "policy" twice. It's really bad. I would have hoped you would have avoided making such a poorly titled move, but oh well ... once we get consensus for a new title, we can lay that unfortunate baby to rest. Tiamut^talk 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut:

1. They were made around the same time, but they have opposite issues. The American/British/Israeli allegation concerned the Palestinian release of Palestinian prisoners. The Palestinian allegation concerned the arrest of Palestinian prisoners.
2. "Policy" is the word used by reliable sources.
3. There's not one word of OR in the article.
4. I actually put the word "alleged" in order to disclaim any POV arguments. From my part, a better name would be Palestinian Authority revolving door policy. They are allegations, but they're pretty strong allegations. Indeed, in my search through the reliable sources I have been unable to find any denials to the contrary form the PA. Even the reliably anti-Israel Human Rights Watch takes these "allegations" as true.[9]. However, as I strive to be a moderate I put "alleged" into the title in the hopes of removing any claim to POV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer:

1. The Gaza War was to the Palestinians about Israel's siege on Gaza and its continued occupation of Palestinian land while to the Israelis it was about Qassam rocket fire. Palestinians called it a massacre, Israelis called it operation cast lead. At Wikipedia, we have one article to cover this subject, not two or three because they refer to the same event. Here, it is not unusual that Palestinians see a revolving doo policy in Israel's arrests, while Israel thinks the policy is a Palestinian one related to releases. It doesn't matter. They both use the term, they both ascribe it different meanings, but we can describe both in one article, indeed we should, to have an NPOV presentation.
2. Most of the reliable sources all note it is alleged to be a policy. Few claim it is official policy.
3. I'm not saying there is OR in the article content, but that there is a danger of OR with a title that has the word policy in it.
4. Weasal words are to be avoided. Also to be avoided is a misrepresentation of the subject. Putting the word policy in the title misrepresents the subject by uncritically parroting the allegation of it being a policy as fact. Leaving out the word policy from the title altogether solves that problem.
5. Clearly, we are not going to change each other's mind on this. So I suggest again that we wait until the AfD is done and then open an RfC to get maximum feedback. We'll ask which title is better and whether to include the Palestinian allegations against Israel or not. Okay? Tiamut^talk 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut:

1. You're right. We have one article covering one subject, like the Gaza War. But the two alleged policies are two different subjects that are unrelated to each other.
2. You're right. The article and the article name unambiguously states that this policy is alleged.
3. The third bullet point above states:"They are redlines because of my concerns about OR."
4. You're right. Weasel words are to be avoided. I have no problem removing "alleged" from the article name. I only put it in to remove any claims that the article is a pro-Israeli POV. Your numbered responses contradict each other. In some numbered responses you take issue with the word "alleged" because it is a weasel word. Yet, in other numbered responses you insist that the policies are allegations, not in fact.
5. No problem.

Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)