Template:Did you know nominations/Israeli occupation of the West Bank

Israeli occupation of the West bank

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, along with the Gaza Strip, is the longest military occupation in modern times? Source: "The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the longest military occupation in modern times"
  • ALT1:... that under the Israeli occupation of the West Bank Palestinian Arabs are governed under military law and Israeli Jews under civilian law? Source: "From the occupation's very beginning, the ethnicity of the individual determined both the legal system to which a person would be subjected as well as whether the letter of the law would be enforced at all. Whereas both the land and its Palestinian inhabitants have been subjected to military rule, the Jewish settlers who took over the expropriated land have been subjected to Israeli civilian law."

• Reviewed: Simeon Monument

Converted from a redirect by Nishidani (talk), Nableezy (talk), and NSH001 (talk). Nominated by Nableezy (talk) at 01:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC).

• All the easy stuff is fine here: the article's newness, its length, the hook format, and QPQ. However, as documented on the talk page, good-faith disputes about the article's neutrality began almost immediately after its creation and have continued for almost two months, with the latest action occurring this week. That's not something a DYK reviewer can ignore or brush aside blithely. Sometimes, an article's issues can be addressed in response to a or . Unfortunately, there's no basis to expect that here, and so I'm forced to reject it. This will no doubt disappoint the nominator and authors; it would certainly disappoint me, if I were in their shoes. If it's any help, I would suggest they reflect on what they would consider the appropriate response to a DYK nomination for an article titled (for example) Security threats to Israel originating in Palestinian territories whose neutrality they had spent seven weeks disputing on its talk page. I realize that this perspective limits the scope of what can appear in DYK; taken to an undue extreme, it would allow only entirely anodyne topics. DYK should—must—have room for uncomfortable, even controversial, topics. However, that must be balanced against the requirement that the Main Page only feature content for which there is a consensus that it meets Wikipedia policy. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that consensus is absent for this article. Lagrange613 04:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, the article is impeccably neutral. Some editors on the talk page have tried to argue that it isn't, without success. The article has been remarkably stable since it was moved to mainspace, and that is what matters here. We go by reliable sources here – and the sources are of impeccable quality – not by what what your or my opinion might be of its neutrality. --NSH001 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Military occupations, by their nature, are always unpleasant for their victims (the people occupied). Not surprisingly, RS report that unpleasantness. Pleaase don't confuse "neutrality" with refusing to report that unpleasantness. Where else in Wikipedia do we fail to report the brutal nature of military occupation? --NSH001 (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the reviewer the article is not neutral and can't be neutral in near feature for example Jewish connection to the area is completely omitted --Shrike (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the reviewer's remarks are themselves completely neutral, and refreshing to read. I say this as main writer of that article. What he states, quite objectively, is that the article's neutrality is disputed on the talk page, not that he agrees with its lack of neutrality, (or considers it neutral). As to the hypothetical Security threats to Israel originating in Palestinian territories, were I to have edited such a page (I would probably ask for a title change: Israel as a state suffers no security threat from the WB, but Israelis have in the past been subject, within their national boundaries, to very severe threats from West Bank terrorists in quite a number of devastating attacks), I would certainly list in detail my objections, edit to ensure that the presentation was well-sourced and objectively set out and, if it were then proposed to cite a fact from it, I imagine I would have no objection. One cannot object to facts, however uncomfortable. As the present article states, polls surveying the issue have concluded that most people are not familiar with the fact that the West Bank is occupied, and, I guess (since I prefer not to 'vote' or 'promote' this DYK) there are many who would prefer this objective datum to not be known more broadly. So be it. The important thing is that the fact is registered somewhere on a world-wide global encyclopedia, and that it is not lost in the evitable confusion of so much polemical-partisan spinning.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Lagrange613:, editors are free to write Security threats to Israel if there are reliable sources supporting such an article. This article has such reliable sources, and the idea that a few people on the internet find what those sources report to be uncomfortable means that we should not have a a DYK makes little sense to me. I actually dont think there have been any good faith disputes about the neutrality of the article. There are a few people making wholly unsupported claims without any actual sourcing, users engaging in OR, users wishing away the existence of an eminently notable topic. But what we do not have is any actual evidence of a neutrality dispute. Shrike's comment above is an example of that. Jewish connection to the area is completely omitted? Uh, what in the actual fuck does that have to do with the military occupation of a territory by a foreign power? Your comment, that there is not consensus that this article meets Wikipedia policy, is likewise wholly unsupported. nableezy - 17:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, one might well disagree with Lagrange's assessment, but I think it rather clear that in referring to no 'consensus' he is stating a fact: several people expressed deep unhappiness with the article, albeit in terms so generic and vague that to me, at least, it amounted simply to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But, it was reasonable enough for Lagrange to argue that the talk page indicates a lack of consensus (one that was inevitable). The gravamen of what you, NSH001 and indeed I are saying is that insisting that a NPOV consensus on a talk page is obligatory for a DYK (admittedly I have zero knowledge of such processes) opens up a difficulty, in that political dislike can effectively cancel out the publication of a fact no one, beginning with the government of Israel, denies. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There were several well reasoned objections to the rather serious POV problems on the page. A number of editors who attempted to rectify POV, as well as misrepresentation of sources, have seen their edits blanket reverted. That said editors are not edit warring over the challenged material does not mean the article is in a reasonable state. Security threats to Israel (and Jews inside and outside of the West Bank) should be covered in the article - this being one of the main reasons for the continuing occupation - I migjt work on this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Those suggestions are patently untrue. The 'rectifications' were shown to reflect stark ignorance of the topic and were analysed and replied to in detail. There were no follow-up responses of any textual significance. Security threats to Israel - a disarmed population constituting an 'existential threat' to the most technologically sophisticated and powerful army in that part of the world- have nothing to do with the occupation, but as our reviewer has suggested an article along those lines, editors who have that concern should address it by creating such a page. I only hope the sourcing standard is on a par with the one adopted here, and that care is given to setting down, as here, the factual record, not hearsay, editorializing opinions, government spin and talking heads' chattering.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was proposing "Security threats" as a thought experiment for the primary authors to help you understand why I couldn't approve the DYK. I was not "suggest[ing] an article along those lines," and I certainly was not suggesting that the different camps should retreat to their own articles where they can make the points that matter to them. WP:POVFORK rules that out specifically, and quite right, too. "If you don't like the tone of this article, go write your own" is entirely contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It is on editors to work with each other, assuming good faith even when they disagree with each other's arguments or perspectives, to produce an encyclopedia in which nobody owns articles and each article reflects a neutral point of view. An article on a contentious topic that is not produced in this spirit is unlikely to merit display on the Main Page. Lagrange613 03:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And to be clear, the article is owned solely by the method adopted, which is designed according to the strongest sourcing criteria at WP:RS, something almost universally ignored in the I/P area. The 'camps' referred to split along that line: scouring for sources that reflect one's POV, or scouring sources that provide the essential facts of a conflict, something that can be seen at a glance by comparing the percentage of recentist newspaper sourcing to long-term retrospective analysis by competent specialists. (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is 80% based on newspaper hearsay dismissed now as misleading. The article was a splendid example of assuming good faith sinking assuming the real facts must be established) Editors here generally do not 'work with each other', unfortunately, because the criteria for encyclopedic composition are contested: some think the fundamental guideline must be 'representing national POVs' with equal weight (irrespective of the weighting of sources). Israel said this, the PA said that, utterly tedious. The problem has always been to accord priority to the factual record, which is least disputed, rather than privilege the interpretative spin placed on that record by commentators official or otherwise. Since all those objecting to the article want two contradictory things (a) radical reduction of the length and (b) major expansion of the official Israeli position, a compromise couldn't be worked. I took out 7,000 bytes as a compromise and in response 7,000 bytes were added, uncompromisingly. Facts were to be eliminated, and replaced by a standard set of memes available in all official literature. If you do not want a factual article, my advice was, then write up an article with the official viewpoint's outlines given in detail, but don't try to displace factual content with ideological content. Lastly, a large number of articles on controversial topics have been written basically by one or two hands because the AGF and methodological issues made all attempts to find a reasonable compromise impossible if the article in question was to be written to GA or FA standard. To assert that all articles must be premised on collaborative compromises by parties to 'camps' before they are accorded NPOV sounds ideal: in practice, it is in my experience, impossible. It's exactly the same problem one gets at Yugambeh - a desire to set forth a collective representation of a POV, what is thought of by an in-group as the 'truth' vs the simple outline of the known facts as reported in reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Lagrange613 your position seems to be entirely unsupported by any policy or the DYK requirements. You are simply exercising the same systemic bias that the rest of Wikipedia displays. Things uncomfortable to largely white American and or Europeans are given less attention or are shoved aside in to some corner of Wikipedia. This topic is something that countless reliable sources focus on. But because some people find the facts those reliable sources uncomfortable that means the topic does not merit display on the Main Page. Well, fine, thats your choice I suppose, but it is just one more example of bias in action. You are very purposely reducing exposure of a topic and doing so based purely on facile claims of POV, always lacking in sources and not backed by any policy. Well, great, good for you. Hurray for Wikipedia, keeping the world safe from problematic topics and people. Guess we can establish a new DYK requirement, that the material be sufficiently Zionist enough to not draw objections based on no sources but only personal opinions. nableezy - 01:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You've edited this page six times since you created it, which means you've had six opportunities to read the edit notice that comes up above the markup. That edit notice lists the nomination criteria, including that the article be within policy, and calls out WP:NPOV explicitly. So yes, I am following the DYK requirements here. Everything after your first sentence demonstrates a failure to assume good faith. In your view, no disagreement with you could possibly be based in the interests of the encyclopedia, but must instead flow from a political agenda or identity-based "discomfort." Given your failure to assume good faith, further engagement with you is unlikely to be productive. I invite closure of this nomination before the quality of the discussion degrades further. Lagrange613 03:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, but no, you are not. You are allowing some of the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia, who have yet to actually document any NPOV issue with, hello, actual sources, to by virtue of claiming a NPOV issue to disqualify an article. There emphatically is not a NPOV issue in the article, if there were these editors would be able to substantiate their position with sources. They have not. But because the more extreme pro-Israel editors dislike this article it isnt NPOV? Where is that written down again? nableezy - 06:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)