Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

recent revving

per this edit - [1]. i can sort of understand the first change/complaint (though i disagree), but i really don't see any justification for the other two changes. please expand on all three in order to accomplish consensus. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's something you fail to understand here... You're the one making the changes, so it's up to you to justify them.
To give your question a quick answer: Israeli "feelings" are not the issue, but their recognition of a Palestinian state (or the lack thereof) is. It's not all about what the Israelis want, but also about what the Palestinians want. Taking an enemy combatant during a war (Israel has declared the Gaza Strip a war zone, so the term war applies here) is not a hostage taking but a capture. Gilad Shalit is as much a prisoner of war as the ca. 9000 Palestinians in Israeli jails.
But, as I said, you're the one introducing the change, so I'm really looking forward to your arguments for these changes. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.11.2007 11:58


feelings that conditions exist vs. acceptance of

per [2].

I tend to think that the Israeli issue is not one of mere acceptance of a Palestinain state but rather the conditions they set before they agree for such a state to be created. i'll not GHCool regarding the refs he added to the article for this paragraph [3]. and in the meantime, i suggest we compromise on his version. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I don't like the "feelings" phraseology. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, isn't it a bit biased to state only what Israel wants for the conflict to end? I've re-phrased GHcool's edit to make it clear that it is the non-acceptance of Palestinian sovereignty that is one of the main causes of the conflict. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 08:30
you shortened the israeli point to mean something different than the actual meaning. this is why you are being reverted on this. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, go read WP:Undue Weight and think about what you're reverting. This article is here to explain the conflict, not just what the Israeli side wants. pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 13:10
my personal initial edit kept the paragraph short, but you insisted on a version with a different meaning [4]. are you disputing the content or the size of it? JaakobouChalk Talk 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
p.s. if it is the size, then i believe Nickhh just increased the size of the paragrah - he added some good points, but i felt it was told from a certain perspective (POV) and lacked referencing. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
how about we simply say "Israel does not feel conditions have been met for the creation of a Palestinian state", or something? that seems to provide a phrase which is fair to both sides's concerns actually, I think, in one sentence. --Steve, Sm8900 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
that would make for the core issues to only list down the issues from the arab perspective, which was the problem to begin with. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

taken hostage vs. captured

per [5].

obviously, the term capture would suggest warfare. on the other hand, the term hostage is more accurate to the situation where he is held up for ransom and was kidnapped in a kidnap oriented operation. i agree that kidnap has a soft tint of POV, however - i see the term hostage as a perfect description of the situation. he was not taken to be incarcerated, and was not "captured" as a military goal, but rather as a means for leverage/negotiations - i.e. hostage. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference. "Captured" and "taken hostage" are both accurate and neutral in this case. --GHcool (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In a guerrilla war a "means for leverage/negotiations" can also be a "military goal" but, like GHcool, I don't have a strong preference. Either is OK. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jaakobou. I believe that when someone is captured for the purpose of being exchanged for someone else or something of value, that person is a hostage, not merely a captive. Therefore taken hostage is the correct expression. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on Gilad Shalit uses the verbs "abducted" and "captured" (the relevant section is even labelled "Capture") and refers to Shalit as a POW. Without going into the specific arguments, with which I disagree, the term "hostage" is inconsistent. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 08:36
Would "captured and hold hostage" be satisfying ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Why should we purposely inject such negative language? As I said above, he is referred to as a POW, not a hostage. Calling him a hostage would be inconsistent. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 10:41
Because there is no POW when there is no war and something that sounds neutral and a little bit consistent should be found.
We are writing an encyclopaedia. Not solving the I-P conflict.
Note I don't see anything negative in holding hostages. This is an asymetric conflict, that's all. Ceedjee (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
pedro, i honestly believe we have some form of direction on this discussion but you seem reluctant to suggest a solution to this issue, rather you remain persistent on the term "captured" when a few editors explained their perspective that the term is inaccurate to describe the event. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, we know that Israel seizes the families of militants, including women and children, and places them in "administrative detention" (ie, w/o charge, w/o access to lawyers or indeed anyone at all). Shall we call this "kidnapping" or "taking hostage"? It's factual. But then, so is "captured" or "arrested" or "detained", and those terms lack the POV implication of moral outrage. The same applies to Palestinian actions. Whether "kidnapped" or "held hostage" is factual or not, "captured" is also factual, since kidnapping or taking hostage logically requires capturing. We should avoid using potentially loaded terms unless the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use the term. Oh, and the claim that lack of declared war means no POW's is particularly strange, since wars have hardly ever been declared since 1945. <eleland/talkedits> 17:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
i do believe they are not immediately presented as a bargaining chip and therefore the term hostage is incorrect. the term kidnappig suggests that there is no conflict, and therefore i would not support it for gilad shalit either. military operation - capture, bargaining chip for leverage - hostage. does the word hostage really requires an RfC?
how about this WP:RS for use of the term? CNN: Militants issue Israel hostage demands
how about your favourite source? B'Tselem: Holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a war crime
i'd apprecite it if this pointless debate would be over now that clear sources have been provided. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gilad Shalit article does not refer to him as a hostage. I'm sure they've had lengthier, more complete discussions with even more references than we can have here. Since this article is not about Gilad Shalit and only mentions him in passing, we should use the terminology agreed to there. This is what an RfC or mediation would tell us to do. User:Jaakobou, if you want to push the term "hostage", I suggest you go do it there first. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.11.2007 15:42

comment - wikipedia is not a reliable source. we now have 4 (CNN, BBC, Betzelem and Amnesti international) of those using the captured and held hostage phrasing. [6] JaakobouChalk Talk 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I favor the word "abducted." Here is a quote from the Gilad Shalit article (with emphasis added):

Gilad Shalit (Hebrew: גלעד שליט‎; born 28 August 1986) is an Israeli soldier who was abducted by Hamas forces on 25 June 2006...[Shalit] is the first Israeli soldier captured and held hostage by Palestinians since Nachshon Wachsman in 1994.[2] He was abducted by Hamas and is one of three Israeli soldiers to have been abducted by militants. His abduction, and the later abduction of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev by Hezbollah were key events leading up to the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon during summer 2006.

On 25 June, 2007, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories B'Tselem issued a statement[3] that "International humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands" and thus considered a war crime.

That same day, a year after Shalit's abduction, the military wing of Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, released an audio tape on which Shalit is heard sending a message to his family, friends and the Israeli government and army and appealing for a prisoner-swap deal to be reached to secure his release.

end of posting message. --Steve, Sm8900 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

support your suggestion. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's really cute. The Gilad Shalit article uses the word "hostage" after User:Jaakobou inserted it there. He inserted it after I pointed out (check out the edit summary) that that article does not use the term "hostage".
Beyond the rather blatant disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT, this is just plain bad taste. User:Jaakobou, this is the second time you've tried this kind of stunt in this discussion (remember the Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt?). If you don't let it go, this is going straight to WP:AN/I. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 09:06
what is cute is that you blindly revert (WP:POINT?) while ignoring the edit summary and the reason the change was made. i.e. to fit the source's text. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
just to make it easier on you, here is the source: (Amnesty on BBC). JaakobouChalk Talk 09:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me quote your source in full. The title of the article is Israel seizes Hamas legislators and the only use of the word hostage is the paragraph:
"Amnesty International, the human rights group, called for all hostages to be released and for "an end to the wanton destruction and collective punishment" by Israel."
Sounds a hell of a lot more like Amnesty referring to the Hamas legislators as "hostages", don't you think? Anyway, I'm taking that discussion back to where it belongs: Talk:Gilad Shalit#Use of the term "hostage", source. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:54
When we are talking about a soldier the most NPOV term is clearly captured. Clearly there is no consensus on the terms abducted or taken hostage. When there is such a large disagreement, the least loaded terms should be used and I believe captured satisfies this. Timb0h (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"held hostage" or "abducted" are exactly the terms to use here. what none of you seems to realize is that this is not analogous to an army capturing an enemy soldier; a better analogy is if an Israeli extremist group "captured" an ordinary Palestinian police officer, and said they would not release him until some convicted felon held by the Palestinian Authority were released. I think you would all protest that stridently.
what none of you seems to realize is that officially, this is not an act of the Palestinian officials, but the act of a renegade group. but you've grown so used to Palestinian extremist groups carrying out their own actions, and then getting a wink and tacit support from palestinian officials, that you've stopped viewing those as extremist acts, and alreasy start to think of them as official, legal acts. that's kind of sad. Just wanted to mention that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly there is no concensus on whether to use "hostage" or "abducted". These are loaded terms. Your personal opinion may be that they are appropriate, but there are many personal opinions on wikipedia. When there is no concensus we should fall back to clear descriptive words that are not loaded with emotion. Noone is suggesting covering up the facts of the case. We can describe the circumstances and leave it up to the reader to decide if he was abducted, kidnapped, being held hostage, illegally, legally or as a POW. Timb0h (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of voting or opinion or consensus. Soldiers can be captured by an army of a legal government. There is no legal government in Gaza. Unless Wikipedia is edited by the Iranian Mullahs, it cannot call Shalit "captured" because doing so recognizes the Hamas government which currently holds him. If Gilad Shalit was "captured" then the rules that apply to states apply to Hamas, and they are all war criminals. In any case, Shalit was apparently kidnapped by a renegade group that is cooperating with Hamas. If the Colombian underground or the Mafia kidnap a US general and make ransom demands, he is not a POW though he is a soldier. Treatment of Shalit is not in accord with international law for captured soldiers, and there was no state of war when he was kidnapped. Mewnews (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
imo the matter should be debated and resolved on the page about Shalit and whatever consensus is reached there should be used here. its foolish to have to reach consensus on the same thing in two places and the other article is clearly the beter place to discuss this issue. if the discussion over there is actually ongoing and requires input let me know and i'll go have a look, but i seriously feel this page should just mirror the term used by that one. SJMNY (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary - it is a matter of principle that applies to Israeli soldiers kidnapped in Lebanon, and for that matter, it would apply if Iraqi terrorists kidnapped General Petraeus. What is the language that was used for American soldiers kidnapped in Iraq? Whatever decision is made about regular army soldiers taken by "insurgents" "terrorists" "freedom fighters" or whater must hold everywhere. Hamas guys taken by Israel is a separate issue. Israel is a state - they are either "hostages" or "arrested" (the official version). Mewnews (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
whether or not i agree with your subtantive points i still feel the other page, where extensive debate has already gone on, is the proper placer to debate the matter, especially considering that it goes to the lead and is pretty much the focus of that article and is a footnote (in terms of importance) in this one. SJMNY (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Restructure necessary

Nickhh, I applaud your attempt at starting to clean up the intro a bit. I did some work on it myself, which seems to have caused a bit of trouble. I don't think the spring clean should stop at the intro though. The whole article needs to be reworked IMO, especially the way the history is dealt with in a structural sense. eg you have pre 1945 events in the intro, then in the formal history section you have 1945-1967 and 1993-today (where is 1967-1993???). This is really not good. Given the length of History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is obviously going to be difficult to summarize, however I do not think the current version is adequate. The current structure of the article is promising:

  • Intro
  • History
  • Issues which need to be resolved
  • Current Status

However I think that it should be modified to

  • Intro: (moving any history which only occurs here into the history section - ie all of it. Any history should be as brief as possible - otherwise it is a slippery slope to a mess)
  • History: (I think specific subheadings should be something debated here - we need to be brutal here, as there is a very large history article already, which means that this section has the potential to overrun the article)
  • Themes (Zionism, Arab nationalism etc)
  • Actors (a way to showcase the multitude of positions on the issue - there is no single Palestinian or Israeli voice)
  • Issues which need to be resolved: (I think the issues are ok, but content needs to be cleaned up; perhaps give the position of each actor above on each issue)
  • Possible solutions: (ie two-state, one state etc) (I also think 'Peace Proposals should moved out of the history section and put here: given the nature of the article, i think they should have their own section; again bring in the actors)
  • Current Status: but shorter than it currently is (ie should really only be 2007 onwards). Superfluous info should be moved into the relevant section of the article.

Suicup (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Edited Suicup (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the History in this article takes up too much space. There is a perfectly good history article already. This is about the overall conflict not just the history. Right now, this article is approaching a poor mans version of the history article. I think the history section should be pruned, and in the intro, there possibly shouldn't be any history at all. I know this is a pretty radical proposition, however I think this article could be so much better. The problem is I think many people (including myself on occasion) have missed the point and not kept focus on what should be the purpose of the article. Suicup (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How does one discuss a historical conflict in isolation from a discussion of its history? It seems silly to have two separate articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. john k (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well they're difficult to disentangle of course, but I think there is a case for an article which focuses on where the conflict is now, and what can be done to solve it. That will obviously refer to the history (and direct links can be made to the "History" article), but will take up enough space in its own right. I broadly agree with where Suicup is coming from on structure, although the only thing I'm likely to look out for to be honest is whether the intro remains clear, focused and prioritised, rather than being used as an ever-expanding dumping ground for partisan observations about the history of the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
john k in a way I totally agree with you, and one could make an argument that this article could be deleted. However as it stands, we have an article. My point is that it shouldn't just be a poor imitation of the History article. My perception is that people will come to this article wanting more 'higher level' information about the conflict. That is, who does it involve? what are the key issues? what are some underlying themes? are there any solutions? Now, the question of how/why have we got where we are now (ie history) is obviously important, but IMO in this article not the main focus.
Nickhh is exactly right when he says that the intro is becoming a dumping ground for observations about the history of the conflict - half the stuff in the intro simply doesn't belong there!
Suicup (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)





edit protection

Hi. what are currently the open issues preventing us from getting this article's edit protection removed? seems to me like there's a lot of consensus on most things here. feel free to leave your replies here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

these are the current, as i see it, open disputes that would lock the article again:

  • "One central question/core issues paragraph": (1)(2)
  • "taken hostage vs. captured": (1)
  • "Palestinian Arabs vs Palestinians in the first sentence": (1)
  • "RfC: On the use of the term "occupied" (2nd try)": (1)
  • "Position of HAMAS": (1)

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. I addressed points 4 and 5, above. Re point 2, I favor the word "abducted" rather than either of those terms, as the soldiers are being held by private militias, or terrorist groups; no one here claims they are being held by any legitimate organ of the Palestinian government.
Re point 3, how about we just say Palestinians. There's no need to argue over another group's semantics. Re point 1, i added some comments in the relevant sections, above. By the way, that's just my own two cents; I of course don't claim to own this debate. Feel free for anyone to add their further replies and comments, of course. thanks. (I am not on continually, but will be here periodically.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The article has been locked for a long time, and meanwhile there's some very relevant stuff from the Annapolis Conference that should be added; can we get an ETA for unlocking the darn thing, or at least an explanation why it's still locked? :) Thank you! --Laser813 (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. However, no one is actively mounting a resolution effort on this, and no admins appear to be too interested. However, I'm not overly concerned. We can just let the whole thing sit for the next few weeks. Eventually the protection lock will become obviously in need of changing or removal. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is an effort -- namely a few RfCs -- but the main instigators seem to have gotten bored. Here's the results thus far:
  • "occupied" vs. "disputed": Discussion died after I suggested to use the term "occupied" with the wikilink. Is this some kind of consensus?
  • "captive"/"abductee" vs. "hostage": This is being discussed at Talk:Gilad Shalit. I suggest we use whatever term is decided on there.
  • "Palestinian people" vs. "Palestinian Arabs": Palestinian people seems to be the preferred term on Wikipedia (other terms link there). As with the "occupied" thing, I suggest using that term with the wikilink.
  • Position of Hamas: puttered out, somebody should start an RfC.
I would suggest un-protection with these solutions. That way, we can actually do productive work on the article. Any takers? pedro gonnet - talk - 11.12.2007 16:26
thanks for your reply. I don't wish to comment right now, either for or against, but will step aside, in case anyone wishes to comment. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"Disputed" territories is the neutral term and "Palestinian Arabs" or "Palestinians" is the the word for the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine and their descendants. I understand the argument for "occupied" territories since it is a term used in the mainstream media, but "disputed" is the more npov term and it is also used in the mainstream media and in historical articles and books. "Palestinian people" is almost never used in the mainstream media nor in historical articles or books unless the source is quoting a government official during a public speech (as in "Americans" or "U.S. citizens" vs. "the American people"). --GHcool (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thanks for replies. we still have yet to hear from the bulk of editors here. however, assuming that perhaps we may not get much further input, I suggest that the only path to consensus is to include language describing both points on these issues. I'm not saying either side is right to belabor these points, but the path to consensus, as usual here, is not to keep trying to condense one or the other's viewpoints, but rather to simply be expansive enough to note that there are two views on each of these issues.
re the disputed/occupied debate, my suggestion is above. Pedro, my proposal involves including text for both sides, then using your phrase. So I think that seemes reasonable. I don;t see the problem here with that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Occupied is the generally accepted term. Maybe only some US media use the term disputed. Disputed is really pov, according to International Law the territories are not Israeli, so they are occupied. Also the media prefer Palestinians. Which news media use the term Palestinian Arabs to designate the Palestinians (even in the USA)?--JaapBoBo (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Mediation declined

Mediation request was declined because not all editors accepted it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-19 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Common ideas

Thanks for all your help ladies and gentlemen. It's good to feel that we reached some positive resolution on this. and it's nice to feel that in the end, the way we solved this was really just by sharing ideas and simply looking at some various alternatives, until we found one that fit.

Now that we have reached this point, I would just like to offer one idea while we are still somewhat on this common topic. Perhaps we can occasionally discuss here developments, items, issues, etc, which are of interest to all of us. for instance, I saw there is an article on the OneVoice movement. Does anyone have any new information on this? feel free to discuss or to offer it.

I am not saying that i am offering this as an actual concrete new project for any of us, as people always work on a few things at once here. nor i am saying that i expect anyone to change their political beliefs here (though i do think that many of us already try to see things from both sides periodically). What i am saying is that perhaps this talk page itself could occasionally be a place to discuss common developments of interest to all of us within this conflict.

I am not saying that I expect that will always happen, or even that i expect the next few discussions here to necessarily reflect this idea right away. However, I do want to simply toss this idea out here right now, while all of our attention is sort of focused on a common goal due to the recent dispute resolution process. please feel free to comment, or to lay out any further thoughts you may have, whether now, in the future, or any time that you may wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You kindly invited me to contribute to this article and improve it. Rather than do a lot of work, writing up the real "Two-state solution" that the Palestinians almost certainly want, I thought I'd do something uncontentious. I removed the cite to Dershowitz for Hamas ... stated in the past that it completely opposed Israel's right to exist. Clearly, if this is true (and I accept that it is, or has been claimed as much in RS, anyway), then it must be easily possible to find far more credible sources than "The Case for Israel".
However, my contribution was summararily reverted with "Vandalism". Under such circumstances, it's hardly surprising that glaring errors persist. PRtalk 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If you believe the statement is true, why not add a more appropriate reference to the article, rather than relying on others to do the work for you? It is great that you are trying to tighten the sources of the article, however simply removing them is only half the job. cheers Suicup (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless you are claiming that Hamas doesn't call for Israel's destruction I see no reason to remove that reference. Whether or not you agree with Dershowitz on most matters (disclaimer: i do) you're not claiming he's inaccurate on this, theres no reason to remove the source. SJMNY (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There are very good reasons for not using "The Case for Israel" from Dershowitz for anything. He promised to "give $10,000 to the P.L.O. in your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false."[7] On p.80 of Dershowitz's book it says "nobody today believes that any of the refugees were told to leave. I dispute that by quoting Morris himself. ... between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs fled their homes." Morris says 200,000 to 300,000 (p.256 of one of the books). Dershowitz refuses to pay.
There are other, very serious problems with this book and the rest of Dershowitz's work and statements. He accused (apparently purely for the sake of being personally unpleasant), a Holocaust survivor of collaborating with the Nazis on evidence which clearly implies the opposite.[8] Dershowitz has never retracted (he's a lawyer, he knows he cannot be sued, the victim is dead).
On top of this evidence of gross historical fabrication, many people would consider someone supporting the legalization of torture to be "an extremist", as we'd not use by WP:EXTREME.
Please note, there are serious problem with the claim about Hamas's intentions - but since it's appeared in RSes and since WP operates on "verifiability not truth", the claim may belong in the article. Dershowitz's reference and book, however, most definitely do not. PRtalk 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
he's reliable on THIS factual claim, if you have a better source feel free to put it in instead SJMNY (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New (sub-) article

I've noticed a lot of overlap between Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Obstacles to establishing a Palestinian state and Proposals for a Palestinian state#Obstacles to establishing a Palestinian state. May I suggest that a new (sub-) article be created so that the above 2 sections be reduced somewhat. Perhaps something along the lines of Disputed issues between Israel and the Palestinians, or something of that ilk.

Related to this, I am working on cleaning up Proposals for a Palestinian state and if more knowledgable editors want to help out in this, it would be great. Thanks. MP (talkcontribs) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with a slight overlap, and i think that creating another article about this topic, might slightly worsen the problem, not help. i do appreciate your well-intentioned suggestion, though. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the section in the "Proposals" article should be merged into the section in the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" article. The "Proposals" article should stick only to proposals for a Palestinian state. The background should be kept in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. --GHcool (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)



Neither Intifada mentioned in the article

I was looking for a quick link to the Second Intifada in the article, and so I looked for the word "intifada" with my browser search function. I could not find it.

I am amazed that years of bloodshed ongoing since 2000 were not even mentioned once in the article. Am I missing something? And where is the First Intifada mentioned even once?

Does not the title of this article have the word "conflict" in it? --Timeshifter (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The history section in this article needs a revamp. See my proposal above for a restructure. Suicup (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There are massive problems with this article - I set about fixing some minor ones and discovered that improvements are impossible. We now have editors in denial that casualty figures belong in an article on conflict. I'm still pondering where I might have seen an estimate of 250,000 dead natives and 20,000 dead immigrants (since 1947/8?). The likelihood is that I saw it in an RS, since I try not to look at the rampant propaganda available on this topic. PRtalk 10:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
PR, I am currently in NYC watching the Star Trek episode Day of the Dove. I suggest you watch it. You refer to us as "immigrants," while you are "natives"? why...you...Klingon!!!! :-) I hope you take my point; I am kidding, as I see no value to escalating rhetoric, when we are supposed to be working together to some degree. All kidding aside, your tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia or scholarly work. Are you here to write an encyclopedia, or to turn Wikipedia into a battleground? Hope you will think about this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is interested in what old TV shows you watch, and instead of calling other editors names could you please address the points they raise? Thanks. RomaC (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
perhaps he would if they could raise those "points" without deliberate resort to devisive rhetoric? unlike in "Day of the Dove" the combatants here don't back to life every time they kill each other. SJMNY (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, SJMNY. RomaC, my point is precisely what SJMNY says. PR's rhetoric seems unhelpful, and veers into use of epithets and divisive rhetoric. I would like to hope we can all use more inclusive and positive attitudes here. And refering to old TV shows is perfectly appropriate, like any other colloquial topic, when discussion veers from the actual writing of an encyclopedia, as it did here when it veered into divisve territory; a little chattiness is useful when trying to make a point. Oh, and SJMNY--nice grasp of Trek details! :-) See you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, nothing wrong with chattiness, smilies and Star Trek. Let me know when you're done because I'd like to see what you have to say about the issue at hand. As for you wanting others to avoid "divisive territory," how does that correspond with you making statements like: "many or most Palestinians have no intention to accept or recognize the State of Israel. their main goal is to destroy Israel and to do harm to Israeli citizens. Any other statement is not true." Do you really consider that to be a statement editors will unite around? Or isn't it just a tad divisive? :-) RomaC (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. you're a direct kind of guy. so let me lay it out for you. I feel that it is not helpful to refer to any cultural or political group using any sort of epithet or label. I don't mean that the actual words used by PR were really tht offensive, i just mean that his intent is clear, and it clearly undermines any constructive discussion which could help to find a positive consensus.
The statement of mine which you refer to was a discussion of political realities. I was discussing political sentiments and opinions among many Palestinians, and it occurred during a discussion of that topic. I am not now trying to discuss every past statement of mine or every issue which has arisen here, I am just trying to reply to the conent of this discussion.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, as it is hard to tell where we are now discussing. Are you tring to say we should seek to not be divisive? Or are you saying divisiveness is ok? I'm not asking you to answer these questions. I'm just saying, let's try to discuss things a bit straightforwardly here.
By the way, re the issue at hand, i have no problem with an editor trying to add some material which discusses the intifada objectively. Obviously, it;'s a little hard for any of us to address this right now, with the article locked. However, i don't object to this suggestion, although obviously I might do some edits once we begin the process of adding this further material. thanks for your question. I do realize you are trying to address the topic here, so i do appreciate that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain myself, please consider this carefully and advise me what to do.

I avoid, as best I can, applying ethno-specific labels when they're linked to "generalisations" about behavior. I think doing so is unhelpful in all cases - and dangerous in many cases. (I will use such labels where entire ethnicities are apparently being victimised - that's different, it's not a generalisation about their behavior).

Now, since this account is a single purpose account within the meaning and lawful intent of WP:policy, you'll only notice this actually applied to Israel-Palestine topics, but I can assure you, this is my general behavior. As a member of a minority myself, I consider such labelling (applied to behavior) nasty in all cases where others do it. (Perhaps you need this further explained - I will tell jokes about or even against my ethnicity, but not against yours).

Simple enough, you will say, speak of "20,000 Zionists killed".

However, this appears to be a problem. Despite these people often calling themselves "Zionists", apparently it's considered abusive if I do so. Bizarrely, it's even more abusive to change the word to "Onionists", when I did this (retro-editing just one posting per some joking advice) I was accused of anti-semitism.

So, when discussing I-P conflict issues I will often refer to supporters of Israel as "the immigrants" - it's one of a dwindling number of words left for me to use. Since I tend to concentrate on Palestinian history 1880 to 1948, it is normally technically correct as well as anything else. (A very small number of fighters for Israel in that period may have been born in Palestine - I'm not actually aware of any).

Should I use the word "immigrants" when speaking of "all supporters of Israel who have died in the I-P conflict"? Clearly, I've moved outside my specialist area, and some of those I label in this fashion were born in the area. But I cannot see any great problem with what I'm doing, I cannot apply one nationality (some pre-date the existence of Israel), and I don't wish to apply one ethnicity to them. It would be wrong anyway, they're of a huge variety of ethnicities, Americans, Russians, Moroccan, Iraqi, you name it. Some of them are religious, but relatively few - I think it would be totally unhelpful, and risk being unpleasant, to apply a religious label to them. Unlike every other label you can think of, "immigrant" is reversible - I have a strong preference for it. Tell me if you think I'm being unreasonable.

I should add that I'm under mentorship - if you believe that answering your questions means I'm soap-boxing (or the views I've expressed are offensive) but don't wish to poison the atmosphere with a direct accusation, you should contact my mentor here and he will weigh up the seriousness of my crimes. PRtalk 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for your note. i appreciate your question, and the helpful tone which it was asked in. however, I would like to respond by telling you, (quite constructively in the same tone as your comment), basically, I do feel that the term "immigrants" is not helpful or constructive. i would ask whether you could perhaps use a term such as "Israel supporters," "Israelis and their allies", or simply, "Members of Israeli society." it might even be fine to say "Israelis of a Zionist viewpoint," as using Zionist as an adjective is not really that bad.
the problem is that saying "Immigrants" sounds like it is meant to be pejorative, as it makes no mention of the people's actual affiliation, and simply sounds like an implication that they have less legitimate basis for being residents. So I really appereciate your open and helpful tone in asking about this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be honest, Steve, I think you're trying to get me blocked. Read what I wrote you again.
Or, stick to discussions that will improve the article - how many natives have died as a direct consequence of this conflict, anyway? PRtalk 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
if that's your feeling, perhaps we should suspend our personal colloquy for the time being (although i am happy to have been able to discuss this somewhat). I can tell you that the measure which you refer to, ie getting you blocked, is not my intention.
To answer you more simply, i do feel that the term "immigrants" is unreasonable. I am trying to be straightforward and constructive in my reply here. I hope that answer is helpful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Read what I wrote again. I'm sorry if you feel the word "immigrants" is unreasonable, but as I told you, my freedom of expression to describe the people I'm thinking of has already been severely circumscribed in some highly unpleasant and aggressive ways. I don't believe it was your intention to force me to re-visit this distressing experience.
Instead of this soap-boxing, why don't you apply your considerable analytical powers to the article and the question I posed you - how many natives do you think died as a direct consequence of this conflict? PRtalk 00:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
define "native" first. is it anyone arab or jew born in the former british mandate area? what about someone born there whose parents were not, are the children of immigrants natives? what about someone born in the U.S. whose parents consider themselves exiled palestinians? what about that same person whose parents left voluntarily but he himself "considered" himself a native and went back? the terms are too vague and not helpful. letting both sides "self-label" (and then descrbing the circumstances behind any such names somewhere be it here or on the "Palestinian People" and "Israelis" pages) would be the best idea. SJMNY (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to call these people Zionists, but there seems to be some kind of insuperable problem with doing so. 'Immigrants' amounts to much the same thing for all practical purposes, if you include those born in Palestine with attitudes rooted entirely in the immigrant culture. I'm no nearer finding an RS for the total number of deaths since 1920 or so, which I dimly seem to recall is about 20,000 for immigrants and 250,000 for natives. PRtalk 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)



Recent Edits

I'd like to take issue with

  • "Many abandoned properties and villages were resettled by Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands. (See also: Aliyah Bet, Berihah, Sh'erit ha-Pletah, Jewish exodus from Arab lands)"

This claim is not sourced, for starters, and gives undue weight to the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, which is not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, the word "abandoned" is quite a far stretch, given the more complex issues of flight, eviction and the tendency to shoot at Arabs that tried to re-claim their land inside Israel after the war. I have removed it for the time being. If anybody objects, feel free to discuss it here.

There are several problems with the paragraph

  • "One factor in the persistence of the Arab refugee problem was the refusal of any Arab government except Jordan to offer the Palestinian Arabs citizenship. Whereas other much larger refugee problems after World War II were eventually solved, this one persisted. Palestinians were defined as those who lived in Palestine between 1946-1948 or their descendants by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) which was created especially for the Palestinians. Aid was given by the United Nations, based on population figures, and refugee camps that had sprouted up in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan grew as did the Palestinian population. Because the Palestinians did not become Egyptian, Lebanese, or Israeli, the number of Palestinian Arabs increased to several million."

The source itself is titled "Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars" (I wonder how that would fly with WP:RS) and fits the tone of the paragraph quite well: some kind of moral relativism to shift the blame on the refugee problem to Jordan?

Seriously, what's up with the sentence

  • "Whereas other much larger refugee problems after World War II were eventually solved, this one persisted."

This is not encyclopaedic and I have removed it. If somebody objects, we can discuss this here. Also,

  • "Because the Palestinians did not become Egyptian, Lebanese, or Israeli, the number of Palestinian Arabs increased to several million."

You know, using a passive verb like "become" when referring to something that is impossible, i.e. Israeli citizenship, is just wrong. Also, you know, populations increase because people have babies, not because they don't apply for citizenship. Again, I have rephrased this (removing the impossible Israeli citizenship -- remember, they weren't allowed to return), and if anybody objects, we can discuss this here.

Finally, the lead "One factor in the persistence...", either you list all factors -- including the major ones, i.e. the refugees not wanting to become foreigners and the Israelis not letting them back in -- or none of them. Listing one minor factor alone is just undue weight. I have, again, removed this sentence, and invite any objectors to discuss this here.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 16.01.2008 07:38

I have restored a portion of this material, using sources which are notable and reliable, such as Israeli government official websites and position papers. If i restore anything further, I will try to use sources which meet WP:NOTABLE standards as much as possible. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus

I have edited the paragraph

due to some serious undue weight issues. One sentence on an "exodus" that "occured" (you know, just kind of happened) for the Palestinians, followed by Jews "exited ... by force", "massacred", "not allowed to live" and their holy places "vandalized". No sources are cited.

I have boldly re-phrased the paragraph with links to other articles such as 1948 Arab-Israeli war#Casualties, List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict and List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war which do/should list casualties from both sides. I admit that these referenced articles are not in the best of shapes, but they are work in progress and we should work on them so that we can use them.

If anyone disagrees with the changes, we can discuss this here.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 16.01.2008 08:04

<<The Question of Palestinian Refugees>>

Hi, under the "The Question of Palestinian Refugees" subheading, I have deleted "There is no legal basis to demand repatriation of Palestinian refugees and their descendents. No international legislation, UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this". United Nations Resolution 194 (1948)Article 11 reads "The General Assembly...resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date". The citation offered is brief, vague and unconvicing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.188.37 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement "It is not currently understood what is meant by "just resolution"; a similar concept was offered by the Israeli government, but rejected outright by the Palestinians in the Summer 2000 Camp David negotiations" under this section. There was no source, but here is one which desputes this. [9]

History

I appreciate extending the History section to include information on the pre-1948 period, but the re-write completely removed any mention of "Zionist aspirations towards a Jewish homeland", both before and in the 1945-1948 section. I have reverted the later. Please, in the interest of keeping this article balanced, whoever made the changes (that would be, I guess, you, Steve), re-insert that material.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.01.2008 07:21

Good grief, are you kidding?!?!!!!! I didn't make any such changes. I'm the one who ADDED that Abdullah article in the first place!!!!!! Good grief, try to do something good around here, look what happens. Are you not of aware who added all that material? it's fairly obvious from the article history. By the way, i found most of his changes to be quite insightful and informative. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops! Sincerely sorry about that... I missed User:Michael Safyan's edit completely. I guess I got confused by your edits before and after his. Sorry about that! Anyway, the point is still valid. In the short background description the political aspirations were clearly outlined, and now they have disappeared... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 23.01.2008 14:30
Ok. thanks for writing, and for your reply. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objections, Pedro. The new version explains that there were Jewish national aspirations (as espoused in/by Zionism) and Arab national aspirations (as espoused in/by Pan-Arabism) for the region known as Palestine. See the first sentence under "History". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


report tabulation

per this diff [10].

Pedro Gonnet, I'd apprecaite a more thorough explanation to why the added material was removed - preferably with a reference to the related page in the document. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, you quoted a paragraph that referred to victims of internal violence. The data on page 5 of the report very clearly distinguishes between casualties due to the direct conflict and casualties due to internal violence. For the definition of direct conflict, see page 23:
"Number of Palestinian and Israeli casualties (fatalities and injuries) - direct conflict. Source: OCHA. Casualities included within this figure relate directly to the conflict with Israel and the occupation of the oPt including in IDF military operations, artillery shelling, search and arrest campaigns, Barrier demonstrations, targeting killings, settler violence etc. The figures do not include events indirectly related to the conflict such as casualties from unexploded ordnance, etc. or events when the circumstances remain unclear or are in dispute. The figures include all reported casualties of all ages and both genders."
and
"Number of Palestinian casualties - internal violence. Source: OCHA. Casualties included within this figure are caused by factional violence, family feuding, during internal demonstrations (that are linked to the conflict/occupation) and shooting of alleged collaborators with Israel. These incidents began to be comprehensively reported from May 2006 and earlier figures will be under-reported."
Your comment implied that the numbers in the table, which are direct casualties, were somehow mostly due to internal disputes. I'll WP:AGF and assume you mis-read either the report or the table.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 24.01.2008 15:10
please clarify this (page and the asterix) on the article and link the diff here. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? You get confused and make a contentious edit and I'm supposed to fix it? Seriously, User:Jaakobou, even if you clearly state that what you refer to are casualties of internal violence, you'd still have a hell of a point to make as to why these are relevant in this article... pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 07:46
Allow me to explain. The reference you used for the chart has 28 pages and a large body of material within it. My misperception of where you got the details from inside this reference could easily happen to another wikipedian. Since you're the one who found the material, it would be the encyclopedic thing to do, to add a page reference so that edits like mine would not be repeated by others. Please fix this issue, and link the diff here so I will know that the issue is resolved. Thank you. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
done. pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 13:19
Thank you. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Inter-wiki refs

per this diff [11]

Michael, there is a link to the shaw report within that same line and also an extra reference. Is there a special reason to include this wiki-link as a double ref? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you. However, please see the discussion above. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
too much text... head spinning. is it really that important? i'm sure we can find a better solution if it is. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
To be frank, i would not be happy with these type of refs popping up, can we agree on removing it? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Minor edits and history

Hi. I've made some minor edits. Partly to reduce overlinking. There's also some redundant phrasing, such as "violence erupted" but I gather I should be cautious in using synonymous wording. Can we at least change the verb, e.g. violence occurred or took place? Also, change 1915-17 to run to 1919, even if no info now, to avoid a gap?

I'm also curious about why the Background section is so short. You'd think there be at least something more about the population mix and co-existence in late 19th and early 20th century. Why not? If not a summary style unit, not even in See Also? Thanks, HG | Talk 15:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the 1945-9 section, the first sentence has a very long grammatical subject. I hope this revision retains the basic meaning: "After World War II, Zionists exerted continuous pressure on the British to relocate Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine[28]. These efforts caused difficulties for the British authorities before the international community, since they still rigorously applied the policies against further Jewish immigration outlined in the 1939 White Paper." Also, in 2nd para, the word "immediately" is vague or misplaced. Is my revision correct?

Finally, I think "case by case" is somewhat of a malapropism ("Each side of the conflict were responsible for massacres on a case by case basis. "). See my attempted rewrite. Thanks, HG | Talk 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- good edits :) pedro gonnet - talk - 28.01.2008 16:15
Thanks, Pedro, nice of you to say so. Ciao, HG | Talk 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
HGor anyone User:Pedro Gonnet? Would appreciate your respective editorial discretion in mulling over the following.

'The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict and is essentially a dispute between two national identities with claims over the same area of land.'

This was true of the past, when two parties contested control of all of Mandate Palestine. The present Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not one of 'Palestinian claims over the land of the state of Israel' (Hamas does espouse something like that, though it knows it is a rhetorical gambit, and not a reality) as opposed to Israeli claims over the Occupied Territories. The present Israeli-Palestinian conflict is 'a dispute between two national identities with claims over one area of land (Occupied Territories), different from the one area of land (Palestine) which essentially was disputed by both parties, earlier. In commendably striving for rhetorical balance and parity, a confusion has been embedded in the history.
The second problem is the showcasing of 'The Israeli-Palestine' conflict as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It certainly did not begin that way. I am not going to edit the passage, but there surely must be creative ways to rephrase it less misleadingly. If one were to use a verb like 'began' with . .'and developed to be part of a wider Arab-israeli conflict', history would be respected, and disambiguated NPOV sense restored. As it is, it confuses as though one, what are two historically discrete claims and conflicts over two distinct areas of land, as determined by the flow of political and military events. It implies that, for example, from 1948 to 1967 Israel actively contended to wrests territories in Jordanian and Egyptian hands, rather than defending itself as a state from Arabs. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You are a perceptive, close reader of texts. However, let's remember that this is a sentence for the lede. Yes, there's some ambiguity about "same area" -- does it mean the State or the [choose a term] territories? The rest of the article can try to clarify whether and how the conflict has shifted its target area. Likewise, I agree that historical process details are lacking, but I'm not troubled by the phrasing about the wider conflict. (Maybe I'm missing something, but since Palestinians are Arabs, the clause is almost logically necessary. Or do folks really see them as separate, discrete conflicts?) That said, feel free to float alternatives, though I'd suggest that sticking to generalities will be more fruitful than trying to articulate an unambiguous and decisive interpretation. thanks. HG | Talk 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
HG The point I raised refers to a natural outcome of editing by several hands. It is what you get is academic committee drafts on policy, which hardly anyone (even the drafters) really care to read afterwards, because politicicking determines content, rather than neutral analysis. It is a splendid example of NPOV balance and style, which, on inspection, proves to be nothing of the kind. It figures in the lead, and misleads, being on the surface a mistatement of the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict in favour of an 'Israeli' political POV, and, at the same time, if one makes logical deductions, being injurious to Israel's history, as well, in that it implies Israel was, from 1948-1967, engaged in a war of aggression over Jordanian and Egyptian held territory where Palestinians lived. I won't float alternatives. I hope, eventually, people with a keen sense of what language implies will review it, and rephrase it in what are classical, as opposed to bureaucratic/formalistic, NPOV terms. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, just for the record. My ha'ppence worth.

'The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially a dispute between two national identities with claims over the same area of land. It has long played a crucial role in the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talkcontribs) 14:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That wording seems useful and also responsive to my comment. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of articles

Im not gonna stick my head in with you all on this one, I just noticed this line

"The modern roots of the conflict can be traced to the late 19th century, with the establishment of Zionism, the Jewish national movement, which sought to create a modern Nation-State in Eretz Israel, the historic Jewish homeland, as a means of responding to anti-Semitism."

The bit about as a means of responding to anti-semitism, I'm no editor I admit, But i noted the fact that the Zionism page that is linked, that is not stated. Implied perhaps, but directly stated as it is on this page. However the full article about the history of Zionism it is noted. This would cause people like me to see discrepancy between two closely related articles. At least in the top page summaries. It may or may not be a problem to you, but as an avid reader I see it as a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.215.118 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the supposed discrepancy. The Zionism article states that:
...the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.
Michael Safyan (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a gloss on the passage. The following version is better, on many grounds, than the alternative suggested by Jaakobou.

The modern roots of the conflict can be traced to the late 19th century, which saw a rise in national movements, including Zionism and Pan-Arabism. Zionism, the Jewish national movement, which was established largely as a response to European anti-Semitism, sought the creation of a Jewish Nation-State in the territory of Palestine, Eretz Israel, the historical Jewish homeland, then under control of the Ottoman Empire.

But (a)I can’t see why ‘modern’ exists here. Its use here means that there are ‘ancient’ roots to the ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’, and in that insinuation implies Israel vs Canaan (current in zealotic settler musings on the conflict in the West Bank, or dhimmi status in Arab countries etc.
(b) Zionism and pan-Arabism are paired as movements, then only the former is glossed, leaving pan-Arabism hanging mysteriously in the air.
(c) ‘Zionism’ was not ‘established largely as a response to European anti-semitism. It was initiated, as a formal political movement by Herzl in reaction to the Dreyfus Affair in France, which though in ‘Europe’ did not exemplify a generalized trend of rising anti-semitism throughout Europe. Most Western European states did not see a notable escalation in anti-semitism in the 1890s. In Italy, as Jabotinsky observed admiringly, a Jew around the turn of the century was given no sense that others regarded him as more ‘a Jew’ than, what one was, just another citizen. Much the same could be said for Spain, Greece, Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, England, Portugal, Holland, Belgium etc. Prejudice existed, as it existed for many other minorities. Germany/Austro-Hungarian empire was more problematical, esp. in the former after the financial crack following the Franco-Prussian war, but there also one finds a very high level of assimilation and mixed marriage. Anti-semitism was certainly on the rise to the East, from the 1880s, for very simple reasons. In the sociology of anti-Semitism there is a rough and ready rule of thumb: its intensity, like any other form of racist prejudice, is proportional to the numbers of the minority among the ‘host’ population (the exception is where the minority is a large one, financially well-off and strong enough to daunt attempts at ostracism). The more Jews (as today the more Arabs in Europe), the greater the prejudice. Jews constituted significant minority populations in east Europe, and esp. the Slavic areas, and that is where anti-semitism was most intense. That is where, also, the largest emigration came from in the early days of Zionism, and where most of the decisive members of the early elite in Jewish-Palestine and Israel hailed from.
That is why ‘European’ is deeply misleading, but it also ignores the fact that Herzl’s proposal jumped on the back of the Aliyah movement under Zibbat Zion, which was, again, a reaction to the intensification of anti-semitism in a non-European country.
'Then under the control of the Ottoman Empire' is also POV. The standard NPOV historical usage is 'formed part of' 'was part of'. etc. It is like saying 'Canada/Australia (18th century) was then under the control of the British Empire'.

A swelling in European[citation needed] anti-Semitism became catalyst to the resurgence of Zionism, a Jewish national movement, which sought the creation of a Jewish Nation-State in the territory of Eretz Israel (Palestine), the historical Jewish

‘Swelling’ implies a clumsy, colourful metaphor not consonant with good NPOV prose style. Eretz Israel was not the object of official Zionism. The use here confuses two distinct aspects of Zionism, aliyah and the secular thrust for a national state. In Zionist documents, Palestine is the land referred to.

Para 2

I would remind editors that this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia giving due weight to both terms in any argument involving more than one. Take this for instance:-

The modern roots of the conflict can be traced to the late 19th century, which saw a rise in national movements, including Zionism and Arab nationalism. Zionism, the Jewish national movement, which was established largely as a response to European anti-Semitism, sought the creation of a Jewish Nation-State in the territory of Palestine, Eretz Israel, the historical Jewish homeland, which at that time was part of the Ottoman Empire. To this end, the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish National Fund encouraged immigration and funded purchase of land.[1]

A.There is a conflict between Israel and Palestinians. It has roots in the past. It involves clashes between two national movements.(balanced 26 words)

B.Zionism is then defined (64)words. Total silence about the 'Arab nationalism' that is its counterpart in the preceding sentence. Call it by any wiki term one may like, but this is simply not balanced editing even in a minimal sense Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Would be a great addition to the article to have a subsection devoted to Arab nationalism, however, I once tried making an addition related to this and it was not welcomed (in the intro). If you start a userpage trying to workout some type of textual version to be inserted into the article body, I'd be willing to help out. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)



GA review

Hi everybody, this article has been nominated as a prospective good article and I would like to review this, but in light of the sensitivity of the subject I wanted to check to see if there were any objections to me as a reviewer. For the record, I have no familial, ethnic or religious ties to the subject or to the geographic area. However, if anybody thinks I am not a good choice, and might not be objective, just object now and I'll leave this to somebody else. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on you one way or the other; I may have one after I read your review.  :) However, this nomination seems way too premature to me. The article clearly is not "stable", which is criterion number 5. Whether it is neutral is debatable as well. I just starting paying attention to this article and I will be making some suggestions, but it is far from being ready for a good article review. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, stability is not so bad at present, but there are a lot of (citation needed) tags. I think this is probably premature, and will be unlikely to pass. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with so many "citation needed" tags and an entire section tagged as unverified I can't pass this as a good article. Once these have been dealt with, please re-submit this and it can be reviewed properly. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your input. your comments are very reasonable. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

House demolitions and uprooting of trees

One of the biggest complaints of Palestinians that relate to collective punishment is that the IDF uproots trees and demolishes houses(the demolition costs are billed to the palestinians who lived there) I understand that some palestinians do not have the correct legal documents to ensure that their homes are left alone but it is possible that the process is not as easy as it should be. Since this is undisputably part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, i was surprised that it was not included in the article. By the way i never edited the article i am just asking about a specific point.72.77.78.120 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, house demolitions are included in the article. Check again. --GHcool (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor change to correct grammar and accuracy

I don't want to intrude on the discussion below, but wanted to note what I changed in case it is seen as controversial. I changed the sentence: "Although the proposal was rejected by Israel at 2002 the Arab League continued to raise it as a possible solution, and meetings between the Arab League and Israel have been made." which has some obvious grammatical errors, to "Although the proposal was rejected outright by Israel when it was first proposed in 2002, the Arab League continues to raise it as a possible solution, and recent meetings between the Arab League and Israel have been held." which I think is better written and more accurate (note the BBC article: "Israel rejected the 2002 plan outright after it was first proposed at an Arab summit in Beirut, but Mr Olmert is now giving it a guarded welcome ...". Thank you, Jgui (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Small but serious problem. 2002 was probably the hardest year for Israel as far as the Second Intifada. To state that Israel rejected an Arab initiative without placing it in some proper context of the violence and propaganda, makes for a POV presentation (very fitting for the BBC to present stories without the Israeli related context). Also, I don't understand why the paragraph above your change says "as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees." - when that is clearly a POV. Other than that, English corrections are welcome, but please without the Lets try it in English side-commentary. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC) This could be a good idea since most of the sources are Israeli and many Palestinian documents that fall short of the wikipedia standards are actually very usefel to it would help with getting a more balanced picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.168.41 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the need to allow questionable sources; the problem is that there are editors who are corrupting text that is cited to irrefutably WP:RS such as the BBC and inserting text with worthless citations that have nothing to do with the text they are adding. I have just corrected an example of this: before anyone considers changing this back they need to READ the citations and see that the text accurately reflects what the BBC is reporting, and see that the citations added to support an alternative view are worthless to WP (and are not even relevant to the change that was made). Here are the citations that I removed: one is a dead link (in Hebrew no less) and the other is a primary source (terrorism-info.org.il) and not a RS: 'Hamas took responsibility for most of the Qassam rocket launchings' 'The Palestinian Preventive Security thwarted an attempt to perpetrate a deadly terrorist attack at Karni Crossing' 'Interrogated Hamas Operatives Say They Smuggled Weapons From Iraq Into Jordan at the Order of Hamas Leaders in Syria'. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jaakabou has deleted the changes I detail above without gracing us with any comment other than an edit history. His edit history claims that the Hebrew link is fine and the other sites fit WP:RS. Since he has not had the common courtesy to comment here in Talk it is hard to react, but let me first point out this Verifiability policy, and note for the first ref that the Hebrew site meets none of these requirements: there is no Hebrew translation available from google or other source; and absolutely no translation of any kind has been provided; the site (walla.co.il) is a search engine/internet portal, not a news site; and the "story" (if it is one - it still looks like a broken link to me) is only twenty-five words long. Most importantly, we are apparently expected to take Jaakabou's word that this site says something relevant and that this (untranslated) Hebrew link should be used to override the multiple English WP:RS links we have that consistently report the opposite facts. Jaakabou then claims that terrorism-info.org.il is a WP:RS when in fact they describes themselves on their website as "dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich" - i.e. it is a POV-pushing website headed by a retired IDF Colonel writing about such things as the "Palestinian Authority Hate Industry".
Jaakabou, I think you have proven the absurdity of your case - please do not revert my change again or I will report you. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I had this exact conversation with Jaakobou (about terrorism-info) more than six months ago. I made the same points and was met with the same lack of refutation or even coherent response, and as you can see he's still warring it into articles. Terrorism-info.org.il might be acceptable as an external link on a page about Palestinian terror, but that's the only possible use I can see for it. It's a self-published website explicitly devoted to glorifying Israeli spies and assassins. <eleland/talkedits> 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jgui, the Hebrew source is not used to make a direct quote. What part of WP:V you believe this source doesn't fit?
p.s. Elaland, historical notes about previous interactions can go both ways.. please don't go there. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jaakabou, please do me the courtesy of reading my comments. I have referred you to the relevant section above and again here in Verifiability - just click on the link - it is the one related to FOREIGN LANGUAGES (e.g. HEBREW). It doesn't matter whether you use it for a direct quote: this is the English language version of WP, not the Hebrew language version. If you wish to change WP text based on Hebrew articles without translations that only you can read, then I recommend that you work on the Hebrew version of WP instead of the English version of WP. In any case, you are not justified in simply removing the existing text because that is already cited to a WP:RS - the BBC. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the civility of re-linking, but the WP:V policy doesn't say that the source is improper. To quote the policy: "should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". As for my edit, I felt you removed cited material and reliable sources but if you still feel that the material is improperly cited, I'm more than open for discussion on the issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the trite opinions expressed in the Hebrew sources you prefer to cite, opinions frequently voiced in the foreign press, are to be sourced to a language not familiar to most browsers, and not to English sources which say the same thing? (2) Before you cite the Hebrew sources, before you should feel obliged to qualify them by argument and documentation as conforming to WP:RS. One cannot take someone's word for things like this. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm not saying that "the trite opinions expressed in the sources you prefer to cite" (see: WP:CIV) are not to be sourced in English. I am saying that Walla! is considered a reliable source.
p.s. I am an established editor and WP:AGF wouldn't hurt, esp. for more than reasonable article statements. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You're saying Walla is considered a reliable source is of course fascinating, but it does not constitute a proof.Jgui's points haven't been answered. We still only have your word for it that Walla is RS, and that the content is of 'better' quality than the same agitprop in English sources. 'Is considered'. I think it has bee drawn to your attention that the impersonal use of English functions to hide an author's subjectivity as though his judgement were impersonal. When it is used it should, technically, be underwritten by substantial sources, otherwise it remains simply that. And assertion camouflaged as an objective fact.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You may open a WP:RSN query if you insist that my suggestion is inaccurate. I'm also open to rephrase suggestions that mention Walla! as the reporting body.
Thank you. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It is neither civil nor a sign of good faith editing to assert on your own authority that a source only you know and which no one can read, fits Wiki criteria, and then challenge doubters to open up 'legal' procedings, which place the burden of proof on them, and not on the person who initiated the problem. It is a variant of wikilawyering, suggestive of a technique of making things difficult for your interlocutors, while you sit back and enjoy the spectacle without the effort your adventurous edit would otherwise oblige others to make. It is you who must show grounds for citing that material. You are required to convince other editors. They are not required to accept your judgement. There are many other grounds raised above for rejecting your edit, because you refuse to make an adequate reply to the queries other editors have raised. This is, therefore, I repeat, not good faith editing, but, IMHO, contemptuous of the process of open editgorial dialogue, and warrants reverting any attempt, unadorned by a serious attempt at justification, to stick that material in there unilaterally. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, I've already linked to Walla!, which I figured to be a reasonable indicator that Walla! is not a source "only [I] know" but rather a respectable mainstream news outlet in Israel. Being that I can't seem to convince you to WP:AGF, I suggested a WP:DR process instead.
p.s. please go over WP:NAM. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And I've already aasked you to reply to Jgui's query, to remarks such as this:'dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich" - i.e. it is a POV-pushing website headed by a retired IDF Colonel writing about such things as the "Palestinian Authority Hate Industry". 'Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I figured I'd first assert Walla! and move on from there if necessary. IIC is an official site and considered a reliable source for sharing intelligence on Palestinian militant activity. I'm not sure I'm following the source for conflict here.. is it only the sources used or the content in itself? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what by now other posters have said a score of times, the impersonal construction in English, of the kind, is . . considered does not make the judgement neutral. Most often, as in your use of it, it simply is a disingenuous turn of phrasing used to pass off as 'neutral' what is, on inspection, a personal opinion. So far, all the evidence you have given (none) consists of it is considered(read) 'I think', 'Take my word for it' 'I believe'. You have given no proof it is a reliable source, apart from numerous other objections, and therefore technically anyone has a right to expunge it. Note secondly the meaning of your stated motivation for introducing the contested source is: 'I figured I'd first assert Walla! and then move on from there if necessary', which means nothing, unless 'I thought I'd plunk my Walla! source in forcibly and then build on it if unchallenged'. Is that your meaning? for the sentence is not clear.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Modern

Jaakobou rejects my suggestion that the term 'modern' be removed. I suggest removing it because 'modern' implies there are 'ancient' roots to the conflict. There is however absolutely no indication of what those ancient roots are. The attuned reader naturally suspects, when 'modern' is insinuated into the text at this point, that the 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict' (which is, I remind all, the topic) has 'ancient roots'. I.e. Israelis existed from 1948 onwards. Palestinian national identity was forged in the 19th century, but the conflict between them has ancient roots preexisting their respective assumptions of a national identity. To me this is irrational, unhistorical, and quetioning begging. It also leaves the attuned reader grasping around for impalpable answers. The only allusion that comes naturally to mind to fit the unexplained implication that the conflict is 'ancient' is the account in the Bible of the Hebrew invasion of Canaan, and sources about 'conflict' like the Book of Joshua, where the indigenous tribes are killed by God's command, something which generates, in turn, memories of halakhic obligations, i.e.,
596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19

These three commandments recur in some extremist varieties of settler theological-political literature regarding the identification of Palestinians with the 'descendants of Amalek' or the nations of Canaan, and, I suggest, the use of 'modern' evokes them covertly, if by oversight. That, and the subsidiary allusion presumably to some bias about Jewish dhimmis in Islamic tradition, is why I am therefore asking all editors to comment on the odd use of the adjective 'modern' to define that conflict. Encyclopedias should be explicit, and not play subtle games of innuendo via tendentious language.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani that modern should be removed. Suicup (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, I'm having trouble following your bible interpretation. Surely Palestinians have nothing to do with Amalek; and surely semi-quotes from Deut. are no way to read and understand the bible.
As for the word 'modern', there is a problem with listing 'root of the conflict' neglecting all the historical conflicts in the area between the (both Arab and Jewish) locals. Riots, massacre and dispossession exited in 1886 and earlier also, not only at 1920 and 1929. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but this article is not called the Jewish-Arab conflict, it is called the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are no 'ancient' roots. Using modern implies that there are. If you believe that this is incorrect, this is NOT the article to make that point - the history article is. Once it has been incorporated there (which I highly doubt), then it can be used here. Suicup (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou. Thanks for the query. Palestinians of course have nothing to do with Amalek. I never said they did. In that variety of theo-messianic ideology developed by the first Ashkenazi rabbi of Palestine, Kook, however, which has influenced extremist settlers (not by any means all settlers), the association between Palestinians and the Amalekites is frequent. To cite but just one instance of a comment on this, well known in Israel, which I have collected, read the following passage:-

'So force is the only way to deal with the Palestinians. So long as they stay in the Land of Israel, they can only do so as "resident aliens" without "equality of human and civil rights," those being "a foreign democratic principle" that does not apply to them. But, in the end, they must leave. There are two ways in which that can happen. One is "enforced emigration." The other way is based on the biblical injunction to "annihilate the memory of Amalek." In an article on "The Command of Genocide in the Bible," Rabbi Israel Hess opined--without incurring any criticism from a state Rabbinate whose official duty it is to correct error wherever it finds it--that "the day will come when we shall all be called upon to wage this war for the annihilation of Amalek." He advanced two reasons for this. One was the need to ensure "racial purity." The other lay in "the antagonism between Israel and Amalek as an expression of the antagonism between light and darkness, the pure and the unclean."

You second point is irrelevant. In English usage, 'ancient', the implicit antonymn alluded to in 'modern' cannot refer to a period as recent as late Ottoman times. Furthermore, all ethnic groups have moments of conflict, barneys, riots at times, without this being a 'root' for war. There are numerous Jewish and Palestinian testimonies attesting to a relatively smooth overall relationship between the two groups, with Jews celebrating Muslim festivities by donating gifts of sweets,etc., and Muslims doing the same on Jewish holidays. The conflict, as we know it, arose from Zionism not from a sustained Jewish presence among a majority Muslim population which, over a millenium, was not all havoc, pogroms, and humiliation anywhere near the order you got in Europe, which was, certainly in several societies, deeply antisemitic. Retrospective reading of history in terms of modern instances is one of the easiest flaws young historians are taught to avoid.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the conflict arose from the use of physical violence. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support modern: The term "modern" implies the late 19th century to early 20th century and, therefore, it correctly identifies the period in question. Without the term "modern", one might take into consideration more recent ("contemporary") roots of the conflict (e.g. terrorist attacks by the PLO) or earlier roots of the conflict, "ancient" (e.g. the diaspora) or otherwise (e.g. see Jaakobou's comment). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how can there be any confusion when the sentence states: "The roots of the conflict can be traced to the late 19th century". Going by your logic, we could just remove the end of the sentence (the bit containing 19th C) and just replace it with modern. There, much clearer now isn't it. Suicup (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Then let me put it technically. The meaning of a word is determined by its relation to a field of synonyms, antonyms etc (Sprachfeld). If you use 'white' it invokes 'black' 'blue' etc. To use the word 'modern' in this context tacitly invokes, 'pre-modern', 'ancient', 'medieval', 'classical', 'biblical' etc. Thus the sentence, apart from saying the conflict has modern roots (awkward expression since 'roots' implies a temporal depth contradicted by the very adjective 'modern'), is implying quite strongly that pre-modern, and particularly 'ancient' roots underlie the conflict between two identities, Palestinian, and Israeli, that are themselves purely modern constructs. I personally find this otherwise speciously innocuous phrasing parlously POV in this discursive context (settlement rhetoric), and feel, I admit, when people say I am seeing things not there, a bit like Thomas Hardy and the dewfall hawk Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Michael SafyanYou write
'Please keep in mind that the conflict arose from the use of physical violence.' I.e. the 'roots of the conflict' are in physical violence, which is almost a tautology. Most historians would say that the roots of the conflict arose from the clash that predictably occurs when an indigenous people, 90% of the population, was told that much of the land it worked would be handed over, bought up, or assigned by international fiat to an immigrant population, ethnically or religiously related to the people who, at the time, constituted a very small minority of the population of Palestine. That was not 'physical violence' it was 'projectual violence.'Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani,
There are several perspectives that "Most historians" support and violence, regardless if it is physical, projectual, antisemitic, or a group effect of the Munchausen syndrome, is generally agreed that violence is an integral part of the conflict. Michael's point was not about the type of violence but rather on language so I'm not following the need to digress and advocate about the "dispossessed indigenous people". JaakobouChalk Talk 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Again I would commend you to read and construe the language properly for nuance and clear implications. Michael said, a 'conflict' arose from the use of 'physical violence'(which is itself a 'conflict', hence the tautology), which, between the lines reads, in historical context, 'the Israeli-Palestinian conflict' arose from the use of 'physical violence' by (a) both parties or by (b) Palestinians (1920,1929)who used physical violence to oppose the Zionist venture (='dispossession of their homeland' in plainspeak), which looks, on the face of it, what he is saying. No digression, no soap, unless it is the hard variety that counters the inveterate soft-soaping of the historical record in Wiki. 'Digressing' is at times useful however. Take a Shandyean tipple, and you return to the subject at hand much refreshed. Now, back to 'modern'.Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To put it plainly, how does 'modern roots' fit the context of the article while 'roots' does not? The conflict is modern, but its roots arent. I dont see the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohkou (talkcontribs) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, per this diff [12]
Both I and Michael Safyan have expressed disagreement with your linguistic point raised and replied with a clear explanation. If you wish to further pursue this debate, then I'd suggest you move to WP:DR rather than edit warring your preferred version in. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It takes two or more to edit war you know. And Nishidani is 100% right to say that including "modern" here confuses the issue and is anyway incorrect, suggesting as it does that there are mysterious unspecified "ancient" roots to the current conflict. It's as much a point about English language as it is about substantive issues. And apologies for rudeness here, but on past experience Jaakobou you are in no position to debate the nuances of English sentence construction. I can't believe that yet again you've created a huge talk page debate over one word. --Nickhh (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you even read the discussion? JaakobouChalk Talk 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not 'modern' should be used or not (IMO it shouldn't), as it stands, this debate hasn't occurred in the history article, and for that reason it can't happen here. Using modern implies extra history which doesn't exist in the history article. Given that this is a high level article which draws from others, History must be resolved BEFORE this article. Thus, modern should be removed until further notice. Suicup (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's how I was able to say "Nishidani is 100% right to say ...". Hard this, isn't it? --Nickhh (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Suicup, can you please provide the wiki-policy you are citing from? JaakobouChalk Talk 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Induced flight

When reading the article i found this

Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled, but voluntary. During the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee, in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state.[76] This point, however, is a matter of some contention.[77] Certain actions on the part of Jewish militias were considered to provoke Palestinians to leave Israel.[78] Still, such cases were relatively rare, and the vast majority of Palestinians fled of their own accord.[79] Since most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, some argue that Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility.[79] In fact, a 1952 memorandum submitted to the League of Arab States by the Higher Arab Committee reveals that Arab states officially agreed to take responsibility for these refugees at the height of the Palestinian exodus, until such time as Israel would be destroyed: Arab leaders and their ministries in Arab capitals ... declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine.[80]

This is entirely the view of Israelis and i think that an addendum that adds the view of the Palestinians is necessary. Maybe something like: Palestinians argue that although flight was not formally compelled, economic and political constraints placed by Israel on the West Bank and Gaza strip in the form of blockades and the destruction of necessary infrastructure have the effect of compelling the Palestinian people to leave

sorry my english is sub par but i think something along those lines is necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohkou (talkcontribs) 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That passage is preceded by a declaration that what follows is Israel's 'official position', and hence is not meant, sorry, is not supposed to be, textually, anything more than a statement of an Israeli argument. It is, as we now know, false. This and many other passages are however under comprehensive review, as User:Suicup trawls through the mess, raises queries and asks the rest of us to work over it with him. In the specific passage, one needs a good deal of cited proof that this inveterate view about the flight is still an official position of the Israeli government, and not just a useful piece of propaganda that has not yet reached its use-by date Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, I think it needs to be cleared up that right now I am only focusing on the introduction. Cheers Suicup (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, fine, if it is an official position of the Israeli government, we can preface it with the phrase "The Israeli government officialy asserts that..." etc. That actually helps your side, as it simnply states the other side for the purpose of balance, without overly negating your own sources. Please stop denigrating the government of one of the parties to the conflict. Wouldn't it be a violation of WP:CIVIL a bit unhelpful if someone in the Indian-Pakistinian conflict continually denigrated the govt on the opposite side? please try to be aware of this.
Suicup, and others, no one here has agreed to any wholesale removal of any Israeli statements or positions whatsoever. Removing them just because they are from Israel would be highly detrimental. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where have I said I will do that? My focus right now is on the introduction. If have the time and motivation (doubtful) I may decide to go through and clean up the rest of the article. Suicup (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have at all, ever, and i find you to be extremely reasonable. Sorry, was trying to make a general point about this article, not trying to imply you had actually done any of those things. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
--Steve, Sm8900 Could I beg you, in the old Cromwellian phrase, 'in the bowels of Christ' not to attribute to me ideas I have not put forth, and make much ado about nothing. I did not denigrate the Israeli government (at least here!). I said a position was attributed to it without being reliably sourced. Since that position has been shown to be false by Israeli historians, and that conclusion is widely endorsed by historians, I was surprised to see it mentioned as still the official view of the Israeli government, after more than 2 decades of being discredited. I personally would be surprised if it were.
These pages, perhaps because they are written out of intense negotiations involving trade-offs, are not a pretty sight and full of cumbersome phrasing, loosely formulated ideas etc. I am all for cleaning this up. For the record, there are few governments that meet my approval (for what little that matters), and have no brief for the PLO/PNC/PNA. I am interested, intensely, in the rights of the Palestinians whatever their politics. It is an instinctive for me as rallying in the defence of Jews suffering from antisemitic slurs or oppression. Much the same thing, in my book. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I see no sign of any real willingness to assist Suicup in what is a generous offer to rework a bad page. He/she has shown no signs of partiality, and conducted his review, still at its beginning, with diplomatic care and democratically. So I would appreciate also that you refrain from making unfair charges about wholesale removal, and do more to respond to specific requests for input.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I appreciate your clarification, and I fully accept your statements. What you said sounds very reasonable. thanks for your helpful reply. re the other points you raised, i will try to be aware of those. thanks.
Sorry for any misunderstandings on my part. i am fully open to others' ideas on this article, and on all these items. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Soapboxing

sm8900, it is unfortunate that you have to resort to edits such as this one to make a point. Firstly, it is extremely immature. Secondly, despite the fact you reverted it right away, it was clear vandalism. Thus that a (supposedly) experienced editor such as yourself would resort to childish vandalism is quite disappointing. For this reason, I have no choice but to report you to an administrator, as this article is subject to General Sanctions and as such your behaviour is unacceptable. Suicup (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you, Sm8900. I understand your frustration, but this is not the right way to channel it. The best way is through reasoned argument. --GHcool (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a bad move, but quickly reverted. Though it is certainly reportable, I hope it does not lead to sanctions. Personally I was not disconcerted by the vandalism, so much as bewildered by its failure to appreciate that while I am quite happy to show my POV on a talk page, along with the rationally mustered evidence to support it in an edit, I do not think my record has ever shown one instance of gearing a text to a unilateral bias for one party or another. Smith's error was to confuse my talk, with my edits.
If the whole episode could be cancelled without arbitration and sanctions, it would be better. As to my 'soapboxing', I should explain that I see assumptions in a sentence or two often, which lie there as though they were not very strong statements of a POV position. The length I go to to underline how I perceive the premisses operating in these statements has been taken at times as provocative. One is not obliged to read them. What does worry me that in devoting considerable effort to justify what I think are rational indeed minor edits ('modern' is just one example), I meet obstructive resistance that is not grounded in an even-handed weighing of evidence and rules, leading to endless deferral of what should be simple collective-decision making. Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, vandalism means inserting text which is knowingly false or malicious. what i inserted is correct according to some premises. that was the point I waas trying to make. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, which is a plain confession that you vandalized the text, since what you wrote was malicious regarding myself, and the content can not be justified by any just reading of my position as frequently articulated. Either you acted from malice in that absurd caricature, or out of an incapacity to understand English prose, thereby creating imaginary 'premisses' from which you made skewed inferences that you then, and now, deem 'correct'. Whatever the case may be, I suggest you kindly refrain from editing Wiki articles, especially since you appear not to understand a gesture of sympathy from a person you otherwise attempted to smear or offend. Water off a duck's back of course. Thanks et finis Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please try not to overly address me personally with these excessive and unwarranted comments. I believe I have never directed such rhetoric at you. I feel that sometimes you do tend to do so towards me. Thanks however, on the other hand, for some positive comments by you at other points. In regards to your suggestion to refrain from editing, i believe I will decline to heed your suggestion.
As for my so-called vandalism, please explain why I was subjected to your egregiously one-sided comments for a long period during our so-called dialogue and exchange. What i posted was directly based on the premises contained in your colloquy and comments. At variopus times, you asserted that Israel had "Stolen" Palestinian land, that Israel had continually deceived the world community, and had constituted a direct conspiracy aimed at deceiving and dispossessing Plaestinians. In this context, my only recourse to restore some small degree of balance and NPOV was to try "writing for the enemy" in order to place alternate text on the table, to make the implicit meaning of your comments more explicit, and to put the basic considerations squarely on the table.
Please note that throughout our discussion, I have never cast any aspersions on you in any way. Upon rereading some of your last few comments, I do note the presence of several positive statements of yours aimed at addressing this issue verbally through discussion, and seeking to avoid escalating any potential issue. I appreciate your positive sentiments in this regard. I look forward to pursuing a productive and positive dialogue. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sm8600, your edit was clear cut vandalism, simple as that. It may have spilled over from a talk page discussion, however that doesn't defend it. Using words such as 'so-called' etc is a failure to admit responsibility and move on. 220.237.171.188 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Telegraph as source for Palestinian casualties during battle

per this diff: [13]
  1. Palestinian reports of casualties during battle have a long history of exaggerations and later corrections. (See: Battle of Jenin a.k.a. Jenin "Massacre")
  2. British Press has a long history of repeating Palestinian charges/propaganda without question during battle and later making corrections (and sometimes not even that). (See: 'massacre evidence growing' (April '02), 'UN says no massacre in Jenin' (August '02).
  3. Telegraph.co.uk, is not considered a reliable source on it's own for 'on the ground' assertions, and they usually make side notes that these figures "were reported", i.e. Palestinian claims.
  4. To make it clear that these are propaganda claims, the "were reported" includes "four boys struck while playing football on waste ground", however, this attack occurred at 2am and the IDF 'claimed' that they were retrieving rocket launchers for reloading... I don't see this input stated in what was also reported and it makes for an incomplete, unreliable and biased sourcing of a news event.
  5. Being that this is indeed a 'current news event', it would probably be best to wait a few days for the fog of war to subside so that no WP:BLP reports would be made about any side in this conflict.

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 14:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pure filibuster, Jaakobou. The Telegraph "is considered" (and when I use the term "is considered," I'm actually using it to mean "is considered" rather than "is, in my personal unsupported opinion") to be among the most reliable, mainstream papers in Britain. It's also considered to have a significantly pro-Israel, Conservative tilt. The fact that strictly accurate BBC reporting on Jenin in 2002 was later seized upon by Israeli media critics, who objected to its tone, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. The fact that the Telegraph used the phrase "were reported" is an argument for us to use the phrase "were reported," not to blank the information out of the article. And your random assertion of WP:BLP was literally laughable. What the heck are you talking about?
Oh yeah, and if the attack occurred at 2 AM, how did the Telegraph report it at 1:16 AM Israeli time? <eleland/talkedits> 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Eleland,
My points were well explained even if I may have missed the accurate time of attack by 1-2 hours. Your response regarding the BBC is dangerously similar to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as there is no contest that it was an acute case of media manipulation, earning the names "Jenin Massacre syndrome" and "Big Jenin Lie".
p.s. I request you tone your language down and maintain civility. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Your points were not well explained, in fact, they were not explained at all. I offered a logical refutation of those points. In an intellectually honest debate, the onus is now on you to make a logical rejoinder. Since you presumably don't have the capacity to do this, you resort to simply asserting that your points were "well explained" (they were not explained at all,) making one direct ad hominem via a wikilinked essay about bad faith editors, making an unsupported claim that there is "no contest" about a point which is anyway irrelevant, and finishing up with a veiled ad hom by means of a request for civility. If you'd actually like to take this up in a relevant, productive fashion, I'd be happy to. I can provide sources and logical interpretation to support any one of my claims. But then, I'm familiar with your disdain for "rhetoric," which you use as a synonym for such rational argument, so I'm not holding my breath. <eleland/talkedits> 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean WP:IDHT actually means that some things cannot be rationally debated, that when the community believes it's right it does not matter even if the contestor provides a rational rebuttal?! mike4ty4 (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree: in this conflict, there's a large amount of biased news "stringers" and "freelance writers" sending in a lot of propaganda, and even if the Telegraph doesn't mean to be biased, there exists plenty of risk of their simply getting bad info from people who are trying to insert bias. Given numerous previous instances in which events were either ridiculously overblown, misreported, staged, or flat-out fabricated (Adnan Hajj, anyone?) it would be good to take all sources with the greatest care and skepticism. M1rth (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou. Reliable sources give verifiable, not necessarily truthful, information. You are once more questioning a reliable source because you doubt the truth of its reportage. SeeWP:V.
'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.'
The New York Times wrote:

'Images filmed by cameramen in Gaza on Thursday showed distraught family members gathering in blankets the body parts of the four boys, ages 8 to 12, who were killed in one of the Israeli strikes. Relatives said they had been playing soccer outdoors not far from their homes near Jabaliya, in the northern Gaza Strip. The army spokeswoman repeated that the strike was aimed at rocket launchers and that anyone in the vicinity of rocket launchers was at risk.'ISABEL KERSHNER ‘Israel Sees Escalation in Gazans’ Longer-Range Strikes,’NYT February 29, 2008

Mohammed Omer reports:

'I met with two children who survived Wednesday's Jabalyia soccer bombing: the other 4 kids were, as you likely know, killed. One of the children I saw had no flesh on their legs, had burns all over their bodies from the tank's shelling. This was one of the scariest things I have seen yet, and I have seen a lot more than that. Only today, 35 killed, still going on and 180 injured, many were women and child. Hospitals appeal for blood donation and fuel for ambulances.I asked one boy to give me details of what happened that Thursday afternoon. The 9 year old boy cried while he told that he'd seen the decapitated head of his cousin strewn far from his body, arms and legs, far away from where they were all playing soccer. His mother added that there wasn't any electricity when her son was admitted to the hospital.’ MOHAMMED OMER, 'Fear in Gaza,' Counterpunch March 1/2/2008.

True, Counterpunch is run by libertarian extremists and Mohammed Omer is Palestinian and therefore, ipso facto an Unreliable Source, unlike the extremely neutral, even-handed ex-generals and ex-Mossad men who run Debka file or Walla!. Esp. since Palestinian reports of their ostensible dead are often 'exaggerated' 'propaganda', notwithstanding the fact that, in this case, Omer writes for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and the Norwegian Morgenebladet, and has won an award for his precocious journalism as a resident in Gaza. Note some incongruities (rockets, tanks etc.)
By the way as to your passionate convictions about habits of prevarication peculiar to Arabs or Palestinians, I suggest you read Moshe Sharett's diaries, whose complete translation into English was suppressed after official pressure was exercised on his family, because of the details they supplied about the vast dissonance between what Israeli Cabinet members knew of events involving Israeli provocations and terror, and what official spokesmen said, in full awareness they were lying, about those events, to influence the public, local and foreign. A mere snip from theor insider details and the contrastintg 'public image' confected to mislead outsiders can be glimpsed by looking at the details on the Qibya Massacre Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm fast approaching the point where WP:AGF won't hold up trying to read your arguments. There are too many instances of bad reporting in this conflict to automatically assume any source as "reliable." M1rth (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith in what I generally read in reports done by professional journalists writing for the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times, even though I may often disagree with the slant of what I read there. If you have some problem with Wikipedia guidelines take it up with Jimbo Wales. We are not talking about any source but about major Western newspipers (deliberate error).User:Jaakobou has it in for British newspapers, they are no better or worse on this than Israeli or US newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 :: Another silly debate about sources. The Telegraph is a wholly reliable (and as it happens very pro-Israeli) source. Yes this info may turn out to be not 100% accurate, but that's not the point. And if you want to flag up the instances where media coverage has been tainted by genuine error or even outright fraud, I think you'll find they include as many occasions where IDF and MFA sources have told outright lies as when anyone on the Palestinian side has. But of course you want to keep the immediate Israeli claims about this event, as reported by CNN, in this article, while removing anything that appears to paint Israeli actions in a bad light. It appears that only certain sources need to be treated with scepticism ... -Nickhh (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's right to observe where they're getting the info they are reporting for all "news organizations" like this. On that basis, I had no objection to the CNN cite because it listed that they got their info from the IDF. Is that so hard to understand? I like your latest edit a lot better, for the same reason. Speaking from history, we're going to likely either find out that (a) the "palestinian reported" casualties are not nearly as high as they are claiming or (b) the casualties are the result of their hiding among/using "civilians" as human shields in violation of the Geneva Conventions. M1rth (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, M1rth. Where in Wikipedia does it state that a RS's sources be controlled before that RS's report is acceptable? (2) The IDF is not a reliable source, except when its archives are opened decades after to look at all of their paperwork. Time and again, also in fopreign court cases involving foreigners killed by their actions in the Palestinian territories, it has been established that it is not that reliable at all. (3) When you use the human shield argument, invariably trotted out as the hasbara line to play down the invariable 'collateral damage' consequent on IDF bombings of densely populated areas, remind yourself that twice the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the IDF has used Palestinians as human shields in its operations.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You could have a CNN report saying "the flat earth society says the earth is flat", but this is not the same as CNN saying "the earth is flat". If a news report cites "sources" on something or other, it violates policy not to say what the sources were. M1rth (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The way recent edits are moving indicates a bias according to which nothing Palestinians say is reliable, unless checked by a foreign source, whereas anything the IDF says, if referred to by foreign sources, is reliable. I won't intervene, but it is disgraceful.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the way recent edits are going is to treat them the same - the CNN mention says they got their info from the IDF, the Telegraph mention says they got their info from the not-named-in-the-article "Palestinian sources." M1rth (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My two cents:

  1. The Daily Telegraph is just as reliable as IHT, NYT, BBC, Reuters, AP, etc.
  2. Information reported in any of these sources, if not contradicted by any of the others, is fair game for Wikipedia.
  3. Information reported in two of these sources, when written by different reporters, is more than fair game for Wikipedia.
  4. That said, it is probably a good idea to establish a grace period to allow for the publication of corrections, before including material in Wikipedia.
Michael Safyan (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Michael Safyan about major dailies being RS. WP has rules about RS and we have to follow them. I don't think we need a grace period. In the event of a correction, we can correct too. Nor do we need two sources. WP rules say one RS. Let's not make up our own rules; first we would we breaking WP policy, and second, we would never agree on them.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: #2 - and since the Telegraph and CNN reports are contradictory, it's fair to say what the actual source for each is, isn't it? M1rth (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, the original text as sourced to the Telegraph did use the word "reportedly", in exactly the same way as the CNN article was "reporting" the IDF version of events (I understood the distinction you were trying to make very well thank you, it just wasn't a good point). Plus the two reports weren't contradictory - according to CNN, the IDF said they had killed militants, while the Telegraph piece said civilians were also killed, as did most other media (although they may differ on the details). --Nickhh (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On reporting events day to day

I will say this. I don't think it very sensible to dump daily reports into an encyclopedia. Perhaps the intelligent thing to do would be to create a source-page for future editorial reference, with successive links dealing with the day to day chronology of violence, each accompanied by an edit point, and then summarize the results when a spell in the fighting occurs, or information accrues to make a synthesis that has a structural sense. An example of what I mean, done by synthesizing the report by Hider in today's Times.
An escalation occurred in Wednesday's Israeli strike which killed 5 militants Israeli sources say had been trained in Iran and Syria to launch a terror operation inside Israel. Collateral damage was severe, with many civilians, among whom several children killed, the latter while playing soccer (cite reports)
(Source:A senior Israeli security source said the current escalation was triggered on Wednesday, when an Israeli air strike killed five top Hamas militants who had returned from training in Iran and Syria. He said the men had planned a “special operations” to infiltrate Israel and attack either an army base or civilian community, killing and kidnapping as many people as they could.'James Hider, 'Israel targets Hamas leader and vows to push on with Gaza incursion,' The Times, 2/3/2008)
Hamas replied with a barrage of rockets on Sderot, and the launching of an Iranian Grad missile on Ashkelon. Fighting intensified, leading to the death of 70 Palestinians in little more than a day. Outrage in the Occupied Territories over what was the highest number of fatalities, many of them civilian, since the beginning of the 2nd intifada in 2001, led to mass demonstrations, and Mahmoud Abbas suspended current negotiations with Israel on a peace treaty in protest. The severity of the Israeli attacks was condemned both in the UN and throughout Europe. Israel's representative at the UN, Daniel Carmon, justified the actions saying:'"As I speak to you now, more than a quarter of a million Israeli citizens are in the range of the deadly and murderous weapons of Hamas, care of Hamas, of its backers in the region and their malicious vision . . .The Government of Israel should thus not apologize for protecting its citizens”.'
(SourceJames Hider, 'Israel targets Hamas leader and vows to push on with Gaza incursion,' The Times, 2/3/2008)
By logic, neither should Hamas apologize, since, mutatis mutandis, the same statement could equally be made by a Hamas spokesman. Hamas has one and a half million people it is obliged to protect from the 'deadly and murderous weapons of the IDF', which have been used for several years relentlessly, but no reliable source makes that argument. It probably only occurs in the 'unreliable' Arab press. That is why reporting neutrally on what is a war in which neither side should be represented as being in the right, is impossible.
Unless something of this kind is done, the article will merely be cluttered up with ephemera. Or, at least, one should post what one posts in full awareness it is provisory and should not be defended when a more synthetic retrospective analysis of this phase in the war becomes available.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Even in here, you're still being silly and POV in your mentions. "killed while playing soccer" while ignoring (as an example) the Israeli father of 4 killed by a rocket while walking on his college campus. WP:NPOV definitely includes trying not to engage in emotional appeals in the article; you seem to have no concept of this. M1rth (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to be rude, I gather from your style, that you are not totally at home in English, and thus, while construing the grammar, miss the tone. The point of my exercise was, not to give my comprehensive version of events (were I to do that of course I would include more detail on the Sderot barrage, it wasn't detailed in the one page I was paraphrasing), but to summarize just one article, looking back over several days, and giving a synthesis, to show what can be done. It is self-evident, or should be, that what I proposed as a model is nothing but that, a model, which lends itself to interleavening from other sources, balancing, adding statements like the one you mention. User:Michael Safyan has made a similar point in his earlier post, suggesting one not edit frenetically according to one's favourite new bit of info, which would involve the error of WP:Recentism. Dead are on both sides, violence on both sides, stupidity on both sides. That is what constitutes, in the contemporary world as opposed to historical past, adherence to WP:NPOV.
As to your remarks on sources, I asked you refer me to the specific Wiki policy guidelines which support your assertions. So far you have not been forthcoming about what policy underlies your distinction between RS and the Reliable Sourcing RS texts are supposed in turn to use. I'm not interested in your personal views on policy, but in official policy.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken references

Just bringing your attention to some broken references. At a glance, there is a citation error for "hudna", and citation #56 ("MFA-Gaza") is empty. There may be more broken references than these. If you contributed any of these references or know what these references ought to contain, will you please fix them? Thank you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Israel-Gaza conflict

As "2003 to present" section is going to become too long, I propose to make a new article:2008 Israel-Gaza conflict--Seyyed(t-c) 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Suicup (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I support your proposal. --GHcool (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to add NPOV information by using neutral sources, such as Haaretz. However please check my work. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; sensible move.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


General Consideration

While I think the semantic issue above of some importance, unlike User:Suicup, I do think his frustration more than legitimate. As far as I can recall offhand, no one here has found anything problematical about the way he has intervened to fix up the introduction. We all owe him a word of thanks. If there are no objections to the way he has wikified that section of the page, then I think we should, variously apologize for not being of more assistance by a very practical measure. I.e. to offer, individually and collectively, to abstain from editing this page until he has had the time to push his adjustments through the whole article. I.e. to give him a completely free hand. One can note things one disagrees with, keep them aside, and let him finish what he undertook to do. It would be a pity if the page were to lose the talents and equilibrium of someone who, not being a party to the disputes the rest of us are entangled in, could sort out, without disruption, the mess much of this page is in. Nothing he might do to alter the page is definitive, but, after a few years, a fresh start from a page worked over by a neutral hand is a desideratum. Perhaps User:Suicup might not think the effort worth the candle, but, if we can agree to shut up, and just reply with great brevity (esp.myself) and quickly to any request he might make on this talk page, one and all, then he would encounter less indifference than he has so far, and the page and its eventual readership would be the beneficiaries. This proposal would only be worth making formally to User:Suicup if all recent editors underwrote such an undertaking. We missed out first time round, and it looks like another opportunity to benefit from a neutral outside hand may well be long in coming, if ever.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Our refugee from Dictionopolis would do well to consider brevity. M1rth (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Brevity is the soul of wit
Beloved of every soulless git
Who twits the verbose with a short
Wiki-link to save on thought.
For thought takes time, and time is money.
Thought's time's coin flushed down a dunny.
Thus anal types prefer to spend
Their time in saving up, dear friend,
Whatever thoughts do cross their mind,
In private banks, where safely primed,
They're lent on interest, when the poor
Come knocking at the thinker's door.
Otherwise, a quip's enough
To call the loosebowelled wordsmith's bluff.
There's point in this, my riposte's long:
Proof again, you ain't quite wrong
So, as you say then, mum's the word:
Who thinks too much must be deturd.
Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Article atmosphere

Recently, article atmosphere has really degraded and editors prefer to revert each, in team effort no less, other rather than discuss and reach consensus on removals or changes.

On topic, there is a recent point raised that "Palestinian Arab" is the equivalent of "Nigger". I'd appreciate a source that backs up this statement since to my opinion, it's ... well, wrong. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Woah there J, I said "Negro" not "Nigger." Negro is a neutral term that became obsolete and came to take on a derogatory association, like "coloured." United Negro College Fund, etc. (Part of the reason is that Southern racists would pronounce it "nig-ruh," halfway between "negro" and "nigger," but that's another story.) <eleland/talkedits> 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind, also, that making edits which one would reasonably expect to be controversial, without attempt to gauge consensus on the talk page, is at least as disruptive as reverting those changes back to a previously-discussed version. <eleland/talkedits> 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I noticed that you were fine with reverting, yourself, but you felt the need to remind everybody else that reverting is bad. <eleland/talkedits> 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You notice a lot and I give you kudos for that. Next time, I request you avoid pay special attention to (a) the tag-team atmosphere you and Suicup have nurtured on this article reverting for each other, and to (b) avoid explaining to us fellow editors what type of "people" prefer certain terminology [14] over other terminology.
p.s. you're one self-revert away from being reported on AE again. I hope you notice this too and make that self-revert. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Suicup has all but demanded that I step off this article, and I've reverted maybe three times in the last week, despite your wild and inaccurate threats. Go ahead and report me to AE if you think you have something worthwhile to report, but stop making threats on the article talk page, which is not meant for this stuff.
Now, please, say something relevant to the substantive point of terminology here. "Palestinians" is at least an order of magnitude more common in English-language RSs than "Palestinian Arabs" to describe the people at issue, probably two. The Google test is not authoritative, but a ratio of 256 to 1 is pretty damn significant (as if we didn't already all know what the common terminology was, and you were engaging seriously, rather than reverting, trolling, and making threats.) <eleland/talkedits> 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is, between "Palestinians" and "Palestinian Arabs." Both are correct, aren't they? Why can't an editor use either one? 6SJ7 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, both the Jewish and the Arab populations of the British Mandate for Palestine were referred to as "Palestinians." In 2008, the term "Palestinian" refers only to the Arab population of the British Mandate for Palestine and their decedents. A discussion of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a more precise term than "Palestinian." All of the history books refer to the group as "Palestinian Arabs." --GHcool (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a discussion of the history of the conflict. It is the first sentence of a general high level article about the conflict. You are confusing the purpose of the articles - right now, the conflict 'in a nutshell' is between Israel and the Palestinians. If you feel the need to elaborate upon this (which is great) then a new section in the article should be created reflecting this fact. Suicup (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This will be the last thing I say on this article for a while because i'm sick of the crap and it is tiring me. Firstly, Jaakobou I think it is hilarious that you accuse me of being a 'tag-team' with eleland. Do you think i'm in a cabal too? You know me him and about 5 others are plotting a conspiracy to undermine you. Secondly, there was a sizable discussion on the intro over a period of a couple of weeks, where many editors gave input. As a result of that input and consensus, a new version of the intro was drafted. We now have a situation where editors such as User:Doright, User:M1rth and to an extent User:GHcool, have come in ex post facto and pushed changes. Why did they not bother to join in the discussion merely a couple of weeks ago? Why didn't they complain when the intro was finished? Why have they waited to make their changes? Indeed, did they even read the now archived discussion at all? Very interesting if you ask me. Thirdly, is something related to this very argument, namely, 99% of editors on this article are totally disinterested in improving the key content, and actually fixing the overall article. Rather, they only want to pick fights on certain words, and semantic issues, in order to win 'political' points for their 'side'. When i did some archiving a couple of days ago, there were pages and pages and pages of pointless disputes over frankly nothing substantial at all. Meanwhile, the history section was totally woeful, missing content from 1967 to basically 2003. This is a disgrace. I remember one user making a comment about a week or so ago on the talk pages saying the word 'intifada' was nowhere to be found in this article??? And yet people are more willing to spend time and effort debating the word 'the' rather than bothering to transfer content across from the history article, and hence make this one better. There are many other examples in the article, however and the history is just one - hell the intro was another and i tried in vein to fix that. I cannot understand why people are happy to spend their presumably limited editing time by partaking in forum like religious debates, rather than doing the real work of adding absent content or cleaning up entire 'unclean' sections. It is essentially a big game and reverting something you personally don't like is a part of that game, and people seem to get a thrill out of it. Unfortunately I am also partially guilty because it seems impossible not to be sucked into that vortex. So i wish good luck to editors such as User:Nishidani and User:Sm8900, because i think they are reasonable, knowledgable, wise and can see where i am coming from. I don't wish anything to editors such as User:Jaakobou who constantly seems to be at the centre of what he describes as a 'degraded article atmosphere'. Has he ever considered that he might be part of the problem? regards Suicup (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)