Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sidebars[edit]

I put the Geography and Timeline sections into sidebars. I think it's far better than it was before. The content could use editing, as could the layout; I'm not very good with colors and such. Please have at it. PS: If anyone doesn't like how I've described or grouped events in the timeline, please just edit it rather than telling me about it here. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I moved it up below the first image. We could probably use an infobox tbh. nableezy - 01:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, with maps, collapsible sections with little background info blurbs (geography, demographics, parties), and the timeline. Levivich (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts on what kind of infobox, and what sections it should have? My thoughts:
Jordanian annexation of the West Bank uses template:infobox former country; there are some parts I like, but it doesn't seem like an exact match
Template:infobox military conflict, similarly, has some parts I like, but other parts that are inapplicable
Template:infobox 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests also has some parts I like, other parts that are inapplicable
I'm not finding anything exactly on point; perhaps we need something entirely new, a template:military occupation? Levivich (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

To revive this conversation from last month: what do people think about adding Template:infobox civil conflict and making the existing timeline and geography sidebars into collapsable parts of that infobox? Levivich (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Second call to see if anyone objects to my adding Template:infobox civil conflict to this article. (I don't want to spend the time if the addition will be reverted.) Thanks. Levivich? ! 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
This is not a civil conflict, but a military one (albeit one sided). The description of that infobox specifically says to not use it for military conflicts. If you think it can be made to fit, you could make a mock-up of it here so that we can see what you intend. Zerotalk 23:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Template:infobox military conflict is better? Levivich? ! 00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Neither really fits - the military one is even a worse fit. Some sort of government/administration infobox might be appropriate - but if there isn't an appropriate infobox for an occupation - we shouldn't force one that doesn't fit into the article. Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Israeli security concerns[edit]

Following this revert of well sourced information (though needing expansion - Jordanian artillery fire, Palestinian cross-border raids pre-1967, concerns of rocket fire at Israel, and additional security concerns) I've placed a POV tag. Israeli security concerns are part of any serious analysis of the Israeli occupation from a geopolitical perspective, including most analysis of possible solutions that would end the occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) see below. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: added the below paragraph. The placement at the top of the article seemed very odd, and it is missing important context.

During the 1967 Six-Day War, Jordanian artillery shelled the suburbs of Jerusalem and coastal cities. In parallel to the Israeli offensive in Jersualem, Israeli forces moved into the northern West Bank where long-range Jordanian artillery was bombarding Israel. Following the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza which increased Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, preventing the West Bank from becoming a platform for rocket attacks against Israel is one of Israel's main security concerns. Since the West Bank is very close to all major Israeli population centers, such attacks would place nearly all Israeli community under threat. Furthermore, the ability to operate Ben Gurion Airport, Israel's main international airport, would come into question.

Examples of missing context:

  • The shelling / artillery bombardment in 1967 was Egyptian-led - the Jordanian army was headed and directed by Egyptians. The attacks were in retaliation for Israel's destruction of the Egyptian air force.
  • Stating that the "Israeli disengagement from Gaza increased Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" is propaganda. The reality was much more complex. The Israeli political need to play tough in front of its voters poisoned any hope of positive relations between Gaza and Israel, which manifested itself in a variety of actions that increased tension. The Sharon-Olmert governments' meddling in intra-Palestinian politics likely had more to do with the rocket attacks that any other factor. The withdrawal was just one of many factors.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

As Jordanian artillery fire and cross-border raiding by Palestinians preceded the occupation, and the on-going security concerns are one of the major reasons for the occupation - placement at the beginning makes sense. The cited source clearly ties the occupation to Jordanian artillery fire (that the Egyptians directed (or not - this is debated) it is immaterial to the Israeli security concern - the possibility of foreign influence only increases the concern). Your assertion that concerns of rocket fire are propaganda are interesting - but RSes seem to analyze this concern (as well as the concern of shoulder-slung SAMs being employed in the hills around Ben-Gurion airport). Israeli security concerns are quite obviously a rather major component of the occupation itself as well as any agreed solution that would end the occupation - being a major item in on-going negotiations for the past few decades. Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Right. I agree that Israeli security concerns are a component of the occupation. Security concerns were also a component of Josef Fritzl's 20-year-plus confinement of his family to the basement.
I have no objection to security concerns being in this article, but they must be in their proper context.
As to your points, there is no debate at all about who made the decision to launch artillery fire in 1967. I will bring RS quotes if you like. Why the artillery fire was launched is not at all immaterial - Jordan never threatened Israel, and was only ever signed up to attack in retaliation. There is no debate about this - Jordan was never considered a proactive threat.
My point on Gaza is the same. If you want to raise it as a parallel to the West Bank, then you have to include all the context. Making Israel look like an innocent victim, when both sides were to blame for the poor subsequent relations between Israel and Gaza, is classic propaganda and not befitting of our encyclopedia.
As to your placement point, you are clearly trying to imply that if Israel disengaged from the West Bank there would be security concerns, but you have done so without sources. It is classic WP:SYNTH.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Meantime all the article is without the proper context removing it.Its clear WP:POV violation --Shrike (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I hadn’t noticed that - could you please point to specific examples in the article text? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Jewish connection to the history of the region is missing.Israeli security concerns are missing.The fact the Palestinians time after time refused their own state and so one.WP:UNDUE space to various organisation critical of Israel while the opposing views are missing that what I found from cursory reading of this article as good example of one-sided WP:TE --Shrike (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Your first two sentences are covered in other articles in great detail.
Your third sentence which claims ”...opposing views are missing...” is very important. Can you point to specific examples?
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Israeli concerns on Palestinian rockets are long-standing (harking back to PLO rocket fire from Lebanon) - e.g. Duncan, Andrew. "The military threat to Israel." Survival 24.3 (1982): 98-107. - Whilst it may be possible to ensure that conventional forces are excluded from the West Bank after Israeli withdrawal, it would be impossible to guarantee that no form of terrorist activity would ever be mounted against Israel from the area. No doubt the border security fence, so carefully obliterated in 1967, could be reconstructed so as to severely limit the possibility of infiltration and the smuggling of explosives into Israel, but the problem of longer range indirect weapons would remain. Presumably the PLO-held BM-21 multi-barrelled rocket launchers, used for the first time in the largescale rocket attacks in the northern towns and settlements in June 1981, could be kept out. But the man-pack variety of Katyusha rockets, however inaccurate, could not fail to hit Jerusalem or the Tel Aviv area. Every plane landing or taking of! at Ben Gurion airport would be in range of hand-held SAMS located in the West Bank. Israeli security concerns, after the experience of so many years of terrorism, must be taken into account, and, especially in the initial years, territorial compromise and other confidence-building measures will be essential.. Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I suggest a section called “Considerations regarding Israeli withdrawal” or similar. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Extensively written on - e.g. This Oxford University Press book has quite a bit on the rocket threat on the Jordan Valley's importance to Israeli security. As for your suggestion - this was (and is) the raison d'etre of the occupation - not just any possible future withdrawal. Clearly the occupier is a significant portion of the occupation, and we should devote extensive coverage to the occupier's concerns. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously the raison d’etre of the occupation is a highly contentious and debated issue. Different members of the Israeli establishment had different views on the topic back in 67. But your underlying point is right - there should be a section on the reasons that Israel decided to occupy the area - that will fit chronologically into the “Conquest” section (perhaps you want to create a subsection under that heading?)
Then a withdrawal considerations section could be added towards the end of the article, perhaps as a subsection under “Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation”?
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, Indeed, although the history of attacks may be more fitting for a new Background section (see section two up for more discussion on this). I guess withdrawal considerations would fit in that section, although in its current state it's more "Economic and social costs of the occupation". Bellezzasolo Discuss 14:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, I have access to that book, if required. SOLO Bellezzasolo Discuss 14:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The establishment, continuation, and possible withdrawal (or some other arrangement -- all being rather crystal bally) are all inter-coupled - they can not be separated (are we going to discuss the Jordan Valley and mountain pass choke points in triplicate?) The Israeli security considerations are clearly an important point for the Israelis who have decided to establish and continue this occupation - said considerations should be presented (as well as varying opinions within the Israeli establishment, and outside it, regarding various considerations). Bellezzasolo - if you have a suggestion for points we should present here, this would be swell.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this is a question of optimal flow. I think we have dealt with the POV question. There are no objections to the additions we have discussed, so long as you ensure balance and context. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The article already deals with the problem of security threats and calculations in several points (the Alon Plan, Molad's analysis and other sources stating the costs to Israel of occupation, the settlement project creating security issues where none existed beforehand). Read the article. Material as above about rocket threats and the like is meaningless for the West Bank, which is not Gaza. There are any number of sources that will tell you retaining the West Bank as a security buffer with the technological revolution (iron dome, satellite surveillance, improved missile technology allowing wars to be waged over thousands of miles regardless of the terrain, rendering borders irrelevant to strategy etc.) is no argument for enhanced security, To the contrary. The article re Lebanon is of no use, since historical analysis has revealed Israel struck Lebanon precisely when an 8 month truce on rocket exchanges had held. This is another can of worms for anyone who thinks documenting political assertions is tantamount to setting the factual record straight. What are the security concerns behind land expropriation, torture, shooting children, polluting the West Bank, exploiting its raw materials and water reserves,etc.etc.etc. It will be very difficult to show that all is governed by defense worries.
Whatever, any such addition has to be represented as a political claim because there is a substantial record that Israeli intelligence specialists and IDF veterens regard the occupation as a threat to Israel.

“We’re on a steep slope toward an increasingly polarized society and moral decline, due to the need to keep millions of people under occupation on claims that are presented as security-related," J. J. Goldberg 106 Retired Israeli Generals, Spy Chiefs Urge Netanyahu to Push for Peace Haaretz 3 November 2014

to cite just the first that popped into mind, and that will be, along with dozens of other sources, be elicited by the proposed expansion. It will need full page treatment to be done in the round.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, material about rocket threats is not meaningless for the West Bank. The whole point is that Israeli presence in the area prevents attacks such as those launched from Gaza. But rather than a relatively remote strip, the West Bank overlooks Jerusalem and the Israeli coastal plain (population heartland). While it's obviously speculation, that's the nature of a security concern - that on withdrawal, Hamas at some point take control of the West Bank (Hamas being more popular in the West Bank than Gaza), and follow the course set out in their charter. The source quoted by Icewhiz is older, so poses the same threat in the context of the PLO, but it's certainly a notable position. The article should reflect that. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there a source that relates "rocket threats" to the ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Not what some random Wikipedia editors suppose, but actual reliable sources? [R]aison d'etre of the occupation. Wow, thats a new one. But again, sources, not speculation from random people on the internet. Reliable sources that specifically relate some topic to the occupation are required to include that topic in this article. Full stop. nableezy - 01:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Might be some here. Levivich? ! 04:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
There are quite a few sources - harking back in the early 80s (at least - dragged a few of them up and posted in the thread above) - and continuing through 2019. There are also several sources on the strategic importance of the Jordan Valley. We can argue until we are blue in the face whether such concerns are justified or not - however that would be pointless. Israel has chosen to occupy the West Bank, and clearly Israeli considerations are of material significance for the choice made in the Israeli occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
If you believe Israel owns the West Bank, then the Jordan Valley becomes a strategic asset, and any attempt by the evicted or to be displaced Palestinians there is a 'security threat' irrespective of any considerations of international law, that Israel has no right to that land. It can be thoroughly documented that many official sources on each occasion of conflict, raises security threats. Israel backed the emergence of Hamas because the presence of Fatah in the Gaza Strip was a 'security threat', only to live to regret the situation; Israel broke the bones of 30,000 youths in the First Intifada, because their throwing stones in protest against the occupation was a 'security threat'; Israel governed its 20% Palestinian minority by applying to them 'military law' for 17 years (1949-1966) because they were a 'security threat'; Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 because of 'security threats'(breaking the ionternationally guaranteed ceasefire that was in place); that it pressed on to hold the Sinai (and make settlements there) because of security threats; that it occupied the Golan Heights and started settlements there because of 'security threats'; that it is bombing deep into Syria now because of 'security threats'; that it bombed Iraq because of security threats; that it kills a lot of engineers in Tehran because of 'security threats'; that it has assassinated people from Norway and Tunis, Rome and Paris because of 'security threats' (several were harmless and unconnected with any known threat, as emerged later). Once you invade a foreign country (and especially if you flood it with settlers), be it China with the UIghurs, or the Tibetans, Russia in Chechnya , France in Algeria, Italy in Libya, South Africa in Namibia, the US in Vietnam, you will get 'think tank' (where thinking tanks) talking heads in all the occupying nations talking over the conflict as one posing a security threat to the civilized world, and the imperial nation in question. It's easy to write up 'security threat' passages on all of those pages. It's even easy to give details of how fatuous the claim is. If Zionism proclaims a god-given right to all of the land Palestinians live in, any opposition is, ipso facto a 'security threat', the security being the right of nice people from Moscow, Semien,Trujillo, Brooklyn etc. to live in comfortable chalets in, as Ehud Barak called it, the Palestinian jungle, undisturbed by muezzin prayer buzzes at dawn, or people speaking Arabic in Jerusalem.
The proposed para will of course have to deal with all sorts of things, like settler demands for a separate bus system in the West Bank because the presence of Arabs engenders a feeling of insecurity: we'll have to add that barring Palestinians from the Jewish road system there is on 'security grounds'; that Palestinian land can be expropriated to strengthen the security of settlements; that Palestinians can't import a large range of chemicals, metals, etc because of 'security concerns', that torture hass been justified by the High Court if there is a security threat; that children and youths are shot dead because the occupying soldiers have rules allowing them to do so if their security is endangered. Come to think about it, a large part of the article already deals with the security threat rationale. People objecting to it simply have not read it closely enough.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Some of the article deals with the implications of Israel's perceived security threats and the actions Israel took to redress said perceived threats. However, we do not present the perceived security threats from the Israeli perspective, leaving our rather poor readers wondering about the underlying purpose and motivation of the occupier (we do make a few snide asides and allusions that perhaps imply a picture, but we do not cover the Israeli motivations at any depth). Suppose we take your premise of Israeli criminality at face value - even in articles such as Heaven's Gate (religious group) and Slender Man stabbing we present the motives of the perpetrators at great length - despite the motives being criminally insane (i.e. Slender Man). There's copious sourcing on Israeli security concerns and the continuing occupation Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
'Israel's perceived security threats' vary according to which Israeli figure you are referring to, and what specific context they refer to. Someone I think added more bits about West Bank security problems with Jordan, ignoring to add that under the 1994 treaty, that is no longer a 'threat' in so far as its de jure legal regime obliges both countries to collaborate on security threats in that area. There are settlers who think any Arabs in their proximity are a security threat, settlers who welcome cohabitation with local Palestinians in their area; politicians who raise the spectre of a demographic threat as a security issue (beginning with Allon), others who accept a binational state; ex Shin Bet heads, and 106 generals state Netanyahu should make a peace and give back significant portions of the West Bank; some politicians say this would spell doom for Israel's security. So you can't just write up something about 'Israel's security' without specifying who or which group in Israel proposed this or that as a security issue. Indeed, as editing recently shows, some wikipedians are plunking in 'stuff' on security unaware that it is mentioned throughout the article, at least 31 times.
  • (1) Generally, international jurists affirm that the longer the occupation, the greater must be the weight of the occupied people's humanitarian needs in any assessment of the occupying power's security measures
  • (2)In the former, it is essentially dissociated from the 50 year long practice of occupying Palestinian lands and used to refer only to an intermittent recourse to military methods to contain episodic upsurges of hostile Palestinian resistance, a means employed when the security of an otherwise peaceful state is said to be at stake.
  • (3)the Wall becomes a "fence" or "security barrier".
  • (4)General Chaim Herzog announced on 7 June 1967, that all previously existing laws would remain in force, save in cases where they conflicted with the rights of Israel as Occupying Power to ensure security for both its forces and public order
  • (5)The military even closely supervised elections in local clubs, cooperatives or charitable organizations:West Bank lawyers were banned on security grounds from organizing professionally a bar association
  • (6)Molad's conclusion is that defending settlements has a negative impact on Israel's security
  • (7)With Military Order No. 393 (14 June 1970), the local commander was given the power and authority to block any construction if, in his evaluation, the building might pose a danger to Israel's security.
  • (8)This ruling actually enhanced the settlement project since anywhere Israelis settled automatically became a security zone requiring the military to guarantee their safety
  • (10)Ariel was initially built on 462 hectares originally seized for security reasons. On the three successive occasions when security fences have been raised, they have incorporated hundreds of dunams of private Palestinian agricultural property
  • (11)The IDF declared the antennae would pose a security issue, and then expropriated the site from its owners
  • (12)If security calculations influenced the relatively small-scale settlements advanced by the Israeli Labour Party, the reconfirmation of Likud in 1981 led to a rapid escalation of settlement as a religious-national programme
  • (13)According to Neve Gordon, Israel uses lawfare "to encode the field of human rights and in this way (has) help(ed) frame human rights work in Israel as a security threat
  • (14)The principle is unambiguous – "an occupier cannot expel a single person, however much that person constitutes a security risk".[
  • (15)In the first two decades of occupation Palestinians were required to apply to the military authorities for permits and licenses for an enormous number of things such as a driver's license, a telephone, trademark and birth registration, and a good conduct certificate which was indispensable to obtain entry into many branches of professions and to work places, with putative security considerations determining the decision, which was delivered by an oral communication. The overwhelming source of information on security risks came from the Shin Bet
  • (16)Even when some powers were delegated to the Palestinian Authority, the appropriate Palestinian offices were reduced to acting as "mailmen", passing on requests for permits to the Israeli Civil Administration, 80-80% of which are then rejected on unexplained "security grounds
  • (17)The Fourth Geneva Convention permits detentions, and on these precedents the IDF promulgated its Article 87 of the Order Concerning Security Instructions, and applied it to cases where the rules of evidence of Israeli courts would not allow the suspect to be convicted
  • (18) the evidence from multiple outside observers over a decade suggests Palestinian children under Israel military detention suffer cruel and degrading treatment. In law, the prohibition against such practices is "absolute and unconditional," and even security considerations or threats of war cannot override the rule
  • (19)However, under security provisions, local laws can be suspended by the occupying power and replaced with military orders enforced by military courts[461] In 1988, Israel amended its Security Code in such a way that international law could no longer be invoked before the military judges in their tribunals
  • (20)In practice, Israel evaluates proposed family reunifications in terms of a perceived demographic or security threat.
  • (21)The 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), or CEIL, subsequently renewed in 2016 imposed a ban on family unification between Israeli citizens or "permanent residents" and their spouses who are originally of the West Bank or Gaza. Such a provision does not apply, however, to Israeli settlers in the West Bank or (until 2005) Gaza. In such instances, the prohibition is explained in terms of "security concerns".
  • (22)The court's decision had no effect on the military's censorship body in the West Bank and Gaza, and plays can be closed if it is thought their content threatens Israel's security
  • (23)Following an Ottoman practice of uprooting olive trees to punish tax evasion, Israel began destroying groves, but with the expressed purpose of increasing security for settlements,
  • (24)This complex can be broken down into eight societal values informing a unilateral outlook: (a) The justice of Israel's cause; (b) Security (including national survival
  • (25)Recent research suggests that four of these – the persistence of a sense of historic trauma and an ethos of conflict (delegitimization of the opponent, security, own victimization and justness of one's own goals) – consistently influence decision-making on the conflict in the Israeli Supreme Court
  • (26)A concern for security in Israel has been said to "vastly exceed the norm for other Western countries".
  • (27)The Palestinian view is that Israel's insistence on negotiating a solution to its security concerns, extending to its settlements, is always formulated at the expense of Palestinian rights
  • (28)Corruption, social decay and dishonesty are pursued with commendable determination by newspapers, TV and radio... When it comes to "security" there is no such freedom. It's "us" and "them", the IDF and the "enemy"; military discourse, which is the only discourse allowed, trumps any other possible narrative.
  • (29) Israel's top defense experts agree that while the settlements may have helped national security in the past, this is no longer the case. Having Israeli civilians living throughout the West Bank does not help defend the country; instead, it encumbers the security forces, is a drain on the national defense budget, and complicates the military's work by lengthening the lines of defense. Instead of concentrating on fighting terrorism against Israel, security forces have to divert considerable resources to protecting citizens who have chosen to live in the heart of Palestinian territory
  • (30)This expansion was backed by a tight check over the development of Palestinian villages and towns, where hundreds of houses on private lands were demolished every year on the grounds that they were illegal or, more recently, a threat to the security of Jewish settlers.
  • (31) The centrality of security, the extensive human capital and social capital invested in the military, and the country's institutional interests created in Israel a social structure different from that of democracies living in peace
  • (32) In one section I left out because of the complaints about length, I documented from impeccable sources that Israel has often denied Catholic priests entry to the West Bank on 'security grounds'. That obviously would go in to any proposed 'security section', though I think it more intelligent from an 'Israeli' perspective to just do as I have done, mention without quotation brackets, throughout the text that, with regard to this, or that, Israel has cited security reasons for what it did. What editors do not appear to understand is that amalgamating all this quietly dispersed stuff into one specific section will not achieve what perhaps they wish to get over. To the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Going back through files and downloaded papers, I see that the material on expressed security concerns is indeed massive, and I'm quite happy to thicken this out, if editors want it, but it will cover far more bases than just some paragraph about some generic ontological, unchanging 'Israeli' security concern. One could on the other hand, since a few editors complain of length, simply collate the 31 passages already here on 'security' above into the proposed section. Any number of options exist. Just dumping in political quotes about attitudes (several already exist re 'security' being a national obsession) doesn't help. This article strives to be factual: it is not an exploration of POVs, and, it strives to avoid the usual I/P crap sheets that are written by one editor plunking in his preferred perspective or angle, and then another with the other POV retaliating with a counter example of his or her preferred spin, citing invariably journalists or politicians.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had time to read all of this discussion but yes to collating the passages already in the article re: security into one section re: security. I refer to my first comment here from two months ago, about 200k above us, TLDR summary: the article should start with a background section establishing the basic facts of who (parties), where (geography), when (timeline/chronology of major events), and then be followed by thematic sections (Israeli security concerns, and essentially all of the existing sections in the article). If a reader wants to know about one aspect of the occupation, they shouldn't have to read the entire article; e.g., they should be able to just go to an "Israeli security concerns" section to read about that aspect, rather than plowing through 160k of text. Because doing what I propose will substantially increase the length of an already-too-long article, the thematic sections should be spun off into child article. For example, "Israeli security concerns" could be its own article, discussing West Bank but also Gaza and Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc.; a summary relative to the West Bank could exist here as its own section, with a pointer to the larger related article about security concerns. The same could be done with, e.g., Israeli human rights abuses of Palestinians, which could be a separate article, the West Bank portion of which is summarized here with a {further} hatnote. Levivich? ! 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Well if you wanted to cut this down, the last way to do that was to add geography and timelines which are all over I/P articles, in an article that adds a large amount of information in none of the other articles. Why are you insisting the text be radically reduced, while, on the other hand, claiming it needs a major expansion? You say, gut the article by forking off at least half the content while filling it out with an eye-catching overture prioritizing Israel's security. That is an immense displacement of facts in favour of POV platforming, and can hardly be taken seriously.
Secondly, an Israeli-security perspective elicits a corresponding Palestine security perspective, for as the text note#27 above implied, Israeli measures designed to ensure security for Israelis, are almost invariably measures that reduce Palestinians' sense of security. Pertinent here is Emile Badarin's Palestinian Political Discourse: Between Exile and Occupation, Routledge, 2016 978-1-317-32600-7 'In this framework, “security” operated in one direction: Israeli security and Palestinian insecurity.' p.191
Per NPOV therefore, the paragraph you support, apart from requiring several paras to cover the extensive literature, ought to include the corresponding equation: Israeli security concerns have consistently worked out to render Palestinians less secure. Really, you need at least another article to do justice to the topic. How do we cope, for example, in this para, with the literature on the meta-analysis of the language of Israeli claims to be under threat, and insecure? There are whole books on this, which identify it as a trend that became hegemonic only after 2000, 33 years into the occupation of the West Bank, in which regional conflicts swamped the issue of peace in exchange for territory, as the neo-revisionist form of Zionism, with its assertion of territorial maximalism, became, in one view, the consensus of Israeli politics?Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Israeli security is the motivation of the occupying force which chose to occupy and to continue to occupy the West Bank. Palestinian security, or lack thereof, is perhaps a consequence of occcupation - but has no significant effect on the Israeli choice to maintain its occupation. As this is an article on an Israeli occupation, the Israeli motive is key. If and when the Palestinians set up their own occupation, then perhaps we could discuss their motives.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the sources here say the contrary to what your personal opinion states. Israel, according to numerous sources (Gorenberg says it was an afterthought, 'accidental', for one), did not occupy the West Bank on security grounds, and in its peace treaty with Jordan in 1988 protocols were agreed on establishing joint cooperation to suppress any threats from there, to Israel or Jordan, an exact replica of the modus vivendi pre-existing 1967 (read the article). The position you outline is not a fact, but a 'social fact' identified by Raffaela Del Sarto as part of the recent surge to dominance of Zionist neo-revisionism, which had no say in the establishment of the occupation, but which draws on the principle in Likud's platform calling for the absorption of all of Palestine.

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

That was written in May 1977, 10 years after the occupation began, before the rise of the First Intifada, the Second Intifada, the radical alteration in the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, and Islamic terrorism. I.e. decades before 'security' became the omnium gatherum raison d'État to explain everything 'Israel' does or, counterfactually, did in the past, as in the kind of anachronistic rewriting of political history being suggested here.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Route forward[edit]

Reading the article cold, it strikes me that the structural logic could be improved, and that it could be restructured in a manner that would also address Icewhiz’s primary concern.

A straw man improved structure is below for comment / improvement - just three main sections, rather than the current 19 (the rest to become subsections):

  • "Initiation" => What is the occupation (a quick reference to its beginnings in 1967, a simple overview of what an occupation is)
  • "Duration" => Why is the occupation still going (i.e. the point re this being the world’s longest, Israeli security explanations [and critique thereof], failure of international pressure, Israeli demographic concerns [i.e. why no annexation, and the influence of the Arnon Sofer thesis], Israeli irredentism/nationalism/“liberation” rhetoric)
  • "Implications" => Implications of the occupation (with many subsections)

Please could editors comment on this proposal at a high level? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
  1. "Initiation" - a background of 1948-67 probably should be there (e.g. possibly roots of the conflict, 1948 war (and 1949 armistice in regards to West Bank), cross-border raids in the 60s, etc.) as well. Possibly two sections (e.g. background and initiation).
  2. "Duration" - I think the title is bad. I think this should contain Israeli motivations (complex, of course) and diplomatic initiatives. I don't think we should address ESSAYish stuff (e.g. why is this the longish) - but merely document the viewpoints behind these motivations.
  3. "Implications" - yes, possibly different title (not sure what).
Overall - yes - this would be a better outline.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree with the above and think this high-level convo will be useful to have. FYI some time ago I started putting together a rearranged TOC. In case it helps, I've pasted it into my sandbox here. The numbers refer to section numbers in the existing article. I'm sharing it now because it kind of fits the above rubric and maybe it'll save some typing. Everyone, please feel free to use it in any way that might help, including copying it to somewhere else, editing it in my sandbox (anyone is welcome to do so), or ignoring it and this post and me completely. :-) Hope this helps. Levivich? ! 08:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: Looking at your TOC - what's missing is "Israeli security considerations" (or motives), "peace process/diplomatic initiatives", and a "Palestinian National Authority" (whatever one's views of the PNA, it is quite obvious it is relevant to the regime of occupation in the WB for the past 25 years or so). Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, yes there's a lot missing. Actually, there's almost nothing new; after rearranging the existing sections, I abandoned the effort before I gave any thought to adding new sections or consolidating the current ones. Standing invitation to copy or edit the TOC (add the missing sections, rearrange, etc.) if it's useful now or any point in the future of this conversation. Levivich? ! 08:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Levivich - diff in your sandbox. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Icewhiz: OK, we can call that section "Israeli motivations". Subsections can be: Israeli “liberation” rhetoric, Israeli security explanations and critique, Israeli demographic concerns / lack of annexation, failed diplomatic initiatives. The first section can include the "longest in history" point. And perhaps the last section could be called "Status" or something similarly bland.
Having reflected further, I think the Israeli motivations section should be at the end. Logically we should first explain that the situation is inhumane, and then explain the complex reasons why Israeli society have allowed this situation to fester for 50+ years. So the logic would be
  • Initiation and Duration
  • Status
  • Israeli motivations
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not our place to judge as to whether a situation is humane or not. Furthermore, not all diplomatic initiatives failed completely - e.g. the much maligned 1993 Oslo accords resulted in significant changes on the ground as did the 2005 Israeli disengagement plan (all be it in a small corner of the northern West Bank - but creating a greater demographic continuum between Wadi Ara and Jenin-Tulkarm). In terms of organization - generally causes (Israeli motivations) come before effects (impact). Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
All of these points are addressed throughout the article.
Initiation" - a background of 1948-67 probably should be there (e.g. possibly roots of the conflict, 1948 war (and 1949 armistice in regards to West Bank), cross-border raids in the 60s, etc.) as well. Possibly two sections (e.g. background and initiation).

Before the Six-Day War, there had been an unwritten agreement between Israel and the Jordanian government to uphold the neutrality of the border between the two countries along the Green Line. According to King Hussein, after Israel retaliated against Syrian-backed guerrilla infiltrations and sabotage[122] by conducting on 13 November 1966 an assault on Samu in the West Bank, an area administered by Jordan, that tacit accord was broken.[ak] After Israel attacked Egypt at 8 a.m. on 5 June 1967, Jordan responded by shelling Israeli targets in West Jerusalem, and settlements along the border and then, after ignoring an Israeli warning, by attacking Israeli airfields in Ramat David and Kfar Syrkin, but also Netanya.[124] In response, the Israeli army in a swift campaign took possession of East Jerusalem and, after news that King Hussein had ordered his forces to withdraw across the Jordan, took the entire West Bank by noon on 8 June.[125][al]

2."Duration" - I think the title is bad. I think this should contain Israeli motivations (complex, of course) and diplomatic initiatives. I don't think we should address ESSAYish stuff (e.g. why is this the longish) - but merely document the viewpoints behind these motivations.

The length of Israel's prolonged occupation was already regarded as "exceptional" after two decades[30][i] and is now deemed to be the longest in modern history

3."Implications" - yes, possibly different title (not sure what).
  • 17 Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation
  • 17.1 Communications
  • 17.2 Overall economic costs
  • 17.3 Indirect costs to Israel
  • 17.4 Cultural impact
  • 18 Wider implications
The article title explains what the factual focus of this page is: the Israeli occupation and its impact on Palestinians. It is about, legitimately, the mechanics of occupation, which are known in huge detail but even fully given here, and not about the numerous motivations that have been given or speculated about, as to the concept of Israel's occupation. It's one thing to write the details of the design, mechanics and production of an airplane or motor vehicle: another to write a sociological account of the various engineers, CEOs, market forces that determined this choice of vehicle.
All objections here boil down to one thing: We need to focus on Israel's security concerns, its dilemmas as an occupying power; we need far more about the diplomatic history of negotiations between Israeli and Palestine. All this implies dealing with a topic area this article by definition ignores, i.e. the Gaza Strip. All Israel's diplomatic and security concerns regard, massively, the Gaza Strip as well, and that is so complex that there is no way such a topic could be addressed adequately without exploding the page by lengthy aggregations of material that have nothing to do with the facts on the ground, and everything to do with Israel's motivations. What is remarkable here is the intensity of suggestions, and zero work (well, I have slowly been expanding existing articles so material here can be shifted there) actually on sub pages that editors on the one hand are calling for (in proposing reductions and removals of facts there) and showing no sign of being interested in developing. The material I, for one, have on the interpretations of Israeli security concerns and general motivations and is substantial: it demands a full article exposition, and cannot be boiled down to a para or two, as far as I can see. So those proposing it are, operationally, suggesting that an article on the way an occupation works (which till now we lacked) be rewritten to outline, why Israel cannot or refuses to, extricate itself from the morass (a) Palestinians are a threat (b) Israel has no partner for peace because of Palestinian, Arab intransigence (ayn-partner le shalom / ayn-‘im mi ledaber) vs the large body of commentary on Israel's refusal to reply to the Arab Peace Initiative, which offered everything to Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from the territories; (c) The Oslo process (touched on already here) and its successes and disappointments; (d) Camp David and the disputes over who was in bad faith, etc.etc.etc. gentlemen, you want another article. All this is impossible to cover in less than a 200,000byte page, including Palestinian complaints Israel's security concerns mean invariably their insecurity is enhanced (a point I raised which received a deafening silence).Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That is essentially asking for a different topic, History of Attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talkcontribs)
The Gaza strip is a separate issue - conjoined diplomatically only for two decades (roughly phasing in/out from 1978 Camp David to the disengagement) - and even then disjoint in many regards. In general I would counter that, beyond the copious literature on Israeli motivations and concerns in regards to the occupation, that our articles on other topics - e.g. Indian removal, Indian reservation, focus quite a bit on the motivations of initiating and perpetuating the actions. Certainly some of the present article should be trimmed, as this is an article on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (Israeli actions and motivations being a large of the Israeli occupation) and not an article on Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank on Palestinian residents of the West Bank. Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Palestinians are only 'residents' in Israel's bureaucratic terminology. It's like calling Powhatan reflexively 'residents of Virginia' every time they are named. In that article, fairly, 'residents' is used exclusively of white people immigrating into their territory.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The Gaza Strip has been rigorously avoided here. Israel/Palestinian negotiations, Israeli/Palestinian security/insecurity concerns deal massively with the Gaza Strip, and in wanting that stuff here, you are pressing for a change of focus from the West Bank to the Palestinian territories, something that destabilizes the careful distinction in focus this page makes. Unlike the Indian removal (it is true that Zionism is not new, just an ethnic reworking of a hand-me-down version of the American Conquest/Light on the HIll/American exceptionalism narrative) which can draw on no 'native' archival literature to balance out the historical reconstruction from an Indian perspective, a colonial conflict like this has extensive archival material on the other side in the story, and therefore has a totally different methodology by necessity.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Security considerations of Gaza and the West Bank are separate - Gaza actually has comparatively few security ramifications for Israel. The Jordan Valley in the West Bank has been seen by many in the Israeli establishment as a line of defense against a possible ground attack from the East (traditionally - up until 2003 - by an Iraqi expeditionary force moving through Jordan). The missile/rocket/mortar threat from the West Bank is separate from Gaza (and has been discussed (sources in thread above) at least from the early 80s following the PLO's use of BM-21 Grads from Lebanon against Israel. The suicide bombing (and other types of terror) is also disjoint - Gaza was easy to seal off in the Second Intifada - most the terror attacks going into Israel came from the West Bank whose border is much more porous and undefined. But yes - this article should focus on the West Bank only. Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
2¢: Taking this article from Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank on Palestinian residents of the West Bank to Israeli occupation of the West Bank pretty much sums it up for me, and "History of attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank" would be a good section for this article, and could have a {further} tag to Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Levivich? ! 15:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "history of attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West Bank". "Palestinian residents of the West Bank"? You mean the people specifically covered by the law of occupation as the civilian inhabitants of the territory? Yes this article largely deals with the impact on Palestinians. That is because the source literature that discusses the occupation discusses its impact on the Palestinians, and obviously so. The entire purpose of the law of occupation is to safeguard the rights of the native population, of course the impact on them is going to be the topic that sources discuss when discussing the occupation. The above arrangement takes this from an article on the occupation, its history, its impact into one that is written as though this were a topic purely about Israel and Israel's concerns. nableezy - 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
All the points you make lack, systematically, recognition of an alternative point of view, even within the Israeli establishment, thus, the Jordan Valley is for some a security necessity, for others (Reuven Pedatzur, Can Give Up the Jordan Valley Haaretz 22 December 2013) not. If you want the security angle there, one just tweaks the Alon Plan/Moshe Dayan mention of the JV with 'for security reasons', and the problem is solved. This goes for most of the objections: tweak the text. The ground attack from the east refers to outdated military doctrine, no longer subscribed to by the IDF's strategy experts, for the obvious reason that moving large armies and vehicles over a desert in depth given contemporary missile and bombing technology is no longer feasible.Your other points are just chat. We should be focusing on how to resolve issues concretely, and most issues here are, in my view, tweaking matters. Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

───────@Nishidani: putting Icewhiz’s arguments aside, are you against a change to the structure per se? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I am mostly against the change suggested. There is room for some tweaks, but the idea that an article on an occupation shouldnt focus on the occupation and its impact to the civilians in the occupied territory to me seems foolish at best. nableezy - 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy: understood. What do you think is the appropriate way to address the question of why the occupation exists / has existed for so long? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Why it exists? I dont even know why thats a question, it exists because Israel seized the territory in June 1967 and has not relinquished it since. Why has it existed for so long? Again, because Israel has not relinquished the territory. There already exists in the legal status a portion on Israels argument that the West Bank isnt even occupied. There can be a section on Israeli considerations for withdrawal, but I dont even know what thought would contain. I dont know that Israel has ever even actually outlined what they would want to withdraw from the territory. The above has all been focused on why Israel feels a security need to retain the West Bank. Thats nice I suppose, but I dont see what that has to do with the occupation itself except in perpetuating it. Those are arguments for Israel to possess the West Bank, not to occupy it. Occupation being a temporary thing. Those arguments all being the opposite of temporary. nableezy - 16:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy: You make a very good point. Security concerns are an argument for possession (annexation), not the limbo of occupation.
So you saying that you consider the scope of this article is not about the conquest of the WB, but rather it’s specifically about it's legally unusual arrangement.
That’s fair enough, particularly given the conquest topic is well covered in other articles, but:
(1) this nuance around the scope should be made clear in the lead paragraph and in a hatnote (the latter pointing to other articles re conquest)
(2) we need to add a well sourced section explaining why Israel has never annexed or withdrawn, the only two ways of getting out of a military occupation
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Milton Friedman. That an occupation is supposed to be temporary (in this case, the occupying government contests, officially, that this is an occupation (while agreeing to apply the law of occupation)) does not mean this occupation is temporary nor others (e.g. Western Sahara conflict shows no signs of being temporary). The motivations of an occupier are key in describing an occupation. Effects on civilians - Jewish and Palestinians - in the occupied West Bank should of course be described as well - but the degree of influence said civilians have on the occupation is rather negligible. Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Your quotation of the great economist was cringeworthy. Government inefficiency and Israeli demographic-racist fear of annexation bear no connection. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
nableezy, the Taba Summit is probably a good starting point for withdrawal considerations. Bellezzasolo Discuss 17:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Once. Sorry for the late reply, I've been away al day and still at 9 pm haven't had time to rustle up some tucker. No, of course I am not opposed to structural changes. There's always time for imnprovment. The problem is simply that this was very carefully composed with a lot of attention to structure, and the first criterion of composition was (a) contextualize what follows in terms of a prefatory exposition of the highly contentious environmnent of claims and language, so the reader is alerted not to take what follows at face value, but reads with an eye to POV, even that of the main editors. (b) Then follow that by a background specific to the West Bank, and the transition that took place in 1967 (c) followed by a sequence outlining the essential mechanisms, thematically arranged, regarding how the occupation works, the mechanisms used, with particular attention to the legal principles or first instances of each theme. Ideally, I thought, every section should have first occasion of practice, military order justifying the practices, development through to the intifadas, and a coda with updates. I had to cut this back considerably in draft because of the immense amount of material available, considering the limits of articles.
I'm not finding the feedback helpful because it is driven by a paradox: cut this down by half (details re the factual structure of occupational policies for Palestinians) and bulk it out substantially by expansions on (a) the Jewish historic right to all of that land (b) the problem of securing safety for Israel and Israelis, as motivational elements. As I noted, security issues are touched on, if en passant at least 31 times, therefore it is not something I neglected.
Obviously, one can make a synthesis of Israel and Palestinian security issues per NPOV, as I offered above, and one can add to what is already stated re Israeli ideological, historical and religious reasons for the idea that they are entitled to every piece of Palestine. But they should come down the page, just as I put the Israeli criticisms at the bottom. I think these things should be worked out on the talk page, because individual drafts have been subpar citationally, historically and POV pushing. And now dinner.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

I try to follow a timeline in the articles I edit, ie, if something happened in 1925, it is mentioned before things which happened in 1926, which in turn is mentioned before 1927 events, etc.
Which is why I start thinking: while the cause of the occupation is of course important and should be discussed (whether it was Israel security concerns, or desire for West Bank land, or anything in-between), why does it belong in this article? Clearly most of that belongs in the Six-Day War, which came before the occupation, (which is what this article is about)?
However, a change is causality could belong in this article (or a separate one): remember: in 1967 it was all about the Arab neighbours were "just about" to invade Israel; Israels starting the war was a "preemptive strike", so we have been told a zillion times. (Remember 1982 Lebanon War; Israel claimed for ages that the invasion came after the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov. Israel magically managed to collect 10 thousands of men and thousands of armoured vehicles at the border in 6 hours.....before mobile phones.. ROTFL!) Huldra (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions that can be answered by an article about an occupation:

  1. When did the occupation take place?
  2. Where is the occupation?
  3. Who lives there? Who is doing the occupying? Who else is involved?
  4. What methods, actions, or behaviors are used to enforce the occupation? To resist the occupation?
  5. Why are the occupiers occupying? What do they want? What do the people being occupied want? (What does "left alone" mean, specifically?)
  6. How has the occupation changed over time?
  7. How has the occupation affected the people involved and the rest of the world? What do people think or say about the occupation?

Are these the right questions? Levivich? ! 20:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions that can be answered by an article about an occupation:

  1. When did the occupation take place?
That is already in the artcle
  1. Where is the occupation?
That is in the title and everything that follows
  1. Who lives there? Who is doing the occupying? Who else is involved?
That is already in the article, except for 'who else is involved' (the great powers etc.=
  1. What methods, actions, or behaviors are used to enforce the occupation? To resist the occupation?
That is already in the article.
  1. Why are the occupiers occupying? What do they want? What do the people being occupied want? (What does "left alone" mean, specifically?)
That is already in the article in good part. Israel hasn't yet decided what it ultimately wants, that varies from government to government, but in practice it wants the best land, control of the Central aquifers, as much room as possible for new settlements to enlarge the envisioned needs of future aliya waves; it wants the Palestinians to emigrate, to stop reproducing so vigorously as to upset the demographic majority, to sign an agreement renouncing all of their prior claims re repatriation, or payment for properties lost, or reclaiming land and resources. The Palestinians, it seems, have one simple base line request: fuck off back to 1967 Israel, and let us get on with having some semblance of dignity in an honorable unharassed poverty.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. How has the occupation changed over time?
Already in the article-
  1. How has the occupation affected the people involved and the rest of the world? What do people think or say about the occupation?
Why should the impact on the rest of the world be of interest? Why should some reports of Joe Blows polled in Akron, Shanghai or Birmingham be a useful addition to an article on the mechanics of a situation they have only accessed, vaguely and with no mention of the details, through random scraps of TV and newspaper reportage, mainly about terrorism, in between gorging their eyes on Netflix and munching Big Macs?Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are these the right questions?

The timeline we have, with apologies to the drafter, is useless because any of a dozen different versions of it could be filled out. As to 'why the occupation exists', the bare facts regarding the immediate occasion for the occupation are already there. If you go into the past, all sorts of factors never mentioned by Wikipedia arise, not least of which was that the Palestinian armed attempt to wrest autonomy had its back broken by the British army in 1936-1939, leaving its leadership, infrastructure, military capacity etc., permanently disabled, its willingness to resist smashed, while during the immediate aftermath,WW2, Jewish paramilitary forces strengthened the training in military planning, logistics, battle order priorities and fighting, already honed by British recruitment under Orde Wingate during the Arab revolt and further honed in a global theatre of war. The Holocaust was the deciding fact which tipped the scale: after the genocide, knocking back a claim by the community which suffered most to sanctuary in Palestine was awkward, while accepting it was convenient, since neither Western Europe, the United States or Great Britain wanted to redeemed the guilt by sharing the burden and opening their doors to Jewish immigration there, a policy maintained from prewar years, doubly convenient because by making a distant Arab entity pay retribution for a Western war crime, hands could be cleaned in the limpid waters of philosemitism in the old Christian tradition of Pontius Pilate. The long term ideological reason is that Zionism wanted 'all of the land virtually from its outset and this secular colonial ambition was then overtaken with religious visions of divine entitlement, forming a constituency, which together with Likud's platform policy, and the rising force of a Mizrahi/Sephardic voting block, has had veto powers over secular Zionism's readiness to compromise. Add that geostrategically, Western powers have an interest in updating the earlier idea of Israel, now the major power regional power, as a proxy/outpost/continental aircraft carrier able to throw its unchallengeable military resources in the balance to secure occidental control over a key energy centre, oil, with respect to which the rights of Palestinians are just an embarrassing historical byline; because the key third party dominating negotiations has, since Reagan's time, an electoral constituency where taking a neutral position imperils one's candidacy for office etc.etc.etc. Things like that explain in part, why the 'occupation persists'. It should be self-evident that going into the details of this very historically complex set of realities cannot be synthesized in a paragraph or three. By accepting the idea of taking on this huge ballast of extra material, we would have no option but to make space by discharging the original cargo, or otherwise sink the fleet.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, thank you for your reply but I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I wasn't asking those seven questions, nor implying that the answers weren't already in the article. My only question was: Are these the right questions? Would be interested in your thoughts on that. Levivich? ! 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the general drift of some comments here is that we need another article, i.e. your questions are around 'is this what we want'. Since as indicated all those points are mentioned or addressed already, you are asking for a discussion on whether the existing article is what is wanted. In the thread, we have several suggestions that we need major additions on Jewish identity with Palestine, on the connection with the land, on the diplomatic history of negotiations between Palestinians, on the obstacles to the peace process, on Israeli security concerns, each one of which (a)enters into arguments that respectively would require three to five paragraphs of extremely compressed prose, and at least a dozen if not twenty sources and (b) would effectively taken together make another article or two (c) and, concomitantly, if worked for inclusion here along the criteria of high bar sourcing and synthetic comprehensiveness, would add 100 kb to an article already protested by those who make these proposals, as being far too long. That can only be worked by changing this article from its express design and purpose, to outline the mechanics of a specific form of occupation of one of the two Palestinian territories, into and article that has just a bit about the mechanics and an equal bit about why historically Israel has many points of view and concerns about the Palestinians and the land the latter has abusively occupied, without any world criticism, for at least 1,300 years if not 3 millennia. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is indeed too long - and it indeed needs more content on other topics it does not cover, since as it stands it is really Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank. So yes - quite a bit of content should be trimmed and summarized, and other content - for instances causes and Israeli motivation for the occupation should be expanded. If you want an effects article - fine - but it needs to be moved.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I.e. The article is too long (cut it down)
In the cut down process add long bits about Israeli topics.
So you are asking that the article length be maintained.
Therefore, you cannot protest that the article is too long. You are arguing that this depth and comprehensiveness of the Israeli occupation's impact on Palestinians is too long. Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I was in the "too long camp" (maybe I was? I have goldfish memory at times, sorry) - but the article certainly is too long - weighing in at 378k bytes (26,563 words, 174,143 characters). It is also unbalanced. So yes - the article should undergo a deep trim - perhaps removing/summarizing-down 50%-80% of the present article. In addition, content on the causes of occupation as well as diplomatic initiatives (e.g. - per User:Levivich/sandbox1's organization)) should be added - perhaps 10%-20% of the present article length (should comprise some 15%-45% of the article following trim). If you intend this article to be Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank - the trim perhaps shouldn't be as deep (as there's less that needs to be added for a balance presentation of cause and effect, solutions, ramifications, history etc.). Fundamentally the choice forward here is between Israeli occupation of the West Bank (which yes - this being an Israeli occupation - will contain quite a bit on Israeli motivations) or Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank (which is what this article is now, mostly). A trim is needed either way - but more content needs to be trimmed for the former (as more needs to be added). Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
As for policy - while we aren't at the technical software limit (2,048K) - at 378K we are in the WP:CHOKING zone (at present ranked in Special:LongPages at #165 out of all Wikipedia articles - which is very high given that most of the other stuff is list articles / timeline articles - congrats)). Per WP:SIZERULE the current readable prose size is well above the "Almost certainly should be divided" threshold.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost certainly should allows exceptions, of which there are over 1,000 on wikipedia. Secondly, you can't logically plead for a radical downsizing of the article per W P:SIZE while in the same breath calling for a major expansion that, at a rough calculation, would bring it back to the same, for some of you, problematical length. That contradiction is glaringly obvious, and has never been explained.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, this article so far precisely corresponds to the title. If you wish another title, write an article consonant with that new title. I don't care to listen to editors who keep referring abusively in highly charged Israeli occupational jargon, to Palestinians as 'residents', which means 'living somewhere for some time'. If you have residency in numerous modern countries, you have a provisory permit to dwell there, as opposed to the primary right to live there accorded to citizens. It implies the indigenous population of the West Bank is there at Israel's discretion, barring 'security' issues which can cancel that concession to be allowed to stay for a while in Israel(-held) territory. So kindly drop the vulgar POV premise please, if you wish to have you concerns addressed seriously. Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Residents is technically correct - it has nothing to do with Israeli jargon (or discretion or lack thereof), but rather the murky and complex citizenship/statehood status. Regardless - this article is not policy complaint in terms of size (and doesn't fall into any reasonable exception - the other long articles being long tedious comprehensive lists/timelines) - it isn't close to being complaint to the Wikipedia:Article size guideline. As for content - omitting the Israeli motivations and concerns, effects/discrimination on/of Jewish residents, and diplomatic initiatives - is a serious WP:NPOV issue at the present article scope. If you want an Effects of occupation on Palestinian residents of the West Bank article - rename it (you'll still need to trim per Wikipedia:Article size - but not as much). Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is B'Tselem using residents - Oct 2018 - "Imposing restrictions on the movement of Palestinian West Bank residents" (and this is all over their communiques). The reason one uses the term resident, is that many of these do not actually have citizenship (EJ residents of course, Jordanian citizenship of many, and murky status of PNA citizenship (which again - not all have)). Citizen is fraught with issues. You can use civilian in some cases - but that excludes militants, PA police, and possibly others. B'Tselem does not engage in "charged Israeli occupational jargon" - do kindly strike your Wikipedia:No personal attacks that I am using language "abusively". Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
See B'tselem here which uses the term in inverted commas, as does Eyal Weizsman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation 2007 p.291 n.50 ('Palestinian resident' ), the function being the identify this as the language of Israeli documentation of who is a Palestinian (as opposed to who is a Palestinian but a 'foreigner'). This exchange only reminds me how some reorganization is required, and how several sections are lacking. I mentioned
(1) Religious freedom to which might be added
(2) Exit and Entry system
(3) The ID system
the latter two of which are barely hinted at. I haven't done this because of length considerations, leaving the comprehensiveness of the page unachieved. But since my attempts to accommodate objections, by précis and trimming, have automatically been responded to by proposals of massive expansion with new sections unrelated to the mechanisms of occupation (the theme of the article), I'm tempted to think that the size limit argument is a warrant for doing what has been left undone.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, what if "residents" were removed, and the article was moved to Effects of occupation on Palestinians of the West Bank or Impact of Israeli occupation upon Palestinians of the West Bank or something like that? Levivich? ! 19:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so, because a change of title in that direction immediately would be seen as invalidating several sections and numerous passages, and mandate their automatic removal, with a substantial loss of material directly bearing on the effects of the occupation, for example, on Israelis and the Israeli economy, on the language and media (no impact on Palestinians); also the West Bank in 1967 (before the occupation, and therefore outside the orbit of the occupation after that year; details on the earlier Jordanian tax system, used to make a comparison with the system introduced by Israel /the Jordanian system had no impact on Palestinians under the later occupation); idem the prior Jordanian schooling system; idem the whole background section (predates the occupation), etc.etc.etc. What is gained by that? Nothing, except a huge evisceration of the documentary record as set forth in specialist books and articles on the occupation. The title 'Israeli occupation of the West Bank' implicitly bears the idea of impact, but at a descriptive level, covers the whole field, even blow-back effects on Israel and Israelis, a very important element in what Baruch Kimmerling once called (again not included in order to keep this down to the basics) 'The Social Construction of Israel's National Security,' Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The reason those who are pedantic (and B'Tselem would be a good example in this regard) use "Palestinians residents of the West Bank" as opposed to "Palestinians of the West Bank" is the existence of a very large "Palestinian of the West Bank" emigree community - that is (depending on how you measure) possibly larger than the resident community. For the most part, emigrees are not affected by the occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
For émigré community read 'refugees'/deportees/ or people whose residency rights have been cancelled because they did not live in East Jerusalem 'continuously' (whereas any Jew from Lapland to Lesotho, or Marble Bar to Managua) can get automatic rights to citizenship and occupy a patch of the West Bank after a continuous hypothetical absence of his forebears for 2 millennia) If you absorb the language and media section you would appreciate that NPOV requires us not to be pedantic, but to note that the very language widely used is POV-ridden. Settlers emigrating to the West Bank have Israeli citizenship IDs. Palestinians under Israeli occupation have mainly Israeli IDs or PA IDs only released after Israeli military approval which accord them 'residency' which can be revoked any time by bureaucratic fiat. The practical implication of the different can be grasped at a glance if you compare the number of West Bankers who have had their residency permits revoked (14,000) to the number of Israeli Arabs who, in the same period, had their citizenship cancelled (2).Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
"Palestinians in the West Bank"? Levivich? ! 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nishidani: how about Effects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (i.e. simply adding the words "Effects of the" to the beginning of the current title)? No need for it to be Palestinian-specific.
Separately, I am still reflecting on Nableezy's point that the article is not trying to explain "The Israeli conquest of..." or "The Israeli control of...", which most lay readers might expect, but rather the unique nature of this system caused by the misalignment of occupation-without-representation. I think this must be made much clearer in the introductory paragraph.
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't see any improvement in adding 'effects', to the contrary. This is not about impacts or effects: it is overwhelmingly about the mechanisms, 'legal', 'institutional', 'military', and otherwise, used in the occupation. These mechanisms are then illustrated by material regarding the 'effects'. One, for example, outlines the mechanism for controlling Palestinians through an ID system and exclusive ownership of the population registry, and this is then illustrated by the anecdote of the fellow who couldn't get his child's birth registered in Bethlehem. I, at least, was taught that this is the best way to write narrative: expound the factual structure of events, and gloss it with some vivid instance that shows how it affected people. Just in that case, large amounts of relevant detail were kept out: the September 1967 flash census (by the way did you know that roughly a third of Palestinians asked to register their names in the 1949 Israeli census had not even heard that there was a census by the time the snap survey had concluded?) ignored the 250,000 people who had been displaced during the war, meaning they lost residency rights). The point of my anecdote about the stateless youth from Brazil hinted at this. etc.etc.etc. One could of course retitle it to Israeli occupation of the West Bank: mechanisms and effects, but that again, would be supererogatory, surely? If readers take on this article, one should not presume they are dumb.
Wikipedia I/P articles are mostly patchwork POV trash dumps, and you get no real challenges, except by further adding or excising POV blobs: put one up with all the normal criteria for accuracy, comprehensiveness of coverage, quality sourcing and the like, without the usual sandstorm of incoherent or outdated data, and many editors get upset. Clarity and con sistency of focus is not prized here while the opposite, productive of innumerable excruciatingly disinformative, imprecise material, is allowed a huge tolerance. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
How about two articles: Mechanisms of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Effects of Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Levivich? ! 17:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I see, roughly, four editors here with a consistent record of being capable of writing a complex article from top to bottom. Do those who object and raise numerous suggestions about what to cut out, resynthesize, displace, merge, dismerge etc., know what this involves from personal editing experience? Have they some proven competence is doing what they ask be done? I mean that in the sense that, if my car or computer needs an overhaul, I'm ready to listen to advice as I tinker to fix it, but tend to take seriously what experts in fixing computers tell me. They're been there. This proposal would mean a month at least of solid combing through the article to winnow with precision anything dealing with effects, from anything dealing with mechanisms (while tossing out large sections as having nothing to do with either). The inconclusiveness of the discussion persists because suggestions are all immensely generic, there's nothing concrete in just suggesting a split (and how is that done?) That is why you are getting huge threads.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
So that’s a yes? You’re ok with spinning out those two child articles? Levivich? ! 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
No. It's true I wrote the article in three weeks, i.e. I work fast. It's also true that what little personal time I have for Wikipedia is best given to either writing articles or fixing the huge backload of IP trash plunked everywhere. If there were a serious problem I would assume that responsibility of course, if given the time. I can't see the point of the split you propose. I have already undertaken to snap off from rags of time I have for this joint to downsize it, which means fixing, slowly, several other articles to make the reception of the material here contextually appropriate in those. The problem here is impatience. urgency, panic. I think Zero has worked for several years on the al-Buraq mosque in a sandbox, jusdt as this is a precipitate of a decade's reading, for example. A decade of close work vs a few seconds to revert, editwar and excise. That is the order of difference between editors around here.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, so the reasons you're opposed to spinning out a Methods of... and Effects of... child articles is because you, personally, don't have the time to do it? What if someone else did the work. Would you be opposed then, and if so, why? Levivich? ! 18:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, it's very disingenuous to suggest that the other editors here have spent a few seconds of consideration when they revert or excise. They've also quite likely spent years reading about this topic. Furthermore, you don't seem to like it when, in trying to make this article more balanced and rounded, I was adding material rather than excising it (both out of consideration for the amount of time spent on what exists and with a view to having all the requisite material for a really good copy edit). Articles don't have to be written from top to bottom by one editor. The more editors, the more balanced articles generally are.[1] Bellezzasolo Discuss 18:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You started by affirming as a fact a meme deconstructed decades ago, about 'Israel's offer to give back the West Bank' and continued by trying to introduce Arutz Sheva as a source on a par from say, something off the presses of Yale, or Harvard by tenured scholars etc. You added several sources that never mention the West Bank. Some people, like Thomas Hardy's alter ego, note things. As to methods, there is no guarantee that what one hand does is better than what a dozen do, or vice versa. It's a tossup or toss-off (excuse the Australianism) between 'many hands make light work' vs 'two many kuken spoil the brothel', to make a bad Swedish pun. If a task is difficult, then one would expect that some primary demonstrated competence in tackling difficulties successively be evinced.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
As clearly evident in my contrib history - it took me one hour and 42 minutes to perform a rough first pass cut down edit (and the second pass - required as it still was too large after cutting half - would take even longer). More time spent arguing on the talk page on this rather obvious and required cut... So no, not seconds - far from it. If this article is to be treated as a WP:OWNed highly POV WP:NOTESSAY - it should be moved to user space or off wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James (2017-11-29). "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". arXiv:1712.06414 [cs.SI].

Dore Gold[edit]

An Israeli diplomat writing in his own advocacy magazine, JCPA, is not RS. This citation needs to be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JCPA is a perfectly fine source, however regardless of that - Dore Gold, Director-General of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (as well as a few other tings, is an outstanding source for Israeli government terminology (which is what this is being used to source) - frankly you could get a much better source - right from the horse's mouth in this case.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. The wording in our article (“the Israeli government uses the term”) implies this is official policy. That is WP:OR without an RS source stating it explicitly.
The Israeli Supreme Court (a branch of government), and other branches, use the term occupied.
An RS source is needed which deals with the terminology question properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
He is WP:RS for Israeli government position --Shrike (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The supreme court's terminology (often misrepresented or grossly simplified in non-Hebrew sources) is much more complex than that (and I'll note - the court is not part of the executive branch). Gold is a RS for the terminology of the Israeli government (and specifically the MFA's) position. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Gold’s article was written in 2002. He was not a member of the government then. In the article he concludes “It would be far more accurate...” He is making a case, not stating a fact about who uses what terminology.
As to the MFA, that department contains Israel’s foreign PR operations. Its statements do not hold weight other than for PR purposes.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────A scholarly perspective at [1]:

...attempts from scholars, politi-cians and pundits who try to draw into question and delegitimize the very nature of Palestine’s marginalized status by claiming that the Palestinianterritories are not legally occupied, but rather in a state of dispute (Klein2006; Gold2002; Lutsick 1995, p. 396; Rostow 1993, p. 12)

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The question is, Shrike, what is Israel's position. Dore Gold predictably cited a meme, but there is a vast literature on the question of the legal implications of Israel's occupation with respect to Jordan's position, and the PLO's position, including also Israel's High Court decisions, changes in Israeli points of view from 1967 onwards (they have not been static),etc.etc. This page strives to get the best quality commentary available, it is not about what official POVs of one day or age assert, be they Palestinian or Israeli. I've had to edit in a minimal notation on the point being made, and have replaced a political spokesmen's viewpoint with two experts on international law and occupation, Quigley and the TAU emeritus professor Yoram Dinstein.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

By whom?[edit]

Shrike. This edit is ridiculous for someone who should be familiar with the facts. The Pallywood meme has emerged consistently every time a Palestinian is filmed, either being shot or otherwise, and the film/video, not flattering to Israel, is then played to the world. This happened with Mohammad Durrah, the Beitunia killings, numerous Gaza 2014 incidents and Ahed Tamimi. The academic source cited obviously makes a generalization according to the Palestinian sources that refers to the widespread practice of yelling ‘fake news’, Palestinians are 'conspiring' to skew the facts, when videos of apparent mistreatment of Palestinians emerge. You object to my not adding ‘according to the Palestinian sources?’ I dropped that because, while in the source, the dismissal of the idea of Pallywood as conspiratorial is not, pace the source, a Palestinian idea. To the contrary, I could have egged up the sourcing to show that numerous reputable commentators, Jewish, Israeli, or neither assert that the way pro-Israeli sources spin this is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. I.e. I could put in Charles Enderlin’s account, which attributes the idea that Palestinians conspired to fake evidence to numerous Israeli sources, indeed, the government itself. I don’t, again, for reasons of space. That it widely viewed as a conspiracy theory, not simply by Palestinian sources, is obvious.

See also:

If you are dissatisfied just replace Lionis with Enderlin. In the meantime, I will revert the smudge.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In your first source the world Pallywood appears only as description to some link.Again what sources make the claim that "idea has been dismissed "?-Shrike (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
We paraphrase sources. 'Dismiss' in English means 'disregard as not serious' in this context, which is precisely what dozens of sources, some of which are listed above, do in mentioning the 'theory'.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Again who make the claim some of the sources you put here is not even WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Please punctuate your sentences to avoid ambiguity, leaving the reader perplexed as to what you are asking. The way you phrase the above, you are asking me 'who is it claiming some of the sources used above is are not reliable sources?' In that sense, you are asking me to identify you yourself, but I'm sure you don't need to be told who you are. Hazarding a guess as to what you might have wanted to ask me, the answer is in the sources given, see particularly Enderlin.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Involved political leaders as reliable sources[edit]

One of the most basic principles of RS and NPOV is that first-party involved persons with conflicts of interest are not reliable as sources of fact. Why does this even need to be said? But here we see Benyamin Netanhayu cited for fact with a straight face. To put it far more mildly than it deserves, this cannot be accepted. Zerotalk 06:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources for the same prose: The memorandum itself; Journal of Palestine Studies; David Schoenbaum 1993, cited in Moshe Ma'oz 1995. Levivich? ! 06:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Netanyahu gives a quantity of four fifths and many pages about it and the whole text of JSCM-373-67. It seems to have had a large effect on his thinking. Some sources do not say how large the area really was. Even though JSCM-373-67 gives a map.

If you want we can cite other sources and say according to Netanyahu four fifths. He also cites later support in 1988 from 100 generals and admirals for the 1967 paper.Jonney2000 (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The memorandum existed. That's not the point. The first point is that you have to provide a reliable source for it. The second point is that you have to source and attribute arguments made on the basis of it, and you also have to find a source that the memorandum played any role in events or even in US thinking. Otherwise it fails WEIGHT. It was never US policy that Israel retain a large amount of territory. Of course retaining territory would be to Israel's military advantage, who could doubt that and why is it interesting? It would be to Syria's military advantage to possess the Galilee; if we found a memorandum stating that, would it automatically be notable? Zerotalk 09:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. Joint Chiefs are, of course, notable. Do you have an policy based objection to David Schoenbaum? Making up a ridiculous standard that 95% of Wikipedia, basically any opinion or hypothetical, would fail is not helpful.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Just as a general note: the articles under ARBPIA sanctions (such as this one), have stronger sourcing standard than, if not 95%, then the great majority of Wikipedia articles. It is very simple: The more controversial the subject → the better sources are needed. And the articles under ARBPIA sanctions are among the most controversial on Wikipedia → better sources than for the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are needed, Huldra (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
As it was showed secondary WP:RS discuss it make it WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you please rephrase that? It is not comprehensible English. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Article trim per TOOLONG and MOS:LEADLENGTH[edit]

In accordance with WP:TOOLONG and MOS:LEADLENGTH I've trimmed the article. I'll note that the post-trim article, with some 76K chars of readable prose in the body, 2k chars in the lede, and a staggering 50 footnotes with 16k additional prose - is still bloated (the article should be under 50K per WP:SIZERULE) - and is particularly still bloated in regards to the possible insertion of additional content. Please discuss here. Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Wow that must have taken you a long time! Thanks for the effort; I wonder how long until it's reverted :-) Can you comment on whether the material that was removed: was already in the child articles, will be added to the child articles, should be added to the child articles, etc.? Were there child articles for everything, or do any new ones need to be created? FWIW, I think 50k is too little for an article of this scope (longest occupation ever, one of the dominant conflicts of the 20th/21st centuries), and perhaps it's appropriate to IAR somewhat and allow it to go over 50. Now, the previous length was way too far to the other extreme, but it strikes me as a reasonable length the way it is now, so FWIW I'm not bothered if it were to stay at 75k. (Still, that means more condensing to allow room for new sections, etc.) Levivich? ! 22:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Part of it could be forked off if one really wanted to - e.g. to Language of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or Views of the Israeli radical left on the occupation. Alot of what I cut out were examples that where meant to be illustrative but cluttered the article up with weeds. And repetitions (and I believe I left a few repetitions in - some sections still are repetitive of others - e.g. land ownership and settlements). And yes - POV assertions or random opinions. I focused on the newly created article on hand - which should be a manageable size - the body was at 168K chars, the notes at 55K chars, and the lede another 5K. There simply is no policy basis to justify such bloat - it is unreadable and furthermore not conducive to editorial agreement on content (as it was unwieldy to edit).Icewhiz (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Huh?? Removing half of the article without discussing it first? What are you thinking of? Huldra (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost two hours–much longer than I expected! :-) Huldra, wouldn't you agree, at the rate we're going, for every word that is changed in any way on the article page, we are writing 10,000 words on the talk page? There must be a better way to reach consensus. I'm all ears for suggestions. Levivich? ! 00:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Was discussed previously (a number of times). @Huldra: - your revert runs foul of Wikipedia:Article size, which is an editing guideline (as well as the restored content containing numerous other problems - I do hope you read what you reverted back in, as you are supposed to). Please provide a policy based rationale for this rather severe flounting of TOOLONG with your blanket revert. Breaking editing guidelines with a false "undiscussed" edit rationale is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
TOOLONG does not allow an editor to simply chop off material. You did not move it to any other article. Your efforts at neutering this article, from its very creation, are not going to just be accepted. You removed, without discussion, 150kB. And you have the gaul to ask others for policy based rationales. Get off it. nableezy - 00:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You removed, in its entirety, the material on a terminology bias. You removed, in its entirety, the material on American media coverage. You removed, in its entirety, material on land seizures. About the seizure methods used to create settlements. About Zionist leaders plans to seize territory from the early days of the Mandate. The creation, rapid expansion of said settlements. The creation and general indifference to outposts. The entire section on settler violence. The material on crowd control, the disparity in sentencing. The material on disparity in arms. The sections on technologies of control. The section on population transfers and deportations. Material on torture. Most of the section on the effect on children. The material on the road system. Much of the material on agriculture. Its use as a waste zone. The entirety of the critical judgments. You have any justification for the uniform removal of material that does not show Israel to be the beacon of justice and humanity that we all know it to be? nableezy - 00:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, for the record, the readable prose size of Israel is 96 kB. The readable prose size of World War I is 136 kB. WWI covers 4 years and change. This covers 50-plus. nableezy - 00:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Compare indeed War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which covers 18 years and far outstrips this in length with no sense among editors of, to use that ridiculous Podhoretz phrase, 'clear an d present danger' laying siege to it. Patience, gentlemen, patience. Guidelines are not dictates (and are mostly written to help people with little formal familiarity with or competence in encyclopedic writing). Personal confession. I have been commissioned to write for a prestigious encyclopedia, by an editor who disagreed with my conclusions, but recognized my methodological and technical competence, and trusted me to give a neutral overview of a topic we looked at differently.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
From time immemorial writers have complained when editors do editing and cut down an overly long tract of text. This is Wikipedia - not a book. We have size guidelines, which should be followed. I retained most of the subject matter. The only topic I really cut out entirely is the last section on "Israeli critical judgements" which for an odd reason is a long section devoted to fringe Israeli anti-Zionists (while not reflecting other POVs - Israeli or non-Israeli). Indeed - when cutting an article that at 200+K readable prose (overly long notes included) is well over four times the required size - there is plenty of cutting to do, which in this case contained off-topic as well as overly long and detailed on-topic material. Perhaps this poorly written mess (POV, sloppy repititions, length) should be moved to draft space until a reasonable consensus can be found to meet Wikipedia policy. Dumping a poorly written 367kb mess (for a topic well covered in pre-existing parent and sub-topic articles - spinoffs weren't created since we already have them) in mainspace and then in rather blatant WP:OWNership resisting any change to the mess is not Wikipedia editing. A collaborative cut down edit would have been to return bits you thought were important, while condensing further other bits - so that we all together turn this mess into something readable.
Again - this is Wikipedia. WP:NOTSOAP, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. If you can't work by Wikipedia guidelines - take the text to Lulu.com or Createspace.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I retained most of the subject matter, that is um I will be gentle and simply say not the truth. Ive listed several topics you removed entirely. Please dont pretend your latest effort at neutering coverage that you deem critical of Israel on Wikipedia is anything other than that. nableezy - 10:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz. If the length of ther article required you to urgently excise 149,000b, why haven't you been equally 'worried' to propose and excise half of the text at Israel? These are the stats at Long pages

‎:::*Israel ‎[344,355 bytes]

The first deals with Palestinians (gut it). The second deals with Israel (fine). The difference between them is 10% (more text in the first. I am not objecting to the Israel article because of some ostensible best policy failure (it's poorly written and has a thousand things lacking. I simply am not interested in it. Other editors are frantically concerned with this kind of length when the topic happens to be Palestinians, and show no interest in applying the same criterion to the Israel article. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but citing that to dismiss the objection, when there are ethnonational anxieties here doesn't erase the disparity in 'concerns'.
I met the objection to length by beginning to synthesize and remove to other pages many details, managing in just a few edits to cut it back 7,000b. The immediate response was to expand it again by 7,000b, a 'tactic' which, for me, exposed a lack of seriousness by those protesting at the length. The result? Paralysing the one attempt here to actually find a fair compromise with editors who outlined a best policy objection. To repeat - if a compromise is offered, and the objectors immediately refuse it by playing expansionist games to fill up the space created by a series of précises, then the credibility of the original objection is erased.
This edit, removing almost half of the article without any verifiable editorial principle signposts not a concern to handle the outstanding issue, but simply take the axe at length and reduce in Solomonic fashion and the only rationale I can see is that of provocation, since it was bound to be reverted. Since no one disputes the high source quaiity used copiousLy here for every detail, erasing it rather than finding an appropriate wiki article where it might be shifted in order to conserve the information, looks like sheer ideologically motivated distaste or censorship. The only reasonable option is shifting, eventually, to related articles, which keeping a paraphrase of the content here, not excision. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
A point of order - the occupation is an Israeli institution/regime - not Palestinian, and Jews (native born in the West Bank) live under the yoke of the military gvmt as well. As for article length - an axe is the correct editing tool when an article us four times larger than dictated by Wikipedia guidelines (and when for most of the sub-topics we already have a preexisting article, there is little spinoff creation relevant). A 7K trim here is close to nothing - this needs to be condensed by a factor of four.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, you ignored my question. If this article has to be condensed by a factor of four, that would apply to the article Israel as well. Yet no one has raised that issue there. I certainly never would. If your concern was simply one of adequacy to a policy on length, then, given your interests, it would obviously translate into a radical reduction of that other article. Why is your concern unilaterally focused on anything to do with Palestinians, and your policy objections there exempted from similar articles on Israel, which happens to be the occupying power?Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, you should read Talk:Israel before you falsely state that "no one has raised the issue there." Onceinawhile and I have raised the issue there. In fact, trying to condense that article has been the same experience as trying to condense this article, except over there, I think we're only writing 5,000 talk page words for every article word changed. Do you know why that is? I do. Levivich? ! 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually you should read the archives. Over the 75, I can see two attempts to raise the issue beginninga at archive 35, 8 years ago. Neither of them got a response. There are complaints about any one section's length, but nothing I can see about the whole article, until very recently, so far briefly and after this article appeared. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, you're wrong. See here, a discussion that began a month before this occupation article was created, and here, the revival of that effort. Also, as Nableezy pointed out, Israel has 96k of readable prose; this article has nearly twice that. Still, editors are trying to reduce both. Your statements that no one raised length as an issue in Israel, or that no one did until after this occupation article appeared, are demonstrably false. Levivich?! 18:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope. I wrote:'There are complaints about any one section's length,' which is what your two links refer to. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, I'm glad you now realize that some of the same editors who are trying to reduce the length of this article have also been trying to reduce the length of that article, even if you won't admit it. Levivich? ! 21:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Such niggling is pointless, you are wrong, but I have no problem in allowing you to maintain your belief that I won't own up to the 'truth', which probably is that, unlike here, all efforts to seriously remodulate and reduce that article in the terms set forth here, will flounder or come up against an iron wall. The problem with the Israel article is not its length, but how much of the history of modern Israel it astutely ignores (check out the way the reality of 20% of the population is covered, the 20% that was under military rule from 1949-1966). All I see here is a desire to rid this article of facts, whose relevance to the topic is not seriously contested. The objection is, there are too many facts here, which is rather unique. I've given my viewpoint: the sensible way to handle 'concerns about length' by retaining all of those sections and the essential details in place, and slowly shifting some Frank nitty gritty to other articles. I don't see any merit, other than ethnonationalist dislike, in any of the other proposals or practices in evidence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talkcontribs) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, sorry, you'll have to clarify that last bit for me: I don't see any merit, other than ethnonationalist dislike, in any of the other proposals or practices in evidence here. Are you saying ethnonationalist dislike has merit? And are you saying I'm racist? That I want to spin-off this article and create more articles on the subject because I'm racist against Palestinians? This is why I want to create two new articles, Methods of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank because of my ethnonational dislike of Palestinians? What's your basis? Is it that my username suggests I'm a Levite? (I'm not, if that makes you feel any better.) Levivich? ! 23:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
What utter nonsense. Jewish settlers, aka the colonial presence, are very specifically governed by civilian law, not military. The native population, the Palestinians, is not. You should read this article, you may learn a thing or two. And again, nothing in WP:SIZE requires this be reduced at all, it recommends it, and as shown before there are plenty of articles that exceed 60 kB. nableezy - 10:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: if you want to improve this article, it would help if you would stop antagonizing. "Jews live under the yoke of the military gvmt as well" is a gross misrepresentation and you well know that. And even if it were true, it is one thing being a citizen of the country who rules you, it is quite another living under a regime which has no accountability to you.
All the "effects" in this article are very real. If the Palestinians in the West Bank could vote in Israeli elections, Israel would need to balance "security" against the reasonable human rights of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, because Israel doesn't make itself accountable to those millions over whom it rules, we have a totally unbalanced situation.
Let's stop with the attempts to whitewash please, and focus on helping readers understand what they come here to learn about.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Israeli law (copy pasted) does not apply in full to recognized settlements (for instance - planning and zoning). It does not apply at all (ignoring personal basis application) to Jews living outside of recognized settlements. Adminstrative demolitions, limitations, and detentions have been applied on hundreds of Jewish residents in recent times.[2] And yes - effects of occupation on Jewish residents should be in as weĺl. Regardless - this article is way too long.Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is long and some balanced trimming might do it good despite the topic being of sufficient importance to warrant an article longer than average. However, Icewhiz's massacre somehow managed to focus on removing material that shows Israel in a bad light. Of course this could not indicate an unwillingness to edit objectively, just as jokes like "Jews live under the yoke of the military gvmt as well" could not indicate a contempt for other editors. Zerotalk 11:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As I have just noted on my page, a request to cut back the article was made, and I, for one, adopted the proper procedure by making précises of material, maintaining the bare gist, and shifting the excised text to relevant sister or main articles. The response by those objecting to its size was (a) to add blobs of useless material we have abundantly in other pages or (b) ask that several new topics, each requiring 10,000 bytes at least, be added, as the weight reduction was underway. This halted any further attempts by myself, for one, to continue the process of size reduction, because those concerns looked like pretexts based on double-standards -reduce an article on Palestinian content per WP:TOOLONG, and expand he same article's Israel-related content in defiance of WP:TOOLONG i.e. bad faith. In response to Icewhiz's gutting of the page, once more today I showed that this can be cut back notably by attentive synthesis and the transfer of the original texts under excision to other articles or to articles one can easily create. Attempts to eviscerate content by simple excision without care to preserve factual details based on excellent sourcing are just that, nationalistic exercises in censorship. There is no other way, contextually, to read such attempts to siphon facts down the memory hole, out of sight out of mind. To properly do what was requested requires patience and care, not provocative edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Please strike the personal attacks above, and the baseless accusation of edit warring (a single WP:BOLD edit is not edit warring - nor are my other edits - with each of the WP:OWNish reverts made - I took it to the talk page). In regards to your rather bizzare WP:OSE claims regarding the size of Israel - beyond being OSE and dictating how other volunteer editors should spend their time - the Israel article is actually not a violation of WP:TOOBIG as the readable prose there is 96kb - beneath 100kb - though it should probably be trimmed a bit. Israel also doesn't contain an overly long notes section (132 non-reference notes with 51kb of text in the present article!). Most of its binary size seems to come from references and quotations within (contentious subjects often lead to many citations + quotations from the citations to support the text). Israel is also a collaborative effort of many editors (of differing POVs) - as opposed to a text mainly written by a single editor. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Notes arent included in the readable prose. If you have a problem with notes being included in a reference work I suggest you spend your time on Lulu.com or Createspace instead of Wikipedia. Any number of articles exceed or approach this ones size (WWI was given as an example, though it covers 4 years to this ones 50-plus), and again SIZE does not allow for an editor to simply remove material he finds uncomfortable. nableezy - 14:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolution of (N)POV dispute ahead of DYK[edit]

For those who are unaware, I'm reviewing this article's nomination for DYK. The current sticking point is the ongoing dispute over whether this article reflects a neutral point of view, as DYK requires. At Onceinawhile's suggestion, I have stayed rejecting the nomination over this issue for two weeks, in the hope that editors can work on the article during that time and reach consensus that it is NPOV. To that end, I hope editors who have expressed an opinion on the matter but may not have seen the DYK nomination will make a good-faith effort toward resolving the dispute. In particular, editors who have expressed an opinion on the issue in the past but not lately (Graeme Bartlett, Sir Joseph, TracyMcClark, Greyshark09) should know that I will evaluate consensus among editors who are actively engaged in trying to resolve the dispute. So if they would like to see the article reflect an NPOV and be accepted as such, they should revisit this discussion and try to improve the article in good faith. Lagrange613 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I think needs to happen involves addition of extra material to result in balance. Since the article is already too big (in top 100 in size) it will be out of policy which ever direction it moves in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I asked several questions of you when you first commented, you never responded. You wrote about the Jordanian occupation of the East Bank, a phrase which still makes no sense to me. Can you please explain what it is you that you find lacking here? nableezy - 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"Jordanian occupation of the East Bank" this was used as a comparison to the current article title. The reason I used it was that the country Jordan currently occupies the east bank, but that before the country was created, this area was planned to become part of Israel. This is not really necessary to make this article balanced however as it would be outside the scope. But my current point is that to explain all the who occupies what when and why is getting to big to include. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Jordan doesn't 'currently occupy' the East Bank. It is a duly constituted nation east of the Jordan River, just as Israel is of the area between the Mediterranean and the West Bank. It is also incorrect to assert that 'before the country (Jordan) was created' (1946) this area (Jordan/West Bank?) was planned to become part of Israel. By whom? Certainly by no resident power or authority by 1922.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is certainly too long, but WP:TOOLONG is a guideline. DYK only requires compliance with policy, not guidelines. (The reasoning, as I understand it, is that the newest Wikipedia content, which DYK is supposed to showcase, will be works in progress, possibly falling short on some guidelines at the time of nomination, but the Main Page can't promote links to articles not within policy.) As such, I will not consider the article's length in the nomination (except to note that it easily meets DYK's minimum length requirement). Lagrange613 03:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Your patience and precision in this regard is much appreciated. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Article size[edit]

Please see prior discussion at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#size, Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#WP:FORK, Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#WP:SPINOUTs, Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Israeli security concerns, and Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Article trim per TOOLONG and MOS:LEADLENGTH. Please also note that the scope of the article ("the occupation" vs. "the effects of the occupation"), inclusion of additional content (e.g. Israeli motivations and security concerns, diplomatic initiatives), and organization (e.g. proposal at User:Levivich/sandbox1) are also being discussed. What is the appropriate size for this article?

A: The size of revision A - 158kb (25244 words) of readable prose + 132 notes (which are not citations or references) containing some 51kb of additional prose, 6 paragraph lead.

B: The size of revision B - 72kb (11533 words) of readable prose + 45 notes (which are not citations or references) containing some 16kb of additional prose, 3 paragraph lead.

C The size of a further trim of B - 50kb of readable prose, less than 15 notes (of at most 3kb - containing mainly clarifications or notes on source mixups), 3-4 paragraph lead.

Please indicate A, B, C, or other (please specify) and a reason.06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

  • C. While B is a start, C would comply with WP:SIZERULE and MOS:LEADLENGTH. I'm not sure what policy governs non-citation notes - but 132 notes with 51kb of highly POVish prose (mainly random quotes) probably runs foul of multiple policies and conventions. The article size of A (a newly created article mainly by one author) runs foul of WP:CHOKING and ranks at #204 at Special:LongPages (out of some 5.79 million articles) - the pages above it mainly being very long lists. The content of the present article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTSOAPBOX/WP:NOTPROMO - a particularly egregious example (of many) being the promotion of the WP:FRINGE Israeli far-left activist Jeff Halper in the concluding paragraph of the lede and the concluding 1,551 character section titled "Israeli critical judgements" devoted to the Israeli radical left, while other Israeli viewpoints (mainstream, right, settler) are omitted - oddly this section asserting "Nazification" of Israeli society is ostensibly justified by the article's author as being required so that our readers "avoid them falling into an antisemitic trap"[3] - this in an article using a book widely condemned as anti-Semitic as a source (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). Version A of the article contains several repetitions, POV interjections (mainly various radical left figures quoted throughout the text (often further expanded in one of the 132 long notes), or the occasional Israeli leader quoted out of context to (not/miss-)support an assertion), overly detailed examples and detail, as well as off-topic and highly tangential subject matter - e.g. (one of many) the first section "The language of conflict" (11kb of prose) is essentially a WP:NOTESSAY media critique of the coverage of the conflict (most conflict articles, as well as other topics, do not contain a media section at all (or if they do - very-very briefly) - this is sometimes deemed noteworthy for a separate article).Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The current version is an unreadable mess because it does not follow the MOS on article size and lead length. Therefore, it should be trimmed to be less that 100K readable prose, preferably around size B or smaller. I express no opinion on the content. buidhe 09:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I object to the transparent use of article size as a proxy for the real issue that upsets the OP. This is proven by both the OP's massive one-sided cuts and by the OP's one-sided critique given here. If there was a balanced proposal for a reduction in article length, I would support it. Zerotalk 12:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Above Icewhiz says an article at 96 kB of readable prose is fine. Here he wants an "immediate trim" to 50 kB. What does that even mean? Accepting his POV excision of material that he dislikes? There are already efforts underway to reduce the size of this article further. I dont know how an RFC is supposed to result in a reduction of size, this is as Zero says a proxy for Icewhiz disliking that an article is covering the Israeli occupation. Yes, this article needs to be reduced to below 100 kB. And people who are interested in doing so are already doing so. What exactly is supposed to result in an RFC saying should the article be reduced? This literally makes zero sense. nableezy - 14:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    This article was created on 24 Nov with 162kb of readable prose. Version A has 158kb of readable prose. (in addition - we have an irregular use of non-citation footnotes - 50k+ of prose). So no - work on reducing this article has not progressed. Constructive attempts to reduce (or in fact - to perform any change) the article have been reverted. Furthermore, some editors have objected to reduction of the article on the basis that the current size is acceptable - ergo - a RfC on the target article size would at least lead to an agreement for a target size. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    I have yet to see a constructive attempt to reduce the size be reverted. Ive seen a destructive attempt in which an editor excised material not to their personal liking, but no I have not seen any constructive edits reverted. nableezy - 16:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    Please avoid WP:ASPERSIONS. I will note any reduction in prose length in the article (which could be seen as almost entirely "negative to Israel" - a bit hard to find the positive bits there) could lead to a Catch-22 accusation of "not to their personal liking" (if someone is perceived not to like "negative to Israel") - as the entire article is negative.Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
That you think an article that relays factual material as documented in reliable sources is "negative" is your own personal problem. This is a topic for which Israel has not garnered a lot of praise, sorry to say. It is still a topic that sources treat as its own topic, and as such should be covered here. Im very sorry that there is nearly uniform condemnation of the occupation, I dont know how to help that though. Simply not covering it however is not one of the available options. nableezy - 17:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • C (preferably) to B (at most) range, if this is mostly done by WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY, not by nuking well-sourced and encyclopedically relevant material out of existence. The better that is done, the more easily we'll get to a reader-manageable size C. I'm not going to address the "it's a secret plot to make the content one-sided" stuff; that's a behavior and content-dispute matter. A practical decision by the community that the article is presently too large doesn't mean one person (or group) gets to decide to delete material they politically disagree with. These are completely severable matters.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion[edit]

The whole article is a WP:POVFORK of Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967, why are we discussing just trimming it and not simply merging whatever is worthwhile here into the original article ? WarKosign 08:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A deletion (on a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTSOAP, WP:POVFORK) or merger (same rationale really) discussion would have merit in my eyes. As the topic itself is notable (and an article with this title could theoretically be constructed and meet Wikipedia , MOS, NOT and NPOV guidelines/policy), I personally have been attempting to improve and rectify the outstanding issues on the page though I am discouraged by the WP:OWNish blanket-reverts of nearly any attempt to change the article and the rather endless discussions filled with various accusations that go no where good. An RfC possibly could break the impasse here, possibly not. The current article (and 132 non-citation notes!) size makes editing/discussing the present mess difficult - a smaller text might be easier to edit and agree upon.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It is simply not true that this article duplicates Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967. Zerotalk 12:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
of course it is not true. WarKosign said above it is POVFORK, i.e. a version of content which pushes a certain POV. I. e., your remark is meaningless. May be you had in mind something else?- Altenmann >talk 16:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Very obviously not true. nableezy - 14:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK: "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view". Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 deals with the status of the territories, including the West Bank. It shows that there is disagreement whether the territories are occupied - it shows that the prevailing POV is that it is, but some argue otherwise. Several other pre-existing articles cover the subject, including West_Bank#Political status, Judea and Samaria_Area#Status, Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian territories and probably several more. This is yet another article on the same subject. WarKosign 13:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
All those articles are inept, primitive, poorly sourced, POV-ridden, unencyclopedic or just plain clumsy. There is no international dispute over the status of the territories: Israel, though not its Supreme Court, politically asserts their status is disputed, and that is, patently, a political judgement based on a political interest. 99% of competent international jurists and the highest international court do not accept Israel's arguments. It is as simple as that. A 'dispute' implies a rough parity in opposed views, which does not exist here. A fishmonger is within their rights to challenge Aristotle on a syllogism; a lawyer can insist that a Supreme Court judgement on constitutional law, repeatedly reaffirmed, is flawed; a flatearther can challenge Einstein, etc. Such challenges are not 'disputes', but fringe dissent (and of course one could never rule out that the fringe view might prove to be correct. Athenian fishmongers, as Socrates knew, could be invaluable in honing one's judgement) Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is not about the status of the territory, it is about the actual occupation. Its methods and its results. There is no article that duplicates this one. This is a child article of West Bank, which is a child article of Palestinian territories. nableezy - 17:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sub-poll[edit]

Formally, the article length concern is legitimate, and I would pick a nice random number of 83K (what's with this limit to only 3 options anyway?) However it worries me which approach will be taken and this willl affect my !vote:

  • CHOP text mercilessly whenever over byte limit
  • SPLIT text in several parts

Obviously the topic has numerous items to cover and all of them are naturally controversial. At this point I have to notice a sloppy usage of the TLA "POV" as a negative sticker for something inherently inadmissible in wikipedia. Please let me remind you that per WP:NPOV, it is POV of wikipedians what is inadmissible in wikipedia. Whereas, on the contrary, it is a duty of wikipedians to faithfully report POVs of both sides of the conflict, as well as criticism. By criticism I mean arguments, not political proclamations. Pardon my ad hitlerum, but even Hitler's POV is very well detailed in wikipedia.- Altenmann >talk 17:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Split (if we don't already have a child article) or merge (if we do) as appropriate, because at bottom, the topic is obviously encyclopedic and obviously a "big" topic. There's no way it can be covered adequately in 50k of prose or 100k or even the current 160k. At the same time, articles that are too long are unreadable, thus unusable, and thus a waste. The only way to balance "big topic that needs coverage" with "readable prose size" is to turn this one article into a collection of articles, with a parent that provides an overview (that an average teenager could read and understand), and a series of child articles that provide further in-depth analysis (perhaps at a higher reading level). For example: Methods of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Effects of Israeli occupation of the West Bank (however titled), though even those probably deserve child articles of their own. Also, we have existing articles (e.g., West Bank, Israeli Military Governorate, and many more) that cover some (but not all) of the material covered here. This article can be reduced in size through the liberal use of {further}, {see also}, etc., tags. I note that in this talk page are several proposals, from me and others, going back two months, for how to split/merge this article. Levivich? ! 18:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I have edited my original !vote to add "or merge" per the below discussion. Levivich? ! 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it will be split up over time, but there is no deadline here. I myself am planning on splitting off at least one section in to a full blown article and summarizing it here. But again, whats the rush here? What people objected to above was the wholesale excision of material that one editor disliked. Not the overall effort in reducing the size of this article. nableezy - 18:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you refer to "the rush". I don't see anyone rushing. If you're suggesting everyone else should just stop until you and Nish get a chance to copyedit, well, then let's move this back to draft space. Otherwise, we have one editor who wants to take a temperature check on how long the final article should be (which I think is a good idea), and a second editor who's asked whether reductions will be moved or excised (a good question). I don't see how participating in these discussions constitutes a "rush". I would ask the converse: what are we waiting for? If we're waiting for certain authors to finish their work, then it should be draftified. Levivich? ! 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course Im not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that so far the attempts at cutting material have been largely POV-based, and they have not resulted in spin-offs to other articles. I dont particularly like the way you would split the article. But regardless of that, what, and how more importantly, should be split off is something to be discussed. An RFC asking should this article be reduced in size still makes no sense. nableezy - 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends. In some cases there is merit to splitting. In other cases the text in this article is in WP:TNT quality wise on the one hand, and on the other hand we already have a pre-existing spinout article that is more detailed. This very sloppy (do read it all - including the notes - it is sloppy) NOTESSAY article was not created in a virgin field - we have many pre-existing articles on the I/P conflict that cover many of the sub topics here at much greater length and article quality.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
we already have a pre-existing - link, please.- Altenmann >talk 18:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You did not answer the question.- Altenmann >talk 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I gave multiple examples below: Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict amply covers "The language of conflict" in this article. Israeli settlement amply covers "Settlement" in this article. Palestinian prisoners of Israel covers "Arrests and administrative detention" and "Torture" in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Your quoted statement means there is "a preexisting", ie this one is a direct fork. That's why I was asking. I assume it was your sloppy phrasing you fail either to recognize or admit. Never mind. Thread closed, by other context. - Altenmann >talk 20:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
we have many pre-existing - a non-argument . I am not going to read a hundred articles to sift for morsels of wisdom about west bank occupation. Now we have one. Feel free to expand it with vetted info from all this preexistment. By the way, when doing this, be aware of {{copied}}. - Altenmann >talk 18:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There are dozens of relevant articles - so as a limited example - Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict amply covers "The language of conflict". Israeli settlement amply covers "Settlement". Palestinian prisoners of Israel covers "Arrests and administrative detention" and "Torture". And there are lots of other examples that cover subtopics - there are very few sections, if at all, in the article that do not already have a pre-existing article already covering them at great detail - we already have spinouts.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
When such an article already exists, very well developed, and already has the material in this article (as well as much more) - there is no need to create a child topic off of this article - it is just a question of what length of summary this article needs from the other article - if it overlength here - then yes, chop.Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Then do it properly: with "see also" or "further", in smallpieces and detailed explanations in edit summary and talk page. I am baffled how y'all managed to edit in this arab-israel controversial area without this. The same war, I guess. - Altenmann >talk 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Normally articles are either esoteric (and ignored by most) or built up over time, gradually, by many editors (of differing POVs). This particular article is unique in that a 378kb NOTESSAY POV mess was dumped into mainspace in one go - and then linked to from 432 different articles (replacing a parent article usually - e.g. Israeli-occupied territories, West Bank and others). This creation procedure has... created quite a pickle.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You did not address my comment for the third time. You are talking to your own thoughts. such an article already exists - hell no. There is no such article. What is your native language? I know that some languages do not distinguish singular and plural. That would explain. We already established there is no such an article, but material is dispersed over several ones. And my previous advice addresses this. - Altenmann >talk 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
My use of "such an article" was in relation to a hypothetical sub-part of the present article that is on the chopping block (and not to this article as a whole - the particular intersection of occupation+West-Bank did not exist in the article tree). For most such hypothetical portions we already have a pre-existing article on the particular sub-topic.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
And they are already are called out with {{main}} or {{see}} templates. Where they need to be condensed they can be, chopping them out as you did in your edit earlier however is not that. nableezy - 21:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Careful splitting when splitting an article it is imperative that a child article isn't a POVFUNNEL. If text here is substantially duplicated, we should just chop it away and include a see also. Bellezzasolo Discuss 19:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Spin off must be by real-life objective subject with title independent of any opinion. No "Criticism of...", no "Micronesian Authority position on...". Then the chances of povfunnelling will not increase. - Altenmann >talk 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Too many references - this article has clearly gone overboard with sources and references. About half the article size is taken up by sourcing. A relatively few sources could suffice for the majority of the article, and then several more can be used to attribute particular details that the main sources haven't covered. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
This article has dropped by 70k in the past week, with content being moved to various other articles (thank you Nishidani). I'm sure it will take some time to sort out the prose, and the explanatory notes, and the sources, and catch all the trimmings, as it were. And while there is such a thing as overciting, of all the ways to reduce the length of an article, for me, removing sources ranks dead last...I'd sooner reduce the font size. :-) Levivich 03:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
They're also being used too many times, not just too many references. All the methods of reducing this article can happen simultaneously. Let's just not ignore this big one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The size of the references is immaterial. What counts is readable prose size. This is a topic where every sentence is analyzed and re-analyzed, and they all need to be backed up by reliable sources. So we include more citations than what might seem necessary. I dont even understand what A relatively few sources could suffice for the majority of the article means to be honest. nableezy - 05:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The references are certainly relevant to the problems of article size, it's not just readable prose. The size of references impacts on the ability to edit the article, particularly visual editor. The number of references comes with problems to do with WP:OVERCITE, such as cluttering readability and giving undue weight. What I mean by a few sources sufficing for the majority of the article is referring to how certain books written about the entire subject can provide a basis for most of the facts presented in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry, but no, the references are not relevant. The only thing WP:SIZE supports splitting for are articles with readable prose over a certain size. nableezy - 15:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree there are too many references - but this is a lesser problem than the quality/pov of the references (almost all sources are from a very particular side of the divide here). In terms of article size - while many references do increase binary size (as issue for WP:CHOKING, they do not increase readable prose). The article's body, as well as the overuse and misuse of non-reference notes, are a greater concern.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
There are no quality issues with the sources, thats just silly. Anybody can look at the reference list and see it is nearly all from academic publishers or peer-reviewed works. There is no misuse of notes, that is likewise not a concern, either for POV or for SIZE. You keep waving at some issue as though it is manifestly true and that it means you dont have to substantiate your claims. Im sorry, but you do. nableezy - 15:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not just prose size that determines when an article is too large. References can also cause that to be true. Onetwothreeip (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you point me to some policy or guideline that backs that up? nableezy - 15:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
As already pointed out - WP:CHOKING refers to total binary size of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Have you read WP:CHOKING? Because what it actually says is Articles of more than 200 kB (~30 pages) exist for topics that require depth and detail. This is such an article. nableezy - 17:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have. Little reason to think this article is special, and you failed to quote the continuation of the sentence: Articles of more than 200 kB (~30 pages) exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles. Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This topic already has several sub-articles. Current size of Israel: 343,829 bytes. Current size of Gaza War (2008–09): 322,424 bytes. Current size of this article: 291,031 bytes. nableezy - 17:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: please note that Balfour Declaration, a similarly contested topic, made it to WP:FA status with an equally dense stack of references. Some editors made the same point as you have done here regarding the references, but they were in the clear minority. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, please note that Balfour Declaration is about three-quarters the size as this article and uses much less information for sourcing than this article. The sources section itself (as in not including in-line references) is 30,000 while here it is 100,000. All I'm saying is that the references problem shouldn't be ignored as one of the reasons for this article's problem size. :::@Nableezy: It's harder to edit when the page is larger, particular on the visual editor which is exceedingly useful in an article as large and as proliferated with references as this. The technical difficulty does not disregard characters simply for being templates rather than prose. WP:CHOKING is merely stating that there are articles with more than 200kB, it does not say this is desirable. Similar articles on this topic are often too long as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Please note that in the I/P area, it is the habit of editors to minutely pick and niggle even over the obvious (see below), to challenge indeed anything and everything. With this in mind, everything had to be sourced. The response? Too many sources. Well, it has far fewer notes and sources than Israel or 2014 Gaza conflict,- I can't see a massed challenge to those or say Hilary Clinton - and will come in around 100kB once the revision is completed. By the way, how many people showing a pertinacious interest in the putative meaning of policy in their protests here have actually significant experience of writing more than stubs? Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Split per normal procedure. Do trim out non-encyclopedic or dubious clap-trap, but beware attempts to substantively change the content in a non-neutral direction in the name of making it shorter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

There seems to be an issue of WP:OR at some points in this article. For instance, there is a picture in the House Demolitions subsection captioned with "Israeli military forces arriving to destroy the Palestinian community of Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah, 8 January, 2014, thereby rendering homeless the entire population of 10 adults and 15 minors". I cannot find a source stating this, and instead it appears to be a synthesis of the fact that the houses were demolished, the fact that the population was as stated, and the fact that this typically leads to homelessness.

This issue is then expanded in areas such as the Pieterse references, where the writers of this article appear to create a synthesis of his writings found here.[4] This article, under the Wider Implications subsection, states that "Since the late 1970s, according to Jan Nederveen Pieterse writing in 1984, Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza, together with an aspiration to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka to put down peasant revolts against land expropriation." If I have the correct book (see in this talk page "Imprecise References" for more detail on this issue) then this is a synthesis of ideas presented in the book, with some outright OR thrown in and a POV bias added.

To explain this, I will go through each issue point by point (it should be noted that it is possible I missed some direct statements by Pieterse; given the issue with page numbers, I needed to read the whole book, rather than just the referenced pages, to conduct this analysis, and I may have missed something):

  • Synth occurs where the editors stated "Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza ... led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like...". This appears to be a conflation of this fragment "To understand Israel's methods one must look at Israel's source of expertise in the field of counter-insurgency - the West Bank and Gaza." and various mentions that Israel is active in those countries in various roles - sometimes, but not always, stated to be counter-insurgency activities.
  • Synth, possibly going as far as OR, also occurs here in another section of the above fragment "together with an aspiration to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques"; this comes from the quote included by Pieterse stating "Israel coveted the job of top Washington proxy in Central America"; this is used by Pieterse in relation to Israel being a proxy for the provision of US funds to certain South American groups, not in relation to the export of counter-insurgency techniques.
  • OR and POV bias occurs where the editors stated that this was exported to "put down peasant revolts against land expropriation", a statement that is at no point supported by the assumed source.
  • POV bias occurs when the statement from Pieterse "Israel's involvement in Honduras/Nicaragua and EISalvador issaid to be related to reports of links between the PLO and Central American movements." is excluded from the section discussing why Pieterse believes Israel is active in those locations - a curious omission, given that the article goes to great lengths to explain why Israel is present with theories that are not directly stated by Pieterse but the article does reference to him.

Perhaps these issues are confined to the Pieterse reference and a few other isolated occasions - but I would consider it highly unlikely that the only reference I examined happened to be the only reference with issues.

Of course, I hasten to add, I am not making any statement about the veracity of these claims, just about whether the provided reference is appropriate to support them. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No, actually it is a near-verbatim paraphrase of the description given by the image source, as you can see by clicking on it. Zerotalk 10:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
My mistake. All the same, that doesn't mean there is no issue with the statement, just that the issue is different from what I initially thought. The source appears to be a blog within a wider page, and thus per WP:BLOGS it is not usable as a source. Aside from that issue, the page doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NEUTRAL, and so perhaps taking what is effectively a direct quote from it is not the best idea in terms of creating a neutral article? On an unrelated note, perhaps it would be been better to put this at the end of my writing, rather than in the middle of it? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
No, that is from B'tselem. Not a random blog. Anyway, per MOS:IMAGES, we generally accept in good faith the description of an image as most images that are used in reliable sources such as newspapers are copyrighted and cant be used here. nableezy - 16:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have refactored to put the original comment back together, and moved inline responses to the bottom. Levivich 15:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The image MOS states "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken." - the quote states "Israeli military forces arriving to destroy the Palestinian community of Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah, 8 January, 2014, thereby rendering homeless the entire population of 10 adults and 15 minors", of which only the first part is identification of content and thus covered by the policy. Also, destroy is a somewhat loaded word - demolish would be more neutral. In line with this, I would like to propose that the description is altered to:
  • "Israeli military forces arriving to demolish the Palestinian community of Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah, 8 January, 2014".
As for the source not being a blog on a wider site, that page describes itself as an image blog, or does that website have an unusual definition of blog? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLOGS is about self-published blogs that have no editorial oversight. B'tselem's "Eyes Wide Open" photo blog is not a blog in that sense. That is not a place where any person can publish their own personal views and or images. These are published by B'tselem, they take responsibility for its content (here is where they announced the creation of it). This is not some random person on the internet writing on Tumblr or Wordpress their own personal views. As far as the wording, I dont see how destroy is less neutral, but I dont oppose changing it to demolish. The removal of the rest of the caption however I object to. We can attribute it to B'tselem if you really want, but I dont even think that is necessary. As far as of which only the first part is identification of content and thus covered by the policy, no, sorry, that makes zero sense. The publisher of this photo is saying this is what the photo depicts. Even if it werent B'tselem, even if it were just on Flickr, the policy would allow us to take that description in good faith. However, it isnt on Flickr, this is from B'tselem. B'tselem has routinely been found to be a reliable source at RSN. Including for the fact that this specific demolition left a population of 10 adults and 15 minors homeless. nableezy - 18:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added a source for the caption (one of B'Tselem's articles on Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah). B'Tselem uses the word "demolish" and never "destroy" so I changed that word, and I also expanded the caption slightly per the source cited. That said, the picture sucks. The reason is because it shows some humvees and a bulldozer. I believe B'Tselem that these particular vehicles were going to Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah in January 2014, but, frankly, it could be a picture of anybody going anywhere. Compare with the pictures used at House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which actually depict house demolition. I don't see any problem with this picture staying in from an RS or NPOV perspective, but I think a better one could be found. (Or multiple better ones.) Levivich 18:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Im not wed to the image. nableezy - 18:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nishidani, I see you were the one who added the Pieterson statements and as such your input on that part of this would be appreciated - the photo issue has already been resolved through the addition of a citation. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I think my paraphrases are close to the passages in Pieterse, and that there is no original research. I can't see the point you are driving at.Unfortunately I am extremely busy and can't afford the time at the moment to review all of this immediately (that is probably true of all of us) What little time I have consists, as requested,in overhauling the article by a general précis near the 100kb goal, and I haven't got to that section yet. I bow in these things to Zero, and, If in the meantime, if he has the time, would appreciate his judgement, and will adjust according to that advice if there is some flaw detected. Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nishidani, I have placed your response in the appropriate section; I hope that is not an issue.
Above, I have presented a detailed explanation of how your paraphrase is neither close nor acceptable per policy, detailing extensively how it is synthesis, and I also provided an example of a segment where there is nothing in the source that can support it, synth or not. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to justify this sentence against, if I can blow my own horn, an extensive and well documented discussion of its issues is worrying, and I ask that you reconsider choosing to ignore this. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
If you knew my personal circumstances, you wouldn't misread the above. I have extremely serious carer engagements with two desperately ill people, and that is more important than extreme wiki punctuality. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry for your personal circumstances, but the way I see it is if you have time to contribute, as it appears you do, you should have time to defend your contributions, should they be reasonably challenged. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I stand by every word I wrote, which is a paraphrase of pp.59-64 mainly, and underscored by the whole text. Indeed in rapidly skimming over the article versus the paraphrase, I showed remarkable restraint in the face of a source that is far more damning. As I said, Zero is an acknowledged extremely meticulous arbiter elegantiarum with the issue of sources and OR, and I will duly defer to his opinion, whatever he determines. That's more time than I should allow myself on this farce.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nishidani, once again I've moved your response to the correct section. Can I ask that you try to post them here in the future?
As for the statement itself, if you stand by it then I ask you to prove it is not synth and not OR. In other words, I would appreciate it if you quote where Pieterson states that "Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka", where he states "Israeli aspirations to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka" and where he states "Israel exported these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka to put down peasant revolts against land expropriation." - if he did not make statements to those ends, then it is synth and has no place here unless another source that does explicitly state that can be found. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
On page 60 Pieterse writes: To understand Israel's methods one must look at Israel's source of expertise in the field of counterinsurgency-the West Bank and Gaza. He then goes on to detail those methods.

On page 64, under the heading The Export of Israeli Methods, Pieterse writes the following: We again encounter a configuration of policies similar to Israel ... Months later, in Israel, General Benditto Garcia, Lucas' brother, chief of staff of the Guatemalan Army, attributed the government's military success to Israel's assistance.

On page 66, under the same heading, he writes: Israeli assistance on this front consists of military sales to Honduras and acting as a back-up source of assistance to contras. Later in that page, same heading, he writes: In 1977, Israeli technicians built an electrified "wall" at the Namibia-Angola border to keep SWAPO forces from entering Namibia. A similar system of electronic border surveillance (valla electronica) has been under construction since 1982 in Costa Rica on the border with Nicaragua.

On page 67, still under that same heading, he writes: Since early 1984, Israeli security advisers have been called in to train Lankan security personnel. Already, the structural similarities between the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the Palestinians are notable-again policies centered on land, control, demography, and terror combine in order to consolidate a configuration of Sinhala hegemony.

Pieterse lists each of these places under "export of Israeli Methods". SYNTH? nableezy - 01:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort, but that doesn't address my concerns - it doesn't even mention Israel seeking to be the "Top-Proxy", which as I mentioned is only mentioned once and in a non-applicable context, while it also doesn't mention "peasant revolts" or "land expropriation", which as I mentioned is not mentioned by Pieterse at all.
As for the other section; that is indeed less clear cut, but I would still lean towards synth - stating "the expertise gained led to the development of methods that for reason (insert various reasons found in document here) was then exported would be ok", as the article supports the development of the methods being due to the experience, but it does not support the export of the methods being directly due to the experience.
Incidentally, where did "repressing" come from? I can't remember if I saw it in the original article. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Imprecise References[edit]

There is an issue with imprecise referencing on this article. For instance, in several cases an author known as Jan Nederveen Pieterse is referenced for his 1984 book. The book title is not specified, but as far as I can tell he only published one book in 1984 (and only one book in relation to Israel), which is accessible here[5] and has a total length of 35 pages. The issue is that the referenced pages are stated to occur between page 58 and 71, which can probably be explained by the use of different editions or even a different book, but we cannot determine this from the current state of the references. Can the authors expand on these? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Upon further research, I'm having an issue with this reference. It appears to have been created for the Emancipation Foundation based in Amsterdam, but I cannot find any information on this foundation. Research into the book also finds no information on it; it has an ISBN, and while I can find notes about it existing on occasion, including that its publisher was "Intl Ctr Res& Public Policy", I cannot find any more information than this. does anyone know if this publisher meets the requirements of WP:SOURCE? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You are looking in the wrong place. The source is not a book but an article in the academic journal Crime and Social Justice, which changed its name to Social Justice in 1988. This is clearly stated in the bibliography section of the article and confirmed by the page numbers. You can see the article here. Zerotalk 10:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
If so, then part of the issue is that, per Pieterse, that article is from 1985, not 1984, though the book was written in 1984. Apart from that little issue, then the rest of it was my mistake - I was not familiar with the style of referencing used in this article. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
As to your request in the section above, I've checked and rechecked some time ago, but the link at given by Zero is the same that my own link provided. It states that the article is to be dated 1984. If Jstor got it wrong, then please supply the relevant details. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
At google books 1985 is indeed the date. Unless there are objections, I'll change 1984 to 1985 within a day or so, or, in the meantime anyone can legitimately correct Jstor's error. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
No objections from me; his personal website also lists it as 1985 [6]. However, this wasn't the issue I was raising where I pinged, which is about how the source is used. If you reread the first post in that section you should understand. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Never use Google's automatically-inferred years. They are often wrong, even by more than a century. I believe that 1984 is the correct year, because the publication year is decided by the journal, not the author. You can see on the journal's website that this double issue has year 1984. I don't know why the author's web page says 1985 — maybe the issue took a long time to come out. Zerotalk 01:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok - makes sense. Thank you -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Occupation from Jordan during war[edit]

Instead of hiding the facts, which promotes the writer's agenda, the first paragraph should look like this:

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank began on 7 June 1967 when, during the six-day war, Israel occupied from Jordan the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to the present day.

In general, this article is full of pro-Palestinian bias, so at least add all the relevant facts to the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by כותבערכים (talkcontribs) 15:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The article covers that Jordan had previously occupied the West Bank in the section The West Bank in 1967. I dont see why that needs to be in the first sentence though, it is, present tense, occupied Palestinian territory, not occupied Jordanian territory. nableezy - 22:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Brief review of sources[edit]

As part of a brief review of sources, deemed necessary after a conversation here, I have found the following issues. Some of these are relatively minor, but they are still listed as despite being minor they will need to be resolved. I have also mostly focused on the issues of Original Research and Synth, but on occasion have included explicit examples of the most notable violations of undue weight and neutral POV - although the largest issue, having carefully reviewed the entire document and the sources therein, is with UW and NPOV.

I should note that this is a far from comprehensive review:

  • Aside from the one issue noted, I did not review the lead as it is possible sources for it are, as is allowed, not included there - though I do believe that the lead should, in a contentious case like this, include all sources
  • I do not have access to all sources, and so have only reviewed the ones I do have access to, using WP:AGF to assume that any statement which is referenced by one or more references I do not have access to properly reflects the contents of that reference
  • I have not reviewed the notes, except in the context of where they are located.
  • It's a long article, and even for the sources I reviewed I have probably missed things - in particular, later sections are reviewed in less depth than earlier ones, and many of the larger later sections have been, for the moment, left unassessed. Should others wish to work through those I would appreciate it, but I believe the issues in the other sections indicate that issues will be found in those sections.

I have also included a few notes about prose and other issues as I come across them.

Lead[edit]

  • Original Research (OR): "Widely considered to be a classic example of an "intractable" conflict" - Source does not support the claim that this belief is widely held
Nonsense, and patently vexatious since one is not obliged to multifootnote the obvious. Please google at least to see how often it is cited as such in specific technical works on 'Intractable Conflicts'. It is virtually a default term for the IP conflict. I'm not going to do work any one with a query can answer for themselves in seconds, except here, note.
Is there a policy to that end that you are referencing? As far as I know the relevant policy is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which would require you to provide evidence for the statement that this is "widely considered". I would also ask that you be WP:CIVIL. If you believe I am being vexatious then please take that to the appropriate forum, but apart from that such an accusation has no place here. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
NoCOBOL, prepare yourself for many ad hominem attacks.
On this one, "intractable conflict", I lean towards including it because of WP:BLUESKY obviousness. I think if there's one thing that everybody in the world knows about Palestine-Israel (and Arab-Israel before it), it's that these conflicts are intractable; i.e., going on for a long time without resolution, hard to control or deal with, difficult. Would you agree (that this is common knowledge)? If you disagree, is there another word that would work for you? Levivich 16:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear. I was hopeful that my response would be sufficiently neutral to avoid those from all but the most intractable editors, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised if that is not the case.
As for the use of intractable here; thank you for WP:BLUESKY. I think in this case my issue was that it seemed like more of a technical term than a general one, but looking at it again in the context of what you are saying it does appear fine - thank you. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
NoCOBOL, I believe your response was more than sufficiently neutral. Prepare for ad hominem attacks anyway :-) Levivich 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed "widely". That resolve this? nableezy - 17:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The language of conflict and coverage in academia and the media[edit]

  • Unreliable Source (US), Undue Weight (UW) and Neutral Point of View (NPOV): "The West Bank vs Judea and Samaria; the IDF "says" or "confirms" while Palestinians "claim"; Israelis are "kidnapped" whereas Palestinians are "arrested"; for Israel, violence refers to occasional events, for Palestinians it is an everyday feature of the occupation; what Palestinians regard as assassinations are "pinpoint preventive operations" for Israel; what some call "colonies" are called "settlements" or "neighbourhoods" by others; what some call "displacement" is for Palestinians "dispossession"; Israel military actions are "responses": Palestinian actions are "attacks". " - This is sourced, though two paragraphs later - a fact that makes reviewing this document all the harder, as sources might be provided, but in unusual positions. There was a nearby source that discussed "terminology bias" in favour of Israel, including examples such as "Martyr" vs "Suicide Bomber", but these examples were omitted. The source itself is unreliable because it is a "Diary" (essentially unreviewed blog) entry on the London Book Review site. There is also a possible issue with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:NPOV; this segment focuses on the issues Palestine and its supporters has with coverage it deems pro-Israel, but does not cover the reverse. In particular, I question why it omits the above example of "Martyr" vs "Suicide Bomber"; while this is from a source complaining about "martyr" not being used enough outside of Palestinian Coverage, it is an example that would illustrate the Israeli position.
  • OR and NPOV: "The way the conflict is reported are extensively monitoring and analysed: in addition to Israel's public diplomacy, intent on countering negative press images, there are also many private pro-Israeli organizations, among them CAMERA, FLAME, HonestReporting, Palestinian Media Watch, Canary Mission and the Anti-Defamation League which claim much reportage is distorted. The term Pallywood was coined to suggest that Palestinian coverage of their plight is manipulative fake news." - The article makes a statement about Israel working to coutner this "negative press image", but provides no source on it. There is also an issue here and in the surrounding sections with WP:NPOV, as it discusses the Israeli efforts to affect the coverage in depth, but barely mentions Palestinian efforts.
  • UW: " Tamar Liebes, former director of the Smart Institute of Communication at the Hebrew University, argued that Israeli "Journalists and publishers see themselves as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders"." - while this is correctly quoted to the individual, as it should for a US, this would appear to be undue weight of a single individual who is effectively publishing within a blog (see above)

Notes: I have mentioned a few times within this section review of UW and NPOV, but it pervades the entire section; every single source here appears to be pro-Palestine, and as the pro-Israeli view is not WP:FRINGE this seems like it needs to be corrected.

This is just a mishmash, and one can't respond to hodgepodgery. The intricately detailed sourcing for every statement there, from RS, is here or in the main article. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If there is a source for the statement I reviewed as OR, then could you perhaps link it here? It is possible that I missed it, as sometimes the references are in locations that do not appear to correspond to the statement needing the source. As for the rest, I feel they can be replied to; for instance, you could reply to the first with an explanation on why Israeli issues with terminology are not needed here to provide a NPOV despite the extensive coverage of Palestinian issues; to be honest, if you can't then this suggests to me that the issues I have raised are solid. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree here, this section talks a lot about Israeli distortion or misuse of language, and little or not at all about Palestinian distortion or misuse of language. For example, it doesn't mention that the PA refers to suicide bombers as "martyrdom-seeking operations", or that settlers are referred-to commonly as a "herd" or "gang". It doesn't mention the "Great Satan" and "Little Satan" language. There are other examples. Everybody on both sides has been twisting language for 50+ years, so there are many examples. Levivich 16:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich- Do you really want to get into the language settlers and Palestinians use of each other, 'Arab scum', 'Nazis swine', 'Hitler's children', 'bacteria' etc. I have dozens of sources on this. Point taken that this can be fine-tuned, but I've been asked to cut drastically things that are facts? I know there is an expectation that once Iì'm below say 100kB, there's no reason why we can't then boost it way over that figure with what editors take to be a balancing 'Jewish/Israel' POV. But this is about media reportage as scholarship reviews it, not about back yard sledging and name calling.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I too agree maybe we should take this section out till if will fixed for NPOV ---Shrike (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed unreliability, this is by Yonatan Mendel, who has edited a book about this specific topic published by Edinburgh University Press. Even if this were his personal blog it would be a usable source per WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I am not opposed to adding more material on "suicide bomber" vs "martyr", but the material from Mendel is properly sourced. nableezy - 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It also says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Given the general insistence of scholarship over news in this article, it also seems quite odd to include something equivalent self-published source. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)l
It's even odder that at History of Alexander you contradict the scruples insisted on here, by citing sources that are self-published. You can't have it both ways: in your own wiki work cite experts published by lulu.com, and then come here and cite policy insisting on a high bar for reliable sources. W P:COI notice. My first degree was in classical Greek.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You see? Ad hominem. You can't just keep it to the topic of the content on this page, you must expand and comment on the behavior of the editor with whom you disagree (in this case, suggesting hypocrisy). Every time. I can set a clock by it, Nish. Levivich 22:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I ask you again, please be WP:CIVIL. If you have an issue with my work elsewhere then I am happy to discuss it there - I am quite literally only here through the random page button, and would be overjoyed to go back to topics I enjoy. I will quickly note, however, that there is a difference between a contentious modern occupation and a relatively obscure lost worm written before Christ. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That is not ad hominem. On wikipedia formally editors are obliged as part of NPOV to adopt the same criteria of judgement re policy uniformly, and not play with policy, depending on the article, to score points. You are clearly using a double standard over the two articles compared. You are asking for an extreme high bar of what you imagine to be policy requirements for the article here while in the wiki article you yourself wrote, there is no trace of any awareness of the same policy requirements - to the contrary (conversations from Forbes magazine; private blogs, the Encyclopedia Britannica's outdated 1911 snippet article, unpaginated primary sources, etc.) To employ such shoddy sourcing there, while getting on a policy high horse in trampling through this is problematical, particularly since you take exception to the sourcing. Your last remark is nonsensical, suggesting that with an historical topic whose interpretation is notably tricky and contentious, any 'stuff' goes, but with a contemporary topic, the stringent academic or technical literature is to be challenged. In both, you either disregard or dispute the relevant scholarship, which is the advised best sourcing for any wiki article per RS. It is very difficult for other editors to take your comments splashed all over this talk age seriously given such an astonishing contradiction in what you do there, and what you preach here.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
All I ask is for you to be WP:CIVIL. Maybe you disagree, but attempting to discredit a statement by working to discredit the person making it is the definition of ad hominem. As for the article itself, it seems that you have misrepresented many elements and appear to be confused about others; I am particularly curious how I referenced the primary source when the primary source is lost, but that is a discussion to be held on that page, not here. I will not respond further to this line of questioning, no matter what baseless accusations you throw my way.
I will, however, make one final statement. I believe that the more controversial a subject, the harsher the restrictions on sourcing should be. A relatively non-controversial article, such as one on an old book, can take advantage of the full range of sources allowed by policy, though only in deference to sources meeting harsher requirements. A controversial article, such as this one, should only take the most restrictive view of sources, and in particular should not use sources that policy cautions against using, such as the source under discussion. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Where have I been uncivil? The fact of the occupation is not controversial, the facts adduced here are not controversial; the mechanisms described here are not contested but have been repeatedly examined in Israel's supreme court. What is being asserted is that setting forth the data no one challenges, cannot but be controversial. Now, if you will allow, I will get back to doing what several editors asked for, a size reduction, which I willingly do in full awareness that, ironically, I am doing half of the 'dirty work' the objectors wanted, and that once I satisfy that 'concern' per WP:AGF edit warring will automatically resume to try and either gut the article, or fill up the saved space with justificatory political material. Back to work.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry, but I just quoted what specifically allows this source to be used. Policy explicitly allows for an established expert's self-published work. And this isnt even self-published, because as you note it is published by the London Review of Books. It is a reliable source and there is no cause for arguing its removal. nableezy - 23:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Blogs are not considered reliable sources, even if the site they are on is otherwise considered reliable. And yes, it does say it can, but it also warns against it. In this case, I would argue the subject matter is to contentious to do so - the way I see it is if it is not a fringe view, you should be able to provide a reliable source for it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This isnt a blog. I have provided a reliable source, the writings by an established expert are reliable. I quoted from policy what explicitly allows this source to be used. Your request here is not based on policy. nableezy - 17:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The West Bank in 1967[edit]

No major issues found here, though if someone with access to "The Economic Case for Palestine" can confirm that it explicitly states that "Compared to Israel, the West Bank had a favourable educational basis", and that this isn't SYNTH.
You can ask a direct citation.user:nishidani can you provide one? --Shrike (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Conquest[edit]

  • UW: "who also recognized that year that for Arabs what Zionism undertook to do was seen as theft" - there is no apparent reason for the inclusion of this line in this section, as it adds nothing to the a discussion of the Six-Day War
  • Synth (SY): "That Zionism thought of partition agreements as temporary and aspired from the outset to incorporate all of Palestine into a Jewish state went back at least to declarations of intent made by Ben-Gurion in 1937-1938" - it is a synth of two factors. 1, that a statement to this end was made by Gurion, and 2, that Gurion was later the head of the World Zionist Organization and the first Prime Minister of Israel. The source does not support ascribing this belief to Zionism itself, and though I can understand why some may consider this synth reasonable given Gurion's position, it is still synth.
  • OR: "Israel expelled many people from areas it had conquered, beginning with an estimated 12,000 people who on the very first day were rounded up in the villages of Imwas, Yalo and Bayt Nuba in the Latrun Salient and ordered by the Israeli military into exile eastwards." - the source does provide evidence to support that those 12,000 people were expelled (abet in different words, but close enough to not be synth), but it does not make statements that the expulsions were wider than this, as is suggested by the line fragment "Israel expelled many people from areas it had conquered, beginning with". Also, the source states this to have happened on the second night, not the first day - a minor problem, but worth correcting all the same.

Notes: "After Israel attacked Egypt at 8 a.m. on 5 June 1967", in "Conquest" - it would seem to me that including the reason Israel attacked would be useful for comprehensive and neutral coverage - even something as simple as "After Israel attacked Egypt, following the closure of the Straits of Tiran, at 8 a.m. on 5 June 1967"

  • With regard to Zionism, I am going to quote Nishidani (on this talk page): There is not just ... one Zionist perspective or historical account, and Nableezy (in an edit summary for reverting a background section about Zionism): ...this page isnt about Zionism. That we talk about the Arab perspective of Zionism but don't talk about the background of Zionism (i.e., don't give the Zionist perspective anywhere) is one of the POV problems in this article. That we ascribe one view to all of Zionism is also a problem, as noted by Nishi. I agree about including more background info in general, including the reasons for the '67 war, and the reason Jews moved to the area in the first place. This suggestion has been met with huge opposition previously. Levivich 16:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Military Administration[edit]

  • OR: "for the 'welfare and benefit of the population'"; the inclusion doesn't appear to add anything to the article, though if its contributor, USER:Nishidani, has one that I have missed than I would welcome an explanation. The main issue with the line, however, is that it is effectively OR. By including the WP:SCAREQUOTES the line is indicating that they are not there for the "welfare and benefit of the population", and the sources do not make such a statement. Alternatively, removing the scare quotes would result in it stating the opposite without a reliable secondary source to back it up and so I believe it is best if it is removed entirely, even if the contributor does have a reason for its inclusion.

Notes: The title of the section seems to inaccurately reflect the contents, and I feel a better title would be "Israeli Administration".

  • Is this a direct quote from somewhere? Levivich 17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not find it in any of the sources I reviewed, but it is possible I missed it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The title is Military Administration to distinguish the Israeli Military Governorate from the Israeli Civil Administration. The use of quotes is because it is quoting the military order that established the Civil Administration. That order read "the Civil Administration shall administer civilian affairs in the Area [the West Bank] […] with regard to the welfare and benefit of the population, for the purpose of operating and providing public services and in consideration of the need to maintain good governance and public order in the Area". Those are not scare quotes, they are quotation marks around an actual quotation. nableezy - 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue with the title is that the section discusses more than just the military administration, and not just in the context of the transition from the military to civilian administration.
The issue with the quotation marks, meanwhile, is that it is not clear from the context that they are a quote, and instead can easily come across as "scare quotes". If the segment is to remain, this needs to be corrected, but corrected in a manner that doesn't imply any conclusions about the veracity of the statement - and to be honest, I am not sure this can be done, and since I also cannot see how that fragment contributes to the section I do believe the best solution is to remove it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That does not make a whole lot of sense to me, can come across as scare quotes? It isnt making any conclusion, implied or explicit, about the veracity of the statement. We can attribute it to the military order to make it clear it is a quotation. nableezy - 18:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I reworked that bit to make clear this is a quote from the military order. nableezy - 21:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Territory[edit]

No major issues found here in regards to specific sources, though a general issue of UW is found.

Note: Section is generally confusing. It states to cover territory, but goes into a much more expansive coverage than this. I am not sure whether it would be better to rename the entry or strip the ancillary items out.

Initial impact of occupation[edit]

  • OR and UW: "By June 1967, only a third of West Bank land had been registered under the Settlement of Disputes over Land and Water Law and Israel quickly moved, in 1968, to cancel the possibility of registering one's title with the Jordanian Land Register." - The phrase "quickly moved" is unsupported by the source and suggests towards certain motives on Israel's part. I also believe there is undue weight on this cancellation; the absence of a discussion of the replacement system leads one to certain conclusions that may be inaccurate. I am also not certain about the reliability of the source; it comes from Al-Haq, and their reliability appears to be disputed, but since the reliability of those organizations disputing Al-Haq's reliability is also disputed there is some confusion on this point; it might be worth bringing to the reliable sources notice board.
  • OR: "imports of grapes and dates banned" - the provided citation does not state anything about this as far as I can tell, and definitely does not around the page number cited.
  • OR: "By defining any area as a closed military zone, Israel has often used the classification to prepare the way for a civilian settlement. " - this statement is, as far as I can tell, not supported by any provided citation, though the absence of a citation at the end of the paragraph makes it unclear what citation was intended to support it.

Notes: I don't understand why the first paragraph is in this section. The possible long-term Israeli plans for the area have nothing to do with the Initial Impact. USER:Nishidani, again it appears you included this - can you comment? I also wonder about the accuracy of the title. It might be better to title it "Impact of the Occupation" or similar, as the article goes well beyond the initial impact, including elements that happened years after the war.

  • I'm not going to respond redundantly to each instance of this, but a general comment applicable to all the "not in source cited" points: if it's not in the source cited, of course it should be removed. Levivich 17:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The minister of agriculture prohibited or restricted the sale inside the 1949 armistice lines of major West Bank and Gaza products, like grapes and dates, to forestall competition with Israeli producers.
The line on closed military zones becoming settlements doesnt currently have a source, Ill work on getting one. nableezy - 18:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I just removed that line for now. I also removed quickly moved, even though that seems fairly obvious with the dates. Anything else here? The claim on undue weight because it doesnt include a replacement system doesnt hold water, Israel has not made a replacement system. The suspension of the ability to register was made specifically to deny the possibility of further registrations. nableezy - 21:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Dates is fine, thank you for that, as well as for correcting the other two. As for UW, while registration is not possible it is possible to assert ownership of land that was unregistered. This probably should be mentioned, as the implication is that this is not the case. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Source please. Absent sources to support your position there is no UW issue. nableezy - 17:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Settlement[edit]

Generally no major issues, though I had an unusually high number of sources I could not completely access in this section compared to previous ones. However, it does appear there are a few issues with NPOV, such as mentioning the settlement of Gaza but not the withdrawal, and having a sub-section of violence by settlers but very little on violance towards settlers.

State of asymmetric war[edit]

Again, a lot of sources that I could not access complete copies of, so most of this section has been WP:AGF to be properly cited.

  • NPOV: The section on Armaments covers numerous things beyond armaments, but excludes any mention of Palestinian Armaments beyond rocks and molotov cocktails. Along this same thread, the article doesn't cover the molotov cocktails in any detail, which it describes as "primarily non-lethal", while it goes into extensive detail on the impact of the "non-lethal" techniques employed by Israel, such as stating "tear gas canisters (which have often produced fatalities)".
  • (?): "The first Intifada was relatively unarmed" - I cannot access the article, but I find it surprising, given the deaths on the Israeli side, that it would make such a statement. Can anyone verify that this one does match?
  • OR, UW: The section lists the number of Israeli's killed at 90, which is considerably less than the number presented at the First Intifada. The article does have the clarifier "by Palestinians", so that may explain it, though I suspect that even if accurate such a specifier makes this an example of undue weight, using overly restrictive criteria to present a certain picture. However, the issue is that the citation doesn't support this, with it list the casualties between 2000 and 2008, well after the end of the Intifada.

Notes:

  • The sub-sections go far outside what their title would imply. For instance, the subsection armaments doesn't cover just the weapons used, it goes into criminal sentences and other unrelated matters. I also would appreciate input on whether the casualties should be limited to those just occurring in the West Bank or if they should provide a coverage of the conflict as a whole. There is also a general issue with inconsistent terminology (Soldiers and Security Forces), as well as the conflation of Civilians and Militants in the Palestinian figures but their separation in the Israeli.
  • There is also a significant focus on violence by Israeli's, including their psychological motivation and impact, but nothing on violence by Palestinians. This seems to be a NPOV issue, as such violence is directly relevant and not fringe.
  • Multiple thoughts here:
  1. Armaments should include discussion of bombs (explosives), suicide bomber vests and suicide bombers (including vests worn by children and women, including apparently-pregnant women), and the different kinds of mortars, missiles, and rockets, including the difference between the three, and the differences in range. Also drones. I was also surprised that white phosphorous (or whatever you call that stuff) wasn't mentioned, but I wonder if that's because it was used only in Gaza and not in WB.
  2. "Primarily non-lethal" is based, as far as I can tell, on one person's opinion. I'm sure there are a lot of other people that would disagree with that person's opinion. I think it should go unless it can be demonstrated with RSes that this is a widely held view by RSes and not just one person.
  3. The armaments section conspicuously "relatively unarmed", I always wondered: relative to what? The Second Intifada?
  4. There is no way, in my opinion, this article can present just one number as the number of Israelis killed (or the number of Palestinians killed). These numbers are hotly disputed; in my view, any neutral presentation of such numbers has to include a discussion of the dispute and the various numbers put forward by various people/organizations.
  5. The security defense motivation issue is relevant here. Levivich 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The First Intifada was in fact largely unarmed. Hell, the BBC article on it 20 years later opens with The Palestinians were largely unarmed, so the enduring picture of the intifada is one of young men and boys throwing stones and rocks at Israeli troops. As far as deaths on the Israeli side, over 6 years from the start of the intifada until Oslo, 271 Israeli civilians were killed in Israel and in the occupied territories combined. nableezy - 17:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: 271 according to B'Tselem. Do other sources give other figures, or do all sources agree on 271? Levivich 21:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Cant honestly say that I looked, B'tselem being my go to for such figures. Ill look around though. nableezy - 21:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich. Israel has a standing army, and Palestinians are forbidden arms. There were two historically short periods of suicide bombers, etc., but it is not a general feature of Palestinian protests, which have occurred daily, with stones basically, for 40 years. I mentioned suicide bombers. I'll touch on this when I review that section. As to statistics, I avoid government sources, Israeli or Palestinian. I'm interested not in what government or semi-official sources state when a conflict is live, but what field researchers report after a lapse of time. This is what historians normally do, except for Anthony Cordesman. There are even well-researched books and articles on the systematic distortion of figures from both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. I leave that junk untouched. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but that reads like you are saying that you are the arbiter of what is reliable enough for Wikipedia or not? As it stands, those figures have been assessed as sufficiently reliable for inclusion, and as far as I can tell your objection to their inclusion comes down to personal preference - Wikipedia does not work that way. If you don't want to use them here then challenge them there and get a concensus for their removal first. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Technologies of control[edit]

Not yet assessed

Collective punishment[edit]

Not yet assessed

Fragmentation[edit]

Not yet assessed

Agriculture[edit]

Not yet assessed

Loss of cultural property[edit]

  • OR: "Albert Glock, among others, argued that the thrust of archaeology has been to interpret the Palestinian past in Christian and Jewish Zionist terms, in the latter instance, providing a charter for the occupation, to the detriment of the Palestinian cultural heritage." - the source provides that Albert Glock argues this, but it does not establish that this is a popular opinion, or even merely held by others, as the first past of the paragraph claims - it seems WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies here.
  • Agree here, and again, a general comment that I won't repeat for every example: all of the instances of "so and so says..." should be removed unless there's a particular reason why so-and-so's individual opinion is important in context. I don't care about Albert Glock's argument; I care about the general consensus of reliable sources; that's what we should be presenting to the reader. This is why some people say the sources are "cherrypicked". Levivich 17:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If so and so is a reliable source then it can and should be included. If nobody is disputing the statement it doesnt even need to be attributed. nableezy - 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy: No, and you know that's not how it works. We don't include everything that any reliable source says. "Reliable source" is the floor, the minimum required for inclusion. After determining that it's an RS, we then must consider WEIGHT and so forth. So just because one person says it doesn't mean we include it. In fact, if only one person says it, it means we shouldn't include it. And, um, how hard do you think it would be to find someone who disagrees with Glock's argument that the thrust of archaeology has been to interpret the Palestinian past in Christian and Jewish Zionist terms? Because if you say "any reliable source gets to be included", then hey, let's bring back quoting Bibi's book published by a reputable publisher? No, of course not, because it's more than just RS that needs to be considered. Levivich 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry, but no, absolutely not. Yes, something being in a reliable source does not mean it has to be included. The idea however that if one person says something that means it is undue weight is an error in reading undue weight. Weight is determined by the proportion of reliable sources that hold a position. If no reliable source disputes what a single reliable source says then there is no POV issue in including what that single reliable source says. Things are not non-neutral just because some Wikipedia editor finds them uncomfortable. There have to be actual reliable sources showing that some statement is disputed. nableezy - 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
These are objections that illustrate unfamiliarity with the topic area. What Glock wrote became an academic truism, commented on even in the Wall Street Journal, not to speak of specific monographs and articles by numerous scholars, such as Nur Masalha and Thomas Thompson. You are all calling on me to cut back, and asking for major expansions on things anyone who reads this stuff regularly will nod at as obvious.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel WP:OBVIOUS is needed here -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy and Nishidani: I want to assure you I am very comfortable, and nothing on this page or the article page makes me feel uncomfortable in any way. If it did, I just would stop coming to these pages. An academic truism should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, sourced to multiple RSes that show the broad consensus for the truism, rather than an attributed statement sourced to one speaker. This is how we tell the reader the difference between an academic truism and one man's opinion. Levivich 21:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
My view on this specific issue is that attribution be removed from Glock. Him writing in a peer-reviewed journal makes this statement a fact absent any reliable sources disputing it. If some source can be brought to show that this is a disputed view then fine we can discuss weight. But as it stands it is an unchallenged factual statement from a reliable source. AKA a fact here. nableezy - 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Tourism[edit]

No identified issues

Resource extraction[edit]

No identified issues (though it needs a clean-up)

Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation[edit]

Not yet assessed

Wider implications[edit]

  • SY, OR, NPOV: "Since the late 1970s, according to Jan Nederveen Pieterse writing in 1984, Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza, together with an aspiration to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka to put down peasant revolts against land expropriation." - for a comprehensive analysis of the issues in this fragment (I spent considerably more time covering that sentence than I have most sections hereto) see the Original Research section on this talk page.
There is no SY/OR/NPOV problem. Summary is not synth, read WP:SYNTH, but more particularly read the first six pages of Pieterse's article at least, which is compressed into two lines, with no synthetic OR of different points.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In the section referenced I gave three explicit statements that need to be directly stated by Pieterse for the summary to not be synth. Can you provide citations to that end, or does the statement need to go? Unfortunately, while I will always WP:AGF I also need to verify in cases like this where I have carefully analysed the statement in question and found that it appears to be synth and OR. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Israeli critical judgements[edit]

No identified issues

Sources[edit]

In general, I have noted an issue with source coverage and thus UW, with the overwhelming majority appearing to be from pro-Palestinian sources, and most of the rest from neutral sources. This is particularly pronounced in the inclusion of twenty-seven separate items from the Journal of Palestinian Studies - while it is a reliable source, it is commonly accepted as biased on these issues and so appears to have had undue weight placed on its opinions. Other pro-Palestinian organizations with significant coverage includes B'Tselem with fifteen separate articles cited. As I have mentioned above, the pro-Israeli position is not fringe, and so an article with such significant pro-Palestinian coverage should we working towards balance, but unfortunately I see no evidence of this.
it is commonly accepted as biased on these issues, um what? The Journal of Palestine Studies is a peer-reviewed journal published by the University of California Press. Who exactly accepts it as biased? And how is that a commonly held view? Is it "pro-Palestinian" because it has the word "Palestine" in it? nableezy - 17:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not exactly controversial that they are pro-Palestine. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur. The Journal of Palestine Studies is an enthusiastic cheerleader for Palestinian resistance, with footnotes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That is one of the dumber claims I have seen. nableezy - 21:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Source please. The Journal of Palestine Studies is a reliable source, full stop. You are making unsourced claims, back them up please. nableezy - 21:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, calling B'tselem "pro-Palestinian" is another one of those claims that need backing up. They are a human rights organization. That they document violations of Palestinian rights does not make them "pro-Palestinian", and regardless, "pro-Palestinian" is not a demerit in WP:RS as far as I can tell. nableezy - 21:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a breakdown by ethnicity of the original article, and from memory there were twice the number of Israel/Jewish scholars cited than of Arab scholars, while the third 'western' scholarly contribution lay in between. That was calculated. If there is an ethnicity bias, it is not towards Palestinians, and most of the authors cited from that journal are not Arabs. What you are getting here is standard fare at any reputable Israeli university or doctorate level history course. That it is not covered by newspapers reporting the conflict is well, stiff cheddar, but a global readership is entitled to know what the lay of the scholarship is.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how ethnicity is relevant in determining bias - ethnicities aren't a homogenous block where all the members of it agree on all matters. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree as a general matter that "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" is not a reason to exclude a source, in and of itself. All sources have biases. It's about balance. B'Tselem shouldn't be excluded, but nor should it be treated as the ultimate arbiter of anything. In other words, just because B'T says something, doesn't automatically mean we repeat it in WP's voice, or even include it with attribution. These issues must be decided on a case-by-case, sentence-by-sentence and cite-by-cite basis (unfortunately). I'd also add that 27 cites out of 300 doesn't really bother me on its face. I have the same feelings about JPS and also things like books written by Bibi, or statements from the IDF. Levivich 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason I raised those two were as they were the largest sources. However, the issue doesn't stop with them and instead it appears that most sources are pro-Palestine. And so there is no doubt , I am not saying that sources with bias should be deleted, just that we need to be careful of balance. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not calling them unreliable, I am calling them biased - I am not quite sure where you got that misunderstanding from. Biased sources are acceptable if reliable, but one needs to be careful to avoid undue weight. When faced with this situation, I have a simple question that I ask myself: if the only sources for the article were from this entity, would this be a balanced article? In this case the answer is clearly no; B'tselem describes itself as "B’Tselem devoted itself primarily to documenting Israeli violations of Palestinians’ human rights in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.", and while this is a noble goal, and one that it appears to persue with reliability, it does not lend itself to balance. Beyond my simple rule of thumb, though, B'tselem is another source generally considered pro-Palestine, and honestly I am not sure how you are disputing that, given their explicit aims and what they report on. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
B'tselem is not 'pro-Palestine', tout court. It reports on human rights violations, like Amnesty Interenational and Human Rights Watch, and has the largest data base on the topic in the world, in an area where 99& of them happen to Palestinians. It also regularly reports and deplores Palestinian violence, and in its field reports has frequently corrected information initially given by Palestinian sources. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
B'Tselem is pro-human rights. They also report on Palestinian violations against Israeli civilians (here). There is literally nothing that has been presented to back the claim that the Journal of Palestine Studies is biased. Not. One. Thing. nableezy - 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nableezy and USER:Nishidani, and anyone else who wants to chime in, let me ask you a question. If the only source you used for this article wad B'Tselem, would you consider it a balanced article? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
No, because this article is not only about violations of human rights in the West Bank. You are making assertions about sources being "pro-Palestinian" and that we are lacking "pro-Israel" sources, but you havent actually brought any reliable sources for any supposed POV issue. If you think there is a POV issue then bring reliable sources showing that there is some POV dispute over something in the article. nableezy - 18:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That would mean it would be incomplete, not that it would be imbalanced. Would you consider it to be balanced? If you don't, then it is self-evident that the source is balanced towards a certain viewpoint, and thus pushes the article towards that certain viewpoint by its inclusion, which needs to be balanced back by sources on the other "side". Further, it's important to note that by policy the onus is on those who create articles to prove the various aspects of them are correct, not on others to disprove it. However, when I am less burnt by the discussion on this page I will return with a more complete analysis of the sources and their respective biases. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No, if you say there is an issue with the balance of sources you need to demonstrate that issue with sources. You are making assertions based on feelings. nableezy - 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Zionist[edit]

As a general note, I feel the term Zionist and Zionism is overused. In some cases it is relevant, but in most cases it appears to be out of place and given the controversy over the use of the term in the context of criticism of Israel, I believe it would be best reduced. Perhaps someone with more experience of this topic can go through this article and decide whether the use is valid or not?
Specific examples of where it is inappropriate. Just saying something is controversial is not meaningful. nableezy - 21:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"governing the Zionist creation of Israel" - it is sufficient here to say "governing the creation of Israel"
"much as the pine introduced by Zionist arboriculture" - Zionist arboriculture? What? Israeli arboriculture, sure, but I do not see the need for Zionist.
Just a few where it is unneeded. There are others, but I would prefer to leave the more controversial ones to editors better versed on this. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

What to do?[edit]

Given the extent of these issues, I am not sure how best to resolve this. I am wondering if it might be best to return this article to draft space and only return it to mainspace if and when a consensus is established that it does present the situation from a NPOV, and does not have a significant quantity of OR or SY. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
For the moment, I've been WP:BOLD and dropped this article to C class, as it doesn't meet the requirements of B class due to the various issues found above and elsewhere, but that is an alteration of no significant relevance - further decisions need to be taken. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously exercise patience. We had a long thread centered on the claim, with some merit, that this was too long. So, dutifully, I set about reducing the article's length, and it is down from 165 Kb of readable prose to 124, and I am not yet half-finished. You have made a patchy sketch of work in progress, whose contents and sometimes sourcing are under constant reduction per précis. So the above - what I have read there is far too generic and unfocused- is premature. You say you haven't had access to many of the sources here, so jumping into a general review without mastery of the topic is again premature. Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote several months ago in my first post here way (way, way) at the top of this page, I believe the most efficient way forward is to first reduce the size of the article (currently in progress), and then discuss the POV sections piece by piece (now in progress thanks to NoCOBOL's efforts here). So my first reaction to "what to do" is "keep doing what we're doing now". As to moving it to draftspace, the best argument I can think of for that is that when you move it back out of draftspace, it can be a DYK nom (which I think it should be, and when it's ready, a GA nom as well, and FAC if possible). I don't know if that's important to the authors, though, and it may be that it'll be a DYK nom as it stands now; I don't know the answer to that, either. Levivich 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I will note that seeing Nishidani's constructive efforts at prose reduction, I am holding off editing the article as well as commenting until he is done. While in an optimum world this would have been done in draft space - given that he's working here at a good pace - discussing POV, sourcing, additions, and other issues will be easier once the article has been trimmed. Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It couldn't be done in draft space for the reason given above. To present the relevant details required massive sourcing in order that readers seeing the basis for the article in detail, could then get to the meat of whatever issues they wanted to raise, in full knowledge of the topic. Some editors objecting here appear to be unacquainted with the topic's intricacies. That is not ad hominem, it is simply a fact that public knowledge of the voluminous academic works on this topic through fairly exposure to newspaper coverage and general books is not, as the article itself notes, particularly informed. I appreciate the restraint being shown here. I have very little free time, but am going as fast as circumstances allow. As for nominations, I don't care for them, though I did oo-author Shakespeare Authorship Question in good part, whose main editor certainly deserved the FA credit our work got.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I feel I may have missed something. What reason did you give for this being unsuited to draft space? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This isnt a draft, and that you feel there are undue weight issues does not make it so, or make it so this should be moved out of article space. I for one disagree with nearly every instance of a claim of undue weight above. nableezy - 00:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If I can be honest with you, saying "I disagree" isn't very useful. If you do disagree, the please, don't hesitate to explain the issues in my reasoning. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I have, in each of the sections above you brought something up. But mostly the issue I have is you are just pointing at something and saying this is POV based on what I can only assume is a feeling. I can only assume that because you havent brought any source disputing what is in the article. There is a POV dispute only if there are reliable sources disputing something. Not if somebody on Wikipedia says there is. nableezy - 18:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The way I see it is that patience for determining neutrality is not suitable at the current point; while if the article was being reduced it would make it easier at a later stage, it is not being reduced, only split, so the workload is constant or even increasing. Further, this is in mainspace, not draft space, where "wait and see" is applicable - indeed, this is part of the reason I support a move to draftspace and a review before it's return, so we can leave you to it until you believe it is properly sourced and neutral.
However, I will go a bit further into why I created this here and now; above, I created a short section discussing a line in the piece. Rather than defending or changing it, you choose to dismiss it as a non-issue, and this raised concerns for me as to the general neutrality and accuracy of citations for the article, as well as a fear that while you may be revising it you will not be correcting the POV issues.
As for the sources, I shouldn't need access to all of them to determine whether a specific element and its sources are correct - and if I do, then to me that suggests that there is a major synth problem. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is thrown around loosely in all talk page discussions, when it used to be proven with some rigour, in which case one responds.(a) You quoted the wrong date for an article, confusing a book with an article: I acted on your suggestion, and it proved to be incorrect, and this required a revert to the text as it originally stood; (c) you asserted I synthesized two sentences, when I was making an extremely concise 'summary' of, at a minimum, 5 pages; (d) you assert above 'the page is not being reduced only split' again, untrue and extremely misleading for a series of edits that have summarized the scholarship succinctly, reducing the page from 163kB to 124 kB, while conserving the original material on main page articles. That reduction has been acknowledged by others, but 'you' dissent; you challenged an obvious phrasing that the IP conflict was widely said to be an 'intractable conflict' when any familiarity with the topic should have told you, if not an instant google glance, that this is a commonplace part of the literature and a thematic topic discussed frequently at book length; (e) you challenged a generalization cited to Glock, and say it lacks a source as a 'popular opinion'. This is 'not about popular opinions': what Glock wrote is now a truism that has abundant scholarly coverage in everything from the Wall Street journal to scholarly works by Nur Masalha, Thomas Thompson et alii. All of this raises concerns for me. I can't see any evidence that you are familiar with this topic -everything points the other way, and this huge bolus of suspicion-sowing confusion is blocking what other editors asked me to do, concentrate on a radical shortening of the text to an acceptable level of readable prose. Could you indicate to me the best quality wiki article you have produced to date, so at least I can get some idea of your approach to complex article composition? I think it fair to have some idea of where you have shown your abilities to work at this level of thorough article creation and overhauling according to Wikipedia's accepted standards. Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not going to reply to most of these, as I cannot see a good faith reason to bring them up here, though if an interested party wants to see the full context of (a) then please see "Imprecise references", while for (c) please see the yet unresolved "Original research", as is (e) which is still disputed by multiple editors in this section above.
What I will say is that I am not familiar with the conflict, and have no real opinion either way on it, having come here by chance - but this should be considered a good thing. This article needs more neutral and unconcerned editors, not less. Yes, my unfamiliarity may be an issue in some cases, but it's also important to note that if there is a matter that an uninvolved editor does not find obviously true then perhaps it is not as obvious as an involved editor may thing - and the standard is that of an uninvolved individual, not an involved one.
As for the (d), the split - you say content is being removed and preserved elsewhere in mainspace. To be honest with you, that sounds like the definition of a split. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You should not need access to all the sources to see if any single source supports a statement? Want to run that back by me once more? I dont actually agree with most of your claims of Undue Weight or POV, but where I see an issue I have been correcting them. nableezy - 21:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What I am saying is that if I need to access a citation that is outside of the section that includes the information I am attempting to verify in order to verify it, then there is something very wrong with the article - I apologize for any misunderstanding. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, then, yes, I agree. There may be some issues with citations now that a bunch of material has been moved to other articles. Im sure where there are issues we can correct them though. nableezy - 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have just read this page for the first time, and I am shocked. The bias is pervasive and extreme. I often see articles about minor political causes, non-notable businesses, self-published novelists, and wannabe singing stars with this sort of PROMO tone, but for a page political topic of this importance to be this bad is a serious threat o to any pretention Wikipedia had to being a reliable and neutral source. If this was a page about an indie film, a political candidate, or a hotel, I'd suggest that we WP:TNT. In fact that is what I am going to suggest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over - I propose that we do something radical with this piece of POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I do not know if we have a precedent for this sort of thing, but could we possible appoint a small working group of willing an dknowledgeable editors, and recruit a panel of administrators to supervise, and see whether it is possible to come up with an NPOV article on this topic?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Lol, this is not even a little bit "political propaganda". nableezy - 21:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. You want to "put lipstick on a pig." That is not Wikipedia's purpose. (Hey, there is a reason that old anti−Apartheid activist say that the situation on the West Bank is much worse than it ever was in SA.) (PS: just incidentally, has any of you ever been on the West Bank?, seeing how the Palestinians there live? (Visiting an Israeli settlement doesn't count, here)) Huldra (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is not a policy based objection but some WP:SOAP --Shrike (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Lol, and Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an essay, not policy, did you forget? Huldra (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be interested to hear NoCOBOL and E.M.Gregory's (and anyone else) thoughts on what the harm is in leaving it in mainspace and editing it, as opposed to either draftifying or TNT? (Also what does TNT mean in this case, exactly? Something other than just AfDing it?) Levivich 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I also want to add that I do not want Nishidani or any other editor to in any way feel rushed or pressured to do something or to act on a certain timeline. Participation here is voluntary. So, like Icewhiz said above, I am comfortable waiting unless there is some reason not to wait, and hence why I asked the question above. Levivich 21:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: I mean, what does "and start over" mean for this article? We don't have another version to replace it with. So, does TNTing this article mean nominating it for AfD? Or does it mean replacing this text with some other text and if so, what text? Or does it mean cutting this whole article drastically down to some skeleton version? That's what I'm asking. Levivich 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
My personal preference would be to move the article to draft space until it meets the standards of draft space, specifically NPOV. While an article covering a less contentious issue could probably be left to stand in main space until corrected, we should be much more careful with matters like these. I also feel draft space would provide a good incentive to correct these issues for the creators; as it stands, they appear unwilling to admit there is an issue - for instance, arguing that the ethnic balance of the sources means it can't be pro-Palestinian, an argument that I personally believe is a little bit silly, to put it mildly - and sending this to draft space may help nudge them along. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Responding to Leviv. My proposal was to handle this fraught topic in a collegial way. By recruiting a team of experienced editors to blank the page, perhaps by moving it to draft space, and, under the aegis of two or three wise administrators, hammer out an NPOV article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This article already is NPOV. If you would like to nominate a copiously documented and obviously notable topic for deletion feel free. But you not liking that Israel's occupation is covered is not something that really matters here. nableezy - 22:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: - there are strong policy merits for an AfD. Obviously WP:TNT would be bandied about in the nom, but more importantly - WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (depending of size at the time), WP:NOTESSAY (this is essentially an anti-occupation essay written from an activist slant), ]WP:NOTSOAP (same as NOTESSAY in this regard) and a WP:POVFORK (of several existing articles that cover the basis) - and these are policy and guidelines. On a pure policy basis - the case for deletion is very strong. However, policy is not everything as we well know. Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Please drop the silly remarks. This is not an 'activist' article anymore than the article on 'Israel' is activist, and, unlike the latter is not a proud paean of achievement (to which personally I have no objections, even if the disappearance of the 20% of Israel's population's history in that country is striking). It sets forth the facts of an occupation: no one here has given any grounds for challenging significantly the large body of facts or mechanisms outlined here, from top quality source. What is being largely objected to is that these facts and mechanisms should not receive thorough coverage in Wikipedia because they are offensive. The facts are offensive. The objections here are overwhelmingly emotional, not technical. Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
And patent egging on editors to denounce me to AE is itself probably reportable, Shrike.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nishidani, then bring it there. Otherwise, I can't help but feel this is another example of an attempt to discredit the editor rather than their work. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nishidani If you think I violated some policy go ahead and report me --Shrike (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't report people, and perhaps have the lowest rating as an AE whinger or plaintiff in the I/P area. I write articles, and bloody well know how to do them, whatever the complexity. That is on the record. Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One should consider carefully what it means for an article like this to be "neutral". Despite the wishes of some, what it doesn't mean is that the article should be written as if the Palestinians and the Israelis have been militarily occupying each other for 51 years. On the contrary, the facts are extremely non-symmetrical and good sources don't pretend otherwise. A good article on this subject will openly present the facts in accordance with the sources and not employ weasel words or euphemism, much less censorship, to hide the non-symmetry. Zerotalk 11:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course, articles about occupations will almost always read favorably for the occupied, and this is right - but that doesn't mean that the article cannot go too far. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You have made a series of assertions about POV and undue weight, but not once have you brought any source to demonstrate the issue. If there are reliable sources disputing something in our article then please bring them. Just asserting some issue based on feeling is meaningless. nableezy - 17:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Worthy of consideration[edit]

I'm copying and pasting this suggestion from Darouet on the AfD page.

I would add one further comment: at least two solid sentences should be drafted, probably appearing in the third paragraph, describing 1) The Israeli government's most basic position on the need to control the territory for their security concerns, and 2) U.S. overt or tacit support, since this is a major aspect of the international dynamic. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I have a slight problem about 'Israel's most basic position' as a 'security concern'. That can be understood two ways: (a) the West Bank must be controlled because its inhabitants are a threat to settlers or to the state of Israel over the Green Line (b) as a buffer area geopolitically against threats from neighbouring states.

With regard to (b) Contemporary Israeli military thinking no longer thinks of this as a buffer zone, something indispensable in an earlier era of massed armies, and tank and armoured blitzkriegs, which are now superseded by airpower/missile technology.

Simple synthetic sentences of complex realities are extremely difficult, especially when as here, the various motivations are historically variegated.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, I agree with you on both counts: necessary and difficult. Typically, we'd write a section in the body of the article first, and only then summarize that in the lead. In this case, I feel like sections need to be written on these two points (security concerns, and the United States), which could then be summarized into two sentences for the lead. Wrt #1, the article should describe how things went from (b) to (a) (and when and why), which I think is key to really understanding the occupation. Wrt #2, it's not as major of a point, but it's worth addressing in the article how much (or little) influence the US has had over the occupation over the last 50 years (and whether it's changed over time, and I'd say the same for other countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran). Levivich 21:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, I apologize for my delays in the overhaul, which stopped in mid-track as a result of the distracting demands caused by some bickering and deletionist pressure (if people think this is to be deleted, am I too persist in wasting precious hours carefully redrafting?)Two large précises were knocked out by edit conflicts with material that, somewhat rushed, I failed to save etc., (aside from time-consuming personal engagements). I'll try to resume on Friday, hoping the atmosphere here is amenable to the overhaul asked of me, which requires me to concentrate exclusively on the text as it stands. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologize, it's still a voluntary website. Thank you for the précises and I also noticed that edits were made in response to (at least some, but a good number of) the NPOV concerns in the threads above. I, for one, was disappointed by the timing of the AfD nomination, which seemed to come smack in the middle of significant productive editing. Levivich 23:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

size pt 2[edit]

We are currently at 107 kB of readable prose. A few more minor trims may be needed, but at this point I think the needed work in bringing this down a bit in size is complete. nableezy - 17:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but an axe is still needed to comply with WP:SIZERULE - should be around 60kb. In addition, the 30kb of prose (and lack of balance) in the 72 non-reference footnotes (an irregular article feature to say the least) requires work (quite possibly - cutting most of them out all together). We also have content that should be added per WP:NPOV (e.g. Israeli position, security concerns, etc.) - requiring a further trim of existing content. Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
You keep bringing links like they actually support your position. WP:SIZERULE is a guideline, and nowhere does it say that the readable prose should be around 60 kB. It gives ranges, and says greater than 100 kB almost certainly should be divided. It very much does not support the idea that an article must be 60 kB, and in this very talk page you wrote that 96 kB is not in violation of WP:TOOBIG. So which is it? Do articles over 60 kB need an axe taken to them or not?

Now, as you have decided to repeat the incredibly inaccurate claim about "non-reference footnotes", there is literally no policy or guideline that exists that supports the view that notes are included in the size calculation, or that they should be removed. Not one thing. And as far being irregular, well, this should disabuse you of that notion. Endnotes are fine to include, and they do not play a part in the size discussion. nableezy - 18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The guidline clearly says we should shoot for 60. A small amount of endnotes are fine to include. Endnotes are not, however, intended to house an article size construction (in this case - some 72 of them with 30kb of prose) - that is a massive overuse of endnotes.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It does not say that. Please quote where it does. It also very specifically says that it is readable prose that counts for that, which endnotes are not. You can keep claiming that it is a massive overuse, but, repeating your line back to you, if you have a problem with notes being included in a reference work I suggest you spend your time on Lulu.com or Createspace instead of Wikipedia. Endnotes are perfectly acceptable in encyclopedia articles. Your personal view on it being overused is just that, personal, and in any case wholly immaterial to questions of readable prose size. You neglected to answer my question though. Ill repeat it for ease. In this very talk page you wrote that 96 kB is not in violation of WP:TOOBIG. So which is it? Do articles over 60 kB need an axe taken to them or not? nableezy - 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz. You appear to be using a guideline to 'shoot' the article. I haven't finished yet but with a little patience, I will get this to 95-90 kB, if not more. That is on a par with the Israel article, which has nothing like the fuss of obliteration per radical trimming demands being asked of this. The overriding consideration is that this topic has, per meta-statements in sources, gathered one of the most voluminous outputs of contemporary scholarship on any country or conflict, and it is that bulk of intensely focused research which must be covered, even if in minimal terms. One must look at the demands of the content coverage, which determines, within reasonable limits, how long the article goes. I'll get back to trimming (and there are some sections as yet unwritten) when I am free of my obligations on the aboriginal articles shortly. At the moment of the 2,000 long articles it is at position 765, just under Detroit Tigers and Hinduism. Who is kicking up an unearthly ruckus about the length of those, the former of which compared to this has close to zilch academic coverage? Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As old Heiltag would tell his précis class in the 40s, ’cut to the chase, boys, (a) flense it of fat and get to the meat, and once the blubber is whittled, (b) go back through the text to make for concision.' We are not yet at (b).Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

3O request: Security Concerns[edit]

@Lagrange613: given the time you have invested in this matter, would you be kind enough to propose a WP:3O solution to this “security concerns” question? (no longer to do with your DYK work, but because you aren’t involved in the Israel-Palestine editing but have spent time on this particular matter)

I see the two opposing arguments as follows:

  • (A) Requires detailed and heavy coverage: The article provides information which casts Israel’s policy in a poor light, so the information must be contextualised with what Israel’s politicians state as the rationale for Israel’s occupation. It must not be sprinkled around the article, but must be a detailed and high profile component of the article.
  • (B) Requires a nuanced approach: ”Security concerns” are described by scholars as being PR spin. The claim does not explain key elements of the occupation like the settlements; nationalist-irredentist desires are considered by scholars to be much more important. More importantly, the claim does not explain why the West Bank has not been incorporated into Israel but rather left in “occupation” limbo – that is documented as being driven by a desire not to let too many Palestinians become Israeli citizens. The matter is covered in the article in numerous places, and given due weight.

So the question is, what might a reasonable middle ground look like here? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Some rather serious defense studies scholars (as opposed to various lily faced humanities (or int. law scholars) scholars - who have not seen nor studied guns, tanks, and fighter jets) have explored Israeli security concerns at quite some length - so the claim that scholars (in a different field, usually in a very particular political camp - politics transcends scholarship in I/P) have dismissed this as "PR spin" - is, well, rather poorly sourced. Anthropologists (and other off-topic fields) do publish valuable research - however, proper military analysis (as opposed to cultural/ritual aspects of war) is not within their professional realm. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That sentence in my description of position (B) was too loose. What I should have written is: ”The concept of security concerns being the primary reason for the occupation” is described by scholars as being PR spin, masking other more important factors. I haven’t seen any editors who support position (B) suggesting that security concerns don’t exist – they are instead saying that security concerns exist everywhere, including between many neighbouring countries, yet nowhere else in the world is permanent domination-without-citizenship used to assuage them. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It might not be the only reason for the ongoing Israeli occupation, however considering this article is about the Israeli occupation and currently comprises of 17 top-level sections (and many sub-section) - certainly it deserves its own section. We could also have a section on the religious/historical Jewish/Israeli claim to the land, which is also perhaps a motivating factor in some Israeli circles. And there may be other Israeli motivations as well to cover.Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a section which summarizes the Israeli PR talking points on the occupation, or are you suggesting a balanced explanation of why the occupation has continued for 50+ years? Or somewhere in between? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am suggesting a section(s) that details Israeli motivations (for initiating and continuing the occupation). Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: can you provide a top-of-your-head bullet-point outline of the key statements you would expect that section to include? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
With sources plz. nableezy - 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Religious/Historical grounds (e.g. in regards to the settler movement this seems an important motivation of Gush Emunim et al) and security concerns (invasion from the east, terror, possibly something else). I'm not sure - I'd be happy to try to develop something (with sources and all) if I don't get reverted all the time - :-) (or at least - get incrementally improved/modified instead of blanket reverted as happened last time I tried to introduce something). Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to edit the article as you see fit. As is anybody else, including reverting edits they see as problematic. Expecting that an edit will stand is not a reasonable expectation for any Wikipedia editor. But, if I am not mistaken, the last time you were reverted it was not for developing something. nableezy - 18:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Look - I have better things to do with my time than to deal with insta blanket-reverts to any new content (which is basically how editing in this article has gone so far). You want this to stay a POV mess? Fine. The revert you are referring above was to a constructive edit, however I am happy that following that edit other editors have taken to trimming the article. Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Well we disagree on what is constructive. Nobody is forcing you to edit this article. Nobody is making you stay away. But if you think that because you spent time on something nobody is allowed to disagree and revert you, well then let me introduce you to a website called Wikipedia. Its this place where individual editors make up their minds on whether or not they think an edit is an improvement or it is not. And if they feel it is not, they sometimes will revert that edit. nableezy - 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No one's going to revert you here, because what we are asking for is a collaborative effort on the talk page to develop a section. As to Gush Emunim, its views are already on the page.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. @Icewhiz: that's a good start. Let's work together to agree an outline on the talk page. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft new section - bullet point outline[edit]

Motivations for continuation of the occupation
  • Reasons for not relinquishing control over the whole territory
    • Religious/Nationalistic support for settlements (e.g. in regards to the settler movement this seems an important motivation of Gush Emunim et al)
    • Security concerns (invasion from the east, terror)
  • Reasons for not allowing Palestinians sovereignty over any of the territory
    • Negotiating bargaining chip (e.g. Israeli support for relinquishing some of the land if and when an agreement is reached to allow retention of Jerusalem, the main settlements and permanent security control)
  • Reasons for not incorporating the territory into Israel
    • Demographic fears

First draft above. Please feel free to amend. I suggest we focus on structure/weight first, as we all have a good sense of what is and is not sourceable on this particular topic.Onceinawhile (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, but this doesnt make a lot of sense to me. We dont make up a set of reasons or motivations and then go looking for sources to document that. First bring sources, then develop a section is the order or operations that makes sense to me. nableezy - 23:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but it’s not clear that we all have the same idea re the scope of this section. We need to break the catch-22 cycle that this discussion has been in. Anyway I have started a structure above - perhaps you could point to the sources you have in mind and let’s develop it from there. I will do the same. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: might have some input here, see User:Levivich/sandbox1. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems to pretty much cover the main points of the topic as far as I can tell. The only thing I'd have to add is that the text would have to account for the changes in those areas over time. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure there are multiple non-fringe viewpoints about what's a legitimate concern and what's an excuse, and what maybe was once a concern but is now an excuse, etc. But that would come with drafting the text and incorporating the sources. For now, this seems like a perfectly reasonable outline to me. Levivich 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich. The legitimate/excuse opposition is very complex and difficult to untangle, for reasons given by Johan Galtung in his classic paper of 1971, which is sitting there, relatively unconsulted though it anticipated and covered most bases in this specific topic concern, in the article's bibliopgraphy see esp. pp.186ff.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
One must always use great care in attributing to an abstract noun like a state or a people a consistent set of values or policies. The great sticking point in writing this proposed section will be that 'Israel' has never formulated a national security policy (the political sociology for this lacuna is obvious: government is by coalition there, and the respective visions of what is a conditio sine qua non for the state differ radically among government factions. The constitutive parties of any coalition regularly differ as to what is indispensable, from peace along the 1967 borders, peace negotiated with swaps of territory over those borders, partial annexation without concessions, to total absorption, and any attempt to formulate one option defining Israel's basic territorial security invariable is held hostage by claimants who remain dissatisfied with its implications). I would suggest that whoever takes on this epic task on defining Israel's security reasoning re the West Bank clarify that so far no consistent or clear consensus exists in Israel as to what constitutes its core principles of territorial security.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

────────────I have some relevant experience here from taking Balfour Declaration to WP:FA; the "motivations" question for this are similarly complex. On the day it made WP:GA, the article included a section called "Motivation for the Declaration", with subsections on "Academic interpretations" and "Prime Minister Lloyd-George's explanations". After much iteration, the article reached WP:FA with a different structure: one section called "Approvals" and one called "Historiography". In other words, rather than getting lost in an interminable debate between academics and political commentators, we focused on a practical description of how approvals were achieved for the key decisions made along the way (the British government decision to negotiate with the Zionists, the British government decision to release some form of public statement, the approval of the Allies and the approval of the cabinet), and then an overview of what later scholars have said on the subject.

This structure could be applied here, to make this question focus on the practical decisions made by the various Israeli governments along the way. We would then focus on the particular personalities at play within the Israeli establishment over the decades, and how they reached each of their judgements. The key moments would include:

  • 1967 intransigence The Eshkol government's decision at the end of the war not to give the territory back to Jordan, and the decision to ignore UNSCR 242;
  • Military rule The Eshkol government's decision in 1967 to formalize military rule, settling in for the long haul;
  • Allon Plan The Eshkol government's 1967 decision to implement the Allon Plan re settlements;
  • Golan, EJ and Civil Administration The Begin governments' 1980-81 decisions to incorporate the Golan and EJ into Israel but to leave the rest in limbo under a new "Civil Administration" subordinate to the military
  • Negotiation red lines Various Israeli governments’ numerous publicly-stated red lines vis a vis the West Bank as part of the various failed overall negotiations in the 1990s / 2000s

By focusing on these moments, we keep it factual rather than judgement-based.

@Icewhiz: are there other critical moments you are aware of that form the fundamental Israeli government underpinning of the current status?

The trouble is, similar to Nishidani's point, most of the reason we are still here today is not because the Israeli government consciously decided to do anything major after 1967, but rather because they never decided to put a stop to this. It's much harder to identify critical historical moments when the it's been, broadly speaking, a continuation of the status quo for 50+ years.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that stressing these inflection points does much. E.g. while the Begin government did change the settlement policy somewhat (but not radically) - but I'm not sure a tie-in with the Golan (a smaller and geographically distant issue, with different demographics dating back to 67) or EJ (Begin didn't really do anything - the Jerusalem law was declarative - legally (internally in Israel - it did generate an international backlash) - it did not change the situation created in 67 (e.g. the High Court has ruled that EJ resident-ship rights hark back to 67, not 80). While Eshkol did set up a military administration and began with settlements - I wouldn't (nor would most scholars per my reading) view this as a strategic long-term decision - the decision was not to withdraw, and the consequence was a military administration - but the duration was indefinite (i.e. a short duration was not ruled out) - settlements in this period were very much a continuation of prior Israeli settlement policy along the borders and was tactical/security driven (e.g. in the Jordan Valley)) ... The only inflection points I think need stressing in the West Bank sense are Oslo (1993) and the regime following the Second Intifada (the new post-Oslo status-quo - which itself developed (and arguably is developing) over a decade since 2000) - other than that most of the rest were gradual decisions, not sharp inflection points. Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps. I don’t consider Oslo much of an inflection point, but rather a failed negotiation. The meat of Oslo was in what was supposed to happen but never did (and many considered never would).
The practical question here is whether we structure this “motivations” section in a historical manner, ensuring that through this the points in the box at the top of this section come through with clarity. @Icewhiz: would you be willing to participate in the building of a section of this nature, such that if done properly it has the potential to assuage your POV concerns?
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

while the Begin government did change the settlement policy somewhat (but not radically)

Immediately invites one to suggest its author read an actual source, which argues that Begin's changes to settlement were radical.
Could those who want a security section at least start drafting some prose, under some headings? Just turning Onceinawhile's outline proposal into unsourced personal takes is getting us nowhere, and sinking what is a reasonable invitation to actually do something to address the concerns expressed. I can cite good source grounds casting suspicion on the idea one can get anywhere by examining ostensible 'motivations', but I don't because it would disrupt the attempt to get something down on the page which might cut the Gordian knot of 'opposition' to the article and a concomitant silence as how to fix a number of issues by concrete drafting proposals like this. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)