| Revision as of 06:16, 17 October 2005 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Getting nowhere, a real vote seems to be necessary: it stinks here← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:47, 23 December 2024 edit undoSelfstudier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,003 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2024: WP:ARBECR, not an edit request, unsourced opinion.Tag: Manual revert | ||
| (849 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| For older discussion, see | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Palestine|importance=top|attention=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Syria|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}} | |||
| }} | |||
| <!-- Do not remove the sanction template --> | |||
| {{ARBPIA}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Getting nowhere, a real vote seems to be necessary== | |||
| Alright, matters have gotten to a point of maximum unpleasantness and anger on all sides, in which I am perhaps more to blame than anybody else. It seems clear that there is no possible way we are going to get everyone to agree. So, it seems that we have no choice but the unpleasantness of a vote. By a vote, I don't mean an informal poll on this page. That is worthless. It should be a real vote, announced in as many places as possible (especially ] and ].) I would suggest approval voting, with four options - the current title, ], ], and ]. The option with the most votes wins, and we agree never to speak of this again. ] ] 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to disagree. All the arguments in favor of each title have been made, as far as I can tell. There has been no substantive response to a number of the points in favor of using "occupied" in the title. Unless this changes, I say that we just move the page and revert those who try to move it back unless and until they make some substantive response. Holding a vote will just give the obstructionists (we all know who they are) a chance to rally the troops and prevent the move solely by numbers rather than reasoned argument. —]] 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why don't you spell it out, Charles? Just exactly who are the "obstructionists", and how are they "obstructing"? Is it any wonder I've been avoiding this cesspool? Thanks for adding to the aroma. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm...Well, I tend to think that numbers would end up favoring the move. But my instincts are really conflicted on this. On the one hand, if you read my comments yesterday and this morning, you'll see that I basically agree with you. On the other hand, I'm t fairly certain that a unilateral move will not resolve things, given the discussion so far. Obviously, I will not oppose a move, if you want to go ahead with it. Perhaps it would be better to move it, and then those who do not like the new title can, if they so desire, organize a move request which could be voted on. At any rate, I'm not going to argue about this any further. The arguments have been made, and are on the talk page. If there ends up being a vote, I will dutifully vote, but I'm not going to spend any more time shadowboxing here. ] ] 23:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think a vote is needed either. Give it another few days and if there is no substantive reponse to the points made by you and ], we can consider the matter closed and move the page. The editors who oppose the move would have a hard time defending their position after ignoring such a clearly expressed invitation to state their case. I think the most important thing for those of us who do want to move the page is to close ranks and agree on the new title. I think ] has the most support. If anyone disagrees, now is the time to say so. ] 02:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::This seems like the most clearly supported location - Andjam also said he was willing to accept this as the least objectionable version including the word "occupation". ] ] 02:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archivebox|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}} | |||
| Frankly, I've felt discouraged to participate much on this page because it degraded to too much hostility to allow for reasonable discussion. I will likely make this my final comment before I abandon the page altogether. I'm not thrilled with "Occupied Territories" precisely because there is dispute about it, and I don't mean just between editors on this page. John's examples of other disputed name situations (i.e., Armenian Genocide) make a valid point, but I'm having difficulty bringing that to the logical conclusion that we can summarily dismiss questioning the NPOVness of any disputed name such as "Occupied Territories" just because other (perhaps apples and oranges) examples exist. I could probably live with the "occupied" title, though I feel quite strong-armed into it. Aside from the POVness of the title, I do have an even greater problem with the ambiguity of "Occupied Territories". Yes, it's popularly used, but in a variety of ways that often makes it unclear which (Israeli occupied) territories specifically are being discussed. I think more often than not, it is really just used as a synonym for the Palestinian territories. That's why I still believe the best encylopedic solution, one that Ramallite first suggested, and I concurred, but to which no one else offered any feedback, is to have a disambig page for ] or ], which lists several related articles, including this one which I believe should be something like ], ], and ], for starters. Since "occupied territories" can refer to different things, wouldn't a disambig page seem the most logical alternative? --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 03:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area","appear":{"revid":9866977,"parentid":9862331,"timestamp":"2005-02-01T17:24:36Z","replaced_anchors":{"Disputed to be an occupation by local population":"Disputed to be a military occupation by local population","Disputed to be an occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area":"Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":189389395,"parentid":188451970,"timestamp":"2008-02-06T00:36:16Z","replaced_anchors":{"Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area":"Disputed to be a military occupation by the nation of military dominance in an area"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Disputed to be a military occupation by the nation of military dominance in an area"} --> | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor ("Occupied" vs. "Disputed" territories) ]. <!-- {"title":"\"Occupied\" vs. \"Disputed\" territories","appear":{"revid":9155411,"parentid":9154587,"timestamp":"2005-01-06T19:36:46Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":325875944,"parentid":325875422,"timestamp":"2009-11-14T22:52:27Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| }} | |||
| == POV tag == | |||
| :I too have avoided this page precisely because of the unwarranted and, at times, vicious hostility - see the latest anon comments below for another example. This Talk: page has been made needlessly unpleasant, as has the article itself: when new editors make it their "mission" to stay on Misplaced Pages only to battle other editors, fill Talk: pages with personal attacks on and lies about other editors, recruit people to revert war for them, even giving them explicit instructions on how to do so , then recruit people to vote for them , well, why would the victims of their abuse want to stick around? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do we need to harp on this? Why don't we try to constructively engage, and ignore the trolls and trolling as best we can? ] ] 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| MPerel, just a brief point - one of the arguments which has been made is that there really ''isn't'' very much dispute over the use of "Occupied Territories" - it's been pointed out by me and others that even a more right wing media outlet like the Jerusalem Post is willing to use it, and that the Israeli government accepted that its position in the West Bank was one of occupation in its arguments before the Israel Supreme Court on the West Bank fence/wall. | |||
| I haven't read the entire article yet, but this already needs major work to resolve POV issues. I have addressed some of these. The main issue is that the article continues to treat the questions relating to the legality of the occupation as being disputed, when in fact it had been settled by the ICJ and every other human rights RS. Also, for example, there was no mention of settlements in the lede, which I added; but this needs more elaboration. There is no mention of the institutional system of discrimination by Israel against the Palestinians per ICJ, which many have called ], in the lede. The weird table below has a row for "claimed by", which insinuates the Sinai Peninsula is "claimed by" Egypt. These are some of the actionable issues for now. ] (]) 09:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| At any rate, in terms of ambiguity, I'm not really sure how to deal with this - I agree that sometimes just the West Bank and Gaza are meant. But it seems to me that almost anyone would admit that technically, the Golan Heights are also a part of the occupied territories, and that the Sinai ''was''. This article, as it is, contains a summary of what we mean by "Occupied Territories" and links to the other article - notably ]. So I don't see that as a huge problem. If we did go the disambiguation page route, though, I'd suggest that the disambiguation page be ], that the current ] article be moved to ], and that the disambig page link to the general ] article, this page at ], the ] article, and the article about the legal dispute (such as it is). I think this would be an acceptable solution. | |||
| *{{tq|the article continues to treat the questions relating to the legality of the occupation as being disputed, when in fact it had been settled by the ICJ}} ... less than a week ago. ''']] (])''' 05:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Makeandtoss}} I think the NPOV tag may be misleading for readers. Can you add a brief rationale on the tag summarizing your points from here? ] (]) 11:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| BTW, isn't "Palestinian territories" just as disputed and potentially POV a term as "Occupied territories," if not considerably more so? Why was there never a fight over there about naming? ] ] 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, there are issues that could be improved, but after reconsideration this doesn't warrant the tag. Main actionable issue: lack of mention of apartheid in the lede. ] (]) 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Largest == | |||
| '''John''', you fucked up when SlimVirgin et al upped the ante and you folded. Everyone that has participated in this 'debate' (this includes Andjam and MPerel, believe it or not) ''truly'' understands your (very well laid out) substantive arguments - that's not the point! The discussions here has never really been about this article's title/content - it has been about control - about if a small JCfPA associated group should be in control of information about the politics of Israel, and related topics, here on Misplaced Pages. Now, you have given 'Candi of California' (guess what two userids she has) a way out of this situation, even if you 'accomplish' a title change now, I assure you; a couple of months from now this article will not have the word "occupied" in its title - and it will be partly due to the fact that you allowed yourself to be manipulated. Please read . --] 04:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "The '''modern era''' or the '''modern period''' is considered the current ] of ]. It was originally applied to the ] and ] for events that came after the ], often from around the year 1500. From the 1990s, it is more common among historians to refer to the period after the Middle Ages and up to the 19th century as the ]." | |||
| From the relevant article. | |||
| The time frame described in the article dealing with the conquests is limited to the 20th/21st century. The modern period is longer. Therefore, the sentence is misleading. ] (]) 06:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Egypt and jordan == | |||
| why Egypt and jordan controled and Israel occupies? | |||
| The Egyptian and Jordanian rule there were not recognized internationally and in the Egyptian case the territory was not even annexed. | |||
| It is npov ] (]) 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Grammatical errors in the first paragraph == | |||
| "Prior to 1967, the Palestinian territories <u>was</u> '''''(-> were)''''' split between the ] ] ] and the ] (controlled) ] ], while the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights <u>are</u> '''''(-> were)''''' parts of Egypt and ], respectively." | |||
| "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, where <u>Israel had transferred its parts of population there and built large</u> '''''(sentence beyond repair, replacement suggestion: "- roughly 750,000 Israeli settlers live in a multitude of -")''''' ],'''''(sources: West Bank + East Jerusalem -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/02/jewish-settlers-west-bank-half-million/, Golan Heights -> https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20211226-israel-approves-plan-to-double-settler-population-in-golan-heights<nowiki/>)''''' is the ]." ] (]) 01:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Context of the 1967 War == | |||
| The article neglects to mention that the 1967 war was a defensive war on the part of the state of Israel, and it is, as a rule, unprecedented for the UN or its associated bodies to have any problem with territories a state seizes in a defensive war. ] (]) 01:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No part of that is true. ''']''' - 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 == | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Israeli-occupied territories|answered=yes}} | |||
| Link evidence for claim "A six month ceasefire was agreed in June 2008, but it was broken several times by both Israel and Hamas." in Gaza Strip section ] (]) 23:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{not done}} This seems to be supported by the existing BBC source. ] (]) 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on December 10 2024 == | |||
| Request to change "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since the end of the occupation in 2005" to "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since its disengagement in 2005". This is in the wikitable in the overview section of the article. Using "disengagement" is the more accurate term due to the ICJ ruling (alongside with the RS consensus) that says that the Gaza Strip is still Israeli-occupied even since 2005 because Israel still has control over border crossings, water, and air space. ] (]) 19:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:47, 23 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli-occupied territories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
POV tag
I haven't read the entire article yet, but this already needs major work to resolve POV issues. I have addressed some of these. The main issue is that the article continues to treat the questions relating to the legality of the occupation as being disputed, when in fact it had been settled by the ICJ and every other human rights RS. Also, for example, there was no mention of settlements in the lede, which I added; but this needs more elaboration. There is no mention of the institutional system of discrimination by Israel against the Palestinians per ICJ, which many have called apartheid, in the lede. The weird table below has a row for "claimed by", which insinuates the Sinai Peninsula is "claimed by" Egypt. These are some of the actionable issues for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
the article continues to treat the questions relating to the legality of the occupation as being disputed, when in fact it had been settled by the ICJ
... less than a week ago. starship.paint (RUN) 05:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss: I think the NPOV tag may be misleading for readers. Can you add a brief rationale on the tag summarizing your points from here? Wretchskull (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, there are issues that could be improved, but after reconsideration this doesn't warrant the tag. Main actionable issue: lack of mention of apartheid in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Largest
"The modern era or the modern period is considered the current historical period of human history. It was originally applied to the history of Europe and Western history for events that came after the Middle Ages, often from around the year 1500. From the 1990s, it is more common among historians to refer to the period after the Middle Ages and up to the 19th century as the early modern period." From the relevant article. The time frame described in the article dealing with the conquests is limited to the 20th/21st century. The modern period is longer. Therefore, the sentence is misleading. 2.55.164.132 (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Egypt and jordan
why Egypt and jordan controled and Israel occupies? The Egyptian and Jordanian rule there were not recognized internationally and in the Egyptian case the territory was not even annexed. It is npov 2.55.164.132 (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Grammatical errors in the first paragraph
"Prior to 1967, the Palestinian territories was (-> were) split between the Gaza Strip controlled by Egypt and the West Bank (controlled) by Jordan, while the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights are (-> were) parts of Egypt and Syria, respectively."
"The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, where Israel had transferred its parts of population there and built large (sentence beyond repair, replacement suggestion: "- roughly 750,000 Israeli settlers live in a multitude of -") settlements,(sources: West Bank + East Jerusalem -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/02/jewish-settlers-west-bank-half-million/, Golan Heights -> https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20211226-israel-approves-plan-to-double-settler-population-in-golan-heights) is the longest military occupation in modern history." Wolfdale19 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Context of the 1967 War
The article neglects to mention that the 1967 war was a defensive war on the part of the state of Israel, and it is, as a rule, unprecedented for the UN or its associated bodies to have any problem with territories a state seizes in a defensive war. Kandbsoalkan (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- No part of that is true. nableezy - 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Link evidence for claim "A six month ceasefire was agreed in June 2008, but it was broken several times by both Israel and Hamas." in Gaza Strip section SpockKirklovechild (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done This seems to be supported by the existing BBC source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on December 10 2024
Request to change "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since the end of the occupation in 2005" to "No, but Israel has maintained control over the territory's border crossings, territorial waters, and air space since its disengagement in 2005". This is in the wikitable in the overview section of the article. Using "disengagement" is the more accurate term due to the ICJ ruling (alongside with the RS consensus) that says that the Gaza Strip is still Israeli-occupied even since 2005 because Israel still has control over border crossings, water, and air space. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- Palestine-related articles needing attention
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- Low-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles