| Revision as of 21:54, 31 October 2005 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Vandalism complaint: Personal attacks, threats, and egregious violations of the Misplaced Pages:Civility policy noted and logged.← 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 | ||
| (698 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}} | |||
| ] | |||
| == Legal dispute == | |||
| Jay's argument (and, to a lesser extent, SlimVirgin's) seems to be that because there is a legal dispute over whether the term "occupied" is correct in referring to the West Bank and Gaza (as far as I can tell, there has never been such a dispute over the Golan Heights or the Sinai), that we shouldn't use the term "occupied" in the title. But how much of a legal dispute is it? Every international body - including the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice - has ruled that it is an occupation. So has the highest legal authority in Israel. Furthermore, the Israeli high court's ruling in both the Beit Sourik and Alfei Menashe cases essentially takes the West Bank's status as occupied as a given - it is simply assumed to be occupied, and it is stated in the Beit Sourik decision that this is a point agreed upon by all parties. Throughout the court rulings, the Court repeatedly quotes the respondents (in the Alfei Menashe case, this is The Prime Minister of Israel, The Minister of Defense, The Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area, The Separation Fence Authority, The Alfei Menashe Local Council - i.e. the Israeli government) as arguing ''not'' that Israeli control of the West Bank is not "belligerent occupation," but merely that the way they want to build the wall conforms to the laws of belligerent occupation. | |||
| {{Archivebox|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}} | |||
| Now, the Israeli government may put out press released saying the territory isn't occupied. But given a clear chance to argue this before ''their own high court'', the government refused, instead arguing on other grounds, and accepting that the territories are occupied. If the government of Israel is not even willing to make it's "this is not technically an occupation" argument in its own court over an issue to which this question would be definitely relevant, I don't think the fact that they like to put out poorly argued press released to the contrary should be respected by wikipedia as a reason for not using the most common name as an article. | |||
| {{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 == | |||
| Let's revisit this. Who says the territories are occupied, or calls them the "occupied territories"? | |||
| 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) | |||
| #academic publications | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| #the world media | |||
| #The Israeli media | |||
| #The United Nations Security Council | |||
| #The United States government | |||
| #The Supreme Court of Israel | |||
| #The government of Israel in their legal arguments before the Supreme Court | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| Who says this is an incorrect term? | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| #some zionist groups | |||
| #the settler movement | |||
| #The government of Israeli in propaganda releases | |||
| "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 ]." | |||
| :I'd hesitate a guess that legal academia is divided on the issue. ] 05:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| From the relevant article. | |||
| ::On what basis? If the Israeli government is not willing to argue in its own courts that the territories are not occupied under international law, what makes you think that anybody else is willing to carry their water for them? ] ] 06:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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 == | |||
| Are we really saying that these two sides are equivalent? If we assume that the Israeli government cancels itself out by arguing both ways in different contexts, we are left with "some zionist groups" and the settler movement on one side, and the entire body of both international and Israeli law and usage throughout the world. How is this even a contest? The position that the territories are not occupied is such a fringe position that there is absolutely no reason to show deference to it by refusing to use "occupied" in the title of the article. It is completely absurd for wikipedia to be more pro-Israeli government than the Israeli government itself is willing to be when it counts (that is, before the court, rather than in press releases where nothing's at stake.) ] ] 21:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| why Egypt and jordan controled and Israel occupies? | |||
| ===Time to rename: follow up to JK=== | |||
| 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 == | |||
| If we have an ] title, we need to have an ] one. The position of the Israeli govt. is not greater than that of the Turkish one, we need to follow political-diplomatic-media-scholarly-etc. consensus, the legalistic arguments are of no consequence over this decision of what to rename this article into. Within a few days, I am prepared to rename the article to OT (or I-OT, if there's greater interest in that). If anyone has objections, now is the time to reiterate and rearticulate in the most clear and direct way, noting the parallels and factors mentioned, and by JK above, and elsewhere. We can't go on like this indefinitely. Thanks everyone. ] 00:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "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." | |||
| :I agree. I would prefer ''Israeli-Occupied Territories''. ] 11:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "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) | |||
| :My preference would be "Occupied Territories (Israeli)," just because the are often referred to as just "the Occupied Territories." If "Occupied Territories" (no further adjective) is used, then a final section should be added noting other "occupied territories" around the world, and the general information at the current "OT" article should be moved to "occupied territor''y''." "I-OT" is also reasonable. ] 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Context of the 1967 War == | |||
| We had a poll and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Though perhaps El C's creation of the other one dealt with the objections. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No part of that is true. ''']''' - 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024 == | |||
| ::Do you still object? What do you think of the arguments I've made? In terms of a vote, if we really want to settle this by a vote, we should announce it, so that people other than those already involved in the article can vote? In terms of the current vote, in addition to the seven of us who already voted for a move, Brian and ElC have now indicated their support for a move. That makes it 9 to 5. That means 64% in favor of the move. Not a consensus, but a supermajority. In terms of where the article should be, I think this article should be moved to ] (when this term is referred to without modifier, the territories occupied by the Israelis after 1967 are almost always meant). As Marsden suggests, the more generic article can be at ]. If this is unacceptable, I agree that ] is the marginally better disambiguator, because ] is a bit confusing. Maybe ]? ] ] 14:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Further note - in addition, Rd232 and Grace Note have clearly expressed their support for Occupied Territories as the title, and Cybbe has made a comment implying support for the same. That would make it 12 to 5 - 71% in favor...I suppose this perhaps shouldn't be counted - Rd232, at least, explicitly said he wasn't voting. But there still seems to be a strong majority in support of moving. I'm not sure why, when this title was established without consensus, we should have to keep it at this title unless there is consensus - this seems to lead to the basic procedural unfairness of "whoever supports the way something was done first gets to filibuster any change." ] ] 14:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Vizcarra's vote doesn't really count - he's only here as a result of a campaign of harrassing SlimVirgin and me - so the actual vote is 8 to 5. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think Andjam's vote should count, either. I'll make up ... er, provide ... a reason once we've all agreed to abide by the result of the vote. So the actual vote is 8 to 4, a super-majority by most people's reckonings. I also reserve the right to decide that Humus Sapien's vote doesn't count, either, but as a show of good faith I'd be willing to leave Humus' vote uncontested and leave it at an 8-to-4 result. ] 20:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::LOL! Actually, Andjam has been a serious contributor to this page; Vizcarra's history is clear. Not that it's all that relevant. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh boy! Wrangling about vote totals! Jay - do you have any response to any of the multitudinous arguments I made above? Or are you just going to argue about how to interpret this stupid vote? ] ] 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How come only Jay's comment came in for criticism? ] 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Because Jay started the wrangling over votes, perhaps? ] ] 01:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit extended-protected|Israeli-occupied territories|answered=yes}} | |||
| :::::::::John, it was Marsden who started the vote, and it was you who started including people who hadn't voted, which could be called wrangling over votes too. Please don't make personal comments. This page has seen enough of them to last a lifetime. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::::::::I wasn't including people who hadn't voted in the vote, because I think the vote is nonsense - it was never announced anywhere. I was merely counting up the number of people who, in the course of this discussion, have indicated support for including "occupied" in the title, against the number of people who have indicated opposition. And I didn't make any personal comments, that I'm aware of. ] ] 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :{{not done}} This seems to be supported by the existing BBC source. ] (]) 20:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm reassured that we have relative agreement toward the move, and yes, to follow up on Slim's comment, I think my Occupied-Disputed subarticle answers much of the hitherto objections. I partially agree with both Marsden and fully with JK. With the former, on renaming the current ] into ''an'' OT in case we opt to rename this article into OTs, and with the latter, that we should either go for OT or I-OT, but not OT(I). ] 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Occupied Territories (Middle East) might be interpreted as referring to former occupation(s) of Lebanon, or accusations that certain countries have a de facto occupation of Iraq, or Kurdish-majority portions of Turkey, or ... ] 07:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good point - it is too vague. I imagine ] is rather too obscure. ] ] 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If the word "occupied" is going to be in the title, then I'd go for "Israeli-occupied territories". Misplaced Pages shouldn't have the same attitude towards occupation as Lawrence Lowell had about cheating in exams. ] 05:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on December 10 2024 == | |||
| :The difference between the two, I believe, is that I-OT sounds more academic (see Britanica's I-OAT article above), whereas OT is more journalistic. Generally, I think Misplaced Pages should attempt to reflect the former rather than the ]. ] 06:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::Israeli-occupied Territories is fine with me. I'm going to suggest we just move it there and then prevent any move back on the basis that there is no consensus for a move. I'm getting tired of this - a clear majority of those who have been discussing it on this page have been in favor of the move. There is no reason to believe that a larger sample would not find the same result. Most of the arguments against the move have, in my not so neutral opinion, been effectively answered. What more is needed here? ] ] 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==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) | |||
| ::It is clear that the current article title is missleading for describing Israel proper in addition to the Territories, and we have a majority agreeing that "Occupied Territories" belongs in the title, with "Israeli-Occupied Territories" having the most support/least objection. A compelling argument has been made for including "Occupied Territories" in the title (notably, that the Israeli government itself is at most split in opposing the term) for which no substantive rebuttal has been made. A move to ] (I think the capitalized form should be used, but that's a minor point) is very strongly indicated, in my opinion. I agree that if the argument for the change remains substantially unrebutted after a couple of days, we should make the change. You can't please all the people all the time. Any remaining complaints about anyone's behavior -- including mine -- should be addressed formally if it is felt that there is cause, but should not be allowed to stand in the way of this article's name being moved from a clearly missleading name to a name that most of us agree with. ] 19:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::Because I come back to the newly abbreviated talk page, hoping that it has finally been cleared of all the toxicity, and find longstanding editors filling the page with ugly innuendo (see above), and anonymous IPs filling it with explicit (albeit oblique) conspiracy theory crap, of the same sort that has been spilled endlessly here already. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:19, 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Maybe because it's feels pro-Palestinian rather than anti-Israeli, and it's better to be positive than negative. ] 13:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Depending on how disengagement goes, there's also going to be disagreement over whether Gaza should be included in the article or not, unless the article definition is so broad it also includes formerly occupied territories or the article definition is related to Palestine. ] 14:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think so - the Sinai is included, and it has been fully returned to Egypt. This article is about territories which have been at some point since 1967 occupied by Israel, not just territories which are occupied at present. ] ] 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Besides, the issue whether the Gaza Strip is still considered occupied is by no means decided by Israel unilateral withdrawal of it's settlements. See for instance the legal position of the PLO. ] 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed names == | |||
| (For brevity's sake, I'd prefer it if the case for or against each name wasn't done in this section but in other sections) | |||
| John K has proposed | |||
| *the status quo (]) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] and | |||
| *]. | |||
| *<s>] has also been suggested.</s> | |||
| ::Since that is already an article, and since this article discusses the Golan and Sinai, which are not Palestinian, I do not think this is an appropriate potential title. ] ] 17:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Would anyone else here be in favour of "Territorial disputes involving Israel" being listed as an option? ] 13:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::I would not be - I think that would be a different article. If you wanted to write such an article, that would be fine. ] ] | |||
| :::No-one has supported my suggestion, so ok. (both strikeouts by me) ] 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Capitalize "occupied" in title? == | |||
| Can we do this? It doesn't look right, as is. ] 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Or make "Territories" lower case? ] 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd go for that. ] 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, done (a little while ago). ] 16:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, lower case. See Encyclopædia Britannica's , for a ''random'' example. 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == "Territories under Israeli control moved to Israeli-occupied Territories: Renaming as promised and agreed upon" == | |||
| Can someone explain what "Renaming as promised and agreed upon" refers to? The consensus may end up being "Israeli-occupied erritories", but if the promise is made-up, that is ''so'' not cool. ] 02:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You should investigate, perhaps! I sense wrongdoing, made-up promises, possibly evildoin'! Exclamation points means I'm excited! Excited about your forthcoming investigation, that is! Either way, it should be better than these latest abomination "films" by that idiot, ]! 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sarcasm and faking a signature in response to a question about bad-faith editing is not helpful. Please stop insulting me. ] 14:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, more "faking" and "made-up" bit! :) ] is a arsh mistress, indeed. But at the event, I only insulted ]! 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please, can you stop the sarcasm? With regards to criticism, I found "It really is quite simple, Andjam" a bit rude, and also found a bit rude your pedantic answer to my question about some sections that were at one stage archived but were later on in the main talk page. Also, virtually all of your edit history has been to do with me. I'm finding it a bit disturbing. ] 16:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I also edited the lead paragraph to ]! Anyway, it's unfortunate you find my light satire to be so ''insultingly'' sarcastic and pedantic. At the time, I wasn't fully aware to which sections were archived, because it was ] when I saw it. Please ]. That goes for this ip's edit history vis.a.vis. yourself, too. Thanks again for all your patience! 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you didn't happen to know which sections were archived, how come unarchived exactly the same material as you "accidentally" unarchived previously? <code>Unsigned without a time stamp by ], on 17:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)</code> | |||
| :::::::I remebered which sections ''I'' archived; my memory isn't that short, and it was, after all, only a few hours ago. 17:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Also, where does the "accidentally" quote come from, and whom are you quoting? I didn't include the last two sections on the talk page here ''by accident''. <u>On closer look</u>, I disagree with ] ''method'' (see, I'm able to avoid mention of his person, unlike as he did with me: stating as a matter of fact that I'm <b><big>"</big></b>Obnoxious<b><big>"</big></b>) mass archiving of everything, and I, myself, am in favour of some continuity. And I am entitled to hold that view without my motives being questioned. Though they should. 21:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Obnoxiousness from the anon aside, I think that there was sufficient support for moving, and insufficient articulate opposition, to allow the article to rest here, for the moment. As I said above, if you (Andjam) would like to sponsor a requested move to move the page to a different location, you should go ahead and do this, and we can have a proper vote. ] ] 18:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I take exception to that mischaracterization, ]. Please review closely and adhere to ] and ]. TIA. 18:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, come on. ] ] 19:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Now I'm offended. 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, I upset the troll? How can I ever live with myself? ] ] 21:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], cease immediately from directing ] against me. 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hostility and civility == | |||
| The open proxy contributions (66.98.180.53, 66.139.76.245 and <s>69.193.242.60</s>) are mine. The reason I made anonymous edits was not to deceive editors, but as a safety precaution that is no longer necessary. A few people (outside of Misplaced Pages) knew/know my real life identity and I've had to spend some time to assure them that I'm not a "useful idiot" and/or "self-hating" and/or a "traitor"; that being pro-Israeli ''and'' anti-propaganda is not mutually exclusive (or being pro-Israeli ''and'' pro-Palestinian). Far from it. On October 3 I was banned indefinitely "for sockpuppetry", which was ridiculous and against Misplaced Pages policy. However, now any admin can block/ban me for that same offence, since I have for two days ''de facto'' violated the policy. Absurdly enough, the lie became truth. :-) Another offence I'm guilty of is accusing Jayjg (without providing evidence) of having ] as a sockpuppet. (John McW who has made some really inflammatory comments ) My suggestion is that Jayjg and SlimVirgin's friend ] investigate the matter and if he comes to the conclusion that John McW isn't a sockpuppet of Jayjg, then he's free to block me (again). Alternative suggestion is that MPerel, who is somewhat of an expert could by using the "psycho-linguistic empirical method" (or equivalent method) compare the semantics/syntax of John McW and Jayjg, and if she finds that they're different people - then SlimVirgin is free to block me. I've found it deplorable that instead of dealing with substantive arguments in an intellectual and emphatic manner the 'debate' here has instead been about long-time editors vs. short time editors, and such things, all saturated with vicious hostility and power struggle. And because I like the ''idea'' of Misplaced Pages, I've been confused on how to react to this; just walk away, or adapt the "When in Rome" philosophy. --] 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :69.193.242.60 most definitely ''isn't'' ], nor an open proxy (strike <s>out</s> above is my own addition). 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::My mistake - I copied, from the history page, the IP# that I thought came from whatever open proxy server I was routed through. Obviously, it should have been a total of two, not three, addresses. All apologies. --] 11:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Saxet - a couple of points: 1) you are allowed to use sock puppets, so long as the intent is not to deceive, to get around bans, or to otherwise violate policy. I don't think David ever presented any evidence that this was the case in banning you, and I unbanned you almost immediately, so you have not been banned for all this time, so I don't think you've violating any policy by editing as an anon. Secondly, I would suggest that you certainly should not be claiming, without any evidence at all, that Jay is using a sock puppet. I think this incredibly unlikely, and that it is extremely unhelpful for you to bring up this issue again. That said, even if it could be proved that your statement was made in error (since you bring it up again, I will assume you were not knowingly lying in making this accusation), that would not be grounds for a block, although it might be grounds for Jay to ask for arbitration against you. ] ] 18:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seems I need to read up on that policy, I honestly thought it was a violation to edit the same page with two different usernames (even if there wasn't an intention to deceive). Anyway, whether it's permitted or not there's no need for me to do so again. In regard to the Jayjg/John McW issue I would be ''extremely'' surprised if the information I was presented with was inaccurate. It may be unhelpful for me to have brought it up again but it wasn't done in malice or as a personal vendetta - I think Jayjg would be an excellent editor to Misplaced Pages, but maybe not an admin. And I felt that it was necessary to counter his assessment on how/why the atmosphere here got so ugly. Also - I think it may be the case that maybe you and a few others don't really know what ] actually is; it "involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself." For example; when SlimVirgin accused you of "''ad hominem'' remarks" it was in fact SV who made an ''ad hominem'' argument since you didn't evade any arguments in the post where you addressed Jayjg and SlimVirgin's reluctance to respond to substantive arguments. It sort of annoys me that 'well regarded long-time editors' seem to get away with those kind of things. MPerel writes on my user page that I'm disruptive to the purpose of building an encyclopaedia, yet if one looks at her history she has hardly made any edits to any articles but have mainly engaged in voting and such. She actually proposed that we should go through some 'psycholinguistic testing' to determine the "loadedness" of various terms in our psyches. And I'm being disruptive… I've also been the subject of WP:NPA et cetera, either explicitly or implicitly, but when I respond it is I who violated this or that guideline and it is I who "should be careful not to attack" a long-time editor. I may lack in civility at times but I have no intention of showing ''undue'' respect to the VIPs. In fact, it could have been a lot worse, considering the few times I've been close to getting seriously hostile, but restrained myself. I'll take a short break from this article now, been planning anyway to write articles about a couple of short stories by JL Borges. --] 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have removed saxet's latest personal attack. I'm constrained somewhat here by netiquette, but I can say that saxet has said exactly the opposite to me by e-mail to what he just posted about Jay, so he's clearly playing games. ''This page is for discussion of content only.'' ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Please restore immediately</s>/Comment restored/. It wasn't a personal attack and it provided context to the claims/attacks made further up on this page by you and Jayjg . This is the fourth time (that I'm aware of) that you removed comments that you percieve as NPA violations against you/Jayjg while leaving obvious NPA violations made by you/Jayjg intact. I'm not "playing games". --] 04:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I also don't understand why the (only four day old) "Legal dispute" section repeatedly gets archived. From what I understand, from reading the guidelines, it should be restored. --] 05:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Archiving and communicating through reverts=== | |||
| <small><b>Undeleted discussion</b></small> | |||
| :<code>Can someone unredlink this please? ] 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::<code>All you need to do is to copy from the last revision from before the wholesale archiving, paste it into the red-linked renamed archive. and viola. I hope you found my explanation instructive; I'm certain that, in the future, you'd be able to undertake such a task yourself. 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::<code>Did you mean to move "legal dispute" and "Time to rename: follow up to JK" out of the archives and into the current talk page? ] 07:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<code>No, not move from out of the archive and into the current talk page, but again, copy and pasted from the revision history. Click on the '''' button, then the last revision by ], dated contained the desired content. I hope my explanation (this time) aids in you becoming a more productive editor. 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ----------- | |||
| I still have one revert left re: the archiving; it's unfortunate that no explanation has yet been offered to why these sections need to be archived. 06:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Minor move of title == | |||
| I have moved "Israeli-occupied Territories" to "Israeli-occupied territories", following support from a couple of people above. ] 15:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, "Israeli-occupied territories" with the lower case ''t'' is definitely an improvement. I would (obviously) have preferred "Occupied Territories" or "Occupied Territories (Israeli)", but I guess I can live with this title. --] 16:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==To Yuber: "Syrian Heights" contemporary usage== | |||
| To Yuber. Italics are my (contemporaneity) emphasis: | |||
| *<code>n light of the ''continued'' Israeli occupation of the Syrian heights</code> — | |||
| *<code>The Tishrin article is not only profoundly immoral, it is also stupid from the point of view of Syrian, and indeed Arab, interests. It strengthens the Israeli right-wing, which ''opposes'' the withdrawal from the Syrian heights.</code> — Source cited: . And: <code>A very determined effort is needed to counter the brainwashing that has been going on for so long against the return of the Syrian heights to their rightful owners.</code> | |||
| *<code>King Hussein said "I hope this could be a positive step on the way towards not only the withdrawal from Lebanon, which is an implementation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, a decision which we have so long waited for. The same should ''apply'' to the occupied Syrian Heights"</code> — . | |||
| *<code>However, Israeli sources said that one Israeli military unit was attacked ''in the'' occupied Syrian heights, but no casualties were reported.</code> — Source cited: ''''. | |||
| *<code>The Golan will probably revert to the Syrian Heights, while Katzrin, Neveh Ativ, Ortal and 30 others will become historic episodes as esoteric as New Mecklenburg. Barak's name changes of course will be more than cosmetic and far from innocuous. They will also mean population displacement and the destruction of three decades of dedicated labor.</code> — Source cited: . | |||
| *<code> also rejected the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland, and suggested only the possibility of a withdrawal "on" rather than "from" the Syrian heights. These positions were accompanied by a stream of statements declaring a commitment to peace, and even setting a year 2000 deadline for an agreement (Usher, 1999)</code> — Source cited: ''. | |||
| *<code>The occupied Golan has formally been annexed, settled by Israelis, and, contrary to international legislation, Israel has been extensively exploiting its nature resources: "Mey Eden", an Israeli-based mineral water producer, ''is'' pumping in the occupied Golan. Typically, even the Yizchak Rabin Monument in Tel-Aviv ''is'' made of black basalt ''from'' the Syrian Heights. — Source cited: Thanks, Yuber! 18:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :http://www.golan-syria.org/ There's a website from the Syrian perspective. No Syrian calls the Golan Heights "The Syrian Heights". They are known in Arabic as "al Jolan", more specifically "al Jolan al mu7talla" (the occupied Golan Heights). See the Arabic Misplaced Pages article for more proof .]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)ا | |||
| ::Unless you bother translating that .ar article, or acknowledging my querry for a precise ] from that ] (not simply repeating the url, I have already seen it in your ]), I will continue to object. It sounds plausible that its usage as cited in the .en Golan Heights articles and above is largely tangenial, in that sense (historically, politically), but I expect slightly more effort on your part in making your claims explicable here, in this ]-language WP. Also, see my comment about reverts and discussion ]. 21:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think you have demonstrated that the name "Syrian Heights" is used. I don't think you've demonstrated that this is specifically the Syrian/Arab usage, or that it is used in contrast to "Golan Heights." It seems to simply be an alternative to "Golan Heights" - one of your sources uses both terms in the same paragraph. ] ] 22:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I live in Syria (though I'm not there at the minute), and I have '''never''' heard them called the Syrian heights, but simply the Golan. The majority of the sources for "Syrian heights" cited above seem to be Israeli, and none of them appears to be Syrian. Also, it's not clear how many of them are actually using it as a name for the heights as opposed to a description, and one is clearly talking about a putative future renaming. What on earth is going on here? ] | ] 22:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am answered. Thanks for the explanation and for your insights, Palmiro. Much appreciated. 23:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Not really after a vote == | |||
| Hi. I'm happy to leave this page name as is. I feel the title could be better, but it could be worse as well. There has been too much unpleasantness as well, not just at the beginning but still ongoing. Thanks, ] 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Good, becuse ]. I sincerely suggest you place greater efforts at coming across more diplomatically with your objections, reducing rather than increasing unpleasentness via declarative accusations, ones which you should really follow through or not comment on at all, ''in my'' ''opinion''. I am refering of course to your ]-titled section and accusations of what was allegedly "made-up," which to quote you (italics and all), <code>is ''so'' ] cool.</code> Thank you in advance for reading my comment's content without implied malice or harrassment. 06:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Subtleties of ]== | |||
| Well, now that most of everyone is sick of me, and having failed to improve the article and discussion substantively, my work is done here. Have a good one. 20:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Agent 69.193.242.60, about fifty percent of your edits to the article were not half-bad, and I enjoyed your most recent reply to Andjam, although you could have been nicer to my "''agent provocateur''" in the unredlink-archive affair. :-) Good hunting! --] 00:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not comforted by your enjoyment, nor in your observation that "about fifty percent of edits to the article were not half-bad." 05:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::You ] always assume good faith; of course you ], but you could choose to ]. --] 07:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anyway, silly discussion this, if you feel so inclined you can on ] read about my POV regarding ]. --] 08:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I found it ] with ''about'' <small>half</small>-] truths, ], general ], ], and frankly, ]. 10:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There's ]. And although I do appreciate your honesty I wish you could have been a little bit more specific than that. And maybe (since you brought it up) share some of your opinions regarding ]. --] 13:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::To further the interests of honesty, I should mention that I wasn't actually ] — that was a rhetorical devise. And I'm not at all interested in commenting on various Misplaced Pages ] and ], and most certainly am against entering into a polemic with you on the "nature of primates" and 'the everyone's a hypocrite' sell/cop-out argument, the nature of "somewhat" and what being seemingly inexplicably drawn to selective expressions of imperialist domination —and imperialist-lackey dependency and submission— in my opinion amounts to, and so on. You were the one who chose to engage me, also about the contents of ], otherwise I would not be offering my opinion. 16:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Whatever ] say.. ''compañero''/''compañera''. --] 18:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Wow, what a peculiar response. I'm not Ayn Rand nor am I Jimbo, my politics is in direct opposition to both. 18:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Peculiar indeed. Well, Ayn Rand is (thankfully) dead and Jimbo is a character in ''The Simpsons'', so I kind of figured you were neither. If you would make an effort to understand the concept of ], it is quite possible that you youself will become a brilliant prose writer. Then it's also possible that a hypocritical imbecile such as myself will have a chance to understand what you are trying to communicate. --] 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Or so <b>]</b> say, in-between vaguely-explained insults. 20:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, so <b>]</b> say, without implied malice or harrassment. ] really. --] 21:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Whomever you are, I don't believe you would call Ayn Rand without implied malice. 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Sure you know who <b>]</b> am, as I know who <b>]</b> are. The reference to Ayn Rand was made since I thought your abstract read like it was written by an ]. A friendly advice: if you want to know something; then ask, If you want to say something; then say it. ] under ] of ]. --] 01:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::And as I've said; you ] always assume good faith; of course you ], but you could choose to ]. --] 02:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Actually, no, I did not know about your other account, nor do I see why I should care. Elsewhere, I'm finding your diatribes rather innane, absurd and unfocused. You also seem to be in the habit of straying into personal comments too often amid multiple links ] to ]. 05:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Of course, you could always simply repeat yourself ]-]-], but in my opinion, that smacks of intellectual lazyness. 05:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Another thing that might strike you as intellectual laziness would be if I borrowed the phrase "''You also seem to be in the habit of straying into personal comments too often''" from you ''] ]''. --] 11:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Not a particularly well thought-out response. Your various name-calling are childish; your attempt to come across as sophisticated is ''strikingly'' sophomoric and pseudointellectual. 12:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Are you ] now? You claim that I'm "name-calling", and you also made an '] assessment' that I strive to come across as "sophisticated", which couldn't be further from the truth. Just as I'm not ''an auxiliary'', I'm not, in the slightest, ''refined''. Anyway, I've said all that I wanted to have said on this ], and since ''this'' pissing contest, unlike a game of chess, can't be won, I will leave the debate (and the page) in your capable hands. --] 15:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Here's <i><small>faintly</small></i> hoping. Characteristically muddled till the end, I feel that your various transpositions are dishonest. But enough about my weaknesses. 01:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Could the two of you (saxet and nameless editor) please move your discussion to your personal talk pages? ] 16:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't mean to discourage you, nameless editor, by undoing or changing so many of your edits. Most of your links and content changes, I liked and tried to keep. I did think, however, that many of your changes made the article less encyclopedic in style. ] 15:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not that I don't strive to reach the heights your ], but your reversion seemed too wholesale cut & paste. I might not <i>]</i> if there was a bit more of an explanation and ''effort''. Please attempt to be more ] and ] with future contributors. 16:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I tried to salvage what I could of your changes, but at a couple points you'd combined too many sentences for me readily to remove the conversational writing style, so I just cut and pasted the prior wording. A couple things that you could do, nameless editor, in order to make your efforts more efficient are: | |||
| ::::(1) Start a Misplaced Pages account with a user name. Most people don't naturally keep track of series of numbers, so there is real potential for your excellent contributions to be confused with the crap than other anonymous editors leave here. | |||
| ::::(2) Take smaller bites. In this article, you came from out of nowhere and made a bunch of primarily stylistic changes throughout the article. You seem to be, as most people are, and as I certainly am, enamoured with your own writing style. But not everyone will share your capacity to appreciate how wonderfully you write, and indeed, with the changes you made, I was struck that the article had come to read like an encyclopedia article plus some comments added by someone as if writing notes in the margin. Had you made a couple minor changes, you might have been more proficient at maintaining the encyclopedic writing style, and other people (like yours truly) would have been more able to make minor changes to each of your edits without, as you say, seeming to make wholesale reverts. | |||
| ::::(3) Tone down the attitude. No doubt you really are God's gift to the rest of us, but it betrays a lack of experience in working with other people that you so cavalierly offer your input and act hurt when it is not heart-warmingly received. Have pity on us lesser mortals, if nothing else. | |||
| :::Hope that helps! | |||
| :::] 16:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not really! Again, you don't need to insert a double space in-between sentences. Which brings me to the point of how it's always easier to offer stylistic and otherwise criticisms than it is to recieve and truly reflect on them. Also, please try not to project such an acerbic tone with your comments, it can easily be read disparagingly. Back on topic: I am not at all attached to my written word; as in my admittedly clumsy writing style and poor orientation with a written narrative. But by copying portions of text, it just did not seem as if you compared my changes closely enough, which was hurtful. My advise to you in being more communicative from the outset, and I'll add now, less metaphorical and more porsaic, stands. 01:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If Saxet or any other registered users feel that I was trying to increase unpleasantness, I'd be willing to read how they feel I've been unpleasant in my talk page. With regards to the archiving (mentioned elsewhere), I was only trying to restore the archive to what John K had created. ] 13:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Andjam, I did not feel you were trying to increase unpleasantness. --] 13:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok. My mistake. ] 13:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem, I've also made those kind of mistakes. --] 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == explain like im a two year old == | |||
| explain to me like i'm a two year old: if the iraeli army marches in and controls the territories, how can one possibly argue that they are not occupied? | |||
| == "The term "Occupied Territories," especially when capitalized, is commonly used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories" == | |||
| ''"The term "Occupied Territories," especially when capitalized, is commonly used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories"'' Unbehagen, I'm astonished you would consider this claim to be properly referenced, and not "original research", considering the rather vociferous objections you made to rather better cited information about the modern day use of the term "Zionist terrorism" on the "Zionist terrorism" page. Can you explain how the "Zionist terrorism" phrase was original research, and the claim listed above is not? Alternatively, please restore the paragraph you keep removing at Zionist terrorism. Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is a difference between trying to prove EXCLUSIVE use and COMMON use. Do you really not think so? If so then it is I who am astonished! ] 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::While proving exclusivity in anything is difficult, the citations provided on the other Talk: page show that as well as anything can be shown. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Jay - is this really controversial? Are you saying that the Israeli-occupied territories are not referred to as the "Occupied Territories" or "occupied territories," without modifier? for a google news search on "Occupied Territories" - there are 474 results, a great number of which are relevant. Are you really saying that it is original research to say that the term "Occupied Territories" is used to refer to the subject of this article? Or am I missing something. ] ] 03:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::To begin with, I think a more typical present-day use of "Occupied Territories" refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not the Golan Heights, and certainly not the Sinai desert. More importantly, I'm trying to find the standard of original research that is going to be used for these kinds of articles. For example, if you look at Talk: page, and the edit history of the article, you will see that an extremely high standard for original research is being set by Unbehagen. Specifically, he's insisting that the results Google and Library of Congress searches consist of original research, and that one must actually quote a reliable source which makes this claim - yet here he (and you) seem to consider them not to be original research. We should strive for some consistency in our application of policy here. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The Sinai is not occupied anymore, so that's hardly fair. Beyond this, I don't think anything in the statement says that "Occupied Territories" is necessarily used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories as a whole, just that it is used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories - perhaps we can clarify on this, but the statement itself hardly seems controversial. Beyond this, it sounds as though you are making a ] violation here - as to the Zionist terrorism article, I have not expressed an opinion there, although I will say that Unbehagen has a point in saying that "commonly used" should require a much lower standard of proof than "exclusively used" or "almost exclusively used." ] ] 18:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, you said you added the "cite" thing based on talk, but I don't remember any discussion of this at all ever. ] ] 03:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::The discussion was about inclusion of material about water resources without sufficient balance. Also I think removing a request for citation without actually providing a citation, or in lieu thereof resolving the issue on the Talk: page, is bad form. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've provided a google news link which gives many examples of major media using the term "Occupied Territories" in this context. At any rate, it seems pretty clear that this is not an issue of citation - it is an issue of phrasing. This statement could probably be phrased better. But there is nothing controversial about the idea being conveyed. As to bad form, violating ] is also bad form, so that's rather the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? ] ] 18:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Are you objecting to "commonly" or to "used". I agree "commonly" is a matter of interpretation and may need a citation. "used" is a simple matter of fact - a citation which shows usage ie a reference to "Occupied Territories" which clearly refers to the land is question is a valid one. I actually think you're breaking WP Policy on Making a Point and carrying on the "debate" from ] - which is very different - here. If so please show some good faith and reason. ] 11:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please see my comments above - striving for clarification and consistency in policy application is not WP:POINT, and you appear to be applying the policy in vastly different ways on these two pages. As for "commonly used", that is actually less objectionable than "used", which, in my mind, implies exclusivity. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jay - of course it is WP:POINT. The issues are not basically similar. "Proving" the rather obvious fact that the term "Occupied Territories" is ''commonly'' used to refer to either the Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories+Golan should only require a pretty low standard of proof - some citations by major media ought to be sufficient. To prove that something is ''exclusively used'' is essentially trying to prove a negative - you have to show that the term is ''never'' used in any other way. A single counterexample blows up the whole point. Now, you and Unbehagen may disagree on whether you've demonstrated enough proof as to whether or not "zionist terrorism" is exclusively used by nuts, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue on this page. ] ] 18:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was hardly WP:POINT - I was trying to establish a standard for what we consider "original research". What is actually WP:POINT is Unbehagen's continued removal of the information on the ] page, even though the allegedly contentious word "exclusively" has been removed. He now uses a different rationale for removing the information, claiming that sources need to be cited, ignoring the many sources provided on the Talk: page. Maybe you could take a look at that. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Jay - I have changed the opening to deal with your objections. I hope the new version meets with your approval. ] ] 18:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :John, the matter had already been covered in a separate section of the article. Maybe that section should be moved to just after the intro, but your change was pretty clunky. ] 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it's much more clunky for the first sentence of the article to link to a section later on in the article, but maybe that's just me. I'm obviously open to other suggestions, though. ] ] 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let me take a stab at it. ] 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looks much better. Out of conflict, a better article arises! Almost enough to restore my faith in wikipedia. ] ] 21:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm impressed, nice work to all. It's good to see things taking a better turn. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not too bad, if I do say so myself. Until the next "improvement" .... ] 23:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Good solution on the section, Marsden; and good rewrite of the intro, JK. As for my hit-and-run re-naming of ] to the current title, let us speak of it again! ] 03:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically you insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then insit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. ] 22:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, it's insisting on secondary sources for claims, not tertiary sources. And I'm getting rather sick of your double standards on that page - first deleting the information based on the notion that it was "original research", then insisting here that the only "original research" was the word "exclusively", then, when that word was removed, deleting it on the grounds that there were no citations, ignoring all the citations on the Talk: page. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==The neutrality of this section is disputed== | |||
| I don't have much time, but I want to help facilitate a new discussion concerning the two current npov-section tags. I'll leave it blank for now and hope a productive exchange ensues wikimagically therefrom (hopefuly I'll be able to revisit it next week). Yet another proverbial hit-and-run from yours truly! ] 03:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===The West Bank and the Gaza Strip=== | |||
| Alright, to begin with, who finds this section to be POV, and in what respect? ] ] 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I do. It has information about the water resources inserted there, which, as you've said yourself, does not even belong in this article. Furthermore, the information has been inserted for the purpose of creating a POV that Israel is holding on to the territories because of the water resources, ignoring at least a half dozen other important reasons. This has already been discussed at length above. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The information clearly belongs. Jay, if you and John Kenny need some remedial education about the water situation in the Occupied Territories, that can be addressed. But the information belongs. ] 04:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please note that an ] is not an ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for clarifying, Jay. I don't think I've ever said that the water resources issue definitely does not belong in the article. I do think that it shouldn't be the ''only'' piece of specific information presented in the article. It seems to me that the key to NPOVing this is not to remove the water issue, which is clearly important (while, admittedly, not being uniquely important), but to add other material. ] ] 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===The Golan Heights=== | |||
| Same question here. Who finds this section to be POV, and in what way? ] ] 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :See comment above. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ski resort == | |||
| I've added a citation and some additional info on the Golan Heights. If anyone still has objections to it appearing in the article, I'd appreciate it if they list them here rather than edit-war, and possibly list what topics they feel are halal and which are haram for the article. Thanks, ] 12:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Now the resort has been moved from the Golan Heights to the West Bank. ] 14:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::And now reference to it has been removed from the article completely. Andjam, the ski resort information doesn't belong here; it makes the article ridiculous. Insert it again without a reference indicating it as an consideration in Israel's continued occupation of the Golan Heights, and I'll begin a vandalism complaint against you. ] 15:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Here is a comment left on my talk page on this matter, Andjam: "Ski resort???? That's very funny and very sad at the same time." ] 15:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :As I understand it, this ski resort does have some strategic importance. As noted, the Alpinistim trains there, and the Alpinistim is important—but guess why? Its main purpose is to defend Mount Hermon, and why is it important that Mount Hermon be defended? Because the headwaters of the Jordan rise there, and the Jordan supplies Israel with . . . you guessed it: fresh water. I'll see if I can find some sources on this. —]] 20:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism complaint == | |||
| Jayjg -- who has serially removed the references to water resources in the Occupied Territories because they are allegedly not relevant, in spite of the ubiquity of opinions to the contrary in published writing on the matter, and that including it allegedly creates a POV slant -- has restored the sentence, "The Golan Heights contains the only ski resort under Israeli control" in two separate reverts, the first time noting that the ski resort information was "as material as the water crap" that he'd been deleting before, and the second time after I him that I'd file a vandalism complaint against him if he restored it again. Enough is enough, and I'm filing the complaint. I'm going to ask that he be banned from editing this article for a month, and I understand that I'll need someone to second my complaint. I'll post a link to it when I've completed it. | |||
| ] 14:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I restored the information '''before''' your "warning"; have a look at the edit times. As for the information itself, it's clear that you've expanded the scope of the article from what I had orginally argued it should be held to. Since expanded scope seems to be the consensus here, I'm respecting that consensus by restoring the information ] added regarding other unique reasons why Israel has interest in these territories. I think the article needs other relevant information too, regarding Israel's unique wineries in the Golan, and the Israeli greenhouses in the Gaza Strip which produce prodigious amounts of produce for the Israeli and world markets. If you object that that content, rather than edit-warring it out (as you edit-warred other content in), why don't you express on the Talk: page why it is you feel the information doesn't belong here? You've been explicitly asked to do so, above, but appear to have simply reverted ], rather than responding to him. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I responded to Andjam at his talk page, but thanks for your concern. ] 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Marsden's response included repeating that my contribution was "cr**". He also justified of the use of that word, claiming that Jay had used it to describe my contribution. Within minutes of him talking to me, he sent messages to half a dozen other people on this dispute, asking them for support. ] 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I've seen his comments there, they're very insulting. As for "crap", far from describing your contribution that way, I instead acquiesed to Marsden's insistence that the scope of this article needed to be broadened. I've explained that to him, so I'm not sure why he would present a patently false claim and attribute it to me. It is troubling that he would insist that the scope of the page be expanded, but then exclude obviously relevant material under that expanded scope, and even threaten other editors for including that material. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On "patently false": here is what Jay wrote the edit comment in restoring the comments on the ski resort: "it's as material as the water crap." This faithfully represents his obsessive past objections to the information on water resources, but also equates the materiality of the ski slope information to this. If Jay would like to make the argument that, in spite of his edit comment, he believes that the referenced and broadly supported information on water resources is "crap" but the silly and broadly condemned information on the ski resort is somehow more valid, that should be very amusing. ] 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My personal feeling is still that the article focus should be narrow. However, personal feelings notwithstanding, I have acqueised to your insistence that the scope be broadened, even though I personally disagree with that rather unilaterally enforced decision. It astonishes me that you would now attempt to criticize me for agreeing to ''your'' parameters for the article; apparently I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Let's not be so phony, Jay: it is not my insistence, but rather the consensus of people involved in this article that information on water resources belongs in this article. I also strongly expect that the consensus of people involved in this article will be that the ski resort information does not belong, and I believe that you -- recognizing this as well -- realize that it would only further blacken your reputation if you were to persist in inserting the ski resort information into the article, including quite possibly tangible penalties for vandalism. The extent of your "agreeableness" seems to be delineated quite clearly by what you recognize you won't be able to get away with. Really, you're ''damnable'' if you do and ''damnable'' if you don't -- you have shown absolutely no acceptance of the ''consensus'' that your preferences for this article violate NPOV, instead moaning about me getting away with "revert warring" and enforcing "my" parameters and insistences on the article, and probably, if I looked further afield, grousing about how an "inappropriate POV title" has been used here "... for the time being." The only difference between when you do and when you don't, Jay, as far as I have seen, is whether or not a stick is held over your head. So get used to having a stick held over your head, Jay, because clearly that is all that keeps you from promoting what not just me but the consensus of people involved in this article see as your POV. I honestly wonder with you if there is not some sort of anti-gentilism going on with how contemptuous you are of a lot of people. In any case, I have figured out how I can most effectively deal with you, and sadly for you it involves holding a stick over your head. ] 20:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Wow. That's quite a comment. "Damnable"? "Get used to having a stick over your head"? "Anti-gentilism"? Personal attacks, threats, and egregious violations of the ] policy noted and logged. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Apparently as part of the complaint process, I need someone to leave a second message to Jay at his requesting that he not restore the ski resort sentences. ] 14:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Please keep in mind that "complaint processes" tend to look at all aspects of an issue. Your implication that only ''you'' may decide what is relevant to the contents of this article will be only one of the issues examined. Other issues examined will obviously include your almost ceaseless series of personal attacks against a number of editors, particularly me, and your admitted wikistalking for the purposes of reverting. My experience with "complaint processes" is that they have a way of rebounding on the complainant, but feel free to do what you wish. Just a bit of friendly advice. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jay, I think you should be careful here that you are not WP:POINTing. Are you only supporting inclusion of the ski resort material because it's a way to prove your point about the water resources material? That being said, I don't see why the ski resort information is necessarily irrelevant. It seems to me that the best way to look at the sections dealing with each of the occupied territories is to view them as epitomes of the main articles ], ], ], and ] (or whatever, for the last one). The ski resort is probably insignificant enough that it should only be mentioned at the main ] article (where it is, at present, ''not'' mentioned), but I'd be interested to see other arguments on that front. | |||
| ::In terms of the water issue, which seems to be the main one here, the ] article makes it clear that the ''Israeli government'' itself has stated that water resources, along with strategic position, are one of the key reasons for Israel maintaining its control over the Heights. Why can't we say this, then? ] ] 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::John, as I made clear to Mirv, Marsden has insisted that the scope of the article be expanded to include reasons why the various territories have value to Israel, against my vociferous objections. Well, it seems the consensus (or his edit warring) support his view, but now that he's opened Pandora's box, he cannot insist that only the things he thinks are important to Israel can be included in the article. Tourism is a huge industry in Israel, and has already been mentioned on this Talk: page (by Ramallite) as a reason for Israel's holding the territories - certainly the only ski resort in Israel contributes to that. As well, military uses are obviously critical to Israel, given its position, so it's difficult to understand why listing the Golan's unique capabilities as a training ground for soldiers should be deleted. Of course, I'm interested in finding consensus on this page as to what is relevant and what is not, but I don't think it should be decided by Marsden edit-warring out what he disapproves of, in the same way he previously edit-warred the water material in. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Numerous sources on the importance of water resources in the Occupied Territories have been offered. I'm sure you and Andjam won't add information about wineries or greenhouses or ski resorts to this article unless you have sources that can show that they are material concerns in Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Territories, because to do so would be original research. As I mentioned to Andjam, the articles on the individual territories would be more appropriate repositories for information on them that is not particularly relevant to the occupation. Thanks, by the way, for your "friendly advice." Hopefully you'll cease trying to make this article a laughingstock, so we won't have to find out if Misplaced Pages's complaint process is as dysfunctional as you claim it is. Perhaps, on the other hand, having as much experience with the complaint processes of Misplaced Pages as you do is not something to be proud of. ] 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You deleted a citation I made, Marsden. Making false accusations of original research is a form of personal attack. ] 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Jay, discussing tourism in the article as another potential reason seems fine to me, if citations can be found. My main objection to the ski resort issue is that it seems pretty small-time, and no citation has been provided. Beyond this, it seems rather unlikely to me that too many tourists come to Israel for the skiing...but, as I said, I have no inherent objection. It clearly ought to be mentioned in ] if it is mentioned here, though. ] ] 18:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Other points: | |||
| * It has been said that I didn't mention anything about the ski resort in the Golan Heights page. That is true, but I did add information to the Mount ] page before this dispute. If I were to add the info to the Golan Heights page, who would say it wouldn't get edit-warred out? | |||
| * Winter sport is one of my interests in wikipedia. Heck, I've even edited the page! This is not even my first middle eastern-related winter sport ]. | |||
| * I've not objected to water being mentioned in this article. If people wish to argue Jay is a hypocrite, fine, but that is not a valid reason to remove my contribution to the article. The consensus seems to be that resources of the areas under dispute are fair game for the article, as the article already mentions a number of those. | |||
| * As the only talk Marsden has been willing to do on this page so far has been under the category of "Vandalism complaint against Jayjg", I'm going to add the ski resort info back in. | |||
| Thanks, ] 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Marsden, please, no personal-attack headers. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's an attack against his action in this article, not against him. ] 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please cease using section headers for personal attacks - this is viewed strongly negatively by the Misplaced Pages community. Article Talk: pages are for the purpose of discussing article content, not other editors. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A complaint that someone is supposedly vandalizing an article is not a personal attack. If it were, nobody would ever be able to claim that someone is vandalizing an article, as personal attacks are banned everywhere on wikipedia, not just article talk pages. That said, I think it would be better to avoid using section headers in this manner. ] ] 20:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Further: I think that Marsden's actions in terms of the section header could easily be described as a failure to assume good faith and perhaps as a violation of wikiquette. But we should be careful and precise - it is not a personal attack. ] ] 20:56, 31 October 2005 (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