MichaelNetzer (talk | contribs) →Alon Shvut: Allowances are there for a reason. |
|||
Line 391: | Line 391: | ||
:::::Can you show me where in the naming convention that is a violation, Zero? I know you had me in mind when you wrote it but I've went to lengths to explain the naming convention neither equates the term with the villainy attributed to it here, nor imposes a ban on its use when no clear bias is present. You seem to be taking a position that any use of it in reference to modern entities is biased. The naming convention disagrees with your position, but in consideration of the charged claims of "some editors" asks it be done with qualifications. Using the term J&SA and additionally placing it in parenthesis is in complete accordance with the guidelines. I've explained why my position enforces the naming convention while some editors banning the use of the term violates it. You have not addressed anything I said but rather choose to make general statements that have little basis in the guidelines. I'm sorry but I don't find this to be a fruitful way to discuss anything. Try putting your politics aside and read the guidelines with an open mind for once. If you just want to make baseless accusations as others have here, then the record will bear that this is your way of conducting a discussion. If you instead choose to explain yourself as I have, that might give us something to talk about. --[[User:MichaelNetzer|MichaelNetzer]] ([[User talk:MichaelNetzer|talk]]) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Can you show me where in the naming convention that is a violation, Zero? I know you had me in mind when you wrote it but I've went to lengths to explain the naming convention neither equates the term with the villainy attributed to it here, nor imposes a ban on its use when no clear bias is present. You seem to be taking a position that any use of it in reference to modern entities is biased. The naming convention disagrees with your position, but in consideration of the charged claims of "some editors" asks it be done with qualifications. Using the term J&SA and additionally placing it in parenthesis is in complete accordance with the guidelines. I've explained why my position enforces the naming convention while some editors banning the use of the term violates it. You have not addressed anything I said but rather choose to make general statements that have little basis in the guidelines. I'm sorry but I don't find this to be a fruitful way to discuss anything. Try putting your politics aside and read the guidelines with an open mind for once. If you just want to make baseless accusations as others have here, then the record will bear that this is your way of conducting a discussion. If you instead choose to explain yourself as I have, that might give us something to talk about. --[[User:MichaelNetzer|MichaelNetzer]] ([[User talk:MichaelNetzer|talk]]) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Line 5: "When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration '''and not merely referring to a specific land area''', term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used" (my bold). Those words "not merely referring to a specific land area" are there in order to prevent people writing that specific places are in Judea and Samaria Area. You did what this rule expressly says not to do. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::::: Line 5: "When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration '''and not merely referring to a specific land area''', term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used" (my bold). Those words "not merely referring to a specific land area" are there in order to prevent people writing that specific places are in Judea and Samaria Area. You did what this rule expressly says not to do. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::: Line 5 would prevent someone from writing ''"Alon Shvut is located in the Judea and Samaria Area."'' Which is not what I did. This is how I introduced it: ''"Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria Area)."'' It's not the same as saying it's ''"located in Judea and Samaria"''. The parenthesis change the context from location to administration because it doesn't just say {Judea and Samaria) but rather (Judea and Samaria Area) which is an administrative context. This is relevant because Alon Shvut is administered under the "administrative area of Judea and Samaria". The guideline allows for referencing it in the context of administration and suggests one of two ways. Or "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria", or "Judea and Samaria Area". This is the intention of the parenthesis. It's like saying ''"The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Wayne County administration)"''. If this is problematic for some people, then it can be clarified further: ''"The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Administered in Wayne County)"''. The term "Judea and Samaria Area" is already a name of the administrative area and allowed in this context. But if it bothers some people it can be clarified further: ''"Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (the administrative area of Judea and Samaria)."'' This will certainly have some people in a huff but people's hate for the term cannot strip the guidelines from the allowance they make for its use. Before accusing me of changing the intention of the guidelines, please try to explain why the guidelines allow for use of the term in the context of administration? Before accusing me of violating something, maybe ask yourself why you and some editors are stripping the guidelines of the allowances it makes. If the guideline had agreed with editors who think any use of the term is biased, then the guidelines would have said so clearly and editors wouldn't be able to introduce it in any way whatsoever. This is clearly not the case. The guidelines don't agree with some editors who feel the term cannot be used without bias. This is why they made the allowances, which are there for a reason. Now, let's try a little intellectual exercise. What if we said something this: ''"Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank. It is governed by the administrative area of Judea and Samaria Area."'' Do you now think this would dispel the objections? --[[User:MichaelNetzer|MichaelNetzer]] ([[User talk:MichaelNetzer|talk]]) 11:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Give me examples since the Arbcom decision and its conventions on naming were adopted, of any known, experienced editor in the 'pro-Israeli' camp who has consistently over two years tried to introduce 'Judea and Samaria' as a default term designating the area in which settlements are found, only to be subject to 'strong-arm' tactics and 'ideological bullying'? Unless my memory deceives me, neither camp has squabbled over this, and what you are discussing is the effect of Gilabrand's attempt to reintroduce the term for one settlement, while failing to show how Alon Shvut, rather uniquely, qualifies as one of those rare exceptions outlined in the protocol. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::Give me examples since the Arbcom decision and its conventions on naming were adopted, of any known, experienced editor in the 'pro-Israeli' camp who has consistently over two years tried to introduce 'Judea and Samaria' as a default term designating the area in which settlements are found, only to be subject to 'strong-arm' tactics and 'ideological bullying'? Unless my memory deceives me, neither camp has squabbled over this, and what you are discussing is the effect of Gilabrand's attempt to reintroduce the term for one settlement, while failing to show how Alon Shvut, rather uniquely, qualifies as one of those rare exceptions outlined in the protocol. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:59, 15 November 2011
Guidelines: Current Article Issue Discussion
This page is a subpage of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Please read that page before posting here. You may bring specific dispute issues on articles, categories or templates here. Note other help on reliable sources, point of views, biographies etc. might be found at an appropriate notice board. (See Noticeboard list.) Please be civil since and incivil and other problematic postings may be deleted by members. Members also may move postings about problems with, or suggestions for, the project in general to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration talk page. Members may archive resolved or dated issues.
Late Muslim immigration to Ottoman and British Palestine
Late Muslim immigration to Ottoman and British Palestine, a new page with multiple issues has been created. On Talk:Late Muslim immigration to Ottoman and British Palestine there is a discussion about whether and where to merge that page with other more established pages. Please contribute your thoughts.--Carwil (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is a copyvio from http://www.shamrak.com/Masada2000-HistoryofPalestine.htm and have tagged accordingly. Please remove the tag if I am wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
West Jerusalem
There are currently some articles that state that locations in West Jerusalem are "in Israel". Can someone provide a worldview source that confirms this? If no such source can be provided I'm gonna start removing that claim. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure what a "worldview source" is, but there are articles and books on all sorts of subjects that put West Jerusalem in Israel. Here is a smattering of them:
Articles:
- def of west jerusalem by wikipedia disambig page West Jerusalem "The section of Jerusalem which became part of Israel following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. .."
- geonames, Google maps[1]
- weather page: [2]
- Learning words from New York Times: "Few cities can be more confounding that Jerusalem -- Israel's ancient, conflictg-ridden, ponderously pious capital."
- travel: [3]
- population: [5]
- Apple, Inc "gives" Jerusalem to Israel [6]
- Southeastern University in Jerusalem claims to be in Israel: [8]
- as does the Mayer Museum for Islamic Art: [9]
Books in various fields:
- Geography: Margaret W. Young (1982). Cities of the world: a compilation of current information on cultural, geograph., and polit. conditions in the countries and cities of 6 continents, based on the Dept. of State's Post reports. Gale Research Co. ISBN 9780810311114. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- Science: Joseph A. Fitzmyer (2004). The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): a commentary. Gregorian&Biblical BookShop. pp. 14–. ISBN 9788876533181. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- Gender studies: Simona Sharoni (1995). Gender and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the politics of women's resistance. Syracuse University Press. pp. 129–. ISBN 9780815602996. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- Palestine-Israel conflict: Muslehuddin Ahmad (20 August 2010). Promised Land?: A Perspective on Palestinian- Israeli Conflict. AuthorHouse. pp. 261–. ISBN 9781449017958. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- Politics: Michael Dumper (1997). The politics of Jerusalem since 1967. Columbia University Press. pp. 40–. ISBN 9780231106405. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- Sociology: Phillip Vannini; J. Patrick Williams (1 April 2009). Authenticity in culture, self, and society. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 219–. ISBN 9780754675167. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- Medical: American journal of epidemiology. 1981. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
- Art: Nadine Covert; Vivian Wick; Program for Art on Film (New York (1993). Architecture on screen: films and videos on architecture, landscape architecture, historic preservation, city and regional planning. G.K. Hall. ISBN 9780816105939. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
172.190.41.59 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- The links in the "articles" section represents specific company's or authors views, your links in the "books" section is the same, only represents the authors views, though I can not access and see all of them, you can ad quotes if any of them contains information representing an International perspective. By "worldview", I meant the view of the majority of the international community as can be seen in UN votes and large organs such as the UN and the European Union. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could you please login to your account and re-sign your posting. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are IPs not permitted to comment here?
- Anyways, same arguments over and over again. West Jerusalem functions as part of Israel and many maps in atlases point to it being in Israel. I think this source puts it interestingly:
States and scholars alike are divided over the legal status of Jerusalem under international law... It should be pointed out that the cardinal dispute revolves around the rights of the State of Israel in east Jerusalem, whereas broader agreement exists regarding west Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel over this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty).[11]
- Much like similar discussions in the topic area, there are several concerns that might pop up.
- For example: Is the question the lead? If it is, simply say it is part of "Jerusalem" or at least don't say that it belongs to any country. Let the body do the explanation.
- Another example would be if we are discussing infoboxes. Lending the impression that the are belongs to any country picks a side so the infobox should not have a map or it should be a map of Jerusalem without surrounding states receiving more space in the fame or the exact same coloring). Those are two balanced solutions to what I assume this request is about.
- If the request is actually about it being in the body, then I agree. The prose should not say one way or the other but instead point to sources describing the differing variables and opinions.
- We are not here to make a point or to take one side over another. And keep in mind that minority opinion does not equal fringe. Although the legal opinion might favor that it is not Israel, it is not to the point that makes those saying it is in Israel fringe. So it is fortunate for us as editors that we do not get to definitively say one way or the other. If Israel is removed to add another country then it is just as bad as saying it is in Israel.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your source says: "whereas broader agreement exists regarding west Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel over this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty).", so this does not confirm that the worldview is that today its part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Are IPs not permitted to comment here?"...not if they are topic banned compulsive liars who sociopathically use deception to subvert the project, harass editors, cause conflict and treat the principals and policies of the project like a piece of shit, no. If the IP is genuine and not breaking any rules (by typing even 1 character onto this page) they are very welcome. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That must be the first time someone has cited the Monopoly board in support of a politically contentious assertion! RolandR (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- If West Jerusalem is not in Israel, East Jerusalem certainly isn't. But neither is either section in the "West Bank" or Palestinian Territories. Chesdovi (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Neither West or East EJ is part of Israel, but a large majority of the IC regards EJ as part of the PT:[12]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Positions on Jerusalem makes it clear that the UN views the city as a self contained entity unto itself. How unfair it would be if EJ is recognised as being part of the PT while WJ is not part of Israel. Can't be right. Chesdovi (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a difference between that a large majority of the IC regards EJ as part of the PT today, and how the IC say the entire city should be later. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please reread my comment SD. I did not say it was in Israel. Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please reread the comments SD. What the IC considers it is not the only thing to go off of. And it is certainly not the only way to word it. So what specifically do you want to change? This mention of removing it is too vague. Are you instead planning on replacing it? Are you ignoring other variables to make a flat-out statement of who it belongs to? Have you considered other options since a definitive statement is not the only solution?Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to the worldview source (or lack of it), EJ is by a large majority of the IC regarded today as part of the PT. No source has been provided showing that the majority of the IC today views WJ as part of Israel. So that is what the articles should say.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have failed to respond to other rebuttals or clarification on your actual intent after multiple requests so I think we can safely say that we are done here.Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I already said above that I was going to remove the claim if no source could be shown that WJ is internationally recognized as part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have failed to respond to other rebuttals or clarification on your actual intent after multiple requests so I think we can safely say that we are done here.Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to the worldview source (or lack of it), EJ is by a large majority of the IC regarded today as part of the PT. No source has been provided showing that the majority of the IC today views WJ as part of Israel. So that is what the articles should say.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Positions on Jerusalem makes it clear that the UN views the city as a self contained entity unto itself. How unfair it would be if EJ is recognised as being part of the PT while WJ is not part of Israel. Can't be right. Chesdovi (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Neither West or East EJ is part of Israel, but a large majority of the IC regards EJ as part of the PT:[12]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- If West Jerusalem is not in Israel, East Jerusalem certainly isn't. But neither is either section in the "West Bank" or Palestinian Territories. Chesdovi (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That must be the first time someone has cited the Monopoly board in support of a politically contentious assertion! RolandR (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment - While not directly related to a question that contains the term "West Jerusalem", I stumbled across an interesting article the other day by Ian Lustick, Professor of Political science at the University of Pennsylvania, in which he argues that Israel has never officially annexed East Jerusalem or more specifically he discusses "the absence of official Israeli declarations of sovereignty or annexation with respect to expanded East Jerusalem". Tautologically speaking, it may be of interest to those interested in such things. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment For the record, Supreme Deliciousness used this discussion to claim he had consensus to remove Israel as the location in multiple articles about neighborhoods in West Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, I asked for a source showing that West Jerusalem was internationally recognized as part of Israel, it wasn't provided, source showing that its not was provided, how is the conclusion of the discussion not that we can now remove the inaccurate claim? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know what "consensus" means? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you do if you think this discussion resulted in consensus for you to do what you did over multiple articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Consensus "consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability.", I wanted to do this by opening up a discussion asking people if they could verify the claim that WJ is internationally recognized as in Israel, no such source was provided, sources showing that its not was, "What consensus is" "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised.", what legitimate concerns has been provided showing WJ internationally reckognized as being in Israel and how does this comply with neutrality? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- So you unilaterally decided you have consensus not based on what other editors have said, but based on your interpretation of what they didn't say? That's what you think consensus is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Its about a pov claim that is not backed up by anything, I asked for anyone to confirm it and no one could, and Cptnono brought source showing its not internationally recognized as part of Israel, but ill ask an admin later and see what they say.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- So you unilaterally decided you have consensus not based on what other editors have said, but based on your interpretation of what they didn't say? That's what you think consensus is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Consensus "consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability.", I wanted to do this by opening up a discussion asking people if they could verify the claim that WJ is internationally recognized as in Israel, no such source was provided, sources showing that its not was, "What consensus is" "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised.", what legitimate concerns has been provided showing WJ internationally reckognized as being in Israel and how does this comply with neutrality? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you do if you think this discussion resulted in consensus for you to do what you did over multiple articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you know what "consensus" means? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it's similar to removing the "Palestinian territories" from a sentence that says something like "located in East Jerusalem, Palestinian territories"...or is it ? I suppose that's what this discussion is for...not sure. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Source was provided above showing a large majority of the international community regarding East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories. I'm not adding "PT" after "EJ" but PT maps and cats can be added for places in EJ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Time to start reverting then. You did not read the discussion above and do not have consensus for your changes. How about you list your intended changes instead of putting them in. It appears covert and contrary to consensus building since you have stayed vague about it. You also have still not addressed the other variables and solutions presented. This is AE waiting to happen and they are all about being sick of this stuff so I suggest we find a way to make it work without resorting to dragging problematic edits there.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean reverting? Some are claiming/adding the point of view that WJ is Israel, but the claim can not be backed up. So how can you say "no consensus"? The changes are to remove the non-backed up claim that places in West Jerusalem are "Israel", since that is the pov of Israel and not internationally recognized, therefor claiming such things is a violation of npov. Besides the source above you brought, here is another one: "As already noted, Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem had not been recognized in international law or by the international commu-nity other than through the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which merely confirmed the fact of its presence there." p 39. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I assume this is about the following edits (...I can't be bothered to link them)
- 17:45, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Batei Ungarin (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- 17:44, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shmuel HaNavi (neighborhood) (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- 17:40, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Ma'alot Dafna (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- 17:39, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Arnona (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- 17:38, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Givat Mordechai (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- 17:37, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha'arei Hesed (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- 17:36, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Givat Beit HaKerem (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- 17:36, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Geula (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
- SD is making a valid and important point central to resolving the edit warring that goes on here. No one should be making reverts without a legitimate policy based reason to revert. What is it ? What precisely is wrong with saying 'Jerusalem' instead of 'Jerusalem, Israel' in those articles ? Wiki editors disagree with it isn't a valid reason. I'm not saying I support the edit but I support SD's entirely reasonable expectation that people explain themselves and only make edits based on policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I typically don't agree with SD but this and this seems perfectly acceptable. Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see that Gilabrand and a sockpuppet have reverted the edits without addressing the policy based concern SD raised. I've reverted the sockpuppet simply because they're a sockpuppet and weren't allowed to make the edit. Gilabrand really needs to justify the reverts (and not like this) or this whole process will break. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I typically don't agree with SD but this and this seems perfectly acceptable. Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I assume this is about the following edits (...I can't be bothered to link them)
- What do you mean reverting? Some are claiming/adding the point of view that WJ is Israel, but the claim can not be backed up. So how can you say "no consensus"? The changes are to remove the non-backed up claim that places in West Jerusalem are "Israel", since that is the pov of Israel and not internationally recognized, therefor claiming such things is a violation of npov. Besides the source above you brought, here is another one: "As already noted, Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem had not been recognized in international law or by the international commu-nity other than through the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which merely confirmed the fact of its presence there." p 39. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Time to start reverting then. You did not read the discussion above and do not have consensus for your changes. How about you list your intended changes instead of putting them in. It appears covert and contrary to consensus building since you have stayed vague about it. You also have still not addressed the other variables and solutions presented. This is AE waiting to happen and they are all about being sick of this stuff so I suggest we find a way to make it work without resorting to dragging problematic edits there.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Source was provided above showing a large majority of the international community regarding East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories. I'm not adding "PT" after "EJ" but PT maps and cats can be added for places in EJ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It should not be that difficult to assemble enough examples from independent third-party RSes like The New York Times where Jerusalem is used as a metonym of Israel, in the same way that London is a metonym for the United Kingdom or Washington is for the United States. When world leaders visit Israel, they typically kick the visit off or wrap it up with a press conference in Jerusalem; and oftentimes when a statement or policy is attributed by the press to Israel, the article or headline will use the word Jerusalem. I'll produce sources to confirm this myself, but not today.—Biosketch (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that approach will help. The same argument can and probably would be made to label places in East Jerusalem as being in the Palestinian territories. I could probably assemble enough examples from independent third-party RSes that use Morocco as a metonym of something that includes offshore Western Sahara but a metonym doesn't make those identified but undrilled oil and gas prospects Moroccan and exploitable by Morocco for Morocco under international law. They aren't in Morocco. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure either, but I figured it was worth the try. If it can be demonstrated that the attitude of the media is generally to associate Jerusalem with the State of Israel, that would be something worth mentioning when describing the city's status – like, "Although Jerusalem's formal political status remains disputed, it functions de facto as a city in Israel and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders." But burden of proof is on me to substantiate that claim, and I haven't the resources at my disposal to do that just yet.—Biosketch (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
- This is, of course, not the first time that the status of Jerusalem has been discussed. It should be clear to most by now that the status of Jerusalem is a matter of significant dispute and that a form of words is needed that expresses that. We can state as a fact that Jerusalem is under Israeli control, but not that it is in Israel. The sequence of acts by the international community (expressed through United Nations resolutions) and Israel has been listed elsewhere and is well established. For the international community, the status of Jerusalem is yet to be determined. In addition, East Jerusalem is regarded as being under occupation. There is ambiguity about the position of the United States. It's politicians say one thing, but it actually does another. Despite the fact that, counter to UN resolutions, it has passed a law requiring its embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, presidents have repeatedly invoked the law's discretionary provision to avoid implementing it. For those of its citizens born in Jerusalem, passports are still issued stating that they were born in Jerusalem without giving a country. Also, the US has never renounced the votes it made in favour of the UN resolutions passed. ← ZScarpia 13:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the US is only one country and its opinion does not reflect the international community, but only its own out of about 200 countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- True, but a large and, as far as the IP conflict goes, pivotal country which has a veto on Security Council resolutions. On the Middle East, going back to the immediate postwar era when Truman, who was facing an election, backed, for party-political reasons, the partition of Palestine while the State Department opposed it, also a very split country. ← ZScarpia 02:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please post some UN resolutions that express the views of the "international community" regarding West Jerusalem. Preferably after Israel gained control of it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whole UN resolutions or clauses in UN resolutions apply to either Jerusalem as a whole (which obviously includes West Jerusalem) or to those parts occupied in 1967.
- As an example of the former which dates to the period when Israel was in control of West Jerusalem and Jordan in control of East Jerusalem see United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV)[13], December 9, 1949: The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.
- Advancing in time to 1968, we have Nations Security Council Resolution 267 (Urgently calls once more upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures taken by it which may tend to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, and in future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect.) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 252 (Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.).
- In 1980, to counter the Jerusalem Law, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478[14] was passed: Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem ... Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council.
- Later resolutions refer back to previous ones, so you quickly end up with a long chain of resolutions going back to Resolution 181. The Positions on Jerusalem article serves as useful background. Anything else I can help you with? ← ZScarpia 02:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm probably missing the part where they say they don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. With the exception of UNGA 303, which was made when the UN had less than 1/3 the members it has now. That is, less than 60 states could have even voted for it. How many actually did? What else you got? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Serving as an example, The UK position on Jerusalem (from the UK National Archives): We recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. In 1967, Israel occupied E Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal military occupation by Israel. Our Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. In E Jerusalem we have a Consulate-General, with a Consul-General who is not accredited to any state: this is an expression of our view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. (You'll notice that the document mentions UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949, suggesting that the UK government, at least, holds that it is still applicable.)
- Resolutions of the enlarged UN of later years invoke the earlier resolutions, implying that the earlier resolutions are accepted by countries who were not UN members at the time. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 63/30, 2009: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem.
- By any chance, do you have any sources which say that any country does recognise Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem?
- ← ZScarpia 03:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I like UNGA 63/60. They start out by "Expressing its grave concern about any action taken by any body, governmental or non-governmental, in violation of the above-mentioned resolutions", then go on to call East Jerusalem part of the OPT in violation of their own resolution, or at least your OR interpretation of what it "implies". That's pretty amusing if not surprising. Anyway, the operative part of the resolution talks about "the Holy City of Jerusalem". Is that "West Jerusalem"? I guess I'm once again missing the part where it explicitly says the "international community" doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. I must need glasses.
- By any chance, do you have any sources which say that any country recognizes Dutch sovereignty over Amsterdam? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm probably missing the part where they say they don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. With the exception of UNGA 303, which was made when the UN had less than 1/3 the members it has now. That is, less than 60 states could have even voted for it. How many actually did? What else you got? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Who cares? West Jerusalem is a neighborhood of Jerusalem. There is no conflict there. Jerusalem's disputed status can be discussed in the body. The reader should have a vague understanding of where the city is, who controls it, and who claims it already. If they don't it can be mentioned in the body with wikilinks and fully expanded in the body for those readers looking for that type of information. We should not be offering a definitive statement for something that has so many variables. This is an easy fix much like the flags were an easy fix (surprisingly giving props to SD again) and much like the maps should be. Stop defining stuff that cannot be defined without a 10 footnotes worth of explanation.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relevant details can be elsewhere, but inaccurate non neutral claims like "West Jerusalem, Israel" which no one has been able to back up with an international view source and only sources show it to be false has been provided. This gives us no other choice but to remove this inaccurate claim of where West Jerusalem is located.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. This discussion was initiated a week ago. I made my first comment four days ago. Not all of us here have a team of PR interns editing Wikipedia articles round the clock. So hold your horses, and refrain from making nonconstructive edits in order to make a WP:POINT just because you determined that discussion leaves "no other choice."—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you call my edit at the Israel article "nonconstructive" or to make a "point" ? I added it because its disputed. And that edit has nothing to do with this discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what's nonconstructive. Opening a discussion here on May 9th saying there are "some articles" which you think need a source. Then 3 days later going and changing about 10 of them, where you informed exactly nobody about this discussion. All this regarding a very contentious topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you call my edit at the Israel article "nonconstructive" or to make a "point" ? I added it because its disputed. And that edit has nothing to do with this discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. This discussion was initiated a week ago. I made my first comment four days ago. Not all of us here have a team of PR interns editing Wikipedia articles round the clock. So hold your horses, and refrain from making nonconstructive edits in order to make a WP:POINT just because you determined that discussion leaves "no other choice."—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relevant details can be elsewhere, but inaccurate non neutral claims like "West Jerusalem, Israel" which no one has been able to back up with an international view source and only sources show it to be false has been provided. This gives us no other choice but to remove this inaccurate claim of where West Jerusalem is located.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the US is only one country and its opinion does not reflect the international community, but only its own out of about 200 countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What was the procedure whereby consensus was reached in relation to the boilerplate text used for describing Israeli settlements? Here is the sentence I propose as a boilerplate text for (West) Jerusalem: Although Jerusalem's formal political status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders.
The anonIP who left the second message in this discussion already supplied evidence in support of the sentence above. Here is some more:
- Boston Globe[15]
Bush to visit Jerusalem and West Bank in January
WASHINGTON - President Bush will make his first trip to Jerusalem and the West Bank next month to push Israel and the Palestinians toward peace. On a nine-day trip beginning Jan. 8, Bush plans to stop in Israel, the West Bank, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
- Fox News[16]
Beck Announces Major Rally in Israel
Glenn Beck -- whose "Restoring Honor" rally last August drew close to 100,000 Tea Partiers to Washington, D.C. -- announced on his radio show on Monday plans to hold another rally, this time in Jerusalem.
- CBS[17]
Glenn Beck announces rally to 'Restore Courage' in Israel this summer
Glenn Beck will hold a rally to "restore courage" in Jerusalem this August, he announced on his radio show Monday.
- Time[18]
Pope Benedict XVI lays a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial's Hall of Remembrances on May 11, 2009 in Jerusalem, Israel.
- Toronto Star[19]
JERUSALEM, ISRAEL - MAY 03: In this handout photo provided by the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO), Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu shakes hands with Middle East Quartet Envoy Tony Blair on May 03, 2011 in Jerusalem.
- George W. Bush (Wall Street Journal)[20]
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
(Jerusalem)
Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel.
I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, and prayed at Yad Vashem.
- Eurovision[21]
About the show: The Israeli capital, Jerusalem, was this year's host city that welcomed 19 different delegations. Turkey withdrew from the contest because it took place in Israel and many Arab countries put some pressure on Turkey not to go to Jerusalem.
- National Geographic[22]
Jerusalem, Israel
&c.—Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion is about to remove a non neutral pov that can not be backed up, why would we ad a long incorrect sentence like that into all articles about places in West Jerusalem? "it functions de facto as a city in Israel" so why not also have something like "Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not recognized in international law or by the international community", which can be sourced to:[23] in all WJ articles? or that in all East Jerusalem articles: "Largely recognized by the international community as part of the Palestinian territories" ? "and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders." .. this is factually incorrect, you have cherry picked a couple of news sources that follow the Israeli narrative, this doesn't confirm that all news agency's acknowledge it as in Israel and same thing with World leaders, where is the sources that says that all world leaders acknowledges it as in Israel and why would we ad this text in all WJ articles? By only removing the incorrect and non backed up and non neutral pov as here:[24] we would easily take care of the problem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Changing the tense of the quote you provided from The politics of Jerusalem since 1967 is extremely dishonest. Particularly since it has been pointed out to you that that book's conclusions are not what you claim and you admitted you don't have access to a large part of the text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think I would change a quote from a book, present it as a quote from the book and then link to it so everyone can see that I have misrepresented it? The quote I added above is not a quote from the book,, its a sentence I suggested for what to have in the articles. I also gave you a reply here about the "past tense" [25] and I told you that I didn't see anything in the book superseding the quote and asked you to provide quote if it did, and you did not reply. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt you don't understand the difference between "had not been" and "is not".
- The fact you want to say East Jerusalem is part of the PT but West Jerusalem is not part of Israel is just another example of your longstanding and deliberate POV pushing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are not addressing my reply at the Geula talkpage, the book is divided and speaks about post 1967 in that chapter, Israel controlled WJ after 1948, so that's why it speaks in the past tense in that part. Could you provide the quote from the book that supersedes this quote I brought? Could you provide the quote that shows that its internationally recognized as part of Israel or that "Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem had not been recognized in international law or by the international community" is incorrect? East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories: [26], do you have a source that says the situation is the same for West Jerusalem in regards to Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your quote uses the past tense. Go ahead and read the book you brought as a source instead of cherry picking stuff and then trying to pretend tense doesn't matter. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
- Anyway, what's going to happen is this. If this discussion turns out the way you want it to, I will bring sources that show that East Jerusalem and Bethlehem were supposed to be in the Corpus Separanum and that the UN technically still supports enacting the CP. Then I will remove any reference to any of these places belonging to the Palestinians. This includes towns and villages, holy places, PA governates, etc. You know better than anyone else it's easy to POV push this kind of bullshit. You can't have your cake and eat it too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it uses the past tense in that chapter because the chapter is about post-1967 and Israel controlled West Jerusalem after 1948, so that's why it speaks in the past tense in that part. You have confused what the UN thinks it should be, with what the international community (in this case large majority of it) regards the area today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have confused UNGA votes with the official positions of the governments voting. But like I said, feel free to continue with this. I'll make sure to take it all the way to its final logical conclusion if you're successful in your POV push. If you really think the "international community" thinks East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians but West Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel, you are in for a nasty little surprise. Your tactics can be used both ways. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Votes at the UN represents the country's views. Its not what I think, its what the sources says. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have confused UNGA votes with the official positions of the governments voting. But like I said, feel free to continue with this. I'll make sure to take it all the way to its final logical conclusion if you're successful in your POV push. If you really think the "international community" thinks East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians but West Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel, you are in for a nasty little surprise. Your tactics can be used both ways. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it uses the past tense in that chapter because the chapter is about post-1967 and Israel controlled West Jerusalem after 1948, so that's why it speaks in the past tense in that part. You have confused what the UN thinks it should be, with what the international community (in this case large majority of it) regards the area today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are not addressing my reply at the Geula talkpage, the book is divided and speaks about post 1967 in that chapter, Israel controlled WJ after 1948, so that's why it speaks in the past tense in that part. Could you provide the quote from the book that supersedes this quote I brought? Could you provide the quote that shows that its internationally recognized as part of Israel or that "Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem had not been recognized in international law or by the international community" is incorrect? East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories: [26], do you have a source that says the situation is the same for West Jerusalem in regards to Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think I would change a quote from a book, present it as a quote from the book and then link to it so everyone can see that I have misrepresented it? The quote I added above is not a quote from the book,, its a sentence I suggested for what to have in the articles. I also gave you a reply here about the "past tense" [25] and I told you that I didn't see anything in the book superseding the quote and asked you to provide quote if it did, and you did not reply. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Changing the tense of the quote you provided from The politics of Jerusalem since 1967 is extremely dishonest. Particularly since it has been pointed out to you that that book's conclusions are not what you claim and you admitted you don't have access to a large part of the text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion is about to remove a non neutral pov that can not be backed up, why would we ad a long incorrect sentence like that into all articles about places in West Jerusalem? "it functions de facto as a city in Israel" so why not also have something like "Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not recognized in international law or by the international community", which can be sourced to:[23] in all WJ articles? or that in all East Jerusalem articles: "Largely recognized by the international community as part of the Palestinian territories" ? "and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders." .. this is factually incorrect, you have cherry picked a couple of news sources that follow the Israeli narrative, this doesn't confirm that all news agency's acknowledge it as in Israel and same thing with World leaders, where is the sources that says that all world leaders acknowledges it as in Israel and why would we ad this text in all WJ articles? By only removing the incorrect and non backed up and non neutral pov as here:[24] we would easily take care of the problem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question - why have boilerplate text for West Jerusalem? Boilerplate text was created for Israeli settlements because there are dozens (if not hundreds) of such articles, and having the same discussion at each one was tedious. Do we have articles on the neighborhoods of West Jerusalem, or some reason to have a centralized discussion? ← George talk 07:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The answer must be yes, because Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) has asked an uninvolved Admin if he may start editing Jerusalem-related articles and removing any content in them suggesting that Jerusalem is in Israel. (The uninvolved Admin politely told him no.)—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The admin did not tell me "no" to if I could remove it, the admin said that she wasn't going to look at it. And stop wikistalkign me.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are surprisingly more than expected. SH mentioned a handful up above. Much much less though. I think editors would have more fun detailing why the neighborhoods are considered Israeli instead of defining it in the lead. I am a little surprised that trying to remove it even came up but I do get it to a certain extent. I was almost more surprised to see a long boilerplate added that says how it is but still makes a mess of any lead. This is what happens.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can have that discussion, but Biosketch, be aware that doing so is a long and involved process, and the result may not come out saying what you want. In fact, you may end up opposing whatever version gains consensus.
- I think the better thing is just to respond to SD directly. Sources that say Jerusalem is in Israel/controlled by Israel/part of Israel can be assumed to be referring to West Jerusalem without dispute. Whether or not those same sources refer to East Jerusalem might be in dispute, but sources that say Jerusalem is in Israel (ergo, West Jerusalem is in Israel) shouldn't be a point of contention. ← George talk 07:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Any discussion about West Jerusalem will equally apply to East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and all the other neighborhoods and villages that are in the area that was supposed to be in the Corpus Separatum. If we're going to play this silly game, we're going to play it to its full silly conclusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories: [27], do you have a source that says the situation is the same for West Jerusalem in regards to Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Who says a vote on a UN resolution means this is the official position of the government voting on it? We know that's not the case for the UK which voted for the resolution you provided above while it officially says it supports the Corpus Separatum. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Source? Once again, What someone believes something should be, is not the same thing as what they believe something is today. If you can provide a source for that the UK supports that all of Jerusalem should be Corpus Separatum, then this doesn't contradict that they today see it as part of the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- What nonsense. I find it hard to believe even you are buying what you're trying to sell here.
- Here's the official UK position on Jerusalem. Show me where it says East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Now explain to me how you deduce that they think East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory based on a UNGA resolution they voted in favor of. Your main problem here obviously is that you're once again cherry picking words and phrases and trying to give them meaning that is not inherent in the issue the resolution discusses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- That source says: "The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined", and that contradicts the UK view at the UN, but this is still only one country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The salient points of the UK position are:
- It regards the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties.
- Pending agreement, it recognises de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory.
- It does not recognise any sovereignty over the city, Israeli, Palestinian or otherwise.
- It considers that the city should not again be divided.
- ← ZScarpia 17:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- But is does recognise Israel’s de-facto sovereignty in West Jeruaslem as expressed by the then British foreign secretary, as shown below. Chesdovi (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Foreign and Commonwealth Office document linked to above uses the phrase de-facto control; the quotation in your source has the Foreign Secretary using the phrase de-facto sovereignty (though, it seems strange that he would say that the UK recognises no sovereignty and then that it does recognise de facto sovereignty). I think that, in order to properly establish whether one phrase or the other better encapsulates the UK position, further evidence would need to be found. In the meantime, I, for one, am not going to quibble about it. ← ZScarpia 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- But is does recognise Israel’s de-facto sovereignty in West Jeruaslem as expressed by the then British foreign secretary, as shown below. Chesdovi (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The salient points of the UK position are:
- That source says: "The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined", and that contradicts the UK view at the UN, but this is still only one country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Source? Once again, What someone believes something should be, is not the same thing as what they believe something is today. If you can provide a source for that the UK supports that all of Jerusalem should be Corpus Separatum, then this doesn't contradict that they today see it as part of the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Who says a vote on a UN resolution means this is the official position of the government voting on it? We know that's not the case for the UK which voted for the resolution you provided above while it officially says it supports the Corpus Separatum. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories: [27], do you have a source that says the situation is the same for West Jerusalem in regards to Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pre-1967, 10 countries, including UK, recognised WJ as the capital of Israel with "de-facto sovereignty". 23 countries, including Holland, recognised Israel's "de-Jure sovereignty." Not sure what the current view is. How confounding. I think I recall the CIA book saying EJ is not part of the WB. Chesdovi (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please bring sources for this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The stated position of the UK government regarding West Jerusalem is that it recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West Jerusalem. In 1950, the UK government recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. The UK government's position continues to be that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. You say that the UK recognised WJ as the capital of Israel with "de-facto sovereignty". There is nothing in the UK government statement which can be read as a statement that the UK recognised West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The statement says directly that the UK does not recognise any state's sovereignty over Jerusalem, East or West, de facto or otherwise. ← ZScarpia 17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- "About 10 countries agreed to recognise WJ as the capital of Israel, though they qualified this by calling it “de-facto sovereignty.” An example of such recognition was the British formula, as expressed by the British foreign secretary: “His majesty’s Government cannot recognise Israel’s sovereignty in the part of Jerusalem which is held by it. Even though this matter is subject to the decision concerning the final standing of Jerusalem, we recognise [Israel’s] de-facto sovereignty....//" and "By the mid-1960s, the number of countries that recognized Israel's 'de jure' sovereignty in Jerusalem had risen to twenty-three." [28] For arguments, see [29]. The area of the West Bank is given by the CIA fact book with the accompanying note: “includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967. [30] ---Chesdovi (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say the U.K. government's official website trump's Amirav's book on the issue. Regardless, NMMNG's source is pretty clear on the UK's stance, which isn't at all a surprising one. They don't recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian, but they also consider it illegally occupied by Israel despite Israel's de facto control of the area (which nobody can deny). They basically take no stance on who it should belong to, so I'm not sure what everyone is talking about. ← George talk 18:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The two issues here are 1. The fact a country votes for a UNGA resolution that incidentally uses the term "Palestinian territories" does not mean that its official position is that a certain area is Palestinian territory, and 2. The UK recognizes that now West Jerusalem belongs to Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The UK does not recognise, now or at any time since 1948, that West Jerusalem, or East Jerusalem, belongs to Israel or any state. You may like to note, by the way, that Moshe Amirav, while saying that new UN resolutions are required in order to address current realities, states: the holy places, as well as Jerusalem itself, are supposed to be internationalized according to Resolution 181, which was passed in 1947 and is still considered binding.[31] ← ZScarpia 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- "De facto sovereignty" = belongs to someone now, as opposed to "de jure sovereignty" = should belong to someone.
- If Amirav says 181 is binding, he's in the minority as far as I can tell. I've seen countless sources that say that 181 isn't binding since 1. UNGA resolutions are by definition non-binding and 2. it refers to itself as a suggestion and since there was no agreement it is void.
- By the way, the embassies were moved from West Jerusalem after the Jerusalem law in 1980, not in 1967 as you say below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- De facto sovereignty or de facto control means in the possession of, not belongs to.
- If Amirav is incorrect about the provisions in Resolution 181 regarding Jerusalem still being considered binding, then that suggests the book being used as a source by Chesdovi should be regarded as being of suspect reliability, doesn't it?
- On your last point, I was suffering from UN resolution numbering confusion. I meant Resolution 478, not Resolution 242. My apologies; I'll try to be more careful in future.
- ← ZScarpia 22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- De facto sovereignty and de facto control do not mean the same thing.
- Are you arguing that a book that argues a minority position is of "suspect reliability"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The UK does not recognise, now or at any time since 1948, that West Jerusalem, or East Jerusalem, belongs to Israel or any state. You may like to note, by the way, that Moshe Amirav, while saying that new UN resolutions are required in order to address current realities, states: the holy places, as well as Jerusalem itself, are supposed to be internationalized according to Resolution 181, which was passed in 1947 and is still considered binding.[31] ← ZScarpia 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm with you on #1 NMMNG, but #2 seems to contradict your own source, which says quite explicitly that the UK does not recognize anyone's sovereignty over the area. How are you coming to the conclusion that the UK now recognizes West Jerusalem as "belonging" to Israel? ← George talk 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The two issues here are 1. The fact a country votes for a UNGA resolution that incidentally uses the term "Palestinian territories" does not mean that its official position is that a certain area is Palestinian territory, and 2. The UK recognizes that now West Jerusalem belongs to Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your source, on page 48, says: ten countries agreed to recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, though they qualified it by calling it 'de facto sovereignty'. It quotes the British foreign secretary as an example of that formulation. Nowhere in the quote does the foreign secretary say that the UK recognised West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. If that was actually the UK position, that would be stated in the UK Foreign Office document already linked to. However, despite that fact that that document refers to de facto control rather than de facto sovereignty, in the quote the foreign secretary does use the latter phrase. In addition, I can find other places on the Web where de facto Israeli sovereignty is referred to, such as a document outlining the Catholic Church's position on Jerusalem, and other contexts in which the phrase is used. Therefore, in the absence of sources that say otherwise (and in the absence of a source which shows that the foreign secretary is being misquoted or made a slip of the tongue), I concede that the use of the phrase in relation to Jerusalem is legitimate. Your source goes on to say that twenty-three countries were prepared to recognise the de jure sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem (presumably it means West Jerusalem) by the mid-60s, all of which moved their embassies to West Jerusalem (and most of which were recipients of Israeli aid). Since the mid-60s, of course, the situation has changed. In the wake of UN Resolution
242478, no country maintains an embassy in Jerusalem (at least not any part which necessarily must be regarded as an integral part of Jerusalem) any more. The UK says that it does this as "an expression of our view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem." ← ZScarpia 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) (Link to the Wikipedia article on Moshe Amirav)
- I'd say the U.K. government's official website trump's Amirav's book on the issue. Regardless, NMMNG's source is pretty clear on the UK's stance, which isn't at all a surprising one. They don't recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian, but they also consider it illegally occupied by Israel despite Israel's de facto control of the area (which nobody can deny). They basically take no stance on who it should belong to, so I'm not sure what everyone is talking about. ← George talk 18:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- "About 10 countries agreed to recognise WJ as the capital of Israel, though they qualified this by calling it “de-facto sovereignty.” An example of such recognition was the British formula, as expressed by the British foreign secretary: “His majesty’s Government cannot recognise Israel’s sovereignty in the part of Jerusalem which is held by it. Even though this matter is subject to the decision concerning the final standing of Jerusalem, we recognise [Israel’s] de-facto sovereignty....//" and "By the mid-1960s, the number of countries that recognized Israel's 'de jure' sovereignty in Jerusalem had risen to twenty-three." [28] For arguments, see [29]. The area of the West Bank is given by the CIA fact book with the accompanying note: “includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967. [30] ---Chesdovi (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Any discussion about West Jerusalem will equally apply to East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and all the other neighborhoods and villages that are in the area that was supposed to be in the Corpus Separatum. If we're going to play this silly game, we're going to play it to its full silly conclusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The answer must be yes, because Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) has asked an uninvolved Admin if he may start editing Jerusalem-related articles and removing any content in them suggesting that Jerusalem is in Israel. (The uninvolved Admin politely told him no.)—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some observations on the suggested boilerplate text ("Although Jerusalem's formal political status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders"):
- The current situation has arisen because some articles state unequivocally that West Jerusalem is in Israel, implying that Israel has undisputed sovereignty over West Jerusalem, the complete reverse of reality. In many, if not most, of those cases it is unnecessary to state anything about where Jerusalem is (a wikilink to the Jerusalem article would serve as all the disambiguation required) and therefore no real requirement for the suggested text exists.
- The last part of the suggested text is unnecessary as the first part can stand as a fact in its own right. Also, there is an undesirable ambiguity in the last part because it doesn't quantify how many or what proportion of world leaders or news agency have actually acknowledged the truth of the statement, quantities which it would actually be hard to determine. I would suggest that, if text has to be inserted, something more stripped down such as one of the following (presumably, for, West Jerusalem it would be referred to as a part of Israel rather than a city in Israel):
- Although Jerusalem's de jure status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel.
- Although Jerusalem's formal political and legal status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel.
- Although Jerusalem's formal political and legal status remains unresolved, for practical purposes it is a city in Israel.
- ← ZScarpia 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion: "West Jerusalem is de facto administered by Israel, while its legal status remains disputed." There's a lot of wiggle room in there though. ← George talk 23:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- In situations where text is required, that which you're suggesting is fine by me. ← ZScarpia 00:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- ←The proposed boilerplates are fine by me as well.—Biosketch (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. East Jerusalem is also "de facto administered by Israel". The status of East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem is not the same. I also disagree with the "functions de facto as a city in Israel" language. What does that even mean? Does East Jerusalem not "function de facto as a city in Israel"? Israel is the de facto sovereign, while the status de jure is currently undetermined. You're not going to be able to avoid that.
- Also, any status of West Jerusalem that derives from the CP applies equally to many other places. Again, you're not going to imply that West Jerusalem doesn't really belong to Israel while East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Abu Dis, etc, belong to the Palestinians. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with NMMNG. Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Chesdovi & NMMNG - What did you think of my suggestion? It doesn't talk about all of Jerusalem, only West Jerusalem (which is where this text would get used, apparently). ← George talk 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above, East Jerusalem is also "de facto administered by Israel". What's the difference between being "de facto administered" and just "administered", by the way? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- EJ is too, but I thought we were talking about a boilerplate specifically for WJ articles? We could use a similar piece of text specific to articles about EJ if you guys wants, though I suspect other editors will want to tack more information onto any text about EJ. The "de facto" simply establishes that the administration is the "facts on the ground" state of things, not the legal/de jure state of things. This sort of phraseology is common when talking about places that are administered by someone whose legal right to administer said place is disputed (Google Books examples: [32]). We could contrast it with "de jure" explicitly if that's preferable, like: "West Jerusalem is de facto administered by Israel, while its de jure status remains disputed." Thoughts? ← George talk 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why just West Jerusalem? Lets do it for everything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I was just trying to stick to WJ because that was the topic of this discussion, and I thought we already had a similar boilerplate text for EJ. I don't have any problem using similar language for EJ though. ← George talk 23:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs), perhaps if you proposed a sentence of your own, we could evaluate it and come closer to a mutually agreed-upon formula.—Biosketch (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I was just trying to stick to WJ because that was the topic of this discussion, and I thought we already had a similar boilerplate text for EJ. I don't have any problem using similar language for EJ though. ← George talk 23:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why just West Jerusalem? Lets do it for everything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- EJ is too, but I thought we were talking about a boilerplate specifically for WJ articles? We could use a similar piece of text specific to articles about EJ if you guys wants, though I suspect other editors will want to tack more information onto any text about EJ. The "de facto" simply establishes that the administration is the "facts on the ground" state of things, not the legal/de jure state of things. This sort of phraseology is common when talking about places that are administered by someone whose legal right to administer said place is disputed (Google Books examples: [32]). We could contrast it with "de jure" explicitly if that's preferable, like: "West Jerusalem is de facto administered by Israel, while its de jure status remains disputed." Thoughts? ← George talk 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above, East Jerusalem is also "de facto administered by Israel". What's the difference between being "de facto administered" and just "administered", by the way? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Chesdovi & NMMNG - What did you think of my suggestion? It doesn't talk about all of Jerusalem, only West Jerusalem (which is where this text would get used, apparently). ← George talk 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with NMMNG. Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- ←The proposed boilerplates are fine by me as well.—Biosketch (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (Bethlehem)
- I don't know what it should look like, but I do know it should apply to everything. I'm looking for example at Bethlehem which says unequivocally that it's "a Palestinian city in the central West Bank... It is the capital of the Bethlehem Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority..." I assume we're going to change that as well to something like "a city de facto governed by the PNA, while its de jure status remains disputed"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since Bethlehem's status is undetermined, I think that the word Palestinian should be removed from the phrase Palestinian city in the West Bank. Since the Bethlehem Governorate is just an administrative entity, unless someone can show that there is a dispute about it, I can't see a problem with the statement It is the capital of the Bethlehem Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority. Similarly, if someone had written Jerusalem is the capital of the Jerusalem district of Israel, I wouldn't see a problem. If you feel inclined to expand city in the central West Bank to something such as city in the central West Bank de facto governed by the PNA whose de jure status remains unresolved, for myself, I don't have any objections. ← ZScarpia 15:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bethlehem is in Area A of the West Bank, which means it is under full security and civil jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. The agreement at Oslo supersedes a mere recommendation by the UN back in '40s. It is not de facto governed by anybody, it is legally governed by the Palestinian Authority. -asad (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Oslo Accords do not supersede it. The internationalisation plan was reaffirmed in 1952 and 1979 and has not been revoked. Bethlehem has Christian holy sites, just like Jerusalem. The Oslo Accords are an interim agreement only to allow for Arab self-government. The PA is only an authority, not a quasi-state. Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course Oslo supersedes it. You cannot pretend to compare a non-binding recommendation in the '40s to what became law in Israel and the Palestinian territories, which was in fact, then recognized by the world. Yes Oslo was intended as an interim plan, but did I miss the breaking news story that we have gone passed the "interim" period? Because last time I checked, Bethlehem was still in Area "A", and there is a big sign at the entrance of the city in Hebrew and English saying that "Palestinian Authority Territory ahead, entry by Israelis is forbidden by Israeli law". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Oslo Accords do not supersede it. The internationalisation plan was reaffirmed in 1952 and 1979 and has not been revoked. Bethlehem has Christian holy sites, just like Jerusalem. The Oslo Accords are an interim agreement only to allow for Arab self-government. The PA is only an authority, not a quasi-state. Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bethlehem is in Area A of the West Bank, which means it is under full security and civil jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. The agreement at Oslo supersedes a mere recommendation by the UN back in '40s. It is not de facto governed by anybody, it is legally governed by the Palestinian Authority. -asad (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since Bethlehem's status is undetermined, I think that the word Palestinian should be removed from the phrase Palestinian city in the West Bank. Since the Bethlehem Governorate is just an administrative entity, unless someone can show that there is a dispute about it, I can't see a problem with the statement It is the capital of the Bethlehem Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority. Similarly, if someone had written Jerusalem is the capital of the Jerusalem district of Israel, I wouldn't see a problem. If you feel inclined to expand city in the central West Bank to something such as city in the central West Bank de facto governed by the PNA whose de jure status remains unresolved, for myself, I don't have any objections. ← ZScarpia 15:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what it should look like, but I do know it should apply to everything. I'm looking for example at Bethlehem which says unequivocally that it's "a Palestinian city in the central West Bank... It is the capital of the Bethlehem Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority..." I assume we're going to change that as well to something like "a city de facto governed by the PNA, while its de jure status remains disputed"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's talk facts for a moment. I know, I know, we don't deal in facts here, we deal in POVs, but humor me for a second. Nobody thinks the CP is actually going to happen. It was a plan, the plan was rejected, and practically every single country that commented on this issue agrees that Israel and the Palestinians will settle this as they see fit, and neither is in favor of the CP. Putting this bit of trivia in a prominent place in the lead of every article it theoretically effects is doing the reader a disservice IMO. Yes, in theory Jerusalem and Bethlehem are supposed to be in the CP but everybody knows that Bethlehem will be in Palestine and West Jerusalem in Israel. So instead of pushing stupid political points for no other reason than pushing stupid political points, let's try to give this issue the weight it deserves (not very much) and the people who read the articles realistic and relevant information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, what's CP? And is Bethlehem disputed? Does Israel claim that Bethlehem should be a part of Israel like the Palestinians do with Jerusalem? I'm not sure if the two cities have the same status. Even in a two-state solution, there has been talk of splitting Jerusalem, or making it an international city run by the UN, while I haven't heard such proposals about Bethlehem. I don't think those are likely outcomes, but the odds of anything being agreed to by the Israelis and Palestinians is exceedingly unlikely anyways, so shrug. ← George talk 18:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- CP = Corpus separatum. Bethlehem is as disputed as West Jerusalem is (meaning not really). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- One significance of the corpus separatum is that it provides a definition of what the 'international community' means by Jerusalem. UNGA Resolution 303 details where the boundaries are. As can be seen, Bethlehem is used to mark the boundary and is included in the corpus separatum. Using the UK as an example of the international community's position on Jerusalem, the last paragraph of the FCO document describes how the position is affected by the peace process:
- The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should not again be divided. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties.
- Notice the first bullet point:
- The UK position was formally expressed in April 1950, when HMG extended simultaneous de jure recognition to both Jordan and Israel. However, the statement withheld recognition of the sovereignty of either Jordan or Israel over the sectors of the city which each then held, within the area of the corpus separatum as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949. In the British view, no such recognition was possible before a final determination of the status of this area, although HMG did recognise that both Jordan and Israel exercised ‘de facto authority’ over those parts of the city and area which each held.
- ← ZScarpia 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You don't really need UNGA 303 describing the boundaries. There's a map. See the page about the CP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Territory cannot be acquired by war/force only by legal annexation, which requires a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed. E.g., the annexation of Texas where Mexican citizens of Texas voted to become a part of the US. As Israel has never legally annexed any territory, to be reliable any opinion by secondary sources claiming the territory as Israeli should surely have to show legal annexation documentation or at least a date. Yes?/No? talknic (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- You don't really need UNGA 303 describing the boundaries. There's a map. See the page about the CP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- ← ZScarpia 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Palestinian rabbis
Please see The Arizal was a Palestinian with various disscussions at User talk:Chesdovi, User talk:Debresser (with next 8 talkback sections), User talk:Supreme Deliciousness, Assesing regional identity. Chesdovi (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It might be nice to create a consensus regarding Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem topic articles. Questions like location (Jerusalem/East Jerusalem/West Bank/Over the Green Line) definitions of nature and politics (neighborhoods/settlements) styling guidelines is a direction worth exploring. See WP:DERRY/WP:LDERRY or MOS:ISLAM for successful precedents which minimize disruptive editing like slow motion WP:EW in highly conterminous topic areas. The final objective is {{faq}}, {{consensus}}, {{notice}} tags to publish on article's talk pages to avoid endless POV loops. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Still a bit confused how Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem is different than East Jerusalem. Aren't they talking about the same place? Almost seems like a potential POV fork to me, but unsure if there are differences. ← George talk 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Could I get some fresh views?
Here is the relevant section on the TALK page: [33] for the article 1948 Palestinian exodus I put my concerns on the talk page and have tried to edit the page for balance, but at every turn I am reverted and told I am favoring a particular viewpoint and that the lead is balanced as it stands. Could I get a some real collaborative editing over there? Eyes appreciated. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- As often, editors aren't seeing the wood for the trees. First and foremost, the analysis of the significance of the events should be in a section of its own, towards the end, not in the lead. The lead should summarise the article so it should lay out the different phases of the exodus. And the assessments of the historians should be simply stated, and attributed to them, without interpretation. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Deletion discussion on Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation
Link to discussion here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
References for above
- Comment. Just want to mention that while it's feasible to aggregate all the references on a talk page into a single section, as appears to be the intent here, there's a better way to do it. When you include text in a section that contains sources enclosed between ref tags, just add {{relist|local=yes}} to the bottom of your section. This only works if everyone on the page who posts text that includes ref tags does it; otherwise references cross-over from other sections and show up where they don't belong. Nice to have one's references appear immediately below the text they support, though. If people want to do use this method, then the (invisible) reflist template that immediately follows this text should be removed, probably along with this whole section. More documentation available here. Regulars: feel free to delete this comment if you decide to retain the status quo. – OhioStandard (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I was thinking of just deleting it since not used recently. But good idea and will put it on my cheat sheet! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently an RFC was held over the inclusion of alternate names (Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre) in the lead of the article Gaza War. That discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin with the result of "include". A user has ignored that RFC and again removed the material. More eyes are needed at the article and talk page. nableezy - 16:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel
A discussion on a possible re-naming of this Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel is currently taking place that may interest members of this project. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Afd Hagit Borer
While article obviously needs better sourcing, the fact that she is a former Israeli currently taking part in the Freedom Flotilla II action probably has to do with the AfD. See deletion discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else notice removal of mentions of Palestinians?
In the past 3 days I have noted two different anon accounts removing references to Palestinians from articles[34] and [35]. Obviously there is always a steady trickle of this stuff, but does anyone else notice a change in flow?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have a moderate amount if PI articles in my watchlist, and I'm following the watchlist closely in the last days, but can see nothing special. The IPs mentioned above are from different parts of the world. Could be a conspiracy, but I'd bet a coincidence. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I came here rather than one of the main drama boards as I was not sure whether it was coincidence. I did note the two different countries but trolls such as the JIDF puppetmaster regularly worked through proxies.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- One more: [36] (I still bet on sporadic vandalism). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This one is in the same city as the one I reverted on Sunday. Different ISP though.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- One more: [36] (I still bet on sporadic vandalism). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I came here rather than one of the main drama boards as I was not sure whether it was coincidence. I did note the two different countries but trolls such as the JIDF puppetmaster regularly worked through proxies.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Israellycool
Israellycool....um....something needs to happen to this article, not sure what it should be although speedy delete springs to mind. Someone may want to try to rescue it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There is an AfD now. While the title and article aren't perfect, obviously there are a variety of Palestinian resistance organizations using different tactics and if Palestinian political violence is worthy of a topic, then the larger topic of Palestinian rights activism does seem worthy of one article, not just mentions here and there spread over a variety of articles like: [Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], Palestinian people, Boycotts of Israel, 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, List of Palestinian solidarity organizations, etc. Thoughts in general and not just on this particular AfD? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Geez, say the word and List of Palestinian solidarity organizations is up for deletion. As I detail in my note there, there's an article called List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel which just links to 6 articles by years called "List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel." This is getting absurd.
- I wonder if an article on Palestinian nonviolent action would get deleted, even as Palestinian political violence was kept. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I put on my long do list creating an article on Nonviolent action groups in Palestine and/or Worldwide Palestinian solidarity groups with actual references, since evidently no one wants to quickly ref the articles above and I don't have time right now myself. (Though it seems to me there was such a pretty good article in past that got deleted. Anyone remember?) But if someone else wants to go for creating such article to balance articles like the Rocket attack articles, go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist exists and is not up for AfD. Reported at Wikiproject Palestine, but seems that project not too active. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I put on my long do list creating an article on Nonviolent action groups in Palestine and/or Worldwide Palestinian solidarity groups with actual references, since evidently no one wants to quickly ref the articles above and I don't have time right now myself. (Though it seems to me there was such a pretty good article in past that got deleted. Anyone remember?) But if someone else wants to go for creating such article to balance articles like the Rocket attack articles, go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales on NPOV on IP issues
Wikipedia founder: Israel-Palestine is heavily debated, but we're vigilant on neutrality, Haaretz, Aug. 5, 2011. For your amusement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a bit of relevant text so we can properly file this: In 2010, the right-wing group Israel Sheli (My Israel) embarked on a Wikipedia battle to insert "Zionist" editing onto the Web-based encyclopedia to combat the anti-Israel entries. Yet while the campaign featured heavily in the press, with the group issuing open calls for seminars on how to proceed, Wales says the battle seemed to have been in vain. “I would say we saw absolutely no impact from that effort whatsoever. I don't think it ever – it was in the press but we never saw any impact,” he recalls. “I don't think they ever showed up. I don't know what happened, but we didn't see any impact.”
- CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Historic designation of the Palestine region
Please comment at Historic designation of the Palestine region. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
At least two templates, Template:Taxation and Template:Capitals of Arab countries, give a misleading impression that there are countries called "Palestinian territories" or "Palestine." Reliable sources indicate that those aren't countries. Is this to be attributed to WP:IAR or is there consensus to correct this?—Biosketch (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- In what sense is it misleading or in need of correction ? The template uses the word "country" without elaborating on which definition is being used. Obviously the word has several meanings as the Wikipedia article country points out. The source you cite doesn't mention the term "country" does it ? The Palestinian territories have been assigned an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code so in that context (and many others) it is treated as some form of "country". Perhaps the template is vague rather than misleading. Are you suggesting a different wording should be used ? Perhaps Template:Countries of Africa might help. The header says "Countries and territories of Africa" and it includes Somaliland for example (who routinely refer to themselves as a country by the way). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- If we agree to follow the list at ISO 3166, we'll want to change the designation "Palestine" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries to something else in order to be consistent. "Palestinian territories" is the established convention, and it's what I changed "Palestine" to at Template:Taxation last month. A clarification in the header along the lines of "Countries and territories" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries, where it wouldn't profoundly affect the template's appearance, would be a welcome addition as well. As to the meaning of "country," yes the article Country clearly isn't about sovereign states. Presumably in American English "country" is overwhelmingly equivalent to "sovereign state," whereas in British English the word is frequently used to mean other things.—Biosketch (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Palestine has been recognized as a state by more than 130 other countries, so there is a very significant view that Palestine is a sovereign state. While I for my part recognize that Palestine isn't as "sovereign" as Sweden or Australia in the sense that the territories are occupied, I don't agree that we should adopt a view that's presented as fact that it isn't a state, as 130 countries (the majority of the world's countries) disagree with it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Diplomatic recognition is an attribute of a state. Palestinian, let's say for now, autonomy, definitely has many state attributes (postal stamps, for example), but also is missing many others (like sovereignty). In writings (the two I did read), it's mostly defined as state coming into existence, state to be, not as an accomplished fact. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Palestine has been recognized as a state by more than 130 other countries, so there is a very significant view that Palestine is a sovereign state. While I for my part recognize that Palestine isn't as "sovereign" as Sweden or Australia in the sense that the territories are occupied, I don't agree that we should adopt a view that's presented as fact that it isn't a state, as 130 countries (the majority of the world's countries) disagree with it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- If we agree to follow the list at ISO 3166, we'll want to change the designation "Palestine" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries to something else in order to be consistent. "Palestinian territories" is the established convention, and it's what I changed "Palestine" to at Template:Taxation last month. A clarification in the header along the lines of "Countries and territories" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries, where it wouldn't profoundly affect the template's appearance, would be a welcome addition as well. As to the meaning of "country," yes the article Country clearly isn't about sovereign states. Presumably in American English "country" is overwhelmingly equivalent to "sovereign state," whereas in British English the word is frequently used to mean other things.—Biosketch (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
A fun game (Mein Kampf in the Arabic language)
In the hopes of actually being collaborative, I have a fun little project for anyone who is interested. There is currently a dispute regarding the publication of Mein Kampf in Arabic. It is already clear that an Arab version became a bestseller. And no one should be shocked that some Arabs do not like Jewish people. But was the '95 (or a later) edition only distributed by the PNA or did the PNA actually publish copies. We have an RS saying it was "published". But the opinions of some editors is that they don't think they actually did. I would love to spit in the face of WP:V if we have enough evidence to say otherwise. I would love to find RS that details "distribution" instead of "publishing". But does it exist? No need to comment here since I have already started the contest for searching supremacy at Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. If anyone wants to bring in a ringer from the reference desk it wouldn't hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Mein Kampf in the Arabic language
Please could editors kindly have a look at this discussion (Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language) and consider whether it may be worth reopening the deletion debate? I believe the existance of this article is degrading to wikipedia, as it is blatant propaganda. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- An AFD would be a waste of time. No consensus for deleting it is possible, so the result would be Keep. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. It could result in a consensus to merge the material into the main Mein Kampf article. I think that would only be a realistic possibility if enough genuinely independant policy-minded editors participated. The AfD would probably attract sockpuppets too which never helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Alon Shvut
- Alon Shvut (Talk:legal, Talk:Naming), (Naming convention talk page). Looking for clarifications on issues after considerable efforts to resolve what ArbCom and other consensus debates achieved. Also applies to some other settlements.
After some involvement and reviewing of related material, it seems to me that there is an effort to over-extend what the consensus arrived at regarding the legal statements on settlements and the naming convention on the West Bank.
As an example, I removed the terms "having no basis in international law" which was added to many settlements in the legal statement. This is one example of overstepping what the consensus arrived at in order to push a POV, and doing so in the name of the consensus itself which did not condone it. To Nableezy's credit, he finally agreed to the change after a considerable effort was made to explain it.
I haven't found anywhere in the consensus arrived at on the legal statement where it's deemed that it must be placed disruptively in its own section, interrupting sections about the settlement itself in order to give it prominence. I've suggested moving it to follow these sections because it seems out of place in its present position. It interrupts content specific to the settlement. As a legal statement on the broad issue of settlements, it seems perfectly fine coming after the content specific to the settlement itself instead of interrupting it. Nableezy reverted the edit and insists on its present placement though he gives no reasoning for it. Again there seems to be a POV push on this and I believe it turns the article into a referendum on the legal issue instead of being an article on the settlement.
I've explained at length why the naming convention does not assume a ban on the use of Judea and Samaria in article leads where it's appropriate. Here are examples made in arguments for the assumed non-existent ban:
- Now, if you believe such a POV is to be prominently displayed in the lead, one would hope that you also feel that the POV, held by an opposing group of partisans, that the settlement is an illegal colony established by foreign invaders on occupied Palestinian land, should also be included. Do you? Because there is another option, the one currently employed."
- "You complain that it cannot be missing from the lead as 'important information'- presumably the consistent removal from the lead of the fact that the town in in good part built on stolen property owes much to the objective fact that this is not as anywhere as important as noting how settlers like to imagine their area."
- " I see the attempt to include "Judea and Samaria", by hook or by crook, to be a blatantly politically motivated attempt to impose a settler-centric narrative in the very first sentences on an article on, using plain words with well understood meanings that would be used for any state besides Israel, an illegal colony in occupied territory."
I don't believe that such charged POV arguments should be the basis for content and I try not to make my case in such terms. I also do not see where ArbCom arrived at a consensus that the use of J&S is stripped of its historical relevance and equated to extremist positions, in order to enforce a ban-policy that was never stipulated. Just the opposite seems true, Arbcom did not adopt the position of some editors who felt it cannot be used without bias, but took these views into consideration by asking that it be done with qualifications to dispel such a possibility. I'm suggesting, for encyclopedic integrity, that its use, with relation to some settlements that have an established relevance to the term in the body of the article, to be historically pertinent and cannot be broadly considered an extremist term or "settler-speak". Its use does not in any way compromise the legitimate claims of anyone else. But omitting it, however, seems to compromise significant information about the articles.
After exhaustive discussion in several sections of talk pages, I suggested to make an edit that demonstrates how I believe the article can be improved. I also suggested we keep this edit as an example of the proposition for wider discussion, such as here for example. The edit can be seen in this version of the article. There was no consideration of my request and the edit was reverted immediately on the basis that I somehow violated a consensus which I have not seen expressed anywhere in the way it's being enforced here. Again to his credit, Nableezy, for a brief moment, seemed to accept the use of Judea and Samaria Area in the lead, though he added a qualification which I frankly feel gave it more prominence than it needed (not my intention, I thought the parenthesis was enough of a qualification and downplayed its presence). Unfortunately after Nishidani reverted Nab's edit, he seems to have backed down from having given his consent for it.
In short, I do not see how any changes I made violated any of the agreements arrived at previously. It's also become somewhat futile to argue with editors trying to push a demonic villainy POV of Israel in articles about the settlements. I don't believe these articles should be a battleground for such charged positions nor carry the burden of the entire conflict as is constantly being hammered here. These articles should primarily be about the settlements themselves. There are enough other articles on relevant issues where these editors' opinions and excessive disparagement of Israel, are brought to light.
In coming to this impasse, I'm asking for more opinions from editors familiar with the issues here. I am not one to go around and file complaints but rather believe every effort should be made to resolve issues through common understanding. But there is a limit to how much such an effort can be made, if it is trampled consistently with charged passionate disdain for one side, instead of due regard for a more neutral encyclopedic tone.
I've left a message for Nableezy, Nishidani and Zero (who's also involved in the discussions), to let them know about this request. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would see no problem with the legality being mentioned in the lead if the lead was an actual summary of the article. It would fit in fine in an overview of the place but instead it is given too much prominence. I would be nice if editors would improve the lead but it is less interesting (and time is already consumed over) the political stuff.
- There are alternatives to its own section. The legality info can fit in a paragraph in the history section. The prominence reasoning provided is a sufficient concern.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think it inappropriate for the usual line-up to pitch in. For the record, in my understanding, Michael, following Gilabrand's edit, is attempting to overthrow a convention, at once explicit and implicit, that the I/P area editors have followed for over 2 years. A huge amount of tact and sensitivity designed to avoid the explosive potential of POV language is now being challenged, indeed openly defied, by a precedent which will abrogate these understandings which have lowered the temperature in the I/P area. From a Palestinian perspective, the settlement program and its systematic confiscating of lands, denial of natural rights to built on land with native title, renaming of territory to judaise it and deny a Palestinian presence, is a colonial project. 'Judea & Samaria' is emblematic of this ideology. Since in the highest legal opinion, unanimously underwritten by 15 judges in the ICJ, the area of settlements is under 'belligerent occupation', neutrality requires editors to refrain from constant terminological innovations that would 'naturalize' a state of warfare that involves the enactment of a policy of expropriative Lebensraum, as nothing more than the exercise of a biblical right by primogeniture established b an ethnocentric mythistory, which is wholly normative natural, unconflictual, and a due recognition of a 'right'. The facts on the ground are those of a military situation of preponderant power, in which armed colonizers dwell, rename and expropriate as an imperial cultural right territory whose native occupants are denied the exercise of developmental rights and the nomenclature customarily in use for their property. A remarkable degree of restraint in depolemicizing this potentially explositive conflict in narrative versions has been achieved. Michael0's proposal would demolish this, and create a precedent for chaos once more. This is not a request for 'collaboration' except in the most dubious connotation of that word, which historically also means getting elements of an occupied people to assist the occupiers in their annexation of the native land belligerently conquered by the imperial power. It's as simple as that. We have all exercised restraint, and Michael is both unhappy with that restraint, and quite willing to admit that we are welcome to mirror his own chaotic innovation by using the same nomenclature-iconoclasm regarding Israel which he advocates here for Palestinian territories. A recipe for disaster. Think closely about what the precedent he is endeavouring to smuggle past the sober safeguards against an editwarring environment will entail for several hundred articles. The articles will seize up, as everyone dashes to POVize just a few key sentences. Insanity.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Nothing fundamental has changed since the conventions were established and I don't see any need for changing them. On the contrary, the need is to enforce them. Zerotalk 10:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree and support enforcing the naming convention which does not take the position of vilifying the term as Nishidani so eloquently does above. The only thing that's changed since the convention was drafted is that a couple of editors have strong-armed the articles on settlements to remove all mention of the term even when no bias can be construed. The naming convention specifically allows such NPOV instances. Yet some editors here are arguing the contrary and that the term is pejorative and to be eschewed under any circumstance. And they have intimidated other editors by reverting edits and claiming the naming convention supports their position, which is a clear misrepresentation. The convention never agreed to this vilification of the term. What's going on here is equivalent to ideological bullying by some editors who are threatening chaos and mayhem if their strongly opinionated positions are challenged. They are out to disparage the settlements in order to support their extreme personal views. They have used the naming convention and legality statement to turn the articles on settlements into their ideological battleground. It appears they are imposing their side of the Israel/Palestine conflict on the pages of Wikipedia, a repository intended for the free transfer of knowledge. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show me where in the naming convention that is a violation, Zero? I know you had me in mind when you wrote it but I've went to lengths to explain the naming convention neither equates the term with the villainy attributed to it here, nor imposes a ban on its use when no clear bias is present. You seem to be taking a position that any use of it in reference to modern entities is biased. The naming convention disagrees with your position, but in consideration of the charged claims of "some editors" asks it be done with qualifications. Using the term J&SA and additionally placing it in parenthesis is in complete accordance with the guidelines. I've explained why my position enforces the naming convention while some editors banning the use of the term violates it. You have not addressed anything I said but rather choose to make general statements that have little basis in the guidelines. I'm sorry but I don't find this to be a fruitful way to discuss anything. Try putting your politics aside and read the guidelines with an open mind for once. If you just want to make baseless accusations as others have here, then the record will bear that this is your way of conducting a discussion. If you instead choose to explain yourself as I have, that might give us something to talk about. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Line 5: "When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used" (my bold). Those words "not merely referring to a specific land area" are there in order to prevent people writing that specific places are in Judea and Samaria Area. You did what this rule expressly says not to do. Zerotalk 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Line 5 would prevent someone from writing "Alon Shvut is located in the Judea and Samaria Area." Which is not what I did. This is how I introduced it: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria Area)." It's not the same as saying it's "located in Judea and Samaria". The parenthesis change the context from location to administration because it doesn't just say {Judea and Samaria) but rather (Judea and Samaria Area) which is an administrative context. This is relevant because Alon Shvut is administered under the "administrative area of Judea and Samaria". The guideline allows for referencing it in the context of administration and suggests one of two ways. Or "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria", or "Judea and Samaria Area". This is the intention of the parenthesis. It's like saying "The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Wayne County administration)". If this is problematic for some people, then it can be clarified further: "The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Administered in Wayne County)". The term "Judea and Samaria Area" is already a name of the administrative area and allowed in this context. But if it bothers some people it can be clarified further: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (the administrative area of Judea and Samaria)." This will certainly have some people in a huff but people's hate for the term cannot strip the guidelines from the allowance they make for its use. Before accusing me of changing the intention of the guidelines, please try to explain why the guidelines allow for use of the term in the context of administration? Before accusing me of violating something, maybe ask yourself why you and some editors are stripping the guidelines of the allowances it makes. If the guideline had agreed with editors who think any use of the term is biased, then the guidelines would have said so clearly and editors wouldn't be able to introduce it in any way whatsoever. This is clearly not the case. The guidelines don't agree with some editors who feel the term cannot be used without bias. This is why they made the allowances, which are there for a reason. Now, let's try a little intellectual exercise. What if we said something this: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank. It is governed by the administrative area of Judea and Samaria Area." Do you now think this would dispel the objections? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Give me examples since the Arbcom decision and its conventions on naming were adopted, of any known, experienced editor in the 'pro-Israeli' camp who has consistently over two years tried to introduce 'Judea and Samaria' as a default term designating the area in which settlements are found, only to be subject to 'strong-arm' tactics and 'ideological bullying'? Unless my memory deceives me, neither camp has squabbled over this, and what you are discussing is the effect of Gilabrand's attempt to reintroduce the term for one settlement, while failing to show how Alon Shvut, rather uniquely, qualifies as one of those rare exceptions outlined in the protocol. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The highly improper POV addition to the legality statement "having no basis in international law" has been on the pages for nearly a year and no one contested it until now. Its removal, agreed to by the editor who wrote it, shows that silence over the passage of time is not evidence that it's proper. Wikipedia is a developing production. Improprieties may be on pages for a long time but that does not mean they're valid. Most experienced editors are civil people, do not like turning their love for the craft of editing, into an inflammatory ideological battleground, nor do they like being subjugated to the type of venom spilled on these issues such as in your arguments. Their silence cannot conceal the intimidation applied to the terms in your one-sided disparaging views. Since becoming involved in this article, I've heard many comments decrying the imaginary ban and vilification of the term. Here are the words of several editors from the recent discussions:
- "This proposal, that the guidelines disallow for the mention of the historic term, is word-playing. The guidelines, and specifically 6C, was specifically put in place because editors were removing all mention of Judea and Samaria. The guidelines were meant to disallow editors from erasing the historical context of Judea and Samaria from every Wikipedia article, not to further perpetuate the problematic behavior that led to all the bans." --Brewcrewer
- "Everybody agrees and it is reliably sourced that the settlements are in a region that was -- at the very least -- once known as Judea and Samaria. This historic fact is not only notable, but this Jewish terminology is in essence the seminal dispute in the Israel-Arab conflict. I can't imagine there is any policy basis for removing such important information from Wikipedia." --Brewcrewer
- "Can anyone point to policy prohibiting mention of Judea and Samaria in articles about geographic entities in Judea and Samaria?" --Brewcrewer
- "MichaelNetzer has worded his argument here and at AE pretty well. The alternative title that some editors may not like still has historical importance that should be mentioned. Explain why it is relevant, add the source, the end." --Cptnono
- "Further pushing and shoving here will be viewed dimly - the best way forward is to enlarge and source out the history (archaeology etc.) to determine its relevance to ancient entities, to ensure that mention of them is as uncontroversial as possible in the lead." -- Casliber
- Now I ask you, Nishidani, can you please produce the stipulation in the Naming convention that equates Judea and Samaria with "colonizers", "thieves" and "belligerent occupiers", such as you base your case on? Can you please produce some agreed upon consensus demonstrating this to be Wikipedia's view of the settlements? Can you please explain why you allow this poison to command the your editing and policy in an environment that politely asks to keep it outside of the work here? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- MichaelNetzer - try UNSC Res 252 and numerous reminders. The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 .. UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 .. UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 .. UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 .. UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 ... Israel's annexation of the Golan was also condemned by the UNSC Res 497
- When your Secondary Source accurately reflect the UNSC resolutions you might have a point. Otherwise they're not WP:RS and you're pushing a denialist POV ... talknic (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Meanwhile [37] [38] [39] [40] ... talknic (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- The highly improper POV addition to the legality statement "having no basis in international law" has been on the pages for nearly a year and no one contested it until now. Its removal, agreed to by the editor who wrote it, shows that silence over the passage of time is not evidence that it's proper. Wikipedia is a developing production. Improprieties may be on pages for a long time but that does not mean they're valid. Most experienced editors are civil people, do not like turning their love for the craft of editing, into an inflammatory ideological battleground, nor do they like being subjugated to the type of venom spilled on these issues such as in your arguments. Their silence cannot conceal the intimidation applied to the terms in your one-sided disparaging views. Since becoming involved in this article, I've heard many comments decrying the imaginary ban and vilification of the term. Here are the words of several editors from the recent discussions:
- The dispute is about the WB Naming Convention, Talknic. Please stop littering this discussion with your irrelevant political crusade. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I asked you to name editors of standing who have, since the Arbcom decision, pushed 'Judea & Samaria' into these articles. So far you have no reply. No one has tried to revive that term over the past 2 years as effectively neutral and equal to West Bank, except yourself for the past few weeks. In lieu of data to the contrary, this means that since the Arbcom case, highly experienced pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors have not used that phrase in the way you now wish it to be used. The rest of your remarks indicate a failure to construe my remarks grammatically and conceptually, and raise, eheu (I avoid the term like the plague) 'strawman' spectres. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Notice I explained why silence in the face of aggressive editing and hostile arguments is not an indication of their validity. Nothing is being avoided. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Uhm,.. I wasn't around here for those two years, except as an observer. I never bullied, strongarmed, or harassed or intimidated anyone who might have taken it into their head to push the 'Judea & Samaria' meme. I watched, from the sidelines. So your inventive theory about a two year silence 'ìn the face of aggressive editing and hostile arguments' is nonsensical. Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't specifically name you when I said "some editors", Nish. Happy to see you weren't one of them, though I hope you're not trying to make up for that lost time now. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Just dealing with the issue of the inclusion of the illegality of the settlement in the lead and in a separate section, WP:Legality of Israeli settlements calls for the sentence in the lead to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body. That alone is reason to both include the sentence in the lead and for it to be expanded in a section in the body. There is consensus for this, and until that consensus changes that line and section will remain. nableezy - 14:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is the disruptive placement in the article, interrupting the flow of sections about the settlement itself, which you seem to insist on. I re-arranged all the sections in the article for better flow and you reverted the placement. It was never agreed in the Legality project that it becomes such a disruptive issue commanding prominence that's not warranted on pages about specific settlements. Framkly, Nableezy, your blatant effort to turn Wikipedia into your private ideological battleground is poisoning any prospect of collaboration. You must put these issues behind you and turn your attention to the improvement of the project. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The disruptive placement in the article??? Do you hear yourself arguing to include, in the first sentences, terms like Judea and Samaria and then arguing that expanding on what most sources consider the only noteworthy aspect of a settlement is interrupting the flow of the article? Yes, you rearranged the article to bring the most noteworthy aspect of the settlement, it being illegally constructed in occupied territory, to the end of the article. Your idea of what merits prominence does not concern me, and the repeated attacks on editors such as myself and Nishidani all the while playing the victim and crying that the big bad monsters are strong-arming and bullying you is becoming more than a bit tiring. Frankly, the ideological battleground was drawn up by users who seek to impose inaccurate or plain wrong material in encyclopedia articles, gaming every guideline to the point that its meaning is unrecognizable in the way it is being argued. First you sought to say that the settlement is in Judea and Samaria despite a prohibition on saying that a modern location is in either of those places. Next you attempted to define the West Bank as what is historically known as Judea and Samaria, despite the fact that this is plainly wrong and that the two terms used together was introduced by those who wished to lay claim to title of the West Bank as the settlement enterprise began to take off. Next you attempted to claim that the West Bank is equivalent to the Judea and Samaria Area, which is also wrong, as the West Bank includes East Jerusalem and the surrounding area that Israel effectively annexed whereas Judea and Samaria Area does not include either. You have tried, by hook or by crook, to use any method to attempt to force in these terms into the lead of the article, and now you claim that I am trying to turn Wikipedia into [my] private ideological battleground?!? If you would like me to respond to that blatantly hypocritical attack I can do that, otherwise kindly refrain from making such asinine accusations. The legality guideline calls for including the sentence in the lead and expanding on it in the body. That is the current consensus and until that consensus changes it remains how the articles will be structured. The WESTBANK guideline specifies when exactly the terms Judea and Samaria may be used when dealing with articles on modern locations. Despite your best efforts to distort that guideline into allowing the use where it specifically prohibits it, its meaning remains clear to all but the most disruptive and tendentious of editors. nableezy - 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh? Are you suggesting the consensus on WP:Legality of Israeli settlements agreed the legal statement should be the most prominent noteworthy item in the article about each individual settlement? Can you point to exactly where in the project on the legal statement this was agreed to? Or is this like "having no basis under international law"? Maybe next we should just delete everything else in these articles. Based on what's said here, they seem to serve their purpose sufficiently with the legal statement alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I dont believe I said anything of the sort, and this constant misrepresentation of both my comments and the policies of this website is becoming more and more tiring each time. nableezy - 19:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems you said the illegality of the settlement is the most noteworthy thing about it and thus the reason why you reverted the edit which moved them so they are not disruptive to the sections about the settlement itself. And you base your reasoning on the consensus in discussion on the legal statement. I don't think I missed anything but if I'm wrong, please explain why you said that and why you reverted the edit. If you're tired of what you believe is my misrepresentation, then explain what you meant by that with regards to the revert. I don't seem to be the one misrepresenting anything here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did say it was the most notable aspect of the settlement, I did not however say that should be the most prominent noteworthy item. I dont have much to say about your repeated misunderstanding about without basis (the ICJ rejected the basis for the Israeli argument, it really is not as difficult to understand as you feign). I dont claim it should be the most prominent item, as can be seen by the fact that it is neither the first sentence of the article or the first section of the body. However, this repeated tactic of claiming that the section on the illegality of the settlement is disruptive to the sections about the settlement itself is so obviously spurious that I have so far neglected to respond. Ill do so now. The section on the illegality of the settlement is a section about the settlement itself (it is about that specific settlement being a violation of international law) so the argument that it disrupts sections about the settlement itself has no basis. nableezy - 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems you said the illegality of the settlement is the most noteworthy thing about it and thus the reason why you reverted the edit which moved them so they are not disruptive to the sections about the settlement itself. And you base your reasoning on the consensus in discussion on the legal statement. I don't think I missed anything but if I'm wrong, please explain why you said that and why you reverted the edit. If you're tired of what you believe is my misrepresentation, then explain what you meant by that with regards to the revert. I don't seem to be the one misrepresenting anything here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please, if the legal statement was specific to Alon Shvut, it would say "The international community considers Alon Shvut a violation..." As I remember, it was proposed in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements that the statement make specific reference to each settlement it appears in, but the suggestion was not accepted by the consensus. Either way, it is a general statement on the settlements, only inferring application to Alon Shvut but not specifying it. It interrupts and disrupts the sections specific to Alon Shvut. But since you mentioned it, and in that my primary concern is the flow of sections specific to Alon Shvut, do you object to placing the legal statement as the first one in the body of article? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's exactly the point. It is a general statement about all the settlements, including but not limited to Alon Shvut. It is not however a statement specific to Alon Shvut, such as "Alon Shvut is an illegal settlement" or "Alon Shvut sits on the road to Jerusalem", from which nothing is inferred about other settlements. As a general statement on all settlements it is distinguished from information specific to Alon Shvut. Is this so difficult to communicate or is it simply more advantageous to confuse the issue? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen the coma so humped before. Turns out you are screwed, MN. There have been zero responses from anyone not already (edit:poopely) involved in the topic area. Any editor not involved in the topic area will not sift through the silliness to give you any advice on actually improving the article. Some might call it filibustering. I call it editing in the topic area of "OMGWTFRTFM dummy". I suggest you start edit warring and opening requests for enforcement since that is the only thing that will get anywhere. You could try IPCOLL. Unfortunately, I tried that and it is now being used to poo all over the topic area. Just give up and let the babies have their bottles. A few years of negotiations will make it all worthless anyways ($10 says at least 1/2 of the settlements' population stays but it all works out until someone blows something up with a tank or a vest) Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see it a bit differently. If you step back a bit and just look at the overall trend, all of the little conflicts over details and generic issues at the article have resulted in a substantial improvement over the past year. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree Sean, about the long term trends. Still, Cptnono's point about filibustering or "humping the comma", adopted disruptively in debates to promote declared ideologies is a compelling statement about the intellectual integrity of some editors whose purpose should otherwise be to improve the encyclopedia. Some people just seem to be out to destroy, instead of build. But who knows, seems that's what it takes for the builders to build even better. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- My standards are too high then. That is not substantial improvement. There is a slight improvement MoS wise. There is some additional more content. It is all overridden by politics, though. But who am I to complain about content when I have spent more time contributing to the bickering than the improvement. I am shocked (no sarcasm text yet!) that others have found themselves in the same conundrum. I say we make the article all about wine in an effort to bury the politics. This might seem like the most unecyclpedic and uncollaborative thing to do but it would equal what is going on right now. Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a little surprised there aren't more editors in the same conundrum. Or maybe they just make themselves a little invisible. Your standards are just fine, wonders have been done with articles free of political antagonism in just short weeks. As a statement on the wider conflict of the article, if people would otherwise spend their time building and improving themselves instead of dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others, we'd surely have more peace in the Middle East and Wikipedia. The irony in the wine is reaching new heights. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, MichaelNetzer, I've been on-and-off following these discussions – or some of them, as I'm not sure how many there are now – but not to the extent that I feel confident enough to involve myself one way or the other. Hopefully that'll change as the circumstances allow it. I am, however, thoroughly impressed by your consistently even-tempered demeanor in dealing with the harsh language that's been characteristic of some of the responses toward you. That in itself is remarkable and should serve as model for how editors interact in this project.—Biosketch (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a little surprised there aren't more editors in the same conundrum. Or maybe they just make themselves a little invisible. Your standards are just fine, wonders have been done with articles free of political antagonism in just short weeks. As a statement on the wider conflict of the article, if people would otherwise spend their time building and improving themselves instead of dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others, we'd surely have more peace in the Middle East and Wikipedia. The irony in the wine is reaching new heights. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- My standards are too high then. That is not substantial improvement. There is a slight improvement MoS wise. There is some additional more content. It is all overridden by politics, though. But who am I to complain about content when I have spent more time contributing to the bickering than the improvement. I am shocked (no sarcasm text yet!) that others have found themselves in the same conundrum. I say we make the article all about wine in an effort to bury the politics. This might seem like the most unecyclpedic and uncollaborative thing to do but it would equal what is going on right now. Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree Sean, about the long term trends. Still, Cptnono's point about filibustering or "humping the comma", adopted disruptively in debates to promote declared ideologies is a compelling statement about the intellectual integrity of some editors whose purpose should otherwise be to improve the encyclopedia. Some people just seem to be out to destroy, instead of build. But who knows, seems that's what it takes for the builders to build even better. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I find myself constantly failing my own standards, but thank you kindly, Biosketch. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- So, Biosketch, you think that claiming editors "dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others" as a fine example of good behavior. Remind me to not ask you for examples of bad behavior. But all this won't matter soon, MichaelNetzer is getting steadily more and more offensive and the admin case against him is only a matter of when and not whether. Zerotalk 11:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, since you're interested in what I think, I'll be completely open with you. I think if you spent less time plotting how to drag this or another editor who disagrees with you to AE, and instead channeled your energy to engaging them in a spirit of good-faithed collaboration, you'd find them more than willing to respond in kind. Threatening editors with AEs as an instrument of intimidation, which is the impression one gets from your comment directly above and from this obscenity, is all the more problematic given your authority as an Admin here. Your role – the role of all of us but yours in particular – should be to promote an environment that's conducive to resolving disputes. I'm not seeing you performing that role here.—Biosketch (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)