Talk:Palestinian territories/Archive 3

message: Jayjg says above:
:The term "Palestinian territories" most resembles terms like Sub-Saharan Africa; that is, a number of territories which are often grouped together for various reasons (political, geographic, ethnolinguistic, etc).
Sub-Saharan Africa is a geographical grouping, while "Palestinian territories" is a political grouping.
Is there a definition of "Palestinian territories" other than territories in Palestine (region) in which Palestinian Arabs seek to establish a new nation?
I think we need to separate (1) the definition of the term from (2) the rationale for picking these particular territories for the Palestinian Arabs' nationalistic aims.
What we contributors need to decide is:
*Shall we obscure the distinction? Or,
*Shall we describe this distinction?
Perhaps we could start with an informal poll right here. How many contributors feel that "Palestinian territories" has no particular meaning - other than comprising Gaza, WB and E. Jerusalem?
===No particular implication===
#
#
#
#
#
===Has a particular political implication===
#Uncle Ed
#
#
#
#
#
If we are evenly split (or otherwise deadlocked) on this point, then I will suggest that we provide sources for the two points of view. --Uncle Ed 12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to group

message: #Uncle Ed
#
#
#
#
#
If we are evenly split (or otherwise deadlocked) on this point, then I will suggest that we provide sources for the two points of view. --Uncle Ed 12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Has a particular political implication

message: #Is that a trick question?
##I'm sure it's not a trick question; I have plenty of faith in Ed's genuine desire to reach a fair and NPOV treatment of the topic. However, I must admit that I don't find it a helpful question - it appears to me to miss the point. Palmiro | Talk 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I think it is uncivil, to say the least, to unilaterally change the article while it is being debated in the Talk page.
-Sangil 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am debating and editing the article at the same time. There is nothing uncivil about that. It is common practice. However, I will elaborate on my edits here (see below). Gregor Samsa 01:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gregor Samsa

message: I figured out how to move the title back (it was a capitalization issue).  I also replaced the intro with the Humus Sapiens version of 24 February 2006, which despite its problems was much better than the current one. Brian Tvedt 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument about the page move, but your massive revert gives no explanation beyond your opinion htat it "was much better". I think you need a fuller explanation than that, to toss out 6 weeks of work. --Uncle Ed 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Six weeks of work my posterior. The hard work that was put in was put in by Humus Sapiens, myself and most of all Ramallite in finding a reasonably objective consensus version; what happened after that was that SlimVirgin came in and went straight back to the problem version without discussing it and kept reverting first against Ramallite and then against me until she got her way. So much for Wikipedia working by consensus. Brian had every right to go back to Humus' version. Palmiro | Talk 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move undone 

message: Robin Hood 1212 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should talk about both Palestinian and Israeli views 

message: Robin Hood 1212 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not able to comprehend difference between Palestine and Palestinian territories? -- tasc wordsdeeds 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the sockpuppet of a banned user anyway. He's been banned numerous times. —Aiden 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I vwill add new info to the incomplete article 

message: The first sentence of the "Political Status" section starts off with The political status of these Mujahedeen has been the subject of negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and of numerous statements and resolutions by the United Nations.  Why is the term "Mujahadeen" used there?  That word means a holy warrior, not a piece of land. Nik42 03:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It simple vandalism , which I reverted. Isarig 03:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mujahadeen"? 

message: "Occupied Palestine" should not redirect here - Occupied Palestine is what is now acknowledged by many countries as the state of Israel. I shall correct this redirection. If this is a problem for anyone please ask me before changing it back, as I'd like to see evidence for it. Thanks --Arctic hobo 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occupied Palestine" 

message: I've added as an external link the UN Brochure The Question of Palestine & the United Nations, published by the United Nations Department of Public Information. Its topic is a bit broader than this, but it has several relevant sections and (among other things) it shows clearly that the UN uses the term "occupied territories" to refer to these territories. Someone may want to cite it in some contexts in the article. I believe it would cover more than a few of the uncited passages. - Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Brochure 

message: [spam removed] --Golbez 10:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please look at this information; it has great relavance with the present situation in th Middle East

message: The name "Palesitnian territories" basically is a violation of WP:NPOV. It's like the problem with the word "terrorism", totally one sided, it should only be a redirect. Amoruso 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From your edits elsewhere, I presume that you are claiming that it shows pro-Palestinian bias rather than pro-Israeli bias. What are you suggesting would be a neutral term? This is certainly the primary term I've heard in the U.S. and UK news media. It is also the term used by the U.S. State Department;  I'm not sure if the UK uses one single term, but this is what their Consulate in Jerusalem uses. - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A neutral term would be either west bank (judea+samaria) and gaza or disputed territories - there's also another pov,less than this, arleady used, called israeli occupied territrories. Palestinian territories is one side of the dispute, why not use "More israeli territories" ... Amoruso 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Palestinian territories" may certainly be the primary term used in the U.S. Europe and pretty much rest of the world Media but that's not good enough for us! here at wikipedia we like to take the pro-israeli-(zionist)-bias a little further than the rest. Yas121 02:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We already have articles Judea and Samaria, West Bank, and Gaza. - Jmabel | Talk 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no problem as long as we understand it's a POV, and this logic it's also an antizionist antisemitic term.Amoruso 13:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The name

message: The Lead Paragraph was very sloppy, had no cohesion. So I've added a NAME section, which seems to be the norm for most articles in Wikipedia. I also deleted the funny statement...about israel "holding" the territories instead of occupying them...as amuzing as that was I couln't bring myself to leave it in ;-) Yas121 11:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back Jayjg, where would the Zionist cause be without you...as usual you Rev clearly explained edits to fit your zionist agenda. One day you'll get yours... Yas121 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of having a silly sloppy list of all the terms used to describe this land in the lead, does it not make more sense to split that into a NAME section for people who specially want to know them....like in almost every other article in Wikipedia! Yas121 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how funny is saying Isreal which "holds" the territoris! EVEN Sharon and Olmert use the word occupation!! whats does that tell you about wikipedia??!! Yas121 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AND why is it OK to have the Countries of Asia tag but not OK to have the countries of Middle-East tag??!! seen a map lately? Yas121 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Countries of Asia template actually includes non-countries as well, and specifically lists the Palestinian territories. The Countries of the Middle East template is restricted solely to actual countries, and does not include the Palesinian territories. You should probably actually look at the two templates before changing one for the other. Jayjg (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph 

message: Hello people. I was thinking isn't adding the above statment to the introduction kind of inflametory? Generally speaking it would be like someone adding a similar statment to introduction of Israel (of course substituing Jews for Palestinians). Personaly I don't like it very much as to me it sounds like saying Many/Some jews don't want to live next to Palestinians in peace, something I know to be untrue having been in that region very recently. So should we keep it or remove it? JEBenson
:Almost nobody objects to this term, the Palestinian territories are east of the Jordan river. Amoruso 10:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JEBenson, you must not have run into Amoruso here... Ramallite (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amoruso you misunderstood the main point which is that an encyclopedia is no place to fight-out territorial disputes. Lets leave that to the Politicians :) E Jaffe
Amoruso, how can you write that Palestinian territories are East of the Jordan river? I know many Israelis and none of them hold the extreme positions you do... I think you should quit editing articles related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.--Burgas00 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Comments like the one above are uncalled for, and are a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. WRT you recent edit & edit summary: (1) Katz is a historian. The fact that you, or others, find his views objectionable is not grounds for excluding his quote. (2) There are in fact many WP articles in which pro-Arab sources are calling Israelis colonists, calling Israeli policy "Apartheid", and calling Israeli leaders Fascists or war criminals. If those charges are made by notbale people or in WP:RS, they are not excluded. Isarig 14:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a different perspective, Burgas00.  I think that it is important to note that one side views it this way, even it if comes off as racist.  It is a fact that this is some people's point of view.  I favor inclusion even though I am ideologically closer to you than to Isarig.  --Deodar 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is not described as anything but Shmuel Katz's opinion. And I find nothing objectionabale in quoting a notable Turkish historian that claims the Kurds or Armenians don't exist in the relevant articles. Isarig 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig, I agree with you :) We should not exclude something per se...but we need to see its effect on the overall article, ie what purpose does it serve. I think in this particular case this quote serve no real purpose other than to offend...we are just representing the view of a very small (extremist) minortiy...sort of like puting the "opinion" of some nut in 9/11 who says aliens were controlling the planes via remote control! :-D JEBenson
Allegtions above by Burgas00 are non factual. The insertion of "right wing sectors" is wrong too. There is pretty much a consencus in Israel's society that the West Bank or Judea and Samaria in its proper name is a part of what Israel should have. The problem is the security and demographic reasons which is why they are willing to part with these territories. Very few Jewish israelis considers the land to be "Palestinian" in nature of course. There is a bad faith attempt here to ignore the fact we're talking about lands, not people here. And Israelis do not think that these lands belong to somebody else as a given. Most of Israel's society also acknowledges the relation of Palestinians to Jordan but sees that as an impossible solution. It's hardly anything extreme etc like Burgas has falsely tried to represent. Amoruso 11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Amoruso, I can whole-heartedly assure you that the majority of israelis don't share your views. (Believe me I know) JEBenson 13:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My views in general or my views on this ? Because I can assure you that there are hardly any Israelis who think differently on this subject. And I know.. Amoruso 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody , and that includes Palestinians themselves, will honesly think that "Israel was formerly Palestine and was taken by force" because that would be simply ignorance. Judea and Samaria are important to all Jews, for the mere fact it is the cradle of the Jewish nation and people, and Olmert representing the majority party says how tough it is to part of any parts of Lands of Israel and that he will never recognise it being a legitimate part of any other state but simply it's a demographic and security necessity. Needless to say, all other parties to the right think that too (and object to his plan) while the Labour party agreed to Olmert's full ideas. I will, in contrast to you, assume WP:AGF and I won't say that you're lying deliberately, but what you've written above is complete false information. Your last paragraph about "Palestinians sharing a land" more than Israelies etc is just stupid no offense. Amoruso 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about a commonly used phrase "Palestinian territories". NPOV tags usually apply to article contents, not articles' existence. If you have a problem with the article's existence, you don't put a POV tag on it, you propose it for deletion (something you have become very good at recently). That's how you go about it. And as for the above, we get your POV, we get it, okay? But at least I have the decency not to call your POV "just stupid". On more than one occasion, you have come dangerously close to uncivil behaviour that could get you banned if other editors protest. Tone it down please. Ramallite (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last comment is offensive and deceptive, since if you see the above discussion, you'd see the incivil behaviour by Burgas... I only added the stupid with no offense comment and it was much less that what he said. You have also come close to this exactly incivil behaviour and worse on more than one occasion. Anyway, this tag was made exactly for this - for the NAME of the article. The content is all right but the NAME is inherhent POV. This is its purpose. Amoruso 14:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Offensive huh? Are you sure you're not Palestinian? The "you are not any better" response to criticism is typical of Palestinians, but I guess we and you share the same genes. In any case, if you think I've been uncivil, you are welcome to report me. Just go here and present your case against me with examples of what offended you and what I was responding to. Ramallite (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Burgas but I will not engage in this little tirade, see WP:SOAPBOX. Just a short comment. As for the Spain and Muslims, in fact just like Muslims still claim Israel as part of their conquest, Spain will probably come too , and if you look at the Madrid bombings, it already began. Needless to say , Jews' connection to Judea and Samaria is not only historic, the Jewish presence in the region ceased only for specific 19 years of Jordanian occupation since time immemorial. As for the relevant article, there was no Palestine state before Israel. If you don't know that, I sugget open a history book on the subject, and that's why the idea of what you suggested is not factual. It's also why the designation "Palestinian territories" is purely a one sided view since it contains a wishful future designation of the territories and not the actual definition of the region. Cheers. Amoruso 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many/Some Jews and Christians object to this term, which they perceive as a rejection of what is in their view legitimate Jewish land. 

message: The core problem of the article is that "Palestinian territories" can refer to the A region of the Oslo Accords, also by the U.S etc. It's deceptive to say that the ENTIRE west bank and by the article also Jerusalem is "palestinian territory". That view is not accepted by the majority of people and in fact is highly offensive ... this view is not even supported by the U.N. Looking at resolution 242 . Amoruso 14:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Core problem

message: Amoruso, you gave no summary on this edit, which removes a specific name that seems backed by citation, and leaves only weasel words. What is the rationale? - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is mentioned explicitly in the reference, which is the requirement by manual of style, it doesn't make much sense the way it was, because it's not an opinion of one person but simply the obvious opinion that the name "palestinian territories" is biased, that's the important thing here.  Amoruso 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove a name? 

message: Two sources were given for an assertion that 70% of the area of Mandatory Palestine was state land.  One of them was Myths and Facts, which is an AIPAC-sponsored propaganda handbook and not a reliable source.  (Actually anyone who has read a lot of history can easily find many errors of fact in it.)  In any case, M&F give a pamphlet of Aumann published by the "Israel Academic Committee on the Middle East" (some sort of Israeli think-tank) as their source,  which is the same as the source given by the article of Safian published in Pipes' magazine (which I'm not happy about but not deleting).  I have the pamphlet of Aumann.  He claims the 70% is from page 257 of the Survey of Palestine (1946), which is what M&F used to give as their only source.  However page 257 of the Survey does not contain that number, nor does any other page.  What it says is that the ownership of only 4500 km2 of Palestine (out of 26320 km2) had been determined and of that 660 km2 turned out to be state land.  Of course the determination of ownership had been focussed at the places where private ownership was most common; it wasn't a random sample.  It does say that the Negev (about 48% of the total area) was "probably" mostly state land, and if you add up all the little bits generously assuming that all the probablys and maybes go in one direction then you can get to about 2/3 of the total area.  So the 70% is pretty dubious and the raw figure hides the fact that the great majority of it was desert or "mountainous wilderness" and includes Miri land that was shared ownership of a type that didn't fit the British system.  I should expand on this in the article; meanwhile I just added the fact that most of the 70% was the Negev.  Aumann's pamphlet says: "The greater part of this 70 percent consisted of the Negev, some 3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 percent of the 6,580,000 acres in all of Mandatory Palestine." This is the very next sentence in Aumann's pamphlet, so one can ask why neither M&F nor Safian saw fit to quote it. --Zerotalk 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 70% of state land