Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 9

message: Please give your opinion and vote on this AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_attacks_committed_during_the_Second_Intifada#.5B.5BList_of_attacks_committed_during_the_Second_Intifada.5D.5D
--Burgas00 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Jaakobou is presenting the standard Zionist myth of the land without a people. In fact the Arab population of Palestine was c. 500,000 in 1890 and c. 1,324,000 in 1947 all due to natural population growth coupled with a decline in mortality. There is but one scholarly account of illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, that by the Israeli demographer Roberto Bachi, who concluded that it averaged 900 per year between 1931 and 1945. The economy of the Yishuv was designed to be independent, i.e., not to benefit the Arab population, and in fact, because of the Zionist colonies' dependence on foreign subsidies they damaged the local economies of the areas in which they were situated. It's well constructed propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless. --Ian Pitchford 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do not contest the research Ian Pitchford cites, I am a little irritated by his reference to it here since that is not what we are even talking about.  Please don't change the subject and please don't change the tone of the discussion from a small disagreement to heated mud-slinging.  --GHcool 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read Jaakobou's last contribution. Silly myths should be challenged. --Ian Pitchford 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ian Pitchford, what book should you be citing? JaakobouChalk Talk 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers dispute 

message: I've twice added a see-also link to the "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" page to see it twice removed without comment here. Clearly it is a relevant article, since "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is a subset to this article on the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I assume it was removed because this topic (House demolition) was not explicitely discussed on the IP conflict page, so I added a section with citations from Reliable Sources to discuss it. Thank you, Jgui 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jgui, the reason I moved it was because it wasn't appropriate there. The  templates are designed as a link to the corresponding section, given the small amount of information in the article. Your link was not relevant to that section (which was an overview). However, now that an explicit section on Housing Demolition has been created, it is appropriate to use that template underneath the section heading. Regards. Suicup 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it took a bit of head-scratching but I figured that out. I fixed a redlink citation, and I left Gcool's changes except reworded the sentence stating the reason for demolitions, since this is heavily disputed - see the reference I cited for a statement of both sides (Israel and Amnesty). Cheers, Jgui 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a section on House demolition 

message: Hi people.  A user (82.166.9.18) recently changed the intro to say:
"Many Palestinians accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as at least a part of the territory of their future state.[6] Many Israelis are ready to accept a solution in which Gaza and West Bank only will be the only parts under Israel's control to be given to the Palestinians.[6]"
Whereas it used to say:
"Most Palestinians accept the West Bank and Gaza Strip as at least a part of the territory of their future state. Most Israelis also accept this solution."
Now, I haven't read the book that this part is referencing, but apart from the poor English ("...West Bank only will be the only parts...") I'm really not sure what this addition means (what is 'many' anyway?).  Is it saying that most Israeli's *just* want to give back Gaza and the West Bank?  Can someone else (maybe the person responsible fot assigning the ref originally?) take a look and tell me what they think about it?  My inclination was to change it back, but I figured I'd better ask first...
BTW, I was the chappy who changed the intro recently under the ip 80.42.84.75. Apologies if I'm stepping on anyone's shoes but I'm new to this! Richardbeavis 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I own the book referenced and added the reference to the lead to begin with.  I just changed it back to the original version.  Your instincts were correct, Richardbeavis.  --GHcool 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction changes