Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 4

message: IMHO, it is time for a rewrite of this page. It focuses too heavily on some events and is brief on some other. And it has grown too long. Maybe it can be restructured like the page Sweden where there is only a brief description for each topic and a "Main article: xxx" link? Whos with me?? BL 19:21, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for rewrite of this page 

message: Here are a couple of Internet sources on the limited recent involvement of Armenian interests in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  
In my opinion, the Armenian interest is small and has no significance for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Alternatively, if the Armenian ethnic interest is significant, then the article should include at least a paragraph explaining the relevance of the Armenian ethinic interest in the conflict.
Accordingly, I suggest that the Armenian link should be removed from the Ethnicity section of the article. Rednblu 03:34, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend removal of the [[Armenia]]n link 

message: It may be better not to have an article on the IvP conflict in particular. There's too much emotion, too much...heat. -Penta 09:28, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not delete? 

message: One thing that has bothered me for a long time about this article is the limited discussion of the zionist movement, esp. the pre-state movement.  The word "Zionism" doesn't come up until the see-also's.  A reader could easily believe from this article that Balfour was the first person with the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  Certainly, they'd have no idea what the Zionist movement was or is and it's role in the conflict. DanKeshet
The article "The Arab and Jewish refugee situation" is a piece of advocacy based on the unstated premise that Israel belongs to Jews and that all the other people who have lived there for centuries should go elsewhere.
----
:with a growing Jewish minority (approaching 10%) 
Not sure you can/should say that. Even if the Jewish minority grew in absolute numbers, it did, at that time afaik, shrink in relation to the total population. BL 03:47, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jewish fraction went up and down but generally up, so the statement is ok I think. --Zero 04:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of Zionism in article. 

message: :While the refugee issue has always been a part of the conflict, the territories issue was introduced into it in 1967 after the Six day war. Other conflicts related to these two have also sprung up. It is those two issues that both parties agree must be solved before a just and lasting peace can be established.
Moved to Talk page. 
# I've added the 3rd issue: "To a varying degree by Jews and Arabs, refusing the legitimacy of the other side."
# The para. above is factually inaccurate. Refugees were part of the conflict since the 1920s? (I am starting from Jerusalem, Jaffa & Hebron massacres. The article mentions 1880s, whis is another good place to start - BILU 1882, etc.)
# There's never been "Palestinian territories". They were under occupation before 1967 as well. So let's either acknowledge it is Jewish occupation that made all the difference or keep politically correct silence. Humus sapiens 11:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Intro

message: I have protected the page after a request by Viajero. I also saved to the version before the revert war (edited by anon). Please let me know when the conflict is resolved so that I can unprotect it (or someone else can do it). I have no idea what the conflict is about (didn't even look at the diffs), so that I am not partial to any version. Dori | Talk 15:03, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
:I think both of those users (Viajero and OneVoice) should stop editing the page for a month or so. Branden 01:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If they agree to this I'll unprotect it. However, there would be no point if another revert war were to ensue soon after unprotecting the page. Dori | Talk 02:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Still protected.  Please either unprotect or add protection notification OneVoice 02:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected page

message: I don't like the fact that the "History" section was removed from this article into a separate one. Actually, I believe that this article should focus on the history of the conflict (in other words, facts about the conflict) - while various  suggestions for resolving it should go into separate articles (because they are, after all, just suggestions and ideas). -- uriber 20:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with Uriber --Zero 23:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: No it is not impossible. Conflicts can be defined in the pesent tense. Furthermore it makes more sense to define conflicts in the present tense, because it brings to light what the current situation is and not what has happened to get to get there. Bensaccount 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: A conflict is when two or more parties are perceived to have incompatible goals. Define these goals and define why they are incompatible. Bensaccount 02:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Schoolchildren typically explain a conflict by its history: "He started it, no she started it." Bensaccount 02:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: My arguments are "lame one liners"? And you say that I am namecalling? ;)Bensaccount 02:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: No. Bensaccount 02:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It appears we have a conflict. Do you want to examine the history of the conflict or do you want to define our goals and define why they are incompatible? Bensaccount 02:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I count as "someone else", but for what it's worth, I'm with you on this. Wikipedia's mission is to provide information, not to achieve World peace (although that could be a nice side-effect). -- uriber 17:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: A conflict is defined as a disagreement or clash between ideas, principles, or people. To define a specific conflict it is therefore necessary to define the ideas, principles or people that are clashing and define the way they are clashing.
Is this method agreed upon? 
If not, what is a better method? Bensaccount 23:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The best way of defining a specific conflict

message: Has anyone else noticed the alternate page: Arab-Israeli conflict? Bensaccount 00:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is linked from the first sentence in this article. So anybody who had bothered to read the first sentence of this article would have noticed it. -- uriber 16:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now that you added it you can say that. Bensaccount 18:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: It is, by the way, rather terrible.  I think it needs a serious reworking so that it focuses on the conflict between Israel and the Arab states, rather than Israeli-Palestinian issues, which ought to be dealt with here. john 17:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate page

message: While very tempted to remove "Palestinian" as a separate ethnicity (especially given that it's a subset of "Arab", rather than independent from "Arab", I decided to post here first, given the long and controversial history of the page.  Perhaps I'd make 
*Arab (including Palestinan Arabs)
as a listing under ethnicity.  Advice/objections?
Loweeel 12:59am, 10 July 2004 (EDT)
: Very strongly object. Do we need this war (which is what will happen)? --Zero 05:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that Palestinian is a culture or nationality (like Lebanese, Iraqi, Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, Qatari, all of which have various regional differences in accent and customs), as opposed to an ethnicity (a population with genetic similarities, like Arab).  Palestinian is not an ethnicity, but a culture or (I'd even concede) a nationality.  I don't want to start a war either (which seems to be the essence of your objection, rather than a factual objection), but this should be factually correct, rather than smooshing 2 distinct categories (ethnicity and nationality) together under one rubric that doesn't fit either (like trying to make a square peg and a round peg both fit in a triangular hole). While this may result in difficulties we need to iron out, the article will be stronger because of distinguishing between ethnicities (Arab), nationalities (Palestinian). - Loweeel 06:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually not sure what point you are making and I don't know why you are using this particular Talk page.  The word "ethnicity" appears in this article only once, as an inconsequential subject heading.  If you want to discuss the nature of the set "Palestinians", you would be better off at Talk:Palestinian. --Zero 07:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: If anything, I'd say, it's the other way around: Arab is a culture, Palestinian is an ethnicity.  Arabness cannot reasonably be defined by common descent - most Arabs are descendants of their countries' original populations, rather than of Arabian immigrants - whereas Palestinians are much more genetically homogeneous.  (The Arab article addresses the issue of how you define "Arab".) However, I would also say that trying to draw the line between an ethnicity and a culture or nationality strikes me as an impossible task to begin with.  Kabyle is an ethnicity, and so is Berber; Falasha is an ethnicity, and so is Jewish; Hakka is an ethnicity, and so is Han...  But Zero's right, this may not be the place to discuss it. - 07:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point I'm trying to make is that Arab and Palestinian are not BOTH ethnicities (by either Mustafaa's definitions or mine), but both are currently listed under "Ethnicity" in the article.  Going by Mustafaa's definition of ethnicity, I think that replacing "Arab" with "Israeli Arab" under ethnicity would solve the factual problem without starting an edit-war on this contested topic.  (And please note that I'm discussing BEFORE editing, in deference to the page history). -- Loweeel 18:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: why is there no mention of the wall?  can someone express that issue neutrally?  I'm afraid I can't...Pedant 07:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: `Separation barrier' is much better than `apartheid wall' (POV) and `protection fence' (inaccurate if it really is a wall). However, all three might be acceptable, if used as proper names instead of descriptions. Tim Ivorson 15:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, objectively, "Protection Fence" is a more accurate description than "Apartheid Wall" because the overwhelming majority of the barrier is a fence, and only the small segments that cut through or next to highly populated urban areas are walls.  So, "Wall" is not an accurate description for the vast majority of the barrier, and Apartheid is a much more loaded term than Protection is.  I'd say that Protection Fence is both more accurate and less loaded than Apartheid Wall, so I'd pick it out of the 2.  However, let's avoid all the problems by using separation barrier. - Loweeel 17:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, the phrase "Good fences make good neighbours" is quite commonly used in English. Jayjg 05:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid Wall/Protection Fence 

message: I removed the "alternative name" because you cannot call a "disute" an "occupation". The occupation may be the cause of the dispute, but it is not synonymous with it. If you think the title reflects some POV, please list your reasons. Gadykozma 22:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, put it anywhere in a sensible place. And BTW, thanks for the link to the Occupation page. What fun! I think I'll go to the math section to hide. Gadykozma 02:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute <-> Occupation 

message: The list "Elements of the conflict" includes Partial list of Palestinian terrorist acts and 
Child suicide bomber. I don't object to these being there, but there seems to me to be implicit POV in not including any articles on specific Israeli tactics. Do we have any articles on (for example) Israeli bulldozing of houses or so-called "targetted killings"? It seems to me that this asymmetry of inclusion in a list of links represents a bias. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
:I've given up on trying to remove links provided purely to create bias; have a look at Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail and various other articles created by the same author. Jayjg 20:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Elements of the conflict