Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 7

message: There is a wikipedia page on settlements.  Is there some reason for not linking to that page?  I cannot see how any reader could understand the current stage of the Israeli-palestinian conflict without reffering to the thorny problem of the settlements.
Pmurnion 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to settlements 

message: Bringing the count up to date, we now have:
                                                               	11 September                                                                     	15 October
Academic, news, and similar sites (excluding Israeli or Palestinian)	6 (and one of these - the Pro-Con thing - just may be a covertly pro-Israel site)	6 (same comment applies)
Human rights groups, general                                        	0                                                                                	2
Human rights groups, Palestinian                                    	0                                                                                	2
Jewish and Israeli academic, news, and similar sites                	4                                                                                	4
Pro-Israel advocacy and watchdog sites                              	10                                                                               	10
Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites                         	1                                                                                	10
Jewish and Israeli peace movement news and advocacy sites           	5                                                                                	6
A leftist analysis of the origin of the roots of the Second Intifada	1                                                                                	1
At least on raw numbers, that is relatively close to balance. We could probably drop a few Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites (especially because, offhand, some of these look a bit redundant to one another) and I'd love to add a Palestinian or other Arab academic site, if someone knows something appropriate. 
With reference to dropping a few Pro-Palestinian advocacy and watchdog sites, I'd prefer that someone who considers themselves to be on that side of things would make the selection, but if no one does in the next week or so, then I'll step in. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking stock a month later

message: "…the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem (often refferred to as the occupied terriotries)": besides the bad spelling (easily fixed if this is worth keeping): is it common to refer to East Jerusalem as "occupied territory"? Is that term still commonly used for Gaza since the Israeli pullout? - Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More issues

message: There are great templates out there for the Israel-Arab conflict (see Template:Arab-Israeli conflict) as well as anti-Semitism (see Template:Anti-Semitism).  The Israel-Palestinian conflict is so complex and there are so many articles related that it may be time to start creating one or more templates to bring these articles together into a cohesive whole.
So to start the discussion, which articles should make the first cut of an attempt at a template?  --Deodar 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that maybe a template just on the various peace initiatives might be useful (and a good place to start) -- one could list the individual initiatives such as Oslo, Geneva, Arab league/Saudi initiatives, the unilateral pullout(s), etc.  Also the major issues involved: the demographic threat, refugees/right of return, terrorism, the settlements, type of self-government, and the status of (east) Jerusalem (and probably others, I don't know them all.)  There are also the various types of solutions classes: two-state solution, binational solution, transfer, etc... all but the first are minor ones though, thus this might not be useful.  There are also the leaders involved: Rabin, Arafat, Clinton, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Abbas, and some Hamas guys.  One could also list the major brokers: United States, "The Quartet", Norway (Oslo), the Arab League/Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (somewhat.)  --Deodar 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think its a great start.  --Deodar 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did more work on it, any ideas on what else it needs? --יהושועEric 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shrunk the fonts for aesthetics.  I would like to not call the parties "Combatants" as it does now -- although on some days they can be described that way, but I'm not a complete cynic.  I think including a list of the main issues of contention that are ongoing -- terrorism, settlements, demographic threat, refugees, status of (East) Jerusalem, Israel's right to exist, etc.  It would also be cool to make it a little narrower, but just for aesthetics, it seems overly wide right now. --Deodar 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is a great idea.  I agree with Bhouston that the "Combatants" heading should go.  Maybe "Parties" or no heading at all. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (The cleanup has been done.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an IPConflict Template? 

message: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a simple two-sided conflict with all Israelis (or even all Israeli Jews) sharing one point of view and all Palestinians another. In both communities, some individuals and groups advocate total territorial removal of the other community, some advocate a two-state solution, and some advocate a binational solution of a single secular state encompassing present-day Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem."
I think that's a pretty bad introduction. Someone with more knowledge than I in this area should fix it. BhaiSaab talk 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Addded disputed tag, noting this talk page and the bias it reveals.
Of course this is a very very tough article to write from NPOV, but I felt that tag on the top helps people to understand that though we try hard to NPOV this article it's difficult and not perfect.  I advocate leaving the tag on permanently
TotallyTempo 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that if you want a tag permanently, it should be the  tag here on the talk page. I have no objection to  at the moment, but it is intended to point to issues under active discussion on the talk page. If you have specific issues about bias, please enumerate them. That's pretty much the only way they are likely to be worked through. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph in question is as biased as biased can be. Just because whoever wrote it stuck a "they believe" at the front of his sentences doesn't mean it's neutral to call Israel's position a "ploy." There isn't even a source to back this up. I advocate taking the paragraph out. Screen stalker 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph states how, to the best of my knowledge, many Palestinians view the peace process.  I guess it should be deleted if nobody can find a reliable 3rd party source to back it up, but I don't think finding such a source should be that difficult.  --GHcool 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: The lead sentence now reads "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a part of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing conflict between the State of Israel and Palestinian people." If you follow the link Palestinian people, you get an article about the ethnicity. To describe this as a conflict between a state and an ethnicity seems to me to be very POV. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectionable change in the lead sentence 

message: *"Also, the Palestinians have yet to honor a single agreement made with Israel as exemplified in the PA's refusal to halt terrorism. Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve progress when every Israeli gesture or concern, no matter how authentic, is labeled as a mere ploy or a diversion." It stretches credulity to imagine that anyone could believe that this is a neutral statement of things, but, beyond the obvious:
** The PA almost certainly does not have the means to halt terrorism, even if they had the intent.
** It is absurd to say that "the Palestinians have yet to honor a single agreement". Many points of many agreements have held for some time, just not permanently. One could say pretty much the same about Israeli conduct, especially about the continued Israeli settlement of the West Bank and the so-called "targetted killings".
*"Hamas… have expressed openness to a 'hudna,' an Islamic concept of a ceasefire suggested by the loosing (sic) side and used to rearm." Again, it is almost impossible to believe that someone can think that this is a neutral characterization of hudna rather than a polemic. It is also an insult to Islam to put it this way. Can anyone sincerely believe that Eyal Erlich, probably the first to introduce this term in talking about the current Intifada, is seeking to help Hamas rearm? 
- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much in agreement with Jmabel; This really needs to be rephrased or eliminated altogether. Perhaps "Palestinians have not honored agreements made with Israel..." versus "a single agreement". As it is now, it's brazen POV-pushing -- what about the broken promises Israel has made? Do either deserve mention? Is it not obvious that both sides have failed to honor agreements? By the same token, the second sentence, while no doubt a view held by many Palestinians, does not deserve special emphasis in the concluding paragraph of the article as if it communicates some fundamental truth about the conflict -- again, don't many Israelis harbor the same distrustful suspicions of many Palestinians? Most of the rest of the article is fairly objective, but this paragraph's subtle pro-Israeli slant needs to be changed. Inoculatedcities 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other very biased statements

message: What armed Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim groups claim the entirety of the land?  I know Hamas, the PIJ, and Hezbollah, but that's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of groups

message: Why are Religious attitudes to racism and Criticism of religion included in the template? They seem, at best, tangential. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly odd inclusions 

message: I think the Gaza disengagement is featured way too prominantly in the "History" section.  Its certainly important, but suffers severely from WP:Recentism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GHcool (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disengagement 

message: This map does not show the Golan Heights as part of Israel, though it has been fully annexed.  The map should be changed to one that recognizes that annexation, which is widely undisputed (except by anti-Israel neighbors). --יהושועEric 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area Map 

message: User:Ian Pitchford reverted what looks, at least on the surface, like a reasonable edit.  What is their justification? Dfeuer 09:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont know mr pitchford...when it comes down to it everyone is biased...i havent looked really at what u deleted...yet just as they were put there with reference to two people you think are biased doesnt mean its biased...sure finkelstein and chomsky are biased...yet so is everyone...and chomsky...the one i am supposing u are referring to is the most quoted person of almost all time in many fields and a full professor at one of the best regarded unis in the world...MIT...as to finkelstein....which are u referring to???...the homosexual finkelstein that is the republican finance master???...there are a ton of finkelsteins out there...i even once met two identical twin finkelstein brothers...which finkelstein???...anyways...everyone is fiercely biased...if that was ones reason for taking out the link...then im afraid we have to cancel and shut down wikipedia...as all information is biased...Benjiwolf 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the revert? 

message: I made an attempt to NPOVify the intro. Please let's try to keep it factual and encyclopedic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOVifying the Intro 

message: Why is the map at the top of the article? Is it to show where the conflict taking place? Then we have better maps. Does it imply that the conflict is merely territorial? Then that is a POV, see Hamas charter specifically denying that. Also, should we say that the Golan Heights is not a part of this conflict? All in all, doesn't seem to be a very suitable map. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the map violates WP:NPOV or any other Wikipedia rules.  However, I agree that there are probably better maps we can use.  --GHcool 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map