Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 2

message: Jay's argument (and, to a lesser extent, SlimVirgin's) seems to be that because there is a legal dispute over whether the term "occupied" is correct in referring to the West Bank and Gaza (as far as I can tell, there has never been such a dispute over the Golan Heights or the Sinai), that we shouldn't use the term "occupied" in the title.  But how much of a legal dispute is it?  Every international body - including the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice - has ruled that it is an occupation.  So has the highest legal authority in Israel.  Furthermore, the Israeli high court's ruling in both the Beit Sourik and Alfei Menashe cases essentially takes the West Bank's status as occupied as a given - it is simply assumed to be occupied, and it is stated in the Beit Sourik decision that this is a point agreed upon by all parties.  Throughout the court rulings, the Court repeatedly quotes the respondents (in the Alfei Menashe case, this is The Prime Minister of Israel, The Minister of Defense, The Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area, The Separation Fence Authority, The Alfei Menashe Local Council - i.e. the Israeli government) as arguing not that Israeli control of the West Bank is not "belligerent occupation," but merely that the way they want to build the wall conforms to the laws of belligerent occupation.
Now, the Israeli government may put out press released saying the territory isn't occupied.  But given a clear chance to argue this before their own high court, the government refused, instead arguing on other grounds, and accepting that the territories are occupied.  If the government of Israel is not even willing to make it's "this is not technically an occupation" argument in its own court over an issue to which this question would be definitely relevant, I don't think the fact that they like to put out poorly argued press released to the contrary should be respected by wikipedia as a reason for not using the most common name as an article.
Let's revisit this.  Who says the territories are occupied, or calls them the "occupied territories"?
#academic publications
#the world media
#The Israeli media
#The United Nations Security Council
#The United States government
#The Supreme Court of Israel
#The government of Israel in their legal arguments before the Supreme Court
# [[[User:Zero0000|Zero]] adds:] The International Court of Justice
Who says this is an incorrect term?
#some zionist groups
#the settler movement
#The government of Israeli in propaganda releases
:I'd hesitate a guess that legal academia is divided on the issue. Andjam 05:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis?  If the Israeli government is not willing to argue in its own courts that the territories are not occupied under international law, what makes you think that anybody else is willing to carry their water for them? john k 06:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more.  --Zero 00:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I would prefer Israeli-Occupied Territories. Brian Tvedt 11:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My preference would be "Occupied Territories (Israeli)," just because the are often referred to as just "the Occupied Territories."  If "Occupied Territories" (no further adjective) is used, then a final section should be added noting other "occupied territories" around the world, and the general information at the current "OT" article should be moved to "occupied territory."  "I-OT" is also reasonable.   Marsden 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Though perhaps El C's creation of the other one dealt with the objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you still object?  What do you think of the arguments I've made?  In terms of a vote, if we really want to settle this by a vote, we should announce it, so that people other than those already involved in the article can vote?  In terms of the current vote, in addition to the seven of us who already voted for a move, Brian and ElC have now indicated their support for a move.  That makes it 9 to 5.  That means 64% in favor of the move.  Not a consensus, but a supermajority.  In terms of where the article should be, I think this article should be moved to Occupied Territories (when this term is referred to without modifier, the territories occupied by the Israelis after 1967 are almost always meant).  As Marsden suggests, the more generic article can be at Occupied territory.  If this is unacceptable, I agree that Israeli-occupied Territories is the marginally better disambiguator, because Occupied Territories (Israeli) is a bit confusing.  Maybe Occupied Territories (Middle East)? john k 14:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Further note - in addition, Rd232 and Grace Note have clearly expressed their support for Occupied Territories as the title, and Cybbe has made a comment implying support for the same.  That would make it 12 to 5 - 71% in favor...I suppose this perhaps shouldn't be counted - Rd232, at least, explicitly said he wasn't voting.  But there still seems to be a strong majority in support of moving.  I'm not sure why, when this title was established without consensus, we should have to keep it at this title unless there is consensus - this seems to lead to the basic procedural unfairness of "whoever supports the way something was done first gets to filibuster any change." john k 14:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vizcarra's vote doesn't really count - he's only here as a result of a campaign of harrassing SlimVirgin and me - so the actual vote is 8 to 5. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Andjam's vote should count, either.  I'll make up ... er, provide ... a reason once we've all agreed to abide by the result of the vote.  So the actual vote is 8 to 4, a super-majority by most people's reckonings.  I also reserve the right to decide that Humus Sapien's vote doesn't count, either, but as a show of good faith I'd be willing to leave Humus' vote uncontested and leave it at an 8-to-4 result. Marsden 20:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Actually, Andjam has been a serious contributor to this page; Vizcarra's history is clear.  Not that it's all that relevant. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy!  Wrangling about vote totals!  Jay - do you have any response to any of the multitudinous arguments I made above?  Or are you just going to argue about how to interpret this stupid vote? john k 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How come only Jay's comment came in for criticism? Andjam 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Jay started the wrangling over votes, perhaps? john k 01:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John, it was Marsden who started the vote, and it was you who started including people who hadn't voted, which could be called wrangling over votes too. Please don't make personal comments. This page has seen enough of them to last a lifetime. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't including people who hadn't voted in the vote, because I think the vote is nonsense - it was never announced anywhere.  I was merely counting up the number of people who, in the course of this discussion, have indicated support for including "occupied" in the title, against the number of people who have indicated opposition.  And I didn't make any personal comments, that I'm aware of. john k 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Occupied Territories (Middle East) might be interpreted as referring to former occupation(s) of Lebanon, or accusations that certain countries have a de facto occupation of Iraq, or Kurdish-majority portions of Turkey, or ... Andjam 07:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - it is too vague.  I imagine Ocupied Territories (Levant) is rather too obscure. john k 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The difference between the two, I believe, is that I-OT sounds more academic (see Britanica's I-OAT article above), whereas OT is more journalistic. Generally, I think Wikipedia should attempt to reflect the former rather than the latter. El_C 06:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli-occupied Territories is fine with me. I'm going to suggest we just move it there and then prevent any move back on the basis that there is no consensus for a move.  I'm getting tired of this - a clear majority of those who have been discussing it on this page have been in favor of the move.  There is no reason to believe that a larger sample would not find the same result.  Most of the arguments against the move have, in my not so neutral opinion, been effectively answered.  What more is needed here? john k 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal dispute 

message: If we have an Armenian Genocide title, we need to have an Occupied Territories one. The position of the Israeli govt. is not greater than that of the Turkish one, we need to follow political-diplomatic-media-scholarly-etc. consensus, the legalistic arguments are of no consequence over this decision of what to rename this article into. Within a few days, I am prepared to rename the article to OT (or I-OT, if there's greater interest in that). If anyone has objections, now is the time to reiterate and rearticulate in the most clear and direct way, noting the parallels and factors mentioned, and by JK above, and elsewhere. We can't go on like this indefinitely. Thanks everyone. El_C 00:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I would prefer Israeli-Occupied Territories. Brian Tvedt 11:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My preference would be "Occupied Territories (Israeli)," just because the are often referred to as just "the Occupied Territories."  If "Occupied Territories" (no further adjective) is used, then a final section should be added noting other "occupied territories" around the world, and the general information at the current "OT" article should be moved to "occupied territory."  "I-OT" is also reasonable.   Marsden 13:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Though perhaps El C's creation of the other one dealt with the objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you still object?  What do you think of the arguments I've made?  In terms of a vote, if we really want to settle this by a vote, we should announce it, so that people other than those already involved in the article can vote?  In terms of the current vote, in addition to the seven of us who already voted for a move, Brian and ElC have now indicated their support for a move.  That makes it 9 to 5.  That means 64% in favor of the move.  Not a consensus, but a supermajority.  In terms of where the article should be, I think this article should be moved to Occupied Territories (when this term is referred to without modifier, the territories occupied by the Israelis after 1967 are almost always meant).  As Marsden suggests, the more generic article can be at Occupied territory.  If this is unacceptable, I agree that Israeli-occupied Territories is the marginally better disambiguator, because Occupied Territories (Israeli) is a bit confusing.  Maybe Occupied Territories (Middle East)? john k 14:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Further note - in addition, Rd232 and Grace Note have clearly expressed their support for Occupied Territories as the title, and Cybbe has made a comment implying support for the same.  That would make it 12 to 5 - 71% in favor...I suppose this perhaps shouldn't be counted - Rd232, at least, explicitly said he wasn't voting.  But there still seems to be a strong majority in support of moving.  I'm not sure why, when this title was established without consensus, we should have to keep it at this title unless there is consensus - this seems to lead to the basic procedural unfairness of "whoever supports the way something was done first gets to filibuster any change." john k 14:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vizcarra's vote doesn't really count - he's only here as a result of a campaign of harrassing SlimVirgin and me - so the actual vote is 8 to 5. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Andjam's vote should count, either.  I'll make up ... er, provide ... a reason once we've all agreed to abide by the result of the vote.  So the actual vote is 8 to 4, a super-majority by most people's reckonings.  I also reserve the right to decide that Humus Sapien's vote doesn't count, either, but as a show of good faith I'd be willing to leave Humus' vote uncontested and leave it at an 8-to-4 result. Marsden 20:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Actually, Andjam has been a serious contributor to this page; Vizcarra's history is clear.  Not that it's all that relevant. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy!  Wrangling about vote totals!  Jay - do you have any response to any of the multitudinous arguments I made above?  Or are you just going to argue about how to interpret this stupid vote? john k 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How come only Jay's comment came in for criticism? Andjam 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Jay started the wrangling over votes, perhaps? john k 01:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John, it was Marsden who started the vote, and it was you who started including people who hadn't voted, which could be called wrangling over votes too. Please don't make personal comments. This page has seen enough of them to last a lifetime. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't including people who hadn't voted in the vote, because I think the vote is nonsense - it was never announced anywhere.  I was merely counting up the number of people who, in the course of this discussion, have indicated support for including "occupied" in the title, against the number of people who have indicated opposition.  And I didn't make any personal comments, that I'm aware of. john k 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Occupied Territories (Middle East) might be interpreted as referring to former occupation(s) of Lebanon, or accusations that certain countries have a de facto occupation of Iraq, or Kurdish-majority portions of Turkey, or ... Andjam 07:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - it is too vague.  I imagine Ocupied Territories (Levant) is rather too obscure. john k 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The difference between the two, I believe, is that I-OT sounds more academic (see Britanica's I-OAT article above), whereas OT is more journalistic. Generally, I think Wikipedia should attempt to reflect the former rather than the latter. El_C 06:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli-occupied Territories is fine with me. I'm going to suggest we just move it there and then prevent any move back on the basis that there is no consensus for a move.  I'm getting tired of this - a clear majority of those who have been discussing it on this page have been in favor of the move.  There is no reason to believe that a larger sample would not find the same result.  Most of the arguments against the move have, in my not so neutral opinion, been effectively answered.  What more is needed here? john k 04:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to rename: follow up to JK

message: Alright, matters have gotten to a point of maximum unpleasantness and anger on all sides, in which I am perhaps more to blame than anybody else.  It seems clear that there is no possible way we are going to get everyone to agree.  So, it seems that we have no choice but the unpleasantness of a vote.  By a vote, I don't mean an informal poll on this page.  That is worthless.  It should be a real vote, announced in as many places as possible (especially Wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Requested moves.)  I would suggest approval voting, with four options - the current title, Territories captured by Israel in 1967, Occupied Territories, and Israeli-occupied Territories.  The option with the most votes wins, and we agree never to speak of this again. john k 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree. All the arguments in favor of each title have been made, as far as I can tell. There has been no substantive response to a number of the points in favor of using "occupied" in the title. Unless this changes, I say that we just move the page and revert those who try to move it back unless and until they make some substantive response. Holding a vote will just give the obstructionists (we all know who they are) a chance to rally the troops and prevent the move solely by numbers rather than reasoned argument. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you spell it out, Charles? Just exactly who are the "obstructionists", and how are they "obstructing"? Is it any wonder I've been avoiding this cesspool?  Thanks for adding to the aroma.  Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm...Well, I tend to think that numbers would end up favoring the move.  But my instincts are really conflicted on this.  On the one hand, if you read my comments yesterday and this morning, you'll see that I basically agree with you.  On the other hand, I'm t fairly certain that a unilateral move will not resolve things, given the discussion so far.  Obviously, I will not oppose a move, if you want to go ahead with it.  Perhaps it would be better to move it, and then those who do not like the new title can, if they so desire, organize a move request which could be voted on.  At any rate, I'm not going to argue about this any further.  The arguments have been made, and are on the talk page.  If there ends up being a vote, I will dutifully vote, but I'm not going to spend any more time shadowboxing here. john k 23:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think a vote is needed either.  Give it another few days and if there is no substantive reponse to the points made by you and El C, we can consider the matter closed and move the page.  The editors who oppose the move would have a hard time defending their position after ignoring such a clearly expressed invitation to state their case.  I think the most important thing for those of us who do want to move the page is to close ranks and agree on the new title.  I think Israeli-occupied territories has the most support.  If anyone disagrees, now is the time to say so. Brian Tvedt 02:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like the most clearly supported location - Andjam also said he was willing to accept this as the least objectionable version including the word "occupation". john k 02:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is clear that the current article title is missleading for describing Israel proper in addition to the Territories, and we have a majority agreeing that "Occupied Territories" belongs in the title, with "Israeli-Occupied Territories" having the most support/least objection.  A compelling argument has been made for including "Occupied Territories" in the title (notably, that the Israeli government itself is at most split in opposing the term) for which no substantive rebuttal has been made.  A move to Israeli-Occupied Territories (I think the capitalized form should be used, but that's a minor point) is very strongly indicated, in my opinion.  I agree that if the argument for the change remains substantially unrebutted after a couple of days, we should make the change.  You can't please all the people all the time.  Any remaining complaints about anyone's behavior -- including mine -- should be addressed formally if it is felt that there is cause, but should not be allowed to stand in the way of this article's name being moved from a clearly missleading name to a name that most of us agree with. Marsden 19:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I too have avoided this page precisely because of the unwarranted and, at times, vicious hostility - see the latest anon comments below for another example.  This Talk: page has been made needlessly unpleasant, as has the article itself: when new editors make it their "mission" to stay on Wikipedia only to battle other editors, fill Talk: pages with personal attacks on and lies about other editors, recruit people to revert war for them,   even giving them explicit instructions on how to do so  , then recruit people to vote for them    , well, why would the victims of their abuse want to stick around? Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to harp on this? Why don't we try to constructively engage, and ignore the trolls and trolling as best we can? john k 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I come back to the newly abbreviated talk page, hoping that it has finally been cleared of all the toxicity, and find longstanding editors filling the page with ugly innuendo (see above), and anonymous IPs filling it with explicit (albeit oblique) conspiracy theory crap, of the same sort that has been spilled endlessly here already. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe because it's feels pro-Palestinian rather than anti-Israeli, and it's better to be positive than negative. Andjam 13:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Depending on how disengagement goes, there's also going to be disagreement over whether Gaza should be included in the article or not, unless the article definition is so broad it also includes formerly occupied territories or the article definition is related to Palestine. Andjam 14:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so - the Sinai is included, and it has been fully returned to Egypt.  This article is about territories which have been at some point since 1967 occupied by Israel, not just territories which are occupied at present. john k 17:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, the issue whether the Gaza Strip is still considered occupied is by no means decided by Israel unilateral withdrawal of it's settlements. See for instance the legal position of the PLO. Cybbe 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting nowhere, a real vote seems to be necessary

message: Can we do this?  It doesn't look right, as is.  Marsden 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for that. Marsden 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done (a little while ago). Andjam 16:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalize "occupied" in title? 

message: Can someone explain what "Renaming as promised and agreed upon" refers to? The consensus may end up being "Israeli-occupied [Tt]erritories", but if the promise is made-up, that is so not cool. Andjam 02:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should investigate, perhaps! I sense wrongdoing, made-up promises, possibly evildoin'! Exclamation points means I'm excited! Excited about your forthcoming investigation, that is! Either way, it should be better than these latest abomination "films" by that idiot, Lucas! 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm and faking a signature in response to a question about bad-faith editing is not helpful. Please stop insulting me. Andjam 14:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, more "faking" and "made-up" bit! :) Assuming good faith is a arsh mistress, indeed. But at the event, I only insulted Lucas! 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, can you stop the sarcasm? With regards to criticism, I found "It really is quite simple, Andjam" a bit rude, and also found a bit rude your pedantic answer to my question about some sections that were at one stage archived but were later on in the main talk page. Also, virtually all of your edit history has been to do with me. I'm finding it a bit disturbing. Andjam 16:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also edited the lead paragraph to India! Anyway, it's unfortunate you find my light satire to be so insultingly sarcastic and pedantic. At the time, I wasn't fully aware to which sections were archived, because it was redlinked when I saw it. Please assume good faith. That goes for this ip's edit history vis.a.vis. yourself, too. Thanks again for all your patience! 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't happen to know which sections were archived, how come  unarchived exactly the same material as you "accidentally" unarchived previously? Unsigned without a time stamp by User:Andjam, on 17:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I remebered which sections I archived; my memory isn't that short, and it was, after all, only a few hours ago. 17:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, where does the "accidentally" quote come from, and whom are you quoting? I didn't include the last two sections on the talk page here by accident. On closer look, I disagree with User:John Kenney method (see, I'm able to avoid mention of his person, unlike as he did with me: stating as a matter of fact that I'm "Obnoxious") mass archiving of everything, and I, myself, am in favour of some continuity. And I am entitled to hold that view without my motives being questioned. Though they should. 21:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Obnoxiousness from the anon aside, I think that there was sufficient support for moving, and insufficient articulate opposition, to allow the article to rest here, for the moment.  As I said above, if you (Andjam) would like to sponsor a requested move to move the page to a different location, you should go ahead and do this, and we can have a proper vote. john k 18:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take exception to that mischaracterization, User:John Kenney. Please review closely and adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT. TIA. 18:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on.  john k 19:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm offended. 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I upset the troll?  How can I ever live with myself? john k 21:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:John Kenney, cease immediately from directing personal attacks against me. 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Territories under Israeli control moved to Israeli-occupied Territories: Renaming as promised and agreed upon" 

message: The open proxy contributions (66.98.180.53, 66.139.76.245 and 69.193.242.60) are mine. The reason I made anonymous edits was not to deceive editors, but as a safety precaution that is no longer necessary. A few people (outside of Wikipedia) knew/know my real life identity and I've had to spend some time to assure them that I'm not a "useful idiot" and/or "self-hating" and/or a "traitor"; that being pro-Israeli and anti-propaganda is not mutually exclusive (or being pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian). Far from it. On October 3 I was banned indefinitely "for sockpuppetry", which was ridiculous and against Wikipedia policy. However, now any admin can block/ban me for that same offence, since I have for two days de facto violated the policy. Absurdly enough, the lie became truth. :-) Another offence I'm guilty of is accusing Jayjg (without providing evidence) of having User:John McW as a sockpuppet. (John McW who has made some really inflammatory comments ) My suggestion is that Jayjg and SlimVirgin's friend User:David Gerard investigate the matter and if he comes to the conclusion that John McW isn't a sockpuppet of Jayjg, then he's free to block me (again). Alternative suggestion is that MPerel, who is somewhat of an expert  could by using the "psycho-linguistic empirical method"   (or equivalent method) compare the semantics/syntax of John McW and Jayjg, and if she finds that they're different people - then SlimVirgin is free to block me. I've found it deplorable that instead of dealing with substantive arguments in an intellectual and emphatic manner the 'debate' here has instead been about long-time editors vs. short time editors, and such things, all saturated with vicious hostility  and power struggle. And because I like the idea of Wikipedia, I've been confused on how to react to this; just walk away, or adapt the "When in Rome" philosophy. --saxet 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.193.242.60 most definitely isn't saxet, nor an open proxy (strike out above is my own addition). 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake - I copied, from the history page, the IP# that I thought came from whatever open proxy server I was routed through. Obviously, it should have been a total of two, not three, addresses. All apologies. --saxet 11:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saxet - a couple of points: 1) you are allowed to use sock puppets, so long as the intent is not to deceive, to get around bans, or to otherwise violate policy.  I don't think David ever presented any evidence that this was the case in banning you, and I unbanned you almost immediately, so you have not been banned for all this time, so I don't think you've violating any policy by editing as an anon.  Secondly, I would suggest that you certainly should not be claiming, without any evidence at all, that Jay is using a sock puppet.  I think this incredibly unlikely, and that it is extremely unhelpful for you to bring up this issue again.  That said, even if it could be proved that your statement was made in error (since you bring it up again, I will assume you were not knowingly lying in making this accusation), that would not be grounds for a block, although it might be grounds for Jay to ask for arbitration against you. john k 18:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems I need to read up on that policy, I honestly thought it was a violation to edit the same page with two different usernames (even if there wasn't an intention to deceive). Anyway, whether it's permitted or not there's no need for me to do so again. In regard to the Jayjg/John McW issue I would be extremely surprised if the information I was presented with was inaccurate. It may be unhelpful for me to have brought it up again but it wasn't done in malice or as a personal vendetta - I think Jayjg would be an excellent editor to Wikipedia, but maybe not an admin. And I felt that it was necessary to counter his assessment on how/why the atmosphere here got so ugly. Also - I think it may be the case that maybe you and a few others don't really know what ad hominem actually is; it "involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself." For example; when SlimVirgin accused you of "ad hominem remarks"  it was in fact SV who made an ad hominem argument since you didn't evade any arguments in the post where you addressed Jayjg and SlimVirgin's reluctance to respond to substantive arguments. It sort of annoys me that 'well regarded long-time editors' seem to get away with those kind of things. MPerel writes on my user page that I'm disruptive to the purpose of building an encyclopaedia, yet if one looks at her history she has hardly made any edits to any articles but have mainly engaged in voting and such. She actually proposed that we should go through some 'psycholinguistic testing' to determine the "loadedness" of various terms in our psyches. And I'm being disruptive…  I've also been the subject of WP:NPA et cetera, either explicitly or implicitly, but when I respond it is I who violated this or that guideline and it is I who "should be careful not to attack" a long-time editor. I may lack in civility at times but I have no intention of showing undue respect to the VIPs. In fact, it could have been a lot worse, considering the few times I've been close to getting seriously hostile, but restrained myself. I'll take a short break from this article now, been planning anyway to write articles about a couple of short stories by JL Borges. --saxet 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed saxet's latest personal attack. I'm constrained somewhat here by netiquette, but I can say that saxet has said exactly the opposite to me by e-mail to what he just posted about Jay, so he's clearly playing games. This page is for discussion of content only. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restore my comment immediately/Comment restored/. It wasn't a personal attack and it provided context to the claims/attacks made further up on this page by you and Jayjg   . This is the fourth time (that I'm aware of) that you removed comments that you percieve as NPA violations against you/Jayjg while leaving obvious NPA violations made by you/Jayjg intact. I'm not "playing games". --saxet 04:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can someone unredlink this please? Andjam 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All you need to do is to copy from the last revision from before the wholesale archiving, paste it into the red-linked renamed archive. and viola. I hope you found my explanation instructive; I'm certain that, in the future, you'd be able to undertake such a task yourself. 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean to move "legal dispute" and "Time to rename: follow up to JK" out of the archives and into the current talk page? Andjam 07:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not move from out of the archive and into the current talk page, but again, copy and pasted from the revision history. Click on the history button, then the last revision by User:Andjam, dated 08:02, 16 October 2005 contained the desired content. I hope my explanation (this time) aids in you becoming a more productive editor. 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostility and civility 

message: Undeleted discussion
:Can someone unredlink this please? Andjam 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All you need to do is to copy from the last revision from before the wholesale archiving, paste it into the red-linked renamed archive. and viola. I hope you found my explanation instructive; I'm certain that, in the future, you'd be able to undertake such a task yourself. 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean to move "legal dispute" and "Time to rename: follow up to JK" out of the archives and into the current talk page? Andjam 07:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not move from out of the archive and into the current talk page, but again, copy and pasted from the revision history. Click on the history button, then the last revision by User:Andjam, dated 08:02, 16 October 2005 contained the desired content. I hope my explanation (this time) aids in you becoming a more productive editor. 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving and communicating through reverts

message: I have moved "Israeli-occupied Territories" to "Israeli-occupied territories", following support from a couple of people above. Andjam 15:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, "Israeli-occupied territories" with the lower case t is definitely an improvement. I would (obviously) have preferred "Occupied Territories" or "Occupied Territories (Israeli)", but I guess I can live with this title. --saxet 16:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor move of title 

message: To Yuber. Italics are my (contemporaneity) emphasis:
*[I]n light of the continued Israeli occupation of the Syrian heights — Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI),  May 30, 2005
*The Tishrin article is not only profoundly immoral, it is also stupid from the point of view of Syrian, and indeed Arab, interests. It strengthens the Israeli right-wing, which opposes the withdrawal from the Syrian heights. — Source cited: haGalil Online, translation of an article to be published in Ma'ariv on February 07, 2000. And: A very determined effort is needed to counter the brainwashing that has been going on for so long against the return of the Syrian heights to their rightful owners. haGalil Online, Translation of an article to be published in Ma'ariv on December 27, 1999
*King Hussein said "I hope this could be a positive step on the way towards not only the withdrawal from Lebanon, which is an implementation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, a decision which we have so long waited for. The same should apply to the occupied Syrian Heights" — The Royal Hashemite Court official website. 
*However, Israeli sources said that one Israeli military unit was attacked in the occupied Syrian heights, but no casualties were reported. — Source cited: Arabic News, 6/28/2005.
*The Golan will probably revert to the Syrian Heights, while Katzrin, Neveh Ativ, Ortal and 30 others will become historic episodes as esoteric as New Mecklenburg. Barak's name changes of course will be more than cosmetic and far from innocuous. They will also mean population displacement and the destruction of three decades of dedicated labor. — Source cited: Bet El Twinning Committee of Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto, Issue number 255, January 21, 2000.
*[Barak] also rejected the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland, and suggested only the possibility of a withdrawal "on" rather than "from" the Syrian heights. These positions were accompanied by a stream of statements declaring a commitment to peace, and even setting a year 2000 deadline for an agreement (Usher, 1999) — Source cited: Peace and Conflict Studies, Volume 7, Number 1, May 2000.
*The occupied Golan has formally been annexed, settled by Israelis, and, contrary to international legislation, Israel has been extensively exploiting its nature resources: "Mey Eden", an Israeli-based mineral water producer, is pumping in the occupied Golan. Typically, even the Yizchak Rabin Monument in Tel-Aviv is made of black basalt from the Syrian Heights. — Source cited: "The New World Order and the Stone Age Israel's Next Target: Syria," from Anti-War.com Thanks, Yuber! 18:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.golan-syria.org/ There's a website from the Syrian perspective.  No Syrian calls the Golan Heights "The Syrian Heights".  They are known in Arabic as  "al Jolan", more specifically "al Jolan al mu7talla" (the occupied Golan Heights).  See the Arabic Wikipedia article for more proof .Yuber(talk) 20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you bother translating that .ar article, or acknowledging my querry for a precise citation from that source (not simply repeating the url, I have already seen it in your edit summary), I will continue to object. It sounds plausible that its usage as cited in the .en Golan Heights articles and above is largely tangenial, in that sense (historically, politically), but I expect slightly more effort on your part in making your claims explicable here, in this English-language WP. Also, see my comment about reverts and discussion here. 21:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I live in Syria (though I'm not there at the minute), and I have never heard them called the Syrian heights, but simply the Golan. The majority of the sources for "Syrian heights" cited above seem to be Israeli, and none of them appears to be Syrian. Also, it's not clear how many of them are actually using it as a name for the heights as opposed to a description, and one is clearly talking about a putative future renaming. What on earth is going on here? Palmiro | Talk 22:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am answered. Thanks for the explanation and for your insights, Palmiro. Much appreciated. 23:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To Yuber: "Syrian Heights" contemporary usage

message: Hi. I'm happy to leave this page name as is. I feel the title could be better, but it could be worse as well. There has been too much unpleasantness as well, not just at the beginning but still ongoing. Thanks, Andjam 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, becuse Wikipedia ia not a democracy. I sincerely suggest you place greater efforts at coming across more diplomatically with your objections, reducing rather than increasing unpleasentness via declarative accusations, ones which you should really follow through or not comment on at all, in my [yes ip-based] opinion. I am refering of course to your "Territories under Israeli control moved to Israeli-occupied Territories: Renaming as promised and agreed upon"-titled section and accusations of what was allegedly "made-up," which to quote you (italics and all), is so not cool. Thank you in advance for reading my comment's content without implied malice or harrassment. 06:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really after a vote 

message: "The term "Occupied Territories," especially when capitalized, is commonly used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories"  Unbehagen, I'm astonished you would consider this claim to be properly referenced, and not "original research", considering the rather vociferous objections you made to rather better cited information about the modern day use of the term "Zionist terrorism" on the "Zionist terrorism" page.  Can you explain how the "Zionist terrorism" phrase was original research, and the claim listed above is not?  Alternatively, please restore the paragraph you keep removing at Zionist terrorism.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a difference between trying to prove EXCLUSIVE use and COMMON use. Do you really not think so? If so then it is I who am astonished! Unbehagen 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While proving exclusivity in anything is difficult, the citations provided on the other Talk: page show that as well as anything can be shown. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Jay - is this really controversial?  Are you saying that the Israeli-occupied territories are not referred to as the "Occupied Territories" or "occupied territories," without modifier?  see here for a google news search on "Occupied Territories" - there are 474 results, a great number of which are relevant.  Are you really saying that it is original research to say that the term "Occupied Territories" is used to refer to the subject of this article?  Or am I missing something. john k 03:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, I think a more typical present-day use of "Occupied Territories" refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not the Golan Heights, and certainly not the Sinai desert.  More importantly, I'm trying to find the standard of original research that is going to be used for these kinds of articles.  For example, if you look at this Talk: page, and the edit history of the article, you will see that an extremely high standard for original research is being set by Unbehagen.  Specifically, he's insisting that the results Google and Library of Congress searches consist of original research, and that one must actually quote a reliable source which makes this claim - yet here he (and you) seem to consider them not to be original research.  We should strive for some consistency in our application of policy here. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sinai is not occupied anymore, so that's hardly fair.  Beyond this, I don't think anything in the statement says that "Occupied Territories" is necessarily used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories as a whole, just that it is used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories - perhaps we can clarify on this, but the statement itself hardly seems controversial.  Beyond this, it sounds as though you are making a WP:POINT violation here - as to the Zionist terrorism article, I have not expressed an opinion there, although I will say that Unbehagen has a point in saying that "commonly used" should require a much lower standard of proof than "exclusively used" or "almost exclusively used."  john k 18:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, you said you added the "cite" thing based on talk, but I don't remember any discussion of this at all ever. john k 03:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was about inclusion of material about water resources without sufficient balance.  Also I think removing a request for citation without actually providing a citation, or in lieu thereof resolving the issue on the Talk: page, is bad form. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provided a google news link which gives many examples of major media using the term "Occupied Territories" in this context.  At any rate, it seems pretty clear that this is not an issue of citation - it is an issue of phrasing.  This statement could probably be phrased better.  But there is nothing controversial about the idea being conveyed.  As to bad form, violating WP:POINT is also bad form, so that's rather the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? john k 18:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Are you objecting to "commonly" or to "used". I agree "commonly" is a matter of interpretation and may need a citation. "used" is a simple matter of fact - a citation which shows usage ie a reference to "Occupied Territories" which clearly refers to the land is question is a valid one. I actually think you're breaking WP Policy on Making a Point and carrying on the "debate" from Zionist Terrorism - which is very different - here. If so please show some good faith and reason. Unbehagen 11:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments above - striving for clarification and consistency in policy application is not WP:POINT, and you appear to be applying the policy in vastly different ways on these two pages.  As for "commonly used", that is actually less objectionable than "used", which, in my mind, implies exclusivity. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay - of course it is WP:POINT.  The issues are not basically similar.  "Proving" the rather obvious fact that the term "Occupied Territories" is commonly used to refer to either the Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories+Golan should only require a pretty low standard of proof - some citations by major media ought to be sufficient.  To prove that something is exclusively used is essentially trying to prove a negative - you have to show that the term is never used in any other way.  A single counterexample blows up the whole point.  Now, you and Unbehagen may disagree on whether you've demonstrated enough proof as to whether or not "zionist terrorism" is exclusively used by nuts, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue on this page. john k 18:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was hardly WP:POINT - I was trying to establish a standard for what we consider "original research".  What is actually WP:POINT is Unbehagen's continued removal of the information on the Zionist terrorism page, even though the allegedly contentious word "exclusively" has been removed.  He now uses a different rationale for removing the information, claiming that sources need to be cited, ignoring the many sources provided on the Talk: page.  Maybe you could take a look at that. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: John, the matter had already been covered in a separate section of the article.  Maybe that section should be moved to just after the intro, but your change was pretty clunky.  Marsden 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's much more clunky for the first sentence of the article to link to a section later on in the article, but maybe that's just me.  I'm obviously open to other suggestions, though. john k 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me take a stab at it.  Marsden 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better.  Out of conflict, a better article arises!  Almost enough to restore my faith in wikipedia. john k 21:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm impressed, nice work to all.  It's good to see things taking a better turn. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too bad, if I do say so myself.  Until the next "improvement" .... Marsden 23:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good solution on the section, Marsden; and good rewrite of the intro, JK. As for my hit-and-run re-naming of Territories under Israeli control to the current title, let us never speak of it again! El_C 03:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically you insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then insit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. Unbehagen 22:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's insisting on secondary sources for claims, not tertiary sources.  And I'm getting rather sick of your double standards on that page - first deleting the information based on the notion that it was "original research", then insisting here that the only "original research" was the word "exclusively", then, when that word was removed, deleting it on the grounds that there were no citations, ignoring all the citations on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The term "Occupied Territories," especially when capitalized, is commonly used to refer to the Israeli-occupied territories" 

message: I don't have much time, but I want to help facilitate a new discussion concerning the two current npov-section tags. I'll leave it blank for now and hope a productive exchange ensues wikimagically therefrom (hopefuly I'll be able to revisit it next week). Yet another proverbial hit-and-run from yours truly! El_C 03:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do.  It has information about the water resources inserted there, which, as you've said yourself, does not even belong in this article.  Furthermore, the information has been inserted for the purpose of creating a POV that Israel is holding on to the territories because of the water resources, ignoring at least a half dozen other important reasons.  This has already been discussed at length above. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The information clearly belongs. Jay, if you and John Kenny need some remedial education about the water situation in the Occupied Territories, that can be addressed.  But the information belongs. Marsden 04:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that an assertion is not an argument. Jayjg (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying, Jay.  I don't think I've ever said that the water resources issue definitely does not belong in the article.  I do think that it shouldn't be the only piece of specific information presented in the article.  It seems to me that the key to NPOVing this is not to remove the water issue, which is clearly important (while, admittedly, not being uniquely important), but to add other material. john k 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: See comment above. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The neutrality of this section is disputed

message: Alright, to begin with, who finds this section to be POV, and in what respect? john k 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do.  It has information about the water resources inserted there, which, as you've said yourself, does not even belong in this article.  Furthermore, the information has been inserted for the purpose of creating a POV that Israel is holding on to the territories because of the water resources, ignoring at least a half dozen other important reasons.  This has already been discussed at length above. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The information clearly belongs. Jay, if you and John Kenny need some remedial education about the water situation in the Occupied Territories, that can be addressed.  But the information belongs. Marsden 04:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that an assertion is not an argument. Jayjg (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying, Jay.  I don't think I've ever said that the water resources issue definitely does not belong in the article.  I do think that it shouldn't be the only piece of specific information presented in the article.  It seems to me that the key to NPOVing this is not to remove the water issue, which is clearly important (while, admittedly, not being uniquely important), but to add other material. john k 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip

message: Same question here.  Who finds this section to be POV, and in what way? john k 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See comment above. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Golan Heights

message: I've added a citation and some additional info on the Golan Heights. If anyone still has objections to it appearing in the article, I'd appreciate it if they list them here rather than edit-war, and possibly list what topics they feel are halal and which are haram for the article. Thanks, Andjam 12:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the resort has been moved from the Golan Heights to the West Bank. Andjam 14:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now reference to it has been removed from the article completely. Andjam, the ski resort information doesn't belong here; it makes the article ridiculous. Insert it again without a reference indicating it as an consideration in Israel's continued occupation of the Golan Heights, and I'll begin a vandalism complaint against you. Marsden 15:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, this ski resort does have some strategic importance. As noted, the Alpinistim trains there, and the Alpinistim is important—but guess why? Its main purpose is to defend Mount Hermon, and why is it important that Mount Hermon be defended? Because the headwaters of the Jordan rise there, and the Jordan supplies Israel with . . . you guessed it: fresh water. I'll see if I can find some sources on this. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ski resort 

message: I've been repeatedly accused of not citing, so I'll make the record here clear. I have cited, and Marsden deleted the citation here. In the Hermon article, I used a different citation, that one to the BBC - Regions and territories: The Golan Heights. Andjam 01:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Andjam, your link makes clear that Golan has "Israel's" only ski resort, but not that this fact has anything significant to do with why Israel maintains occupation of Golan. Marsden 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: News24 explicitly, and BBC semi-explicitly, state that the ski resort is one reason why (the Zionist entity's residents/the Zionist entity) would rather keep the Golan Heights. Andjam 05:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is your position that News24 is reporting that Israelis are willing to remain in an official state of war with a neighboring state so that they can go skiing more easily? Isn't that almost a blood libel? Marsden 06:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: I entered the ski resort thing in the Golan Heights article as per Marsden's suggestion. Andjam 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to Golan Heights article 

message: Hey, all. Just came here from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Jayjg and saw the intro. the last sentence of the intro says "The status of blah is disputed by Israel". Semantically, that doesn't make sense because "the status of blah" doesn't say what the status is, so Israel can't really 'dispute' it. If it said "The status of blah as illegal occupation is disputed by Israel" might make sense. If you can list who is in dispte with Israel, that would at least tie in with who is in "dispute", as it is, I changed it to say "the status of blah is disputed". Either list both disputants or none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FuelWagon (talk • contribs) .
:Normally, you would be correct. However, in this case, the matter is decided by virtually all of the world other than Israel and some of its supporters; it is more akin to a person found guilty of a crime and having exhausted all of his appeals still disputing his guilt: the rest of the world is content with its understanding of the situation, and it is only he who disputes the legal finding. No one actively disputes the matter on the side of those who disagree with the sometimes Israeli position that the status is something other than occupation and that the Geneva Convention etc. apply; this is accepted without question, except by Israel (and not always consistently even so) and some of its supporters. Therefore, it makes sense to say that it is disputed by Israel and some of its supporters, and not to note who disagrees: virtually everyone else disagrees. Marsden 01:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed by who and who

message: Some information was added on the history of the Golan Heights. I deleted it, but added a bit on the history of the defensive concerns, vis a vis the Heights. I don't think it is appropriate to repeat the information about the Six-Day War or the 1973 War in this article, but I understand if the editor wanted to strengthen the statement about the defensive concerns. I invite him/her to comment here about whether my adaptation is acceptable. Marsden 01:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golan Heights 

message: Zero0000 has just changed the text to indicate that Britain recognized the Jordanian annexation of East Jerusalem. Is this true?  I thought it only recognized the annexation of the West Bank. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jordan annexed the WB+Jerusalem together in a single action.  My impression was that Britain recognised that action, and ergo recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem.  However, it could be that Britain's recognition included a caveat on Jerusalem.  I've never seen the actual document and at the moment I can't find a good source on it.   --Zero 00:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, it seems British recognition was only de facto in the case of EJ.  See Ian's note on my  talk page.  Incidentally, this was the same official pronouncement in which the UK recognized Israel.  The same caveat was made wrt West Jerusalem. --Zero 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem? 

message: Alongside:
I invite User:Aiden and User:El_C to stop reverting the picture and discuss your views, please.  Spaceriqui 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about both pictures? Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about using both. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not contesting the picture of the Palestinian children. The picture in question is El C's for Gaza, which shows an IDF soldier smiling at an Israeli baby she's "evacuating" from Gaza. My picture shows a woman holding her child, obviously distraught, being removed from Gush Katif by IDF soldiers. The reason why the latter picture should be used is because it reflects reality. Of these 8,000 settlers, nearly all were adamant about Gaza being part of the Land of Israel and were not happy about the withdrawal. Using the smiling cheeful picture to illustrate the withdrawal does not reflect reality and in my mind has ulterior motives which compromise the NPOV of the article. Aiden 05:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I fixed the picture.  Spaceriqui 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that neither photo has any reasonable fair use rationale and they both should be deleted. Matt 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the first one is genuinely fairuse under the terms of the IDF (which it does live up to), whereas second one has no url to anything — it's also pro-ssttler, emotionalist propaganda, so I presume it will stay and skew the article accordingly. El_C 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See: תבנית:תמונות מאתר צה"ל. Where is the link for the second picture? How can we verify its source, aside from taking the uploader's word for it? El_C 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I found a link for it, though it's reduced. That's good enough for me, because I don't really care about copyrights, just having a source to something (or preferably, crediting the photographer and exact date, I'm willing to take the uploader's word for it, if they do that). But that aside, while I have no objection to it being used in other articles, I'm certainly not inclined to throw off the agreed upon non-tragic image balance on account of baseless insinuations that this picture was somehow ulteriolislisly special. This was an evacuation, because once the IDF leaves, these people would not have been able to survive there. Anyway, the baby is definitely being evacuated (it was taken during 3-day מבצע יד לאחים operation - perhaps his/her parents decided to stay so as to be forcefuly removed, who knows). My point was that it is counterbalanced with the Palestinian children image, and they are smiling not crying, or throwing rocks or being injured/killed. Perhaps John Kenney is also of the same mindset, that this article isn't Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, etc., since he reverted to my version. An inclusionist compromise will lead to the sort of setting most suceptible to simplistic discord; if lumpenism and chuavinism weren't a decisive factor on Wikipedia, I'd be all for having images which are much more militant, depicting the products of violent death much more explictly (white phosphallujah and beyond). The best approach is my original, so-called balanced format which invokes calm by and at the expense of circumventing the truth. All-smiles for the pathos. El_C 03:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture revert war

message: No need for me to do the talking:
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reflects customary international law, "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
This reflects Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed at Vienna on May 23, 1969, entered into force on January 27, 1980, which states that: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." It is well established that Article 27 embodies a "long accepted rule of customary law." (Louis Henkin, Richard Crawford Pugh, Oscar Schachter, Hans Smit, International Law: Cases and Materials, West Publishing, St. Paul, MN, Second Edition, 1987; p. 434). Advisory Opinion on Treatment of Polish Nationals in Danzig, 1932 P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 44, at 22.
"The law in this respect is well settled. A state cannot plead provisions of its own law or deficiencies in that law in answer to a claim against it for an alleged breach of its obligations under international law."
I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (5th ed. 1998), p. 34
"The principle that a State cannot plead the provisions (or deficiencies) of .... its constitution as a ground for the non-observance of its international obligations ... [This] is indeed one of the great principles of international law, informing the whole system and applying to every branch of it."
G. Fitzmaurice, The general principles of international law considered from the standpoint of the rule of law, 92 Recueil des Cours (1957-II), p. 85.
"[I]f a state's internal law is such as to prevent it from fulfilling its international obligations, that failure is a matter for which it will be held responsible in international law. It is firmly established that a state when charged with a breach of its international obligations cannot in international law validly plead as a defence that it was unable to fulfil them because its internal law was defective or contained rules in conflict with international law; this applies equally to a state's assertion of its inability to secure the necessary changes in its law by virtue of some legal or constitutional requirement which in the circumstances cannot be met or severe or political difficulties which would be caused. The obligation is the obligation of the state, and the failure of an organ of the state, such as a Parliament or a court, to give effect to the international obligations of the state cannot be invoked by it as a justification for failure to meet its international obligations."
R. Jennings/A. Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law, vol. I (9th ed. 1992), pp. 84 f.
"[a] state cannot adduce its constitution or its laws as a defense for failure to carry out its international obligation".
Restatement of the Law (Third), The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), vol. 1, p. 64, § 115, Comment b.
"[I]t is certain that France cannot rely on her own legislation to limit the scope of her international legal obligations ... ."
Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, Judgment, 1932, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 46, p. 167.
"It should ... be observed that ... a State cannot adduce as against another State its own Constitution with a view to evading obligations incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in force."
Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory, Advisory Opinion, 1932, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 44, p. 24.
Article 3 makes explicit a principle already implicit in article 2, namely that the characterization of a given act as internationally wrongful is independent of its characterization as lawful under the internal law of the State concerned.  There are two elements to this.  First, an act of a State cannot be characterized as internationally wrongful unless it constitutes a breach of an international obligation, even if it violates a provision of the Stateís own law.  Secondly and most importantly, a State cannot, by pleading that its conduct conforms to the provisions of its internal law, escape the characterization of that conduct as wrongful by international law.  An act of a State must be characterized as internationally wrongful if it constitutes a breach of an international obligation, even if the act does not contravene the Stateís internal law - even if, under that law, the State was actually bound to act in that way. 
(...)
That conformity with the provisions of internal law in no way precludes conduct being characterized as internationally wrongful is equally well settled.  International judicial decisions leave no doubt on that subject.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries 
As an emanation of the elementary and universally agreed maxim of pacta sunt servanda - rightly described by the International Law Commission as "the fundamental principle of the law of treaties", 211 our principle has also been included in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 27(1) of this Convention reads as follows: "A State party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform the treaty." This provision does not embody an innovative concept but restates a rule deeply rooted in general principles of international law, universally recognised at the time of the drafting of the Convention.
Under the rules of interpretation codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
According to international law, the law of treaties, Israel Foreign Ministry Legal Advisor Alan Baker
Thus he bears the further and cumulative duty so to conduct himself that the norms of Israeli Administrative Law do not release him from the duty to abide by the Laws of War. He cannot rely on those norms to avoid a duty or prohibition applicable to him under the customary Laws of War. 
: There is a complicating factor not brought out here very well.  The Israeli supreme court has taken the view that customary international law is binding on all states regardless of of their domestic legislation, but that conventional international law only binds when domestic legislation specifically brings it into the national legal framework.  Thus, they accept the Hague Conventions to be binding because they have become accepted universally as customary law, but have denied the Geneva Conventions this status on the grounds that they are not customary law.  This view explicitly violates the Vienna Convention, but Israel never ratified that convention and claims to not be bound by it.  Additional factors against this Israeli interprettation are that both the Vienna Convention and the Geneva Conventions are now regarded by the overwhelming majority of legal authorities to be customary law.  --Zero 00:46, 18 February 2y006 (UTC)
:: I think this is a bit more complicated. They might view the Geneva convention as not binding under domestic Israeli law, which is what they are set to judge after, and thus claim that one cannot apply the convention in Israeli courts. This is quite common in legal systems that have a dualistic view on the relationship between domestic and international law. That does not imply, however, that the Geneva convention is only binding upon Israel if supported by domestic legislation. It only implies that it is not incorporated in Israeli law, and thus Israeli courts cannot use it unless supported by some national legislation. The convention is still binding upon Israel, and Israel is still in breach of its international obligations if it fails to abide by it, even if it isn't incorporated in their national legal framework. The Israeli Supreme Court use Israeli legislation, but Israel's failure to abide by the Geneva Convention cannot be justified by reference to their domestic failure to implement it. --Cybbe 15:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invoking internal law as justification for failure to abide by international law 

message: This statement needs a citation on the main article page. It should be easy to do given some of the references in talk. SeattliteTungsten 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of reverts by Aiden and Slimvirgin in this matter are unreasonable and should be censured as unfriendly behavior.  Given the copious sources given here in Talk, it would have been very easy for them to choose one they find appropriate and add it to the article.  That is called cooperative editing.  Shame on both of you.  --Zero 23:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So easy in fact, that users assuming good faith would actually improve the article and source it themselves. I agree with Zero, this is shameful behaviour and the claim that a sentence have to be sourced in article instead of talk in order to not be regarded as OR is obviously false, and both these editors (should at least) know this. --Cybbe 23:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Let me reserve comments on whether the other behavior is shameful or whether they should know better.) Why don't you just add the references to the text you'd like included in the article and then there won't be the dual problem of having an edit war and having uncited statements in the article. SeattliteTungsten 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unfriendly behaviour to make ridiculous claims of OR, when the sources provided, regardless of whether they where put in talk or not, clearly show that not to be the case. It is unfriendly behaviour to choose the destructive option to get the claim sourced (removal of relevant material when you've actually seen and read the sources), instead of tagging it accordingly, asking for a reference on this talk page or actually citing it yourself with the sources available to you. It is unfriendly to enforce a so-called policy of deleting relevant material with sources provided in talk without prior discussing, when this so-called policy is applied inconsistently, even within the same section. However, this inconsistency is lucky for Wikipedia, as a majority of claims and facts are not sourced neither in talk nor in the article and a removal frenzy based on such a rationale would have drastic consequences. --Cybbe 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This argument is contrary to the principle in international law..." 

message: I think Palestinian territories and Israeli-occupied territories have (1) lots of currently overlapping material and (2) lots of material that could be included in the other article. Perhaps these can be merged at some point. (Note: one obvious difference is Golan/Sinai which are not Palestinian but are often (erroneously) included depending on which of the many terms is used.) To this end, I merged common parts of the first two paragraphs of the introduction as a start. They are not identical (Golan/Sinai) but very close. SeattliteTungsten 07:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no doubt there could be some sort of merger; the Israeli-occupied territories article was created as a POV fork by a now-banned editor. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. —Aiden 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I renamed the article following Britannica's own title and article theme: covering all territories occupied by Israel. This article provides an overview for each one; any substantive merger needs to be better defined in terms of summaries and main articles. El_C 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconciliation between [[Palestinian territories]] and [[Israeli-occupied territories]] - 1 

message: Difficult passage:
:Unlike Israeli Arabs, the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not citizens of Israel, and are not afforded the same political rights and freedoms or protections under Israeli law as Israeli citizens who live in the same areas. This includes restraints on freedom of movement, no right to vote in Israel (i.e. in any independent country), and other measures at odds with conditions in Israel and other liberal democracies. 
I made several changes and cuts to the above. Please check me for unintended POV-pushing (what some contributors call "POV edits").
The passage seems to be an editorial, arguing that Israel ought to give Gazans and West Bankers the same rights as Israelis. If this is a widely held point of view, it should be easy to find a source or two for it. --Uncle Ed 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinians and Israeli law 

message: On this same issue, once again:
We seem to be looking for an authoritative source, such as an expert in international law, who can tell us whether the Vienna Convention obliges Israel to do (blank) about some of the land it captured. I haven't followed this closely enough perhaps, but presumably this captured land was conquered by Egypt and Jordan during one war, and then re-conquered by Israel later. Anyway, we all like to call it "occupied territory" now, right?
The matter before us, as Wikipedia contributors, is to determine how to characterize the various sources which have offered their opinion on whether Israel is obliged to do (blank). This action, by the way, can be anything, like give people there better schools, or the right to vote, or easier access to jobs - all the way up to "get yer stinkin' hands off our land!" I guess. But our approach doesn't depend on how we fill in the blank.
Sorry to "lecture" you all, but I've seen this sort of contributor deadlock before, and the solution is to apply the classic formula
* X said Y about Z. 
If we can find any experts in international law, such as scholars writing in journals, we can say:
*International legal expert Ann Something said, "Israel is obliged by the convention to do A."
If we can find a court with jurisdiction (or which says they have jurisdiction):
*The Internatonal Court of B issued a ruling which said, "The Vienna Convention requires Israel to do B."
We can always quote the United Nations - they always have a quotable point of view:
*The Security Council issued a resolution saying C.
*A General Assembly vote recommended D.
Then there are the various partisans. We don't have to quote all of them, especially if their positions are substantially the same. But we should list ever significant Point of view.
* E. Z. Going of the Let's Be Friends Institute said, "That Vienna thing is outdated, man. We shouldn't try to make Israel do anything they're not ready for."
* Franz Yusef, European Representative of Arabs for Justice and Freedom, wrote: "Israel must withdraw completely from Gaza and West Bank. It's the only way to comply with international law, such as the Vienna Convention which in my opinion applies to the situation in Palestine today."
Say what kind of of expert or partisan each source is, or just give their titles and organizations. But do say that person X gave opinion Y about matter Z. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 13:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Experts and others