Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 6

message: We need a definition on terms here. While some claim that "Militant" is more NPOV, there will be others claiming that it is not NPOV because the term grants a certain legitimacy that "Terrorist" does not. ElKabong
:If "militant" is a description everyone can agree on, then it is NPOV. "Are they militant or non-militant?" If "terrorist" is not a description everyone can agree on, then it is not NPOV. "What is a terrorist?" Yodakii 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Militant or Terrorist?

message: The sidebar with the Palestinian organization emblems made an (I think extreme) POV statement: "The emblems of all major Palestinian organizations include a map of the land they claim as Palestine"  The PLO may harbor secret designs for a Palestinian state stretching between the river and the sea: it certainly seems to many that Israel does.  But whatever these entities' secret aims may be, it is accepted by very few observers (if any) that the PLO "claims the land as Palestine" when since the mid-seventies they've publicly "claimed" only the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine, endorsing a two-state solution.  If you think any other definition of "Palestine" was intended by the creators of this sidebar, then why did they have the word Palestine link to the page Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state"?    --joveis 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The territorial ambitions of Hamas are no secret. As for Palestine, what comprises "historical" Palestine is a matter of some debate - the images provided comprise part of the British Mandate. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The table shows and describes (in NPOV way, I think) factual emblems of major Palestinian groups. Expressing our opinions about some alleged "secret aims", "secret designs", the nature of their claims, or guessing "whether they represent any current policy" would be POV on our side, and that is why, with all due respect, I am going to revert User:Jove Is Mad's edit. There's been long discussion about this table, please get familiar with it before you proceed. BTW, if their own official symbols consistently misrepresent their own declared policies, that cognitive dissonance makes it doubly appropriate for an encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the proposals for a Palestinian state page is a better place for this POV emblem.  It makes no sense to put it in the general conflict page.  If there are no objections, I will move it there.Heraclius 01:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I'll have to object: the fact that these emblems brandish maps of the entire State of Israel constitutes a crucial part of the conflict. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but this is a general overview of the conflict.  They would be more suitable to the proposals for a Palestinian state page, and you know it.Heraclius 02:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respectfully disagree: this article is not called General overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even today, these emblems very consistently brandish map of a neighboring state (clearly a part of the conflict), but you are trying to pose it as a mere "proposal for a Palestinian state". I can't comprehend what makes it "more suitable to the proposals for a Palestinian state page", but I see repeated unsubstantiated attempts to hide them away. An encylopedia is supposed to systematize relevant facts, not hide them. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heraclius is absolutely correct that this should be moved.  All elements of the conflict are crucial elements.  But first, the statement "the land they claim as Palestine" must be removed as POV.  Jayjg, you are well aware that the PLO's "claims" differ from those of Hamas.  Humus, none of us are "Expressing our opinions about ... "whether [these emblems] represent any current policy"" except you.  The text I proposed simply declares that these are disputed positions, which is accurate.  I'm going to revert to this accurate text, from which we can go forward (with emendations, not reversions, Humus) toward compromise: perhaps some text could be added to clarify Hamas' position and satisfy Jayjg.  In moving forward, please amend: don't revert. --joveis 22:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave it even more thought and decided that concision might be the route to compromise.  So as a gesture of good faith I deleted the (accurate) disclaimer about disputed interpretations of the emblems, with the understanding that future versions of the page will not falsely assert that the PLO opposes a two-state solution. Cool? --joveis 00:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version works for me. If you still think there is a need to describe the dispute, please do it in the text, not inside the table. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, what is the rationale for keeping a table of emblems about proposed Palestinian states in this article and jamming it in the middle of an overview section?Heraclius 04:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV section on Palestinian emblems 

message: While grateful for the introduction of so many Israel-Palestine texts into the Further Reading section, I chose to alphabetize these texts, removing an attempted classification scheme which represented significant Original Research into the relative merits of these texts and an implicit POV view towards their contents. 
--joveis 22:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ISBN is helpful for two reasons (only one relevant here): we have an ISBN-based automated tool that generates a page linking to possible sources of a book (libraries and online stores). The other (irrelevant) reason is that when a work is specifically cited, ISBN clarifies the edition. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: Please explain what is this "proposal" about and what makes it not a part of the conflict? Imagine that on their official symbols Pakistan would brandish map of India, or Germany a map of Sudetenland, or Mexico - the USA. Would it constitute a conflict or merely a "proposal"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunate choice of words on my side. I've renamed this section to make its subject clear. These emblems indeed raise a lot of "emotional resonances" and therefore are a part of the conflict. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parading map of Israel in official emblems of Palestinian orgs is a part of the conflict 

message: A recently added link, Russia as a Bridgehead of HAMAS, goes to an article on the Axis Information and Analysis. I'd be interested in others' thoughts on the appropriateness of the link; also on should we perhaps have an article on Axis Information and Analysis, I can't quickly get a handle on who they are, where they are coming from, whether they are a reliable source, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A recently added link 

message: The following text has been added today:
:Israel has now completed its withdrawal from Gaza with the result that the are is now a haven for terrorist organizations. The Palestinian Authority, is an authority in name only and has no "authority" at all. It can not contorol its own Fatah soldiers, nevertheless control the Hams or Islamic Jihad organizations. People are people, Jewish or Arab, they can be good or bad, but only as individuals and only as well as they are taught. The Israeli Palestinian problem, is really an Israeli Jordanian problem as there is no Palestinian country, it is an area of Jordan take over by the State of Israel and was never an independent area and the Palestinian people never were a seperate people under the Jordanian regime. Jerusalem, was never a part of Islamic history. It is a rallying cry started by Yasser Arafat to bring a defeated people together in a terrorist movement.
This looks like an original research. It does not matter what we the editors think, unless a verification is presented, this can not get into the article. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR in History section 

message: Why are the Armenians linked as a relevant ethnicity? There is no mention of them elsewhere in the article; I'm unaware of them playing any significant role in the conflict. On the other hand, Druse is conspicuous by its absence. 
I haven't been particularly active in this article, so I'll give a day or two for a response before I edit accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicities 

message: "People who sympathize with Palestinians tend to view"
"Many tend to view the armed Palestinian resistance"
"some extend this view to justify attacks"
--Dfeuer 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the phrase "people who sympathize with Palestinians" should be replaced. It is completely meaningless since it is very easy to sympathize with Palestinians and NOT view the conflict as an illegal military occupation. I'm not sure what an adequate replacement would be. GabrielF 03:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: The OED defines conflict (the noun) as:
An encounter with arms; a fight, battle.
esp. A prolonged struggle.
(without article or pl.) Fighting, contending with arms, marital strife.
transf. and fig.
A mental or spiritual struggle within a man.
The clashing or variance of opposed principles, statements, arguments, etc.
and another couple definitions entirely irrelevant here.  I don't think any of these definitions permits the use of the word “conflict” in the places I have tagged it as inappropriate.
--Dfeuer 08:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of "conflict" 

message: This sentence in the history section seems both POV and simplistic. Probably needs both rewording and elaboration. 
:2005: Ariel Sharon – After hundreds of years, Sharon eventually ordered his people to leave the lands that belong to Palestinians. It can be immoral for Jews in Israel, and moral for Palestinians, but it is just. Thus Sharon mitigated the Israeli-Palestinian war.
惑乱 分からん 21:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The article speaks of Gaza disengagement as something which has not yet happened. AnonMoos 20:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to fix that. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs update

message: Ed Poor, your edits were completely POV and totally unwarranted.  To change the entire name of the topic from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Arab nationalism in modern Palestine" is totally unacceptable.  Lokiloki 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why here - not just on my talk page. --Uncle Ed 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed Poor

message: I agree in part with John Kenney, and here is a sentence from the new intro:
:Much of it has to do with competing nationalistic aspirations of Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians, but it is also related to Pan-Arabism.
Since (as you say) it is absurd to talk about Arab/Palestinian nationalism as the cause of the conflict without referring to Zionism as an alternate cause I have mentioned Jewish nationalistic aspirations in Palestine right along with Arab nationalistic aspirations.
I have no desire to reduce the article to one simplistic explanation. This is not a final draft, just my latest stab at crafting a neutral intro: one which neither endorses nor condemns any point of view. I'm not saying Jews, Israelis or Zionists are right in hanging onto West Bank, etc. But I'm not saying they are wrong to do so, either. In fact, I'm not giving my own opinion at all and I challenge you to discern my actual opinion out of anything I've added to the article (or taken away from it). Same for Arabs, Palestinian Arabs, or Islamists, or Muslims: I'm not for them and I'm not against them. 
I'm just trying to write an encyclopedia article here: not trying to make an argument to persuade the reader that any particular side is right or wrong. I would like a little help describing WHAT the various sides have SAID that they want, along with (if possible) the reasons THEY GAVE as to why they feel their desires are right, good, justifiable, due, etc. --Uncle Ed 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New intro

message: Do we have an article on Palestinian nationalism, and if we do would be about nationalism and/or nationalistic aspirations in Palestine?
:Er, we do have such an article.  You can read it, if you like. It seems like a pretty good article.  At any rate, Ed, why don't you explain on the talk page what you object to in the current article, and try to see if we can arrive at some consensus that would satisfy everybody, rather than these continual clumsy efforts to unilaterally edit the article to your liking?  john k 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalism in Palestine

message: I wonder when I read these Israeli/Palestinian articles there seems to be such a heavy bias toward Israel?  For example - there is very little mention of Israel's occupation of the West Bank.  Yet International agencies and NGO's all consider Palestinian territory occupied, and as such consider Israel to be responsible for those persons under their control.  Just wondering...can anyone tell me? NadineG 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give specific examples of bias from the article, please? —Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I gave a clear example...occupation?  There is no mention of what has been declared occupation by International bodies?  NadineG 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you are referring to Israeli-occupied territories, Status of territories captured by Israel, Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict, a slew of different articles.  This article is more of a general overview of the conflict, which does not take a particular side.  Interestingly,  International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict is linked on this page, within :Template:Politics of Israel.  Do you have any good ideas as to what you want to add to the article, after visiting those links?  —Viriditas | Talk 03:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HI all....question 

message: It's not between all Israel and all Palestinians because a significant portion of Israel's citizens are Arabs (see Israeli Arabs). And a significant group of Palestinians are Palestinian Jews. --Uncle Ed 19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A war or conflict is rarely between all the citizens of one country or the other. When we speak of what the Germans did in World War II, we rarely include the German Jews in that. When we speak of American attitudes toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we don't usually bother to mention the small number of Americans who were active sympathizers with Soviet communism. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  parties to the conflict 

message: Hi all, I was just wondering if there is room for such a section here, or if there the topic is already covered on another related page.  In addition to the PA, Israeli Government, UN, USA, etc, there are also a ton of civil society groups and NGOs working for peace and co-existence.  Shalom Achshav, CJAED, etc.  Gershonw 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe under Organizations and armed forces, you could add a subsection called Peace organizations. George100 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil-society and NGOs working for peace?? 

message: Well, I was reading over the 5-6 paragraphs of this article, and I thought they had a subtle Israeli POV. It mentions that Palestinians had problems with Israelis, and were dealing with them militarily, with attacks against civilians. Then again, it states that Israel retaliates in legitimate self-defence. Nowhere does it mention that Israel also makes attacks against civilians. --Anarkial 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: examples? -- tasc talkdeeds 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: This section is a little too large to be useful and should be broken up into subsections.
The categories I've come up with are: News Media, Reports and commentary, and Organizations. 
George100 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Changed "Prime minister Ariel Sharon" to "now comatose former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon"
Changed "Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert" to "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert"
Changed some other slight errors (not real errors, just updates with current information). i. e. Sharons own Likud Party (he had since left that party and created his own, called Kadima.). etc....
(38.117.234.130 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I fixed some errors.... 

message: Editors of this article might be interested in this CfD on Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon Raphael1 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: It seems to me, that the choice of words is not neutral in this article:
While violent acts perpetrated by the IDF is refered to as incursion, violent acts perpetrated by Palesinians is continuously refered to as terrorism. While there might be reasons for this diction (a frequently stated reason is that Palestinian resistance deliberately attacks innocent people), it is certainly not neutral, because Palestinians and many people in the Muslim world wouldn't accept that choice of word since they frequently call violent acts perpetrated by the IDF "states terrorism". I'd suggest to use a common word for violent activity perpetrated by both Israelis and Palestinians. I.e. bomb/military "attack" Raphael1 02:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most of the time we use specific wording like "suicide bombing" wherever possible. "Incursion" is a pretty standard term in the Western media and it is accurate without being particularly loaded. I can't think of a better word to describe the current situation for example. Doing a quick search, I see that there are only two places in the article where the word terrorism is used - one to describe the Israeli perspective on the conflict, and the other to describe the terms of the Road Map. In both cases use of the word terrorism is justified because they refer to a qualification that others have made, not one that wikipedia is making. GabrielF 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How should a reader recognize that the phrase "terrorist groups" in this sentence is not a qualification wikipedia is making? "Israel currently plans on expanding existing large West Bank settlement blocs, and maintains the current impasse in the peace process [...] cannot be restarted until the Palestinian government dismantles terrorist groups." Raphael1 12:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should either be reworded as "…dismantles what Israel characterizes as terrorist groups" or a direct quotation should be used. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV diction 

message: I've just requested a peer review for Operation Wrath of God, which was a campaign directed by the Mossad to kill those responsible for the 1972 Munich Massacre.  Obviously this was a major event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions.  Thanks.--Joshdboz 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Request 

message: Our link to http://www.historyguy.com/israeli-palestinian_conflict.html] (The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict) is described as "An unbiased, objective overview of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians from 1948 through the present day. From the History Guy Website". I'm not saying that it is deliberately biased, but it is not so unbiased that we should single it out and describe it this way. In this version of history, the Palestinians always "attack" and the Israelis "respond". The Palestinian actions are described in terms of deaths and havoc; the Israeli actions in terms of goals. I could say more about its problems, and I'm not saying it should not be linked (it's a reasonably informative site) but it seems to me to be totally out of line to praise its lack of bias and its objectivity. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the words "unbiased, objective", but still classified it with the other essentially neutral sites. - Jmabel | Talk 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An unbiased, objective overview"?