Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 6

message: *I agree with the proposal to merge. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[History of Arab-Israeli Conflict]] 

message: This article states that "The Arabs had rejected the November 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed the establishment of Arab and Jewish states in Palestine." This implies that there was conflict between Arabs and Jews since before the UN Partition Plan. If this is the case, what was it about and why is it not referenced in this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is Israeli-Palestinian conflict timeline. There's been plenty of violence: Riots in Palestine of 1920, Jaffa riots, Riots in Palestine of 1929, Great Uprising (the latter should be renamed, IMHO) and alongside of that, no shortage of peace proposals, conferences, etc. Perhaps we should we add a small section. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested 

message: Why are you hiding the connection between the Jewish-Arab conflict in the days of Muhammad to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Read the article Jewish-Arab conflict, especially this section, and see that there is a connection! Toya 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense for Jewish-Arab conflict article, but not for Arab-Israeli conflict article. - Jgritz 05:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The connection between the Jewish-Arab conflict in the days of Muhammad to the Arab-Israeli conflict 

message: The opening paragraph of the entry states that the conflict is cocnerning the "self-determination of the Jews in the Land of Israel and, after the establishment of the state of Israel, its relations with the Arab states and the Palestinian population (see Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I think this statement is erroneously summarizing the pre 48 arab position. The Palestinian Mandate wiki is extremely clear that Arabs were unhappy about Jewish migration, not voting. A better opening would state: "migration of Jews into the Palestinian Mandate and, after the establishment of the State of Israel, its relations with the Arab states and the Palestinian population" Dothivalla 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified the introduction to incorporate both concepts; certainly many people now claim there is no issue with Jews living in Israel, but rather that they take issue with them having their own state. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great :-)Dothivalla 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, also language-wise something seemed not to work before. gidonb 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: This section claims that majorities in Palestinian polls support attacks on Israeli civilians. No cite is given. Here are the three polling bodies that regularly poll the Palestinian population. None support the statement.
http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/opinion.html 
http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp/DSPNEW/polls/opinion_polls.htm 
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/survey.html 
Interestingly over 69% of Palestinians favored Negotiations in December of 2004. Only 41% favor any military operations in 2005. Thats a far cry from the current article which makes the uncited claim that the majority of Palestinians are for attacking civilians. I am commenting out the claim until someone can cite it with a reputable poll.Dothivalla 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure the source must be given. Doesn't e.g. Fig.6 in  look convincing enough? I would love to believe that the Palestinian attitudes became more peaceful lately, but the victory of Hamas in the elections of Jan. 2006 proves me wrong. You chose really unfortunate time to paint them peace-loving. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be assured that the victory of Hamas had very little to do with the movement's attitude towards Israel and was more disgust with both Fatah's corruption and the suffocating status quo in general. Support for bombings has decreased significantly since 2003 (which Figure 6 doesn't go beyond), as seen in this more recent JMCC study. It is probably even lower now. Ramallite (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly doubt that they are unreservedly pro-peace as well. Thats why when I made my change I took away the qualifiers saying most palestinians have one position over another and left it as three simple positions. Lets also remember that the statement is about attack on civilians versus military targert. Over time all of the ratios spike and fall back down (figure 6 was in the high 20s until it spiked to 76% before beginning its gradual decline again). I might play with some of hte language a bit...but won't mess with the content until checking back in. Dothivalla 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legit of war against Israel 

message: Originally no explanation was given for deleting the link to "http://www.ifamericansknew.org/". The page cites a slew of casualty figures from both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. The page has an extremely pro-Palestinian bent to it, highlighting statistics that make Palestinians appear to suffer fgreater than Israelis. I re-added the page as a cite with an Arab-POV. The page was deleted again, apparently because its a "propaganda page." Well of course its a propaganda page, thats why we have it listed with all of the other pro-Arab propaganda pages. We do the same thing with the Israeli propaganda pages. What criteria are we using for listed pages in the Israeli/Arab POV sections? Dothivalla 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expressing a POV and being a propaganda page are different things; if a website expresses a pro-Arab POV, but is itself well-written or reasonably encyclopedic, and provides significant content which cannot be found in the article, then it's worth linking.  If, on the other hand, it's pure propaganda that provides little valuable content, then it shouldn't be added.  A good rule of thumb might be "If I added this information to the article itself, would it improve it"? In this case the answer is clearly "No". Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On both counts I think the site should be included. Its got heavy spin to be sure, but everythng it cites is factual (just selectively drawn). At the end of the day it is presenting a case that says that its not in America's interest to support Israel. It does it by showing the disproportionate suffering of Palestinians in the conflict. It cites all of its statistics, and provides links to other pro-Palestinian opinions. Its about as valuable as the pro-Israeli . I really don't see the difference between the two.Dothivalla 06:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "everythng it cites is factual (just selectively drawn)" is a terrible argument. Please take a look at this Site Analysis. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's actually not very likely that everything it says is factual; there are some obvious factual errors (intentional or otherwise) in the page linked to.  Furthermore, the degree of selectivity in its choices moves this page from the "pro-Palestinian" camp into the "propaganda" camp.  It simply does not qualify as a reliable source, and so could not be used to add any information to this article.  It would be an appropriate link in an article about the IfAmericansNew website, and it might well be an appropriate link as an example in an article about propaganda, but it is certainly not an encyclopedic source, and so not appropriate for this article. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: B'Tselem is an advocacy group, and their statistics is flawed as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are mischaracterizing the issue. It is not about Arab POV vs. Israeli POV, but rather about encyclopedic links vs. non-encylopedic links.  Links should be to citeable sites which contain information which might be included in the article, but is currently not in there.  The "IfAmericansNew" site is not citeable, therefore it should not be included. There are good pro-Palestinian sites (and articles) around, and they can certainly be included. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One that the Israelis are winning. Exactly why sites like that should be included and Pro-Israeli members don't want to see itDothivalla 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless of politics I don't think the website is very good quality. I didn't learn anything there that I could have learnt by reading the BBC link. Overall I'd like to see the link list trimmed down to about 4 or 5 links. Maybe BBC, The Guardian, the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government. Otherwise it becomes a linking content and wikipedia is not a link directory. I don't see why we need newspaper links here. We could just put a link to DMOZ Israel-Palestine section and cut out the rest. Any takers?? --Jgritz 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Dothivalla, please clarify wht do you mean by saying "the Israelis are winning" the "child-killing ... competition". That the IDF intentionally targets Palestinian civilians for mass killing? So far I assumed good faith, but you make it difficult. Here's another one to your collection of "jokes": . ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dothivalla, you seem to have misunderstood a number of policies, among them WP:AGF.  The site should not be included because it is a poor quality site.  Period.  There are at least 5 other pro-Palestinian links of higher quality in the article already, far more than the 2 pro-Israel sites. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said on my post on "18:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Americans Knew website 

message: I'm concerned about the re-organization of the arguments here.  The information being moved to the Israeli area is often placed in sections not all that strongly related to it.  A better article would have sub-sections on the same topic, e.g. International law. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say subsection do you meant having an "Israeli View" sections devoted to "International Law"? That sounds great. Dothivalla 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about re-organization 

message: "Some groups fear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a part of (or precursor to) a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world"
How are we defining Western World here? Does it refer to European Christian countries? But then Japan is considered a part of the Western World, and is neither European nor Christian. Is Japan also "clashing" head to head with the "Arab or Muslm world" in this percieved war of civilizations? Religiously, Israel is predominantly Jewish (just under 80%) not Chritsian, and over 50% is culturally Arab (and I do include Arab Christians, Arab Muslims and Arab Jews), so how is Israel a part of the Western World and how could its conflict be a part of the perceived clash of civilizations? (I will concede the people and the culture that run Israel are European (ie. Ashkenazi.) Then there is the mistake of equating Arab with Muslim. And finally, some Arab countries are now considered a part of the Western World, at least by economic and living standards (UAE.)
Maybe we could say the clash between the Muslim world and Judeao-Christian world, but that's assuming Jews (were even here too there are ethnic division) and Christians (including Arab Christians) see themselves as a "world", and that's also assuming that Judeao-Christian could be the only team up, as if there were no Judaeo-Muslim or Islamo-Christian world view (at least for some people). Maybe you could say the clash between the Arab world and Jewish world, but that's assuming these two categories are exclusive of one another, ignoring the existance of Arab Jews
Maybe we could forget religion all together, and concentrate on culture and say between the Western World and Eastern World, but that's if we count Israel as a Western country because of the Jews from Europe and their European Western culture and values, but again by doing this we deny the other half of Israel's Jews, the Jews of the Middle East (Mizrahim) and their Middle Eastern culture and values. Is there also a clash of civilizations between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim/Sephardim? Some would agree that there is. Why not mention that too, seeing that it'd add just as much to the article as the sentence in question.
Now really, what really is the point of the sentence? It stinks of POV and adds absolutely nothing to the article. Al-Andalus 05:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You personal views are predictible, if nothing else.  Nevertheless, some groups, likely affected by Huntingdon's Clash of civilizations, see the Arab-Israeli conflict is a pre-cursor to a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world.  No need to remove fact from an article simply because of your personal views regarding Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi Jews etc. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As predictible as the apathy you have towards any view other than your own. Al-Andalus 08:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world?

message: I propose putting "refugee issues" under mutual claims with both points of view.  The separate sections in "Israeli views" and "Palestinian views" repeat each other a little bit and it might make more sense to have one section with all of the issues documented, like textbooks, etc  What do others think?  elizmr 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote earlier, I think that separating views into Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian/Arab sections is not encyclopedic because this leaves a reader who didn't go through the entire article with a dangling assertion without giving the other side an opportunity to respond. IMHO, it would be better either to consolidate arguments by subject, or at least provide internal links. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocate the two "refugee issues" sections to "mutual claims"?? 

message: With the many controversial facets of this conflict, not to the mention the myriad explanations for each and every one of them, I'm proud of the Wikipedia community and all of the editors involved for the maturity, responsibility, and general goodwill they have shown towards one another.  These kinds of debates can get heated, and here as on any other controversial article, but the lack of edit-protection or a "Disputed NPOV" tag is very heartening.  Busy as I am with projects "IRL," I can't contribute much to this article, let alone read it in its entirety for quite some time.  I just wanted to stop by for now and congratulate everyone on the fantastic job they've done in handling the article so delicately.  Keep up the great work! Red1 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations on article 

message: This Is Not by anyways a neutral article it's clearly leaning towards Israel.
The Whole Article must be rewritten.
Hi, I am new to this article, but it looks like many editors have contributed many viewpoints.  I especially like the way views are presented with intros saying there are many points of view on both sides.  I learned a great deal from reading.  It might be more helpful than the above if you could say exactly what you object to and sign and maybe also read previous discussion which may have addressed some of the issues that you feel are important.  Also, I think Wikipedia would like us to sign our comments.  elizmr 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It's important that editors raise specific points to allow discussion and resolution of any problems. There are falsehoods in the article, but they can be addressed one by one using the best sources available. --Ian Pitchford 17:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, but I would venture to say, "if there are falsehoods," rather than state that there are falsehoods.   If the sections are to inform others, just stating an opinion(even if one really really really believes it is right from a moral, ethical, or historical point of view) isn't all that helpful since these sections are written as a community project and don't in themselves have an "authorative" stamp, as a textbook written by a recognized authority might.  Good articles here need to rest on citation of credible sources.  That being said, one of the things I like about Wikipedia, and the reason I'm contributing, is that unlike a text written by one source, there IS an opportunity for many differences of opinion to be expressed side by side.  These articles have the potential to be "truer" than (and superior to) other sources of information because of this.  elizmr 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Is Not Neutral 

message: I am unclear on the value of the new background section.  It seems as though much of this data is (or should be) presented in the History or Reasons for the Conflict section.  Dor example, the role of the superpowers is already included in the page.  I am going to delete this new addition -- if there is a strong case for it, please let me know and it can be restored.
Lokiloki 14:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually explained the idea at the top of this page (I guess it should have gone at the bottom?). Anyway, the idea was to discuss some of the main groups involved in the conflict outside the limited scope of a historical timeline. I do like the discussion of the role of the superpowers that is currently in the article, but I believe that the order of the article is awkward. Nloth 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Background Section 

message: I really can't see why it is necessary to move all of these paragraphs around.  I really can't see what it is adding to the article or anything, I don't see it as changing a POV or anything, I merely think it is a tremendous distraction, accomplishes little, and is really kinda irritating.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones, in particular, do you have issues with?  There is a lot of redundant information presented and I am trying to either group it together or reduce it.  I worked as an editor (in real life) for some time, so I suppose it is just my way of adding value.  As you probably saw, I also added additional information besides just moving things around. Lokiloki 06:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I know... which rearrangements do you have issues with?  I can't really address your concerns without an example.  I didn't move much.  It may look like I moved a lot, but I think that Wikipedia shows something as moved when, for instance, I simply insert a paragraph break, or add an additional comment. Lokiloki 07:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a few other ones, but I thought this edit : , was the most superfluous and I didn't understand your interpretation of why the paragraph belonged elsewere.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heheh...; well, check out the edit immediately before that one .  I actually ADDED that paragraph myself... and then immediately after adding it, decided it was better in the section I finally moved it to and which you are commenting on.  Next time, I will try to make sure that my additions are in the place that I ultimately feel that they best reside.  Editing, at least for me, often means adding content, reading it several times afterwards, and deciding that it might be better somewhere else, or deciding that I need to edit my contribution.  I was taught that to revise, revise, revise, revise, and revise again is always the best strategy. Lokiloki 08:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loloki's moving around of sections 

message: Could just someone explain what is the reason for having NPOV tag. I don't care about who added it and who removed. Just tell me why! --tasc 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The big problem I have with it is the emphasis given to the map of the Arab League. I'm quite happy for that map to continue to be in the article, but not for it to (a) be the first thing you see when you open this article and (b) to exist without an explaination of the role of the Arab League in the conflict. I know I'm not alone in this view - look through talk and you'll see a lot of different people raising problems with the map, and the same few people defending it. I made an attempt in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Israeli_conflict&oldid=43850317#The_Arab_League, but it was removed by LokiLoki. I'm quite happy for someone to do a better job that what I did, but I continue to believe that showing the map in the way we are at the moment gives a misleading impression of the conflict. LokiLoki has removed the NPOV at the moment anyway (for reasons unrelated to this discussion), but I'm inclided to add it back. I'm very happy to discuss first, though! Nloth 06:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If we could find a better quality political map would you support moving the current one furhter down the article and putting the new one in? Nloth 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better quality political map showing completely Egipt, saudi arabia, jordan, siria and lebanon? hm, will be hard to find. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your suggestion on an alternative map, there are already plenty of maps below that show various arrows into Israel.  Furthermore, as I said, this is NOT a country versus country conflict, but more accurately a people versus a people conflict.
Lokiloki 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Loki, this is country-country conflict in a first place. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I will get rights to an English version... Lokiloki 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replacing it with a map of the west bank settlements won't help. I'll continue to argue that isn't NPOV, because it shows more than the basic, agreed geographical and political facts. I think a plain map of the geography of the region is the way to go (or no map at all above the article contents) Nloth 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is here, that there is no such thing as agreed geographical and political facts. Plane geographical map is totally useless. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: agreed. --tasc 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for NPOV tag 

message: I am hereby classifying this article as POV.  Moshe's continual assertion and editing to indicate that Palestinians "left Israel" is POV.  It is POV to represent the expulsion and flight of Palestinians as having "left Israel".  This article will remain as disputed until this statement properly reflects the fact of the eviction and flight of Palestinians after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.  To somehow make this eviction more benign by using words like "left" would be akin to saying that the Cherokee's left along the trail of tears.- Loki
I sorry Loki but you are clearly confused in this situation, The only place I added "left" is in reference to the absentee property act, I dont believe that the Palestinans simply left Israel and I'm not asserting it.  The law however doesn't only include Palestinans who fled Israel, but also Palestinans who simply "left" at any point in the nations history.  If your going to make a fuss over it I will add remove it until you calm down and realize what I actually am saying.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... I have removed the NPOV and changed the wording of the sentence to reflect what you are saying.  Lokiloki 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, in the future maybe you could ask me to clarify before you jump to a conlusion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: LokiLoki, could you please take more care with your editing - including reading other bits of talk? Moshe and I had been having a discussion about NPOV of this article for a day or so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab-Israeli_conflict#NPOV) and you've made it very difficult to figure out exactly what we are both trying to say because of your large number of (somewhat confusing) edit. Thanks. Nloth 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute

message: The figures in the graph entitled "Israel's resources as a % of Arab states" are doubtful (and unreferenced). I did the "Area" calculation (based on country areas from Wikipedia) and I found that Israel is either 0.160% or 0.161% (not 0.15%) the area of the Arab League (depending on if you include Eritrea or not). By my calulations, the area of Arab League is 12,853,029 (without Eritrea) or 12,974,349 (with Eritrea included). Israel's area is listed as 20,770 sq. km. Nloth 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This bar graph is redundant and apparently factually incorrect, and should probably be removed. Lokiloki 04:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect figures in graph 

message: I've added a section called "Background" (anyone have a better name) to discuss some of the main actors in the conflict. I've also moved the map of the Arab League to that section and replaced it with a more detailed map of the middle east. Please feel free to fill in more background - I'd especially like a discussion of the change from Arab nationalism to militant Islam as a primary motivation of groups in the conflict after the end of the cold war. I believe that is widely accepted, but isn't discussed in this article. Nloth 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background