Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 1

message: Jayjg, your edits seem a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines.  You should not be making edits to this page solely for the purpose of retaliation against another user for changes that user made on a different page, whether that user violated an "agreement" or not.  I have provided specifc reasons why the more specific article should be merged into this one.  You have not provided any reason for doing it the other way.  In fact it doesn't make sense, since you say you want an article on the more general topic. Brian Tvedt 02:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, how do you feel about Marsden's subsequent reversion of your article merger, and move of your article back to its old name - "good faith"? Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg's "oops" and "no good faith" edits 

message: This is a true merge, integrating the text of the other article into this one, not a simple blanking and redirect.  There are still rough spots and I may not have removed all duplication.
There seems to be consensus on the direction of the merge, as nobody raised any specific objection to merging in the direction I proposed and argued for.  Also, we all apparently agree that the scope of the article should be territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war.
As to the title, I favor Territories under Israeli control which seems neutral, and doesn't suffer from the objections of "occupied territory" or "disputed territory". Brian Tvedt 02:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll point the other article here as well. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Territories under Israeli control" is just silly, and very POV. Isn't Tel Aviv a territory under Israeli control? "Occupied" will, of course, face objections from the rightwing extremists here, but it is the only accurate term that describes the situation in a NPOV fashion. It is the term used by all non-Israeli governments in the world, all major academic institutions, all major news agencies, etc. This isn't Fox News, we shouldn't create our own 'fair and balanced' presentation, we should present the factual situation (and note objections from significant minorities). --saxet 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Look, we can certainly agree on some sort of name, but Marsden's continually creating POV forks is getting out of hand.  Let's have one article, and we'll work out the name and contents of that one.  Brian has merged everything there, this is the best starting place. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged from [[Occupation of the Palestinian territories]] 

message: Do Israeli supporters say that this situation is consistent with democracy? If so, okay, but if no source is made handy, it should probably be rephrased. El_C 12:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they say that Israel is a democracy and seem to be saying that the West Bank is part of Israel. Brian Tvedt 01:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent with democracy 

message: In line with the elimination of any reference to "occupation" in the title, I'm going to change all direct uses of the term "Israel" to "the Zionist Entity," or some variation of that.  As most of you probably know, many countries do not recognize the State of Israel, and many people throughout the Muslim world do not acknowledge its existence, so it would be POV to use that term:  "Israel" is pro-Israeli POV; "Zionist Entity" is NPOV; and things like "den of vipers" or "blight upon the earth" are Palestinian/Arab POV. 
While some of you may think that this is outrageous, it really isn't, or at least it is less outrageous than the fait accompli of eliminating direct references to "Israeli occupation" because that term is POV.  It is official Wikipedia policy that cultural bias is NPOV, and worldwide, there is much more dispute as to whether the State of Israel is legitimate than there is as to whether Israel occupies the Occupied Territories.
Obviously, I'm going to have an awful lot of editting to do all throughout Wikipedia in order to eliminate the POV term "Israel," so I'll welcome help from wherever I can get it.  I'll allow a day or so for people to comment. Marsden 13:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm been working to clean up the Israel/Palestinian articles from what I consider to be a pro-Israeli bias. I'm a secular jew and feel that quite a few of the other editors are hardcore right-wing Israeli Nationalists (who let their personal POV saturate the articles). But this suggestion from you is beyond pale, and I will help make sure that you don't have any success with your enterprise. Of course it is outrageous that the hardline group has almost managed to erase all references to the fact that territories are/have been occupied. It doesn't excuse any effort to eliminate the name "Israel", which all countries recognize as the name of Israel, even if some countries do not recognize the legality of Israel's claim to land. --saxet 13:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, mistaken about all countries recognizing the name "Israel," unless you mean it in the sense only of understanding what it means.  You can research that if you like.  It really is, from a world-wide perspective, more outrageous to eliminate references to "Israel's occupation" than to eliminate references to "Israel."  You can research that, too.  I would like very much not to have to replace "Israel" with "the Zionist Entity" throughout Wikipedia; frankly, I agree with you that, however much different people may object to it, "Israel" is still a broadly used and internationally and legally recognized term and everyone understands what it means.  But if POV sensitivities are such that references to "Israel's occupation" have disappeared, it should be clear that neutrality demands that references to "Israel" itself should disappear.  I'd prefer that they both stay/be replaced, but it's a battle that is being lost.  Would you be willing to lend a hand in restoring references to "Israel's occupation?"  Marsden 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:POINT is my comment at this time. El_C 13:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I infer from this that you are willing to help restore references to "Israel's occupation?"  Marsden 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not from this you can't. But, yes, I am in favour of such references. El_C 20:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You have a serious issue if you believe that a country (and its Name) recognized by the UN are POV. I will do my best, within Wikipedia limits, to avoid those changes to stick. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a serious issue if you don't understand that any POV is a POV, regardless how widely it is held, and that if Wikipedia agrees, as it does, that POVs that are very widely held are acceptable as "facts", it agrees to that for all such POVs.Grace Note 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And what have you two worthies done about the effort to eliminate any direct reference in Wikipedia to Israel being an occupying power?  Does your selective outrage have something to do with skin color? Marsden 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Suppress an anti-Israeli viewpoint, get appointed to the arbcom; suppress a pro-Israeli viewpoint, you're a vandal. Draw your own conclusions. Grace Note 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Polonius, do you agree or disagree that Wikipedia should have a consistent policy about what terms are not directly used because they are POV?  All I'm asking for is consistency, and if "Israel" and "Occupied" are not to be used directly together, then the term "Israel" itself, which, world-wide, is far more objected to than "Israeli occupied," must also be.  Marsden 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Marsden, my problem is that you are not asking for consistancy, you are threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  No matter how right or wrong you are, I think it is absolutely terrible precedent to allow the sort of threat you made to work as a rhetorical device. If this approach to resolving arguments is used repeatedly, Wikipedia will either fall apart or become so annoying to edit that no one will want to do so.  I would have been willing to weigh in on the issue of Israeli occupation  under other circumstances (for example, a request on my Talk page), but I will not do so under the threat that otherwise you will systematically vandalize thousands of articles. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding POV terms 

message: Brian, in the terminology section, these positions are not stated as fact, but as argument. In attributing that argument to the settlers and their supporters, you're qualifying it. The section already says that these are arguments used by Israel's supporters. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I now accept that you are attributing it to "Israel's supporters".  That being said, I don't think it's a valid summary of what "supporters of Israel" believe.  There are many people (such as Peace Now) who consider themselves supporters of Israel, but don't assert that Jews have a "claim" to the West Bank that trumps the 3+ million Palestinians who live there.  Attributing this argument to the settler's movement, as I did, is more accurate. Brian Tvedt 10:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because we list the arguments that are among those used by Israel's supporters doesn't mean that all supporters use all the arguments. The point is that not only the settler movement uses those arguments. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the wording, so it is now about people who object to the term "occupied", which is more accurate anyway, since there are  supporters of Israel who do object to the term. Jayjg (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact v argument 

message: Marsden, did you do a cut and paste move of this talk page?  That's a big no no. john k 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did.  Why is it a big no no? Marsden 13:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what's going on here, but we've lost the page history (of the article), and I can't find a way to restore it. I moved the page back when I saw Marsden had changed it, but I didn't realize he had made a cut-and-paste move, so maybe something I did caused the history to disappear. I'm seeing that there are 117 deleted edits, but when I go to restore them, it says there is no page history. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jayjg's fixed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think I've managed to restore the history as well. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut and paste move 

message: Marsden keeps inserting this paragraph into the article:
A central strategic concern of Israel in the West Bank is maintaining control of the Mountain Aquifer, which supplies over a third of Israel's fresh water resources.  Israel has strictly limited Palestinian well-digging in the West Bank, resulting in water access for Palestinians there that is near the limits necessary to sustain human life, as reported by the United Nations. These limits help to preserve the Aquifer for Israeli use.
Can someone explain what this original research strategic analysis is doing in the middle of a discussion of the political history of the territories?  Did the Sinai Peninsula section discuss the "strategic concern of Israel" regarding Oil supplies, for example (the Sinai Peninsula had Israel's only working oil wells, as far as I know)?  And why the focus on water, and not, say, on military issues (e.g. strategic depth)?  The entire rest of the article discusses the political and legal history of the territories in question, why is this out-of-place argument being inserted?  Is this article to be a reprise of the Arab-Israeli conflict article, or West Bank article? Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly original research, and its germane to the discussion of the territories. Marsden 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Water lies at the core of the problems in Israel. This is why [the Israelis] are interested in the occupied territories; not for the territory, but for the water within that territory." -- Former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. No reason Sinai section should not mention oil; I doubt any of us do not know that Israel gave up its only oil production in making peace with Egypt. Marsden 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: My words were "a central strategic concern."  This is not the same as "the key issue."  Also, most people do not consider religious concerns nor Zionist ideals to be strategic concerns.  Is User:John McW really your sockpuppet? Marsden 16:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you returned to silly personal attacks instead of honest discussion? Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, "a central strategic concern" is not the same as answering the question of why Israel continues its occupation.  As you note, there are many factors to that.  Among them, water is a central strategic concern.  I don't think anyone honestly disputes that.  As much as you have protested against "POV forks," I don't think you have the moral position to proclaim what the article is "about" and to insist that anything beyond what you understand it to be "about" is improper.  Marsden 16:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not a strategic analysis of the reasons why Israel holds onto the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which, as I have pointed out, are multifaceted.  Picking out one specific one out of at least a half-dozen critical ones is POV.  If you're looking for an article to discuss the reasons why Israel is holding on to these territories, this article doesn't appear to be it, since none of the rest of the article discusses anything like this. Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Of course"?  Could you elaborate please? Would you also suggest sections discussing the reasons for holding on to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem? Jayjg (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your comment began with an irrelevant personal attack, so I didn't see any point in reading the rest. Jayjg (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquifers

message: It seems that Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Andjam are the only ones directly insisting against a title using some combination of "Israel," "Occupied," and "Territory."  Brian Tvedt, based on his actions, might choose to join them.  I, saxet, John K, Grace Note, and El C, among the people commenting here on the matter, are in favor of it.  Five to (at best) four, although perhaps making the motion I'm about to make will get more people out of the woodwork.
I suggest that we decide on a name for the article that incorporates the above term, and make the name change.
At one time, I had made an "Occupied territories" disambiguation page between "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" and "Occupied territories (general meaning)," and we might do something like that again. Marsden 19:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find Slim's argument compelling: Leave inflamatory/disputed terms out of the title (i.e., "occupied" or "disputed"), but directly address the disputed terms in the article.  That seems most in line with being neutral.  The title is a label, and to favor one over the other would have Wikipedia take a position on which "side" is in the "right".  There *is* controversy over the term.  The article itself, however, would provide more room to present the various perspectives without it appearing Wikipedia takes a particular position.  I think there should be a disambig redirecting both "Occupied Territories" and "Disputed Territories" to a more neutral titled page.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about having pages using occupied and disputed redirect to a third, neutral title, and developing a rigorous article about the nature of the dispute, without begging any questions. I also agree that it's too early to vote, and that voting is probably not a good idea anyway. This is Marsden's way of trying to stifle debate. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Came here from the VFC and I don't have an opinion as yet. But it does appear that someone is trying to stifle debate. Voting in this case is inappropriate, IMO. (at least, at this point it is) Can't you reach a compromise? Danlovejoy 22:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has been going on for almost two weeks, and across several different articles. Marsden 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No; I think there has been enough influx of people to the debate here that a reasonable outcome is likely.  In my experience, when Jay and Slim have numbers on their side, they won't debate at all; when the numbers are uncertain, they'll try to keep their prefered version of an article intact while they wear everyone out with circular and tangential debates; and when they're outnumbered, they'll actually discuss things ("as they have been trying to do all along," don't you know).  They make hook up some reserves and fall back into their obdurate behavior, but I think the fact that the POV that they are trying to dictate is distinctly in the minority is bearing out.  Marsden 23:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that I am not sure to proceed here in evaluating your proposal on its merits, due to the nature of this discussion.  I feel that your announced intention to deface multiple articles is not an acceptable way to debate on Wikipedia, and that supporting your proposal would justify the means you used.  I may not always agree with Jayg and Slimvirgin, and know that you found interacting with them frustrating, but you seem to really be gunning for them personally (calling them "evil" etc.), which I also find troubling. How would you suggest that I reconcile ends and means here? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, number one, for the same reason you reached your current impasse, you should probably be disinclined to do whatever I suggest anyway.  Still, you should play the game, not the player.  Say whatever you need to to me, but procede otherwise with whatever you think is the right thing to do.  Marsden 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can take this to your talk page if you want, but I want to know whether I am encouraging your recently combative approach if I were to support this vote, or any other proposals you make in the future.  I would hope to see something like what El C talks about, an end to the constant sniping at Jay and Slimvirgin, and especially to stop threatening to disrupt Wikipedia as a result of your debates with them, which I feel you have never responded to.  You are unlikely to achieve a friendship with Jay and Slimvirgin, I know, but the current apocalyptic situation is untenable, and is not conducive to our hobby of writing an encyclopedia. Realize that Slimvirgin and Jay have a long history of great editing, and your constant vitriolic attacks ("evil" "bullies," etc.) are not likely to be ultimately helpful, whatever the value of your cause. So, is there any chance you can tone this approach down considerably, please, so it doesn't distract from the issues that we are actually trying to discuss? --Goodoldpolonius2 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please realize though that this isn't all that black and white. I agree with a lot of what you wrote but it isn't fair if Marsden is portrayed as the troublemaker. Sometimes it takes quite a few people to tango. If you're sensitive and react strongly to racism and social injustice it is hard to read this conversation between Guy Montag and Ramallite, that also has a couple of comments by Jayjg. For me it was painful to read that stuff, Guy Montag who calmly explain why ethnic cleansing of Arabs is necessary. Or have comments like these directed at you. And other stuff I'm sure, that I'm not aware of. Or just the fact that you have to live with the knowledge that if an uneducated person looks up articles about the Palestinians in Wikipedia they are going to read stuff that says that their territories aren't occupied, that they enjoy full political and civic rights, that their claims are outrageous and that the world doesn't really see a problem with how the Palestinian people (if there really is such a thing) are treated. (Stuff that goes against what 99.9% of the world says, including Encyclopaedia Britannica and the U.S. State Department.) --saxet 03:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saxet, I don't usually work on modern Israeli-Palestinian issues because I do not want to get involved in this sort of fight, there is far too much to do on WP and contentious articles rarely ever become readable, anyway.  I became involved in this case because Marsden, who I had built a working relationship with, stated that he wanted to vandalise WP, including articles that I do edit.  That, in my mind, is against the very nature of Wikipedia.  There is a difference between objecting to someone's views and personally attacking them by calling them names, and an even bigger difference in threatening to attack articles outside of the debate to make a point.  The first is normal discourse, the second eats away at the civility required to make WP run, and the third is out-and-out destructive. As I think I have made clear, I am not asking Marsden to stop arguing with SlimVirgin and Jayg, but to agree to stop with the frequent insults (the "evil" assault on his userpage) and most especially retract his threats to vandalize.  If he does these two things, he can continue to fight whichever fights he wants, and I'll even support him in some of them, but I don't like being threatened into a position ("support me or I'll vandalize").  I keep reiterating this point, as does, I think, El C below.  Interestingly, I just met User:Jimbo Wales today, and the conversation convinced me more than ever that establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else, and I would like to see that meta-issue resolved before we move on. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree whith all that you wrote here except the last phrase "establishing and enforcing norms matter more than anything else, and I would like to see that meta-issue resolved before we move on". I don't know what to make of that. I wanted Marsden banned for his support-me or-I'll-vandalize position, but this issue regarding Occupied Territories isn't about Marsden. It is something I've fought for, and many other editors. We shouldn't have to settle for the 'old language' beacuse of your reservations regarding Marsden's means & motives. --saxet 12:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with you, saxet.  I don't want to be threatened into voting for Marsden's proposal, regardless of whether I think he is on the right side, and I don't want the tone of every discussion to devolve into this unusually rancorous debate. There are a lot of contentious issues on WP, and if this is the way they are discussed, the project is not going to be a lot of fun in the future. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where and when did you fight for it, saxet? You've made only 35 edits to articles and 127 to article talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be very curious about me, I'll try to answer any questions you might have on my talkpage. --saxet 17:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not curious about you as such. Just noting that this page is effectively being held hostage by two editors who between them have made 206 edits to articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I'm doing a terrible job then as a hostage keeper since my POV is that the name of this article should reflect the name used by (almost) the entire world, yet this page is still named Territories under Israeli control. --saxet 18:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Whoa!  Pretty creepy, huh Jayjg?  Marsden 17:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Doing a quick check of total number of edits?  Nah, that takes 2 seconds with Kate's tool.  On the other hand, if SlimVirgin did a lengthy analysis of the times of day Dervish/saxet edited, and how many minutes he took per edit - yeah, that would be creepy. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, I would prefer if you referred to me as Dervish Tsaddik (Dervish Tsaddik) or saxet, instead of Dervish or Dervish/saxet. Thanks. --saxet 17:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You know, Wikipedia norms, like Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith.  That would preclude things like speculating about the motives of others, describing them in various negative ways (e.g. "hardliners"), making false accusations about them, etc. Jayjg (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. --saxet 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I know one way to proceed. A concerted effort on Marsden part to start exhibiting good faith, and much, much less venom. El_C 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That is not an acceptable response. If you feel you have grievences that need addressing, proceed through the appropriate channels, this article talk page is designed to discuss the pertinent material, not provide a venu for personal diatribes. If you keep up the "they are just nasty" comments and so on, you will be blocked for disruption. Please take that as a final warning. El_C 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's not an "acceptable response," you'd better ban me, El C, because SlimVirgin and Jayjg really are just nasty.  And I have little patience for the continual threats -- many from SlimVirgin and Jayjg -- about how I am "being disruptive" and how they are "warning" me, etc., etc., etc.  El C, I don't need Wikipedia, and I'm not going to put up with bullshit from anyone.  Jayjg and SlimVirgin are just nasty in how they protect their POV here.  That's the fact, as I see it.  I won't pretend otherwise.  Strike your colors, El C.  Marsden 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Why? Anyway, there's no need to ovenuance so much. It isn't about what you think or in playing pretend, it's how you choose to express yourself, and where. Even if you follow this through the propper channels, by outlining your grievences within the framework of a clearly documunted exposition, the rules are that you must conduct yourself with disciplined moderation viz. personal comments. I fail to see how that hinders you from raising any relevant point. The rest my response can be read here. El_C 12:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your threat against me to be an effort to disrupt debate.  You are frankly, El C, commenting on something you don't know very much about, and making an ass of yourself in doing so.  Jayjg and SlimVirgin are dishonest debaters.  I can document that.  If you don't think that's nasty, I suspect that you are in the minority in your opinion.  What did you expect to accomplish by making your empty threat against me?  It seems underhanded and dishonest to me, El C. Marsden 13:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate you feel this way, but I fail to see a reason why you should be allowed to direct personal insults at anyone, nor how these somehow amount to an integral component of your  position. El_C 21:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how any legitimate purpose is served by pretending that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are not really nasty bullies when they in fact are really nasty bullies -- should we pretend that pit vipers are just big caterpillars, too?  I wish someone had let me know that Jayjg and SlimVirgin are really nasty bullies when I first encountered them; it would have saved me the time I spent trying to be reasonable with them.  Frankly, if participating in Wikipedia requires subscribing to a falsehood, I have better things to do.  Marsden 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This becoming highly circular and repetitive; you must adhere to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, this isn't negotiable. El_C 23:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I hold my breath while I wait for your apology for implying that I have not been exhibiting good faith, and that I have been exhibiting "venom" -- echoing SlimVirgin's personal attack against me, by the way?  Or are these rules that I have to adhere to, but you don't? Marsden 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that a peculiar interpertation of WP:NPA, since I refered to what I felt you were exhibiting (or lack thereof), not who or what you are. Good faith notwithstanding, I'm not inclined to take anyone at their word. Again, please refer to the procedure for a resolution, aiming at a clearly-documented exposition. El_C 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, huh.  And how peculiar do you think Jayjg's various "personal attacks" accusations against me on this page are?  And, for that matter, I was only commenting on Jayjg's and SlimVirgin's behavior:  they were being nasty bullies.  This, like "not exhibiting good faith" or "exhibiting venom," is something within their control.  Marsden 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen various personal attacks; perhaps you should aim at presenting the pertinent diffs at this point, rather than arguing ancetodally. El_C 03:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: , , , . , and . Has it ever occurred to you, El C, that Admin-ship should be used as a salve rather than as a club? Marsden 12:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony is a harsh mistress; no, it had not occured to me. At any rate, I am unimpressed with your evidence. Perhaps you should seek input from other admins, there are a few hundreds of them. El_C 13:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Marsden, I was ready to go out of my way to have you banned/blocked/whatever, to make sure that none of your ideas (even if I happened to agree with some) would ever be implemented ; because I read that infamous suggestion of yours as antisemitic. When I realized that you were trying to make a point, and when I didn't find any antisemitic stuff in your edit history I cooled down and started to evaluate your ideas in a more objective manner. Point is, Wikipedia editing is politics (shouldn't be, but is) and it's dumb to lose battles simply because you alienate potential  allies, and give the moral highground to people who doesn't deserve it. When you get frustrated, you lose composure and play into the hands of the pro's. To make these articles NPOV will take a while, and it will require that other admins/editors here on Wikipedia (where are you guys?) notice what's actually going on here. My suggestion is that you play it smart (i.e. play nice) and let the actions of the hardliners speak for themselves. Just my two agorot. --saxet 01:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Do you even imagine that describing people who disagree with your POV as "people who don't deserve the high ground" and "pros" and "hardliners" is gaining you any of the high ground? Perhaps you should get some advice on that from those "two upper level admins". ;-) Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An optimist laughs to forget, a pessimist forgets to laugh. I see you're trying out the 'power' of argumentum ad ignorantiam. --saxet 13:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this you following the advice you gave Marsden to "play it smart (i.e. play nice)"? Oops, it's an argumentum ad contradictiam, closely related in your case to argumentum ad odium. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you think you know what you're talking about but I don't think you do. --saxet 13:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on ... 

message: Just to see how Wikipedia has dealt with other "contentious" terminology, I just looked up Armenian Genocide, which some of you may know the Turkish government denies ever happened and pressures other governments around the world to refrain ever from referring to it.  The title of the article is plainly, "Armenian Genocide," though it has a POV flag and the opening paragraph includes the sentence,
:"Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I."
(On the talk page is a quote allegedly from the Turkish embassy website that uses the term, "the Armenian experience," which I believe was also the name of a band that played at the Monterrey Pop Festival in 1968, although I may be mistaken about that.)  The next paragraph begins,
:"Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide."
I'd call that a very weak sentence, actually:  it would be more accurate, I think, to write that only a few scholars, most of them from Turkey, dispute that the events constitute a genocide, but the Turkish government has managed to persuade many other governments and the UN not to make reference to it.  The reality of the situation is that the term "genocide" was coined specifically to refer to the "Armenian experience;" it's something like the Xerox corporation protesting not against people referring to photocopying with other machines as "xeroxing," but against people referring to photocopying with Xerox machines as "xeroxing."
Anyway, MPerel made a suggestion about having a "neutral" title, with links to it from the various "non-neutral" names, and even SlimVirgin was agreeable to that, which is great progress, really:  previously, she and Jayjg had been attempting to obliterate any links that suggested Israeli occupation.  Had this suggestion been made long ago, I probably would have gone along with it.  But at this point I think it would just end up being a resting position, where most people would think the matter had been settled and would stop paying attention to it.  Then after a while Slim and Jay and a couple others would get their daggers out again, and fully restore their POV censorship.  So now I think it's more important to keep the light of day on this censorship effort.
So, I think that if Turkey can have the label "genocide" stuck onto something it is responsible for but denies, and something that it has largely managed to avoid UN and other governmental reference to, then Israel should have little complaint about having the comparatively minor label of "occupation" stuck onto its situation, which is probably even more agreed upon than the Armenian Genocide.
Marsden 14:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an analogous situation; the Turkish government denies that the Armenians were killed in the first place.  On the other hand, in this situation there is no doubt nor disagreement that Israel controls the territories, the only question is what is the most neutral way to described that control - thus it is analogous to the "terrorist" designation.  Your continued personal attacks (e.g. Slim and Jay and a couple others would get their daggers out again, and fully restore their POV censorship) are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and you have been apprised of this many times. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (I wonder if I'm banned yet?) Actually, the Turkish government's denial -- if we may believe the Wikipedia article -- is mostly that it was a planned and organized undertaking. Marsden 15:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have said "deliberately killed".  They dispute the numbers killed as well, making significantly lower estimates than others. Jayjg (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really very similar to the "Occupied Territories" issue, then:  if Turkey cops to "genocide" (meaning deliberation and planning were involved), then there are potential consequences of reparations, ceding territory, etc.  If it's just "the prior unpleasantness," then Turkey is not responsible and there are no consequences to it.  Similarly, if Israel is an "occupying power," then they have no right to build settlements, extract water, etc.  But if the territories are just a blank place on the map, then Israel gets to skate by on pre-Geneva Convention, 19th century notions of justice, as exemplified by the (genocidal) US westward expansion and the (genocidal) colonization of Africa, Australia, and parts of Asia. Marsden 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A more analogous situation may be Tibet Autonomous Region (I tried Western Sahara Desert but it was currently having edit wars of its own), which has nary a mention of occupation or annexation (not what I'm asking for with this article, just that the legal judgements are not made in the title itself). The map in the article uses the neutral word "administered". (I'm not opposed to discussions about the legal status of Israel's actions, I'm just asking that a NPOV article title is used). Andjam 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison shopping 

message: It was previously argued that the article didn't make sense because the article definition would include pre-1967 Israel. Maybe the article could be renamed from "Territories under Israeli control" to "Territory under Israeli control" and include pre-1967 Israel. This'd make information more contiguous, rather than splitting between pre-1967 and post-1967 areas.
Splitting between pre-1967 and post-1967 implies that the pre-1967 borders aren't disputed. Most of the Palestinian militant groups don't see pre-1967 Israel as undisputed. Andjam 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If pre-1967 Israel were included, the article could also be renamed to "Territorial disputes involving Israel" to avoid giving the territories themselves a single title.  Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this proposal be put to a vote? Andjam 00:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say that turning an article about the occupied territories into an article about Israel's territory in general because somebody, without consensus, moved it to such a title, is getting things ass backwards.  Beyond that, whatever you think of the legitimacy of the State of Israel, there are nevertheless objective differences between pre-1967 Israel and the West Bank/Gaza Strip/Golan Heights.  Pretending that "it's all disputed" because many Palestinians believe the whole thing is Palestine isn't terribly helpful. john k 00:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something to be said for "ass backwards", sometimes. Do you regard "it's all disputed" as unhelpful because there are portions that you think are rightfully disputed, and portions you think are wrongly disputed? Wouldn't that be POV? Andjam 01:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's unhelpful because the "occupied territories" are a unit which deserve an article of their own, because they are quite distinct in numerous ways from pre-1967 Israel.  Furthermore, whatever you or I think, the world, including not only the United Nations, most world governments (including even a few Arab states like Egypt and Jordan), and NGOs but also Israel itself distinguish between pre-1967 Israel and the territories occupied after the Six Days War. john k 01:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the world regards women as inferior creatures, but that doesn't mean our article Woman should reflect that POV, or be re-named in accordance with it. You keep repeating the common-use argument, John, but without actually arguing for it, and without dealing with the inconsistencies I've tried to point out. I like Kirill Lokshin's suggestion of "Territorial disputes involving Israel." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if we name the article OdododododPI, it's very NPOV I think. Whatever suggestion you will come up with SlimVirgin, it will be something that people will have to be able to understand. Which means you will have to use some form of common-use rationale. The name Territorial disputes involving Israel is based on this as it contains words like "Israel" and "disputes". Problem though is that when you put all four words together it forms a title that could include anything, and wouldn't necessarily have to include the Occupied Territories. It could include a dispute Israel had with Tunisia over fishing rights in the Mediterranean for example. Someone could put in so much information regarding different historical and current disputes so that the section about the Occupied Territories would drown. None of the great encyclopaedias/reference libraries in the world say that women are inferior creatures, and none of them have named the occupied territories Disputed Territories, or Liberated Territories. --saxet 05:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the great encylcopedias of the world follow a common-use rule either. I take your point about Territorial disputes involving ... perhaps being too broad. But Territories under Israeli control isn't too broad, and you're objecting to that too. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gush Dan (named so because the area was the territory of the tribe of Dan) is a territory under Israeli control. Would that territory be included in the article? --saxet 06:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you rather it be in a separate article, "territorial disputes involving Gush Dan"? Andjam 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, do mean that Tel Aviv (part of Gush Dan) is occupied, or do you want to create a duplicate of Geography of Israel? --saxet 08:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not occupied, just disputed. Andjam 05:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If the info is being drowned out by fishing disputes, then splitting is justified. Not beforehand. And ignore what the great encyclopaedias/reference libraries do - we're aiming to be better than them. Why are you talking about entitling articles "Disputed Territories" or "Liberated Territories", anyway? No-one is arguing for them to be the title. Andjam 06:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment about "Disputed Territories" or "Liberated Territories" are what is known as a "straw man argument"; amusingly enough, used by someone who previously incorrectly called other arguments "strawman arguments".  As for your suggestion, I think it is a good one; there are certainly plenty of groups both inside and outside of Israel who consider either everything outside the 1947 partition plan to be "occupied", or more commonly all of Israel itself to be "occupied". Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, with you and Andjam as enemies, who needs friends. Note; that wasn't a straw man argument but a argumentum ad odium, could maybe also be considered a argumentum ad hominem. --saxet 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might think of me as your enemy, Dervish, but I am not your enemy, and you certainly aren't my enemy.  Also, your latest comment was pure argumentum ad hominem, specifically argumentum ad personam. Jayjg (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t Jayjg, I used an allegory as a rhetorical device. --saxet 08:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include pre-1967 Israel in article 

message: Marsden has inserted the following argument:
The "continuous Jewish presence" in the Land of Israel sometimes claimed by supporters of Israel was, prior to the beginning of modern Zionism, largely "maintained" by the profoundly anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group
This appears to be entirely original research; that is, an argument invented by Marsden to specifically counter other arguments in the article.  I note that all the arguments on the "Disputed" side are fully and properly sourced, yet many of the arguments on the "Occupied" side have no sources whatsoever.  While I wouldn't dispute the argument that most of the world's nations and press use the term "Occupied", this particular argument of Marsden seems quite dubious.  Can someone source it please?  I've asked for sources, but so far the only response has been to revert out the request for citation. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does appear to be OR.  If they're not sourced, they should go. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourced.  Marsden 20:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you've misunderstood how to properly source items in that section.  There is no question that some Orthodox Jews then (and now) opposed Zionism.  However, the section is question is about proponents (or opponents) of the term "Occupation", or of the viewpoint that the territories are "occupied".  Sonnenfeld obviously never commented on whether or not the territories were "occupied", since he died decades before the term was ever used regarding them.  Original research is using facts, even cited, to produce a novel conclusion or counter an existing argument.  In this case, you have used the fact that Sonnenfeld opposed Zionism to try to refute an existing argument, or perhaps make the novel argument that Sonnenfeld insisted that the territories were occupied.  Instead what you need to find are relevant sources which make the argument that the territories are occupied for the reason you have given.  Please provide a proper source for that argument. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree with john k. --saxet 23:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Proponents of the term "Disputed" use this as one of their arguments.  That you think it is an irrelevant argument is, to put it a little bluntly, irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see.  I agree that Marsden's insertion needs to be properly cited; so far, it has not been. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments pro and con 

message: Can various editors (e.g. Huldra, Dervish) explain the rationales behind their blind reverts?  For example, they insist on stating that the designation is "disputed by Israel", when it is obviously disputed by far more than just Israel, and at the same time many within Israel do not dispute it at all.  Also, they seem to be ignoring the lengthy discussion above about the POV pushing that inserts a strategic argument about water into the middle of the text, but ignores 5 or so other compelling reasons why Israel holds on to the territory, and ignores the fact that this is nowhere else an article which discusses strategic reasons for any of these actions. In addition, they are removing requests for citation, which decidely against Wikipedia policy, and creating an introduction that both begs the questions raised in the article, and also doesn't actually refer to the title of the article, both against Wikipedia policy.  I could go on, but that's enough for now. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, I agree that blind reverts is a serious violation of guidelines and that any people (that includes me of course) that has done so on more than a few occasions should be blocked. And if they happen to be admins, they admin privileges should be revoked permanently. I strongly support any form of investigation into this (and other related problems), which is disruptive and against Wikipedia policy. --saxet 23:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you "agree" with things I haven't said, and which are, in fact, against Wikipedia policy? And if you don't actually respond to the questions raised, what is the point in talking your making comments here? Please take your nasty implicit threats elsewhere, and use this page for discussing article content.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility. --saxet 01:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Saxet, until you actually start making comments that are relevant to article content, I'm afraid I won't be able to respond any more. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind reverts 

message: One editor of this article has variously made complaints about, first, what he characterizes as "POV forks (sic)" of a single article on the Occupied Territories, and next, about the "irrelevant (sic)" and "original research (sic)" discussion of the water resources that are significant to the control of the territories.
Meanwhile, the "Terminology" section explodes into the debate about the legitimacy of Israel's presence in the territories, and another section briefly discusses the legal status of the Palestinians under occupation.
There clearly needs to be something in Wikipedia on the significance of water in the Occupied Territories.  I don't think it is so complicated a matter that it needs its own entry, but one editor continually objects to any reference to it here.  Should water be discussed in this article, or should I start another article on "Water in the Occupied Territories" to address it?
Marsden 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something which discusses all the putative reasons why Israel holds the various territories listed here might be relevant somewhere; one specific putative reason inserted into one section is simply POV pushing.  The Terminology section is indeed all about arguments regarding the legitimacy of the term "occupied", but it is not about the reasons why Israel wants the territory. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why does the discussion over terminology belong here?  Is there an extended discussion at Holocaust of arguments made by those who believe the Holocaust occurred and those who deny that it occurred?  Is there an extended discussion at Evolution between those who believe that it is sound theory and those who believe in "Intelligent Design?"  Just because the extremists who dispute occupation happen to be active at Wikipedia, does that mean that that an article on the Occupied Territories should devote half of its text to a viewpoint held by barely anyone?  Marsden 02:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Holocaust or Evolution are good analogies in my opinion. Those who dispute the Holocaust and/or evolution are considered 'less crebible' by almost all scholars/scientists, while the people/entities that dispute that territories are occupied are not disregarded in the same way. --saxet 02:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Holocaust deniers use the term "Occupied territories". Just saying. Andjam 04:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find more productive, less inflammatory things to say. El_C 05:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do the nanny act, El C. It also contributes nothing except perhaps a warm feeling for yourself. Grace Note 07:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess my point is that, in academia, there is a higher percentage of notable people who holds the position that Israel hasn't occupied any territories than there is notable people who dispute that evolution and/or the Holocaust happened. And those of the latter persuasions are taken less seriously, because although it is a tiny minority view that Israel doesn't occupy territory, the people who argue this are not necessarily extremists (or evil) because unlike creationists they are less likely to (literally) believe what they argue, and has made noteworthy and significant contributions in regard to terminology and such. If that makes any sense. --saxet 08:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize my comment is POV speculations. --saxet 08:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What belongs in this article? 

message: There seems to be a misunderstanding about original research and arguments. Simply supporting one's own personal arguments with citations does not stop it from being original research.  In fact, much original research consists of well-cited facts strung together to come to a novel conclusion. For example, the argument is made that Contrary to Israeli pronouncements, international law broadly holds self-determination to be a basic human right, and recognizes the natural sovereignty of any people in the territory where they live, and the citation given is a G.A. Resolution from 1962. Now, this is a flawed argument if for no other reason than G.A. Resolutions are not binding, nor do they create international law.  However, that is not even relevant, because a more fundamental flaw exists: the section in question presents arguments that proponents and opponents make regarding whether or not the territories are occupied.  How could a G.A. Resolution from 1962 which mentions neither Israel or the territories, made 5 years before Israel even captured them, possibly be an argument that Israel is occupying them?  Compare that with the point I added, that the Israel Supreme Court recently ruled the territories were under "belligerent occupation" - that, clearly, is an argument in favour of the territories being occupied.  In order to understand whether an argument is original research, the question that must be asked is "Who makes this argument, and where do they make it?"  If the answer to the former is "a Wikipedia editor", or to the latter is "I don't know", then that argument cannot be used as it is clearly original research. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline... --saxet 01:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: For who/whom is this lecture on original research intended? SlimVirgin, Andjam and yourself has argued quite a lot recently that we shouldn't be so obsessed with sources and references and now you're arguing that we aren't obsessed enough? Andjam said: "ignore what the great encyclopaedias/reference libraries do - we're aiming to be better than them." - you were in agreement with him while I thought/think it is extremely important to use credible sources in a credible way. --saxet 02:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Many individuals and groups have strongly argued that the Territories are "Occupied"; all you need do is quote them.  I've already given you one example of how to do it. Please don't comment out the section, which contains properly sourced and relevant information, that would be an example of WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no argument to make, Jay.  If you want to keep the "they aren't occupied because ..." section, I think that's fine.  But, really, the reason they are occupied is because they meet the definition and common understanding of occupation.  To try to list off specific arguments is prejudicial for the reasons I hope I made clear above.  Marsden 03:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And, yes, I am asserting by implication that the burden of proof is on the "not occupied" camp.  We can discuss that, but I think that's where it belongs.  Marsden 03:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding about [[WP:NOR|original research]] and arguments 

message: I agree with Jayjg that the Terminology section should only contain arguments (made by others) specifically about correctness of the term "occupied" for the territories we are talking about.  One of the "disputed not occupied" bullet points is:
:Historically, Jews have at least as strong of a claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Palestinians do, possibly stronger - the Land of Israel plays a far more important role in Jewish history than in Palestinian or Arab history, and there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for at least three millennia
The link is to a fairly long article by the Israeli MFA.  However, only a small part of that article deals specifically with the terminology issue.  It does say that the West Bank and Gaza should not be called occupied because they were not "under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War".  OK, that's an argument, but it's in a different bullet point.  The MFA article doesn't say ANYTHING about the role the Land of Israel plays in Jewish history or anybody else's history.  As to "continuous presence" all it says is:
:The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.
I don't see how the Israel MFA is offering any kind of argument here that the territories are not occupied. So the 'continous presence' bullet point should be removed altogether, making Marsden's counterargument superfluous. Brian Tvedt 02:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look for a better citation; if I can't find one, I'll remove it. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'continuous presence' bullet point 

message: This is my first edit to this page, I've been trying to follow it for days and have just gotten lost. It seems to me that the best route is to just forget about making it a full-blown article and be content with it being a "disambiguation-plus" page, the "plus" just meaning that it would have a small intro no longer than a paragraph and a list of links to the various pages. I think most of what is currently in the article is already in the mother-articles as well. 
Today is Erev Rosh Hashana. This being a page that has brought a lot of people together (for better or worse), I guess it would be a good place to wish those of you who celebrate a Shana Tova! Ramallite (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see a positive comment on this page. Hopefully the first of many. Thanks, Ramallite. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's that time of year 

message: I suggest that we have a vote on whether or not "Occupied Territories" (or "Occupied Territories (Israeli)") is the most appropriate, accurate and NPOV title for this article. --saxet 09:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Golan Heights are not Palestinian Territories, nor was the Sinai. john k 03:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this article about, again? What if I said Israeli-occupied Arab territories? El_C 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be a lot better than the current title. john k 04:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On t'other hand, this designation would include southern Lebanon, which is not normally considered as having been one of the Occupied Territories, even if it was occupied territory. john k 05:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever the title, it was always the intention to include in this article's scope all the territories captured in the Six Day War.  Both Marsden and Jayjg agreed there should be such an article; it's best not to spoil that rare point of agreement between the two.  As to the Southern Lebanon "security zone", it might be worth a brief mention but there is no pressing need to include it, as it was never part of "Greater Israel" (Israel never built settlements there and never mooted the possibility of extending its borders into it). Brian Tvedt 22:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to clearly distinguish between all the territories Israel has occupied at one time or another and the territories that are widely known as "the Occupied Territories". The "other side" wants to muddy the water by making the latter include the former in some way, for the rather obvious reasons. Grace Note 04:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But the "correctness" of the title has absolutely no bearing on its being what people call the thing in question! I could argue that it's not "correct" to call the supreme being "God" because, erm, there is no supreme being, but that doesn't change at all that the being in question is widely known as God. I'm about to go all Bertrand Russell on someone's ass if this argument keeps rearing its very ugly head, and that isn't going to be pretty. Grace Note 04:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good analogy. Most people don't believe Zeus exists, but don't have a problem with the name. Andjam 05:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roadmap for a Vote 

message: SlimVirgin asked if anyone objected to her "removing personal attacks." I objected, as did Vizcarra. She went ahead and removed what she saw as personal attacks anyway. I actually thought, in spite of my reservations, that she did a fair job of it, but that she had left some things in and taken some things out in ways that were not appropriate. So I put a very few things back in, and started taking more things out.
Then El C reverted a lot of what I had done. Since there is clearly bad faith here, I have restored it to the discussion by reverting what SlimVirgin did.
Slim, it was a nice idea, and I appreciate the thought and that you -- as far as I could tell -- sincerely tried to do exactly what you said.  But naturally it is unacceptable to me to have you -- with whom I disagree in the discussion -- make unilateral changes to the history of the discussion and then to have El C -- whom I consider an abusive editor and who seems to hold grudges against me and others -- revert my parallel unilateral changes.  I couldn't have faith that the discussion had not been prejudicially skewed under those circumstances.
Marsden 02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a smooth move, then? :( El_C 03:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Marsden, I'm appealing to you please to consider reverting yourself. I'm going to assume good faith of you, and ask you to do the same to me. I apologize for any negative comments I've made to you, or for being snippy with you or with anyone else (John, I was snippy with you, and I'm sorry). I've found this discussion frustrating because I haven't expressed myself well, and I ended up looking as though I was proposing ideas that in fact I wasn't, and that made me say things I wouldn't otherwise have said. The result is that we have a talk page we can't be proud of, and I'd really like to see these personal comments deleted and forgotten. We can argue the intellectual points without losing respect for each other, which is what Wikipedia is about. I'm prepared to do my best in that regard from now on, and I apologize to everyone for not having done it earlier. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's all up to me! That definitely heightens my otherwise far from insignificant sense of self-importance. :) El_C 03:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to withdraw my request if it means your banishment. My turn to be the gentleman. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there goes that sense of inflated self-esteem. :( El_C 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it'll be back. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to speak up, I'm having difficulties hearing over the sound of my own ego! El_C 00:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunately ... 

message: There are two matters in the article in which profoundly lopsided disputes are posed in ways that distorts the actual situation of the disputes.
The first is in the second paragraph, which notes that various legal dispute "are all highly contested."  This is technically true, but mainly in the way that prisons in America are filled with people convicted in trials whose objectivity is "highly contested."  The rest of the world beyond the government of Israel and some of its supporters has seen as much of the arguments over these matters as it cares to, and has decided that the government of Israel is wrong in each of them.
It may have been me that first offered that the paragraph instead end with, "are all contested by Israel."  This was reverted, probably by Jayjg.  I'd be willing to agree to something like, "are all highly contested by the government of Israel and many of its supporters," but I consider it thoroughly POV to give the suggestion that very many people or organizations in the world believe anything but that the matter is decided, and that Israel's position is wrong.
The second matter is in the "Terminology" section.  Ideally, in my opinion, the article should have a name that includes "Occupied Territories" one way or another, reflecting the overwhelming world-wide view of the matter.  And then the "Terminology" section can have just the arguments against using the word "occupied."
But even if a title that I think is thoroughly POV in that it avoids the term "Occupied Territories" is used, listing arguments for using the term along with arguments for not using the term again creates the perception that there is something like an equally weighted debate going on in the matter, which is distinctly not the case.  Also, as I discussed before, because the consensus that "occupied" is accurate is so broad, it can be made to appear to be the less well-supported position, given that no group or organization has thought that something so obvious needed to have active support.  The "Intelligent Design" sniping at Evolution Theory gives an example of how this works.
So, even if "Occupied" is censored (that's the only way I can describe it, folks) from the title of the article, I think that the "Terminology" section should just have the "not occupied" arguments; it is pretty much impossible to argue the obvious.
I'd like also to add that there is a difference between "occupied" in the common use sense and "occupied" in the Geneva Convention sense.  I would consider it far less Orwellian if the supporters of Israel's position would concede that, "yes, the Israeli military does control the territories remaining from the Six Day War conquests, and, yes, those territories do/did have existing populations of non-Israelis, and, yes, these facts in combination fit the common understanding of 'occupation,' but, NO, Israel is not an 'Occupying Power' under the provisions of the Geneva Convention etc. for the following reasons: ..."
Marsden 15:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a Sith thinks in absolutes. If you're not with Marsden on the title describing Israel as being guilty of occupation, you're in favour of ethnic cleansing (see User:Marsden#Why They Are Evil). If you're not with Marsden, you're censoring. If you're not with Marsden, you're guilty of POV. Andjam 10:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Andjam, this is the talk page for the article currently titled, "Territories under Israeli control."  If you need to make comments entirely about me, perhaps my talk page would be more appropriate.  Thanks!  Marsden 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments referred only to comments made by you related by you about this article. Unlike certain people talking about other users' long-term track records... Andjam 04:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you really just quote one of the Star Wars prequels?  That's just embarrassing. john k 16:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Star Wars? Gosh, I thought it was from Star Trek. I always get the two mixed up... Andjam 04:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence fallacy (is that the right name?) 

message: Historically, Jews have at least as strong of a claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Palestinians do, possibly stronger - the Land of Israel plays a far more important role in Jewish history than in Palestinian or Arab history, and there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for at least three millennia.
This point seems to bear no relation to any of the previous points about whether the Israeli regime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip can be seen as an occupation.  Other than this point, the argument seems to be about issues of international law.  This point seems to come out of nowhere.  Is the importance of Kosovo in Serb history (arguably much greater than that its importance to the Albanians who now mostly inhabit the region) an argument in international law as to what the status of Kosovo is?  This argument would seem to be to be an argument as to "why Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza" or "why Israel has a moral claim to annex the West Bank and Gaza" or "why Israel has a moral claim to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and then annex them."  But it doesn't seem to bear at all on the question of "are the West Bank and Gaza to be considered as occupied territories under international law."
Again, every other point is a legalistic one.  This point seems to come from a completely different argument.  I see that this point is made (to the everlasting shame of the Israeli government) on the official ministry of foreign affairs website.  I still do not see how this makes it a relevant argument. john k 23:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Repellent as the irredentist argument (or is it revanchist? maybe both) is, it does seem to be a rather big part of the case that the territories are not occupied: a nation can't "occupy" land to which it has Urrecht, eh? (Especially divinely-granted Urrecht.) I don't see why it shouldn't be listed here, separate from the arguments based on international law. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe (and it really is shameful that it's not just right wing crazies, but the Israeli government that is taking this line).  And I think the changes you made to the wording improve things.  But its current placement really does make it stand out like a sore thumb.  If it's going to be mentioned, it should be split off from the legalistic arguments. But God, it's such a disgusting argument.  Can we add the "the Palestinians aren't a real nation" argument, the "Jordan is Palestine" argument, and the "there are already 22 Arab states" argument, as well?  Because those are really sweet arguments, too. john k 07:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be separate from the other arguments and have moved it to the end of the section. As to the other three, they suck too but I don't think they're ever used to buttress the bizarre case that the occupation isn't really an occupation. (And yes, it is really disgusting—disgusting in its own right, and doubly disgusting because the government of Israel, of all the countries in the world, ought to know where this kind of ideology can lead. . .) —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An argument from outer space. 

message: The statements about water that Jayjg deleted are not in a section called "reasons Israel is keeping the territory" and there was no assertion that they are at the "core" of the conflict.  They are simple statments of fact that these territories have water resources and that Israel makes use of that water to meet the needs of its own civilian population.
This article is about the territories and Israel's control over them.  One of the characteristics of those territories is that they have water--even my little Berlitz Hebrew phrase book mentions that the Golan Heights contain the headwaters of the Jordan river.  One of the distinctive aspects of Israel's control over these territories is that they are not held in custodianship, with the resources of those territories being used to meet the needs of the population of those territories themselves, rather Israel has chosen to make use of its control over those territories in order, among other things, to supply water to Israel proper and to the Israel settlements.  Zeq's point that Israel COULD meet its water needs by desalinization instead of taking water from the territories doesn't change the fact that Israel DOES take water from the territories.
As to SlimVirgin's point in the edit comments, where is the "reputable, third-party source" that says Jewish "continuous presence on the land" is relevant? Brian Tvedt 13:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, the reason for them being there is quite clear; read back through the history of the article, and their original wording, if you want to understand that they are, in fact, Marsden's argument that water is the reason Israel holds on to the territories.  There are many reasons Israel holds onto the territories, and thousands of facts about the territories that could be included; selectively choosing these specific ones is simply an attempt to create a POV. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment I'm leaning toward its inclusion (not just it, though, indeed), I just want solid sources on its scope, and I want it to be approached as a benefit of being occupied as opposed to reason for it, while entertaining any notable sources who view it as such. El_C 03:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water again 

message: I posted this over at SlimVirgin's talk page, but since she hasn't responded, I thought I'd repost it here as well.
You say over at Talk:Yom Kippur War with respect to the Territories under Israeli control article:
:The issue there is that the article is in part about whether the territories are rightly regarded as "occupied," under international law. 
Seeing it put like that, I am all the more convinced that this is not a valid way to go about deciding article titles.  I say this because we use the term "war" in article titles for conflicts which may not be regarded as wars under international law, or, at least, where there have been arguments made that they are not wars.  I think specifically of Korean War, which was officially defined by the US as a "police action," and which, I believe, may have been so defined by the UN. It seems to me that the American position that the Korean War was not a war is quite analogous to the Israeli position that the Occupied Territories are not occupied.  Many other wars fought by the US are also officially considered by the US not to be wars, notably the Vietnam War and both conflicts in Iraq.  Under international law, any of these conflicts may or may not be considered wars - I'm not really sure.  But it's a fact that the official position of the United States government has been that none of these are wars, because only Congress has the power to declare war, and the last time Congress did so was in 1941.  Therefore, ipso facto, these conflicts are not wars.  And there are various justificatoins as to why - Korea and Gulf War I (and perhaps Gulf War II...) are UN police actions; Vietnam was an effort to aid a friendly government against an insurgency.  Our articles on these wars should certainly deal with these issues.  But our article titles are very properly at Korean War, Vietnam War, and so forth. 
To get back to the "territories under Israeli control," the issue you are having seems to be that whether or not the commonly used name is technically accurate is a matter of dispute, with one side maintaining that it is and the other claiming otherwise.  This is evidently true.  At the same time, the fact that the technical accuracy of the most commonly used name is under dispute, with POV arguments being made by both sides, does not make the name itself POV.  So, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Korean War as not being a war, the name Korean War is still NPOV.  Analogously, even though there is one school of thought which sees the Occupied Territories as not being Occupied, the name Occupied Territories is still NPOV.  It is the name of the article not because wikipedia is asserting that the territories are occupied, but only because this is, as a matter of fact, the name which they are given.  Another example: according to the reigning legal theory in the United States, the Confederate States of America never existed.  Secession was illegal, and thus, either a) those individuals in state governments who attempted to secede were behaving illegally, and the southern states never actually seceded at all (Lincoln's position); or b) the southern states were in illegal rebellion, and had no legal right to form a sovereign confederacy, even though their rebellion temporarily deprived them of status as states in the union (the radical republican position).  Thus, one might say that there is a POV dispute as to whether or not the Confederate States of America existed.  But that does not mean that it is POV to have an article titled Confederate States of America.
Anyway, I won't go on, but my point is basically this: even if the Occupied Territories are not occupied under international law, that doesn't mean that it is POV to use the title "Occupied Territories" when this is how they are most commonly known, and when there is no other commonly used name available. john k 19:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clear that we have more than enough diplomatic, scholarly, and so on, consensus by Wikipedia standards to use occupied by default, but the section on the occupied-disputed naming dispute is not only disputed, it is also lengthy, I find, imbalancing the article. I, therefore, copied and pasted most of it to Occupation naming dispute, slapped a hack job intro, and viola! Yours, the formerly banished, El_C 02:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting that you moved a lot more of the case against the applicability of territory being called occupied than the case for applicability of the territory being called occupied. Andjam 03:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not move a lot more, I left a lot less, which (text-wise) is not at all the same thing. I simply could not find as comprehensive passage/s  for a  summarizing paragraph, and I wasn't about to extend it further by authoring that portion myself, though someone else may. El_C 03:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "because only Congress has the power to declare war, and the last time Congress did so was in 1941" Congress gave the President the power to wage war for the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq, and apparently Vietnam. Your analogy therefore lacks a certain validity. Andjam 03:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NOt precisely the ability to wage war.  At any rate, Korean War is still a valid example.  Why is the title Korean War less POV than Occupied Territories? john k 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is legalistic argument relevant to the article title? 

message: I have a compromise proposal which I think might break the impasse on the Title argument.  Why don't we rename El C's "Occupation naming dispute" article "Occupied Territories (Israeli)"?  Those who are looking for an article on the issue will actually get a comprehensive article discussing it; all the "authoritative bodies" which have ruled that the territories are occupied, the lengthy ruling by the ICJ, etc., followed by the four or five lame arguments that it is disputed.  The editors who think there should be an article with this title will get an article with this title, which actually lists what the territories are, and a lot of convincing groups saying they are occupied.  The editors who think the title is POV will still have to have an article with this title, but at least they get a few (cited) statements at the end as to why they think the terminology is wrong/POV. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clear that the current name of this article is bad:  downtown Tel Aviv, for example, would by any reckoning be a "territory under Israeli control."  I think -- in case it comes as a surprise to anyone -- that an appropriate title for this article is "Occupied Territories (Israeli)," but in any case, it would be better to figure out a title for this article before worrying too much about the brand spanking new one.  In violation of my own advice just given, however, "Occupation naming dispute" is an ... unfortunate name for an article.  Really, the only place that should link to such an article would be this article -- cant' sub-articles be made through article_name/sub-article_name?  Why not (using my prefered names ...) "Occupied_Territories_(Israeli)/Dispute_Regarding_Name"?  Marsden 19:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Apparently the "/" sub-article convention does not work on regular article pages.  Marsden 20:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Three items I'd like to bring up (edit conflict w/John K...looks like I'm overlapping on one point):
*See how the American Civil War article John Kenney brought up earlier introduces in the first paragraph a link to the naming dispute article related to that war: Naming the American Civil War.
*On Marsden's last suggestion, see Wikipedia's stance on sub-article naming convention.
*On "occupation" in the title, note that back in February we moved Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan to Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan for NPOV reasons, and made the first title redirect to the article without "occupation" in the title. I also still think Occupied Territories (Israeli) should redirect to here, rather than be used for another article (Jayjg's suggestion above).  On a related note, there is apparently inconsistency about "occupation" in the title: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jordan annexed the West Bank.  It was, de facto if not de jure under international law, treated as part of Jordan.  The Palestinian inhabitants were Jordanian citizens.  The area was administered as part of Jordan.  This was not recognized in international law, but I think the de facto rule of the West Bank as part of Jordan is sufficient to make it so that "occupation" is not in the title.  Gaza, on the other hand, was never considered to be part of Egypt, and was in fact treated as occupied territory by the Egyptians.  This is, I think, analogous to the situation of the Occupied Territories today, which, other than East Jerusalem, have not been annexed by Israel.  john k 03:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Does anyone know the rationale behind abandoning hierarchy of articles?  Even the example they give seems silly -- does anyone really think "Transportation" would have a sub-article on "Transportation in Ajerbaijan?"  El C's split of the "occupied" discussion is in effect just a grandiose designation of a separate section of the article; I'm wondering if the old sub-article convention was abandoned with the thought that articles should just include as regular sections whatever they need.  Britannica articles certainly can go on and on for pages.  Does anyone know?  Marsden 03:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What about making "Occupied Territories (Israeli) into a disambiguation page (not just a redirect) pointing to the article about the naming dispute and also pointing to this article titled something like Cybbe suggests Territories captured during the 1967 conflict by Israel, and pointing to whatever else might be related to "Occupied Territories (Israeli)".
I think it's essential that Occupied Territories (Israeli) continue to redirect to this article.  In the real world that phrase always refers to a piece of land, never to an argument. I don't see this as a compromise between your position and Marsden's, it actually takes Marsden further from his goal by burying the phrase Occupied Territories more deeply. Brian Tvedt 03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I still think that Israeli-Occupied Territories is better than the (Israeli) parentheses, which is somewhat confusing, as opposed to a (by Israel), etc. As for the move, I just want to note that the occupied-disputed dispute simply isn't that noteworthy to expand on at such length as was the case, it was simply out proportion for the role played by this particular dispute in reality. El_C 10:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise on title impasse?