Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories

message: I'm not sure where this should go, so I'm putting it here.
Why the hell do people have such a problem with calling suicide bombers "martyrs"? "Martyr" in no way implies a just cause or a righteous death. According to my dictionary: 1) Somebody who gives up their life for a cause, esp. religious 2) Somebody who gives up something important to them to further a cause, esp. religious 3) A person who suffers a lot 4) A person who goes through pain and suffering to gain sympathy for a cause. I would say that the usage of "martyr" to refer to a suicide bomber who kills innocent babies and children falls into the first definition, like it or not, possibly the second (suicide bombers rarely do what they do simply because they have no will to live, I believe that in most cases life is important to them but it has over time become less important to them than the cause they hope to further - but that doesn't mean it's not important to them), and maybe the 3rd or 4th (I don't imagine blowing onesself up would be very painful, as death would probably be instantaneous; the "possibly" refers to possible emotional pain and perhaps painful experiences that led to the decision to do what they did).
Saying the people who died while plowing planes into the WTC were martyrs isn't some sort of huge disrespect to the people that died from the event, rather it is a simple truth. These people gave up their lives to further a cause, nevermind what the cause was. Just because you take others with you - even babies and children - doesn't mean you didn't die with the intent of furthering a cause. --Node 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "martyr" 

message: Since the end of the VfD vote on the "Israeli occupation..." page, there has been some minor discussion of Ambi's unilateral enforcement of her interpretation of the results. (there was actually no consensus if you count separately, and you can't count votes to redirect and votes to delete together because while together they may form a majority, they're two different solutions - I find it a bit suspicious that Ambi's own favoured redirect solution was the one that she decided had won)
That aside, there is still a need for integration of its former content http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_Palestine&oldid=6101343 into this page, or the complete restoration of that page, and/or for it to redirect to this page despite possible objections from some. --Node 23:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for resolution, integration 

message: Is it just me, or is this the same article which I attempted to NPOV-ify with the help of Ambi, until it was turned into a protected redirect? Because either I'm hallucinating, or someone needs to make a note somewhere about article history. --Node 00:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article history 

message: Marsden, you appear to have created a POV fork of this article.  I think it needs to be re-merged back here. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry; I don't think I did anything to this article.  What do you mean?  Marsden 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There are already articles about the territories outside the Green Line under Israeli military control; several of them, in fact, including this article, which covers the same subject as Marsden's new POV fork of this article, Occupied Territories (Israeli).  In what way do you think the subject of the new article differs from that of the existing article? Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a demonstration of good faith, Jay, why don't you drop your pretense that my article is a fork of this article?  If anything, my article might be considered a fork of the Occupied Territories article, restoring its original subject.  It is difficult to imagine a producive discussion with you when you insist that only your personal interpretation of the facts is valid.  How about it, Jay? Marsden 03:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree it should be merged, and if Marsden wants to work on the issue, he should work to improve this page instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The article that Marsden created is about "the territories occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967".  If your position is that this article is about the same subject, then it needs to be renamed, because the title suggests it is limited to the Palestinian territories. Brian Tvedt 02:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Occupied Territories (Israeli)]] 

message: The revert war on these pages has to stop.
# Marsden, I urge you to accept Jayjg's proposal to leave this page and Occupied Territories (Israeli) alone for a while, in return for not creating a link from the Zionism article "until the discussion is concluded".  Yesterday's revert, in which you moved the Discussion section of this page to OT(I) was particularly inappropriate, because it rendered meaningless much of the talk written before the current dispute (such as Jmabel's comments)
# Jayjg, please stop calling the OT(I) article a "POV fork".  Marsden was making a good faith effort to come up with an article that could be linked from the Zionism page and satisfy your objections.  When I proposed creating an article "precisely on the territories Israel seized in 1967" and Marsden outlined the specific way he planned to do just that, you did not say "no, don't create a new article".  Instead you  wrote:
::The main issue is not only that it doesn't include the Golan Heights, but that it doesn't include Israel itself. An article that deals with all of these issues, but is quite poorly written and titled, is Occupation of the Palestinian territories. That article talks of Palestinian territories, but, somewhat bizarrely, also mentions the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, Israel, and even Lebanon. It's not an appropriate link either, for that reason, and because it's just an argument about whether or not the territories are occupied.
Reading the above comments and the OOTPT article, it looks like repairing this article sufficiently to make it an "appropriate link" for you would require gutting about 80% of it.  It's still not clear to me that that's the right thing to do. Brian Tvedt 11:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truce 

message: Why doesn't the article include Judea, Samaria and some reference to the term "Occupied Territories" and "Disputed Territories"?  I've seen all of these in recent articles about the Israeli pullout from Gaza.  Here is a previous edit that I think needs to be included:
:Supporters of Israel sometimes object to using the term "Occupied Territories" to describe them, prefering "Disputed Territories" or sometimes (with reference to the West Bank) the biblical names "Judea and Samaria."
Is there a reason some of this isn't in the article? - Tεxτurε 17:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to be re-written, and the title is probably bad too.  As well, the Occupied territories article has issues, and could possibly even be merged with List of military occupations. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information