Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Move request for State of Palestine

It has been proposed that State of Palestine be moved. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:State of Palestine#Requested rename (move) to Palestine. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion Criticism of Israel (since 12/26)

This is still being discussed here but get here quick if you want to opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Closed, no consensus. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox maps

I think it is pretty lame to see multiple discussions opened on the same premise on separate articles. This leads to edit warring and uneven consensus (some are changed and some are not). It also appears underhanded since it looks like pushing a POV and it looks like editors are trying to sneak things in whenever possible. I hope that isn't the scenario but I am surprised that this has not come up at AE. Please stop ignoring reasoning on one talk page to insert a particular edit on another when it is the exact same thing.

So on to the problem that is fixable: The use of the Israel map vs the Palestinian Territories map in the infoboxes of certain sites (and who knows where else since it has happened on multiple articles) is a problem. Two examples: Temple Mount and Western Wall. I do not think there is any dispute that it is in "Jerusalem" but who the city (or a section) of the city belongs to is in dispute. There are legal issues, reality issues, control issues, and so on. Everyone here knows it is complex and has caused all sorts of headaches. The infobox cannot address these issues since it is supposed to be a quick and easy summary. I propose one of the following solutions since using either map is not acceptable for various reasons by different parites (both of which have merits).

  • No map at all.
    • We do not need a map in the infobox. It is not essential to the readers understanding of the subject. Keep in mind that the subject is not the politics but the the site. Politics are part of the subject but not the only aspect.
    • Explaining why one map is used over the other would not be appropriate and that is too much for an infobox.
    • The principle of WP:MOSICON applies here. This is not surprising since flags have also been bickered over in the infobox. "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." The soapbox part of the policy linked is directly related. We do not need to emphasize the purported nationality of a site.
  • Use File:OldCityMapNameless.PNG
    • This is a map of Jerusalem. If a map is needed this fulfills that purpose.

Note that neither of these suggestions supports or even alludes to supporting any claim. The body can discuss the issues but either map is too POV and confusing.Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A map is essential as it shows the reader where it is located. You keep on ignoring the arguments that the IC view that EJ is in the PT. This is not "politics" or a "dispute", its the reality that the IC views it as part of the PT. You have not provided a reason to not use the map it is internationally recognized as part of.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe this debate has even got this far. This is getting ridiculous. May I remind everyone, Cptnono appears to be the only one who is not interested in the discussion process at all. Which is evident by this edit he made, well aware of the discussion and the lack concensus that had yet to been reached. He proposed his idea quite a while back (IE - no maps at all). I believe I was the only one who flat out rejected it, along with SD, the other editors taking place in the discussion (most of them in favor of keeping Israel on the map) tacitly rejected it.
What is so abbreviating about this entire debate is the fact that Cptnono seems to want to have it "his way or the highway" per say. These maps have been attached to this article for a while now, why wasn't he championing to have the Israel map taken down when it was up? Why was it only when opposition was raised -- opposition with hard, factual, sources -- was he suggesting that we do no map at all. It is completely disingenuous and quite honestly fake concern for the whole masquerade of wanting to compromise.
The fact is, whether you like it or not, there is an abundance of overwhelming world view sources that myself, ans Supreme Deliciousness have provided explicitly slapping us in the face with the obvious fact, that the Old City of Jerusalem is in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Cptnono doesn't care about that, he cares about pushing his ideas fourth and will rarely even try to debate the hard facts.
Let the process take its course. -asad (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess there is little chance to constructive discussion, when there is an atmosphere of distrust and lack of assuming other editors good faith. However when there is no clear consensus on the article talk page, broader audience is required to get a community feedback and balanced decision. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the arguments, I have provided worldview source saying its part of the PT, neither Cptnono or any one else has provided a worldview source saying its not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to express any opinion on the dispute in hand, I just wanted to note that discussion is needed, despite the fact that we're talking about relatively minor issues as mentioned articles go. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
@AU, we did it for the settlements. It was some bad times but it stopped the edit warring and created an even consensus.
@SD, you repeated the same argument from previous discussions so I will again repeat that "worldview" is disputed enough that it isn't FRINGE so there is some concern. Furthermore, a map is not "essential". It would be nice but if it over emphisizes a political debate than it is more problematic than benefitial. How good is that map? Nothing else is labeled so it is lines with certain parts highlighted. There is no compass. The reader cannot tell what it really is. It does not expand out to a world view so it is nothing but lines. The reader does not benefit from the map as much as it detracts from the sole purpose of an infobox. But if you really want a map then create one based on Jerusalem without political emphasis. Maybe the districts with the site having a marker. And keep in mind that many tertiary sources do not distinguish fully between Israel and the occupied territories making it even more confusing. Wikipedia is not here to push knowledge of a POV but explain the knowledge. We are supposed to reflect the World Almanac and others to a certain extent and adding these maps is unheard of.
@asad. Really? At least SD tried to offer a reason. Your purely ad hominem argument is even countered since the time I removed a map it was a map of Israel. Pay closer attention.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by ""worldview" is disputed enough that it isn't FRINGE" ? A map is beneficial and it doesn't over emphasize a political debate. It shows the accurate location of where it is located in accordance with the IC view, so the reader will see that its in the PT, that's exactly what an infobox map is supposed to do. Why would we have a map of only Jerusalem without showing that its located in the PT? That doesn't show the reader that its located in the PT, so that doesn't make any sense. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I reverted it back to the map of ISRAEL, not Palestine. Please don't make accusations about being ad hominem. You seem to want ignore my point, that you ignored the discussions and took it upon yourself to edit the article. -asad (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The only source we have been presented with supporting the argument that EJ is part of the Palestinian Territories is from the following line “OPT, including EJ”. That is insufficient. All it provides is an insinuation, not a real statement on the status of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the following sources point clearly to the fact that the whole of the city is deemed by the IC to have the status of a CS. Neither Israel or Palestinians are recognised as sovereign in the city:

  • ”The Corpus Separatum solution still applies to both east and west Jerusalem” (UN 1979)p. 74. A UN committee issued a paper in 1979 which mentioned that the legal status of Jerusalem was that of the Corpus Separatum.[1]
  • ”In March 1999, … saying that “The EU reaffirms its known position concerning the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum”. 76. p. 33
  • In 2000, Saeb Erekat stated “The American position has always been corpus separatum.” [2]

This is all documented in Positions on Jerusalem. Any attempt to show the PT map for sites in EJ is wrong. A map of Israel, whose de-facto administration of the whole city is a fact, and whose control is partly recognised in WJ, is much more appropriate. The US is also of the view that ”united Jerusalem” is the capital of Israel. [3]. Chesdovi (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How is that all your sources are from books with poor citations that I can't even find? Instead of providing books that state something and source it, please provide the SOURCE. You mentioned the EU though, how about something a bit more recent than 1979? -asad (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
After much thought on the matter, I agree with the Captain. Jerusalem is a Wikipedia nightmare: even it's borders are difficult to define with in policy (which is moderately insane but you have the Israeli municipal borders, the CS borders, the 48-67 borders, all legitimate or illegitimate, depending). I've put this off because it's a huge headache but it's not getting any better as every possible venue and angle for the dispute is or has been explored. We need to reach some kind of consensus on how describe Jerusalem and it's locales per policy. I'm not even sure if that's possible, but it's something worth attempting as these fires spread. Sol (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Infoboxes are serious business, especially maps. Same kind of argument is being conducted also at Mount Hermon. The issue there is I/S and not strictly I/P, though I guess the root cause is the same. The edit warring there by partisan parties which try to force their "correct" map, while waiting for 24 hour and 1 min to revert to be "inline" with 1RR/24hours limitation, appears silly to me personally. It would be nice to stop the edit warring there and to create an even consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Not same kind of argument, two different disputes. Some claim worldview is that Jerusalem does not belong to anyone, while no one claims that is the case with the GH. Problems over there are an IP that repeatedly ads a map of a country it is not located in without explaining his edits, and another user who removes a map of a country it is located in claiming "compromise", while not explaining what that is supposed to be a "compromise" for. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Far too much wiki-blood is shed over these issues. The alternative is to have arb-com take on the issue, a la "Judea and Samaria". Either works for me, as long as something gets worked out. Sol (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So does anyone want to actually get involved or should we just start edit warring? Consensus is not consistent across the topic so no one will be happy but a little bit of screwing around won't hurt my feelings. This isn't "Judea and Samaria", some bickering over legality, or anything else. How should we handle these maps. We can ignore it for a month until SD editors and IPS starts edit warring and fights over it or we can get it done now with a simple conversation. Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
How about a reference article called Maps of Jerusalem that explains what the most popular maps mean (esp. ones used on wikipedia) and centralizes debate on the talkl page. Then at least people will have an idea which map is more appropriate for which article and then if someone wants to change someone elses map they'll have a body of opinion to back up what they say, one way or the other. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
@Cptnono, How do you intend to create an environment conducive to forming consensus when you attempt out SD for "edit-warring" in what is suppose to be a neutral venue? Presenting that here, without the context of the situation (SD editing against a sock/troll IP who does not participate in discussion), is very slanderous. I, for one, have no interest in working with you on your proposal so long as you have adopted such an attitude. -asad (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not attempt to out anything. There was edit warring and there will be more from IPs and others probably if we do not fix it. It is an easy fix. I did strike out SD and clarify to be a little more polite though. Care to address the map issue? Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
@User:Carolmooredc that could be something to look into but this should work fine as a centralized discussion. I would prefer not to go to individula talk pages and make separate arguments but if this conversation does not work out I will go that route. THought this would be more efficient and open.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguments on categorisation of Hezbollah

Please see [4] for the discussion on whether categories concerning Islamic antisemitism et al. are appropriate. I notice that there have been some calls to rally the troops in selected Wikpedia space, so some neutralish eyes might be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Activist essay needs input

Per my comments at this diff and in this new section I started Wikipedia_talk:Activist#Essay_should_mention_Organized_POV_warriors, I believe this essay already is being used by POV warriors and needs some more input.

Related by User:SlimVirgin's comments is her creation of Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/users which is proving unpopular and obviously could be easily abused. (Announced on main page talk page since seemed more a policy oriented thing. Maybe I'm wrong.) (Added later: Now up for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard .) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Advocacy/Noticeboard was deleted. Some interesting comments on the deletion page, including mine and others' about need to deal with gangs of organized editors on behavioral grounds. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Map tools

Please see

For example; "UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory." Map Centre: [6]. See: Commons:Copyright tags#United Nations. The image license to use is {{UN map}}. See: commons:Template:UN map. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:UN map for a list of many maps on the Commons that came from the UN. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nurit Kedar

..the Israeli documentary maker Nurit Kedar[7][8][9] is a redlink. There's a stubby article at he:נורית קידר if anyone is up for adding an English translation/version. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look later, unless someone beats me to it. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've translated the Hebrew stub. Not yet the filmography, but the main text. Now to look at Sean's refs. RolandR (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Blimey, that was quick, thanks! Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone working on Palestine Papers Wikileaks?

Just trying to get the details straight for myself, wikipedia hasn't been too helpful and evidently the relevant details still have to be put in relevant Wikileaks related articles, including Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Region — Middle East) doesnt' say anything. Need to detail who may have leaked them; when did wikileaks make available to media?; when exactly did Al Jazeera release them and contents; and of course the implications as they unfold. Sounds like grounds for an article to me. I note the Template:WikiLeaks doesn't have a "Palestine" entry yet. I'm really hoping someone else is going to do it. Please chime in if you are or suddenly are motivated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See Palestine Papers. Al Jazeera haven't revealed the source of the info. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Like a lot of people I was confused and thought it was a wikileak. Hmmm. It seems to me someone reported Julian Assange said he had a bunch of stuff that other publications wouldn't look at. (Should have saved that article; not sure if did.) Maybe he released it as a non-wikileak to avoid retaliation on other leaks, or whatever. Or maybe he just hasn't gotten it together to leak yet. Too much info, too little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually did some constructive work and put in relevant edit here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Settlements and International Law

Roughly 2 and ½ months ago, a supposed “consensus” was reached concerning language to be employed in the lede and body texts of articles dealing with Israeli communities or settlements in disputed lands captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The closing admin, LessHeard VanU stated that the sentence, "The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this," has consensus for inclusion in the body text with a more concise variant in the lede. The inclusion of this contentious edit was made over the objections or guarded reservations of at least 9 editors including myself, Accipio Mitis Frux, Cptnono, Shuki, Mbz1, Brewcrewer, Jaakobou, No More Mr Nice Guy, Wikifan12345. But my concern is not with numbers but rather accuracy.

The current version makes it seem as though the entire international community views settlements as illegal and that Israel is the lone holdout. In fact, the world’s only true superpower, the United States, has adopted a position that is more in line with Israel’s. On Feb 2, 1981 President Ronald Reagan made the following statement regarding Israel’s settlements, “As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there—I disagreed when, the previous Administration refereed to them as illegal, they’re not illegal. Not under the U.N. resolution that leaves the West Bank open to all people—Arab and Israeli alike, Christian alike." Ronald Reagan, 2 Feb 1981[10]

Reagan’s position was reinforced by W. Bush who stated, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.” W. Bush, 14 Apr 2004[11]

Moreover, the current version is misleading because it does not take into account the views of notable Western scholars who have voiced legal opinions asserting that settlements are not illegal under international law. Among these are Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice[12] Eugene V. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School and former US Assistant Secretary of State[13] David M. Phillips, professor at Northeastern University School of Law and Fulbright Scholar[14] Nicholas Rostow, university counsel and vice chancellor for legal affairs of the State University of New York[15] Professor Julius Stone, international lawyer and author of 27 books on the subject[16] and Ambassador Morris Berthold Abram, US staff member at the Nuremberg Trials and drafter of the Fourth Geneva Convention[17]

No one seriously doubts the ability of the Arab and Muslim bloc as well as their Third World allies to command a majority in the UN. That is precisely why a brief mention of scholarly views is necessary as their views focus exclusively on the legal merits and not petro dollars.

Accordingly and for the reasons noted above, I wish to revisit this issue with the goal of substituting the current “consensus” version with the following sentence, “Many within the international community regard Israeli settlements illegal under international law but the United States and Israel dispute this and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.” This version is more accurate and does not deviate substantially from the current version. I look forward to hearing from all concerned.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what consensus means. Consensus is not the number of votes. This was also mentioned by the reviewing admin. It doesn't matter if 9 editors "object" to a sentence without bringing any valid dialogue against it. The sentence that has consensus is factually correct following the sources, while the sentence you suggest is factually incorrect. For example, you claim that Reagan's believe was the believe of the United States, and you also claim that the position was reinforced by GWB. Your claims are inaccurate as can be seen here: [18] "Despite the passage of time, the legal opinion, issued during the Carter administration, has never been revoked or revised. President Ronald Reagan said he disagreed with it -- he called the settlements "not illegal" -- but his State Department did not seek to issue a new opinion.", it was Reagans personal opinion, not the United States, and the official US policy has "never been revoked or revised". Even if the US believe was that they aren't illegal (which it isn't) but even if it was, the US is one country, its opinion does not deserve separate mentioning in all settlement articles regarding their illegality.
Furthermore, you also claim that "it does not take into account the views of notable Western scholars who have voiced legal opinions asserting that settlements are not illegal under international law.", then you have found a handful of people claiming they are legal, and you want to change the sentence to say that: "legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.", based on six people, when there are probably hundreds of thousands of legal scholars. You have not provided any source that supports your claim that: "legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.". And btw, although this doesn't really matter, Julius Stone has been criticized: "Many of Stone’s positions on critical international legal issues in the Israel/Palestine conflict stepped outside even generous zones of plausible or reasonable interpretations of the law, even on the law as it then often ambiguously stood, and certainly in hindsight. His casting the Jewish people as the only victims who mattered in that dispute fatally undermines the prospects for a just and equitable application, or creative adaptation, of international law to the Israel/Palestine dispute." [19].--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I also thought that the previous discussion was sort of haphazardly without proper input from the regular editors. The closure was somewhat confusing and not necessarily entirely consistent with the real consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
What are you basing your claim on that it was "not necessarily entirely consistent with the real consensus" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the US position: Why are you quoting a 30 year old soundbite from Reagan when you have 2009 - 2011 policy statements from the US?
  • Secretary Clinton: "Thank you, and thank you for asking. First, I want to start by saying our policy on settlements has not changed. And I want to say it again, our policy on settlement activity has not changed. We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity."
  • US State Dept.: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements, and we will continue to express that position,"
  • 2011 US speech to the UNSC:"Mr. President, U.S. policy on settlements has not changed and will not change. We believe that continued settlement expansion is corrosive—not only to peace efforts and the two-state solution—but to Israel’s future itself. The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties, along with the other permanent-status issues—but, like every U.S. administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."
Obviously the US is choosing its words with diplomatic care, but I find it a bit of a stretch to say that it "has adopted a position that is more in line with Israel’s". You also seem to be ignoring the EU Court of Justice and the ICJ in your analysis. I am not seeing evidence of this "sharp divide" - the notion that the settlements in the Israeli Occupied Territories are not illegal appears to continue constituting a fringe view. un☯mi 14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the scholars you mention:
  • Stephen M. Schwebel seems to have written exactly one piece about this that I could find, and it was in 1970.
  • Julius Stone has had his judgement with regard to Israeli matters questioned in several published analysis:

"Given the below explored discrepancy in factual analysis reflected in Stone’s work, the only other conclusion one may reach points to the intentional misrepresentation of the underlying factual realties of the Middle East upon which Stone applied the relevant legal principles of international law. Such a conclusion must, however, be rejected for it accords not with the integrity Julius Stone personified. The conclusion offered herein is that Julius Stone, like the judges he himself studied, perhaps unknowingly imbued his analysis with personal predilections when the process of reasoning presented a ‘leeway of choice’."

— Andrew DahDal, A REFLECTION ON THE VIEWS OF JULIUS STONE AND THE APPLICABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE MIDDLE EAST

and

"Many of Stone’s positions on critical international legal issues in the Israel/Palestine conflict stepped outside even generous zones of plausible or reasonable interpretations of the law, even on the law as it then often ambiguously stood, and certainly in hindsight."

— Ben Saul, Julius Stone and the Question of Palestine in International Law

Can you point to currently publishing legal experts who have published views that support your rewording? un☯mi 16:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Honestly I don't think there is more of a case for stating that than there is for stating that scientists are "sharply divided" over anthropogenic global warming. From the body of legal opinion as embodied by the ICJ and ECJ it seems clear that there is a consensus regarding the relative legality, and there are scholars with fringe views, it would be counter to WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE and of course WP:NPOV to state otherwise. I have not found a single contemporary article published in a peer reviewed legal journal that suggests otherwise, perhaps you could restate your sources? un☯mi 02:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a compilation of sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Sean, I know what the BBC says and I am showing you that the Reagan Administration stated unequivocally that “settlements are not illegal” and no US administration since has reversed the Reagan Administration’s position. On the Contrary, it was reinforced by W. Bush as noted above. [20] Now the US may object to expansion of settlements on policy grounds calling them “unhelpful,” but that’s a far stretch from “illegal under international law.” Aside from the Carter Administartion, (whose policy was reversed) not one US administration, not Reagan, not H.W. Bush, not Clinton, not W. Bush and not Obama has referred to them as “illegal under international law,” and I challenge any editor to provide a reliable source that expresses the contrary. You won’t be able to because it does not exist. Therefore, I reiterate that the version that I propose is more accurate and does not deviate substantially from the current format and it should accordingly be used in lieu of the inaccurate and misleading current format.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a reliable source in the compilation of sources that expresses the contrary. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to add all the new sources listed to the compilation at some point although I think an article about the Luo Brothers is more pressing. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The U.S.'s position doesn't presently "dispute" the illegality, it sidesteps the issue. Reagan's position is interesting as an historical aside but representing it as U.S. foreign policy 30 years later would be bizarre, like using his quote "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." as current U.S. environmental policy, or that the insurgent forces of Afghanistan are still “the moral equivalents of America's Founding Fathers”. No one has refuted these statements but developments make it pretty clear where things stand.
Israel's position is also more complicated. I'm fine with relying on the various quotes from the FM/etc. that they think the settlements are legal under international law, but the actual situation in Israeli courts is vague. The Supreme Court has never (as I recall) ruled the settlements legal under the Geneva Conventions, they've simply declared that the Geneva Conventions cannot be applied in the occupied territories, the covenant (along with the UN charter and various UNSC resolutions) that the international community bases their determination of the settlements' illegality upon. The settlements are legal under the Hague Conventions, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, but only if they meet very specific requirements, the most unusual that the settlements are not permanent. Sol (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sol you have deliberately misrepresented my position which only confirms that yours is weak so you have to resort to distortion. Reagan's position was more forcefully set forth by W. Bush as noted above (for the umpteenth time) and remains current US policy. Moreover, you still haven't provided any source that states that the US regards the settlements as "illegal under international law," whereas I provided reliable sources that say the opposite. You also still haven't offered any explanation why the phrase, "and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," should not be included as it is verifiably sourced and does not prejudice any other statement within the subject sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Easy there, tiger. I'm pointing out the problem with relying on a ~30 year old statement that doesn't reflect current US policy as stated by Clinton above. The US currently doesn't weigh in on legality. Bush's statement neither mentions legality nor is it limited to the population centers outside of the '67 armistice lines, the places commonly referred to as the settlements. As Bush correctly noted, no one thinks returning to the '49 borders is on the table. He's right.
As to the mentioned phrase, we also have sources that say things like " [the settlements] have been considered illegal by the international community and the majority of legal scholars" which may be more accurate but has the definite advantage of a source. Sol (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
"and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," is fine by me. I would remove "United States" since it is systematic bias. "Most countries consider" would be cool instead of making it appear as a blanket condemnation as opposed to a majority condemnation.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
How come "and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," is fine by you? what source says that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed on International law and Israeli settlements As I've mentioned and documented there, secondary sources discussing the issue affirm that the Carter era opinion "'has neither been revoked or revised,'[note 50] and remains the policy of the United States according to Hansel [the State Department legal expert who authored the opinion], The Washington Post, and the Rand Corporation's Palestinian State Study Project.[51]" Obama and his administration officials' statements about "legitimacy" tend to confirm this position.
The GWBush administration quotes do not seem to address the legality of the settlements directly, and seem consistent with the Washington Post-reported policy of not addressing the issue publicly.
Unless and until overwhelming secondary sources support a pro-legality US position, I think the highly placed RS cited on the page have to carry the day.--Carwil (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The meta-statement "and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," is not verifiably sourced so it can't possibly be fine with anyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue of boundaries (or borders) being an important part of the question of "what is a settlement?" I'd like to add the scholar Yehuda Blum, an Israeli scholar of international law, to the list of legal scholars 'divided on the issue', in consideration of his 1971 work "Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace," (with an intro by Julius Stone). While not all scholars are divided on it, it is evident that they are. (btw, the article Blum has a note attacked to be reviewed so please to look at it and review as appropriate.)

What is illegal and what is not depends on the final status of negotiations between the parties. This is a legal question, but also a political question. The Palestine Papers demonstrate that there were talks going on over borders. If it eventually happens that it could be possible to swap land here and there, as was apparently in discussion at talks in the (very recent) past, and borders have been known to change, how can we prejudge what the borders will eventually be and what will later be defined as Israel and Palestine? The Palestine papers demonstrate that the border settlements' status (legal or not) is still very much in flux.

In the spirit of true Israel-Palestine collaboration, I concur with Cptnono's comment "Most countries consider" would be cool instead of making it appear as a blanket condemnation as opposed to a majority condemnation." There is more to a country than its presidental statements, as Egypt is making abundantly clear these days. Legality and illegality can change in 5 minutes, depending on who's in charge. What is legal in one situation may not be legal in another. There has been no Nuremberg and no guilty judgment as yet. I think "most" covers it nicely, and in the interest of collegiality I urge this newer version be adoted. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We have many reliable sources that address this very issue. If you compare what the proposal says with what reliable sources have to say on the matter I don't think it is possible to conclude that it is a better reflection of what the sources say. So, I don't think there is evidence to support the statement "'most' covers it nicely". Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Madeleine Albright also revealled they are legal in 1997. I like the way Louis Theroux summed it up: "According to most interpretations of IL...." Chesdovi (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the more inclusive reflection of opinions is better than one that could be seen as POV censoring -- I found this to be a fascinating read, and the divergence of opinion reflected here should clearly be reflected in the wording. Accurately reflected, but reflected ne'ertheless. The "its' illegal" approach is a non-starter over-simplification; the issue is important enough that we should be accurate here, even if it requires a few more words.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe that comprise wording suggested by Jiujitsuguy represent the real situation with the issue, and should be used in the articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The current consensus text is a good summary of what the sources say. The proposed text from Jiujitsuguy which includes the phrase "but the United States [disputes that the settlements are illegal] ..." is not an accurate reflection of what sources say. --Noleander (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, "current consensus text" has questionable consensus. Personally, I do not hate it but do believe it can be improved. There was some filibustering in the last conversation and we should not just assume it had widespread consensus since it is clear that it did not. In the spirit of keeping things smooth, I would rather have a discussion on how to build on that wording instead of removing it completely based on the closing being struck down as improper (even though that is an option). Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What are you basing your claim on that it has "questionable consensus" ? As the reviewing admin said: "consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The current consensus emerged from administrator intervention in a several-month-long conversation. I and others worked to provide space for improving the text. And Jiujitsuguy has offered something he consideres an improvement. Leaving aside some problematic statements about presumed bribery, and the implication that only Western scholars understand international law correctly, we have this text to consider:
Many within the international community regard Israeli settlements illegal under international law but the United States and Israel dispute this and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.
Problems: (1) we have specific sources stating that the international community (countries plus relevant international institutions) regard settlements as illegal. Many does not improve understanding or better describe the situation. (2) As Sean has stated, the US does not dispute this; even disallowing the sources we've provided that say the contrary, the US is "sidestepping" rather than disputing since at least the GHWBush administration. (3) I suspect including dissenting legal scholars here is undue weight for them (indeed, including scholars at all may be undue weight compared to the institutions involved, which presumably asked their own lawyers), best addressed (as it is) on the settlement legality page. If we want to address scholars, we should find reliable descriptions of the relative weight of their split. (3a) 'Sharply divided' is a statement about the depth of disagreement, when what would be relevant is the relative weight of opinion.--Carwil (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We also have Israeli sources which say that the settlements breach international law. eg:
Ynetnews.com - Alon Liel - Goldstone won’t help us, 4 April 2011: Israel’s record includes blatant, ongoing violations of international law since 1967, especially in respect to the transfer of population to occupation land in Judea and Samaria. On this matter, there is no argument among the international community. We also cannot expect any article by a leading international jurist who will speak out in our defense. Should Israel fail to secure an agreement with the Palestinians by September 2011, these violations will be haunting us as early as this year. (Alon Liel served as the Israeli Foreign Ministry Director General in the years 2000-2001)
    ←   ZScarpia   03:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

One more source for good measure:
The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, A Political, Social, and Military History; edited by Spencer C Tucker; 2008 -- United Nations, Role of; pp.1026ff:
On March 22, 1979, the Security Council and General Assembly determined in Resolution 446 that Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas captured since 1967 were against the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, had no legal basis, and created a great obstacle to a comprehensive peace in the area. The resolution also created a commission composed of Bolivia, Portugal, and Zambia tasked with investigating these settlements. The commission submitted reports in July 1979, December 1979, and November 1980 affirming that the settlement policy constituted a serious impediment to the establishment of a comprehensive peace agreement. It was after the first two reports that Israel began the process of making Jerusalem its capital. Security Council Resolution 476 (June 1980) called on Israel to follow all previous UN resolutions on the status of Jerusalem and was followed by Resolution 478 (August 1980) urging all UN member states not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem. The assertion of Resolution 446 that Israeli settlements in these areas contravened the Geneva Convention was reaffirmed in December 1980 and in subsequent years.
    ←   ZScarpia   04:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Bias Categories and BLPs

FYI, per Recent Categories for discussion, individuals and organizations should no longer be added to the various "bias" categories (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), including most relevantly, here, Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Arabism. I don't know if anybody will be running a bot through such lists to remove BLPs and organizations or if it will happen haphazardly as people feel motivated. But if there's any person/group you feel particularly should not be in such a category, especially as related to I-P issue, feel free to delete them from that category. (Or any other bias categories.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, I have opened a SPI here. I noticed 2 accounts started adding a number of links to the JCPA think tank / advocacy group today, should someone notice more accounts acting in this manner please add them to the SPI investigation. More broadly, what should be done with the external links added? un☯mi 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO remove the irrelevant ones; keep any that are relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Israeli settlers

Some at editor assistance asks about the description of this category which reads: Residents of Israeli settlements in land captured by Israel during various wars since 1948. Looks like a whole bunch of issues there. Maybe the description should just be removed? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Common Israeli maps being used

In the maps that was created by User:Ynhockey there are very obvious fallacies that I think need to be corrected. The issue is coming to a consensus on how to go about it.

  • East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, territories that are internationally recognized to be occupied by Israel, bear no difference from that of Israel Proper.
  • The Gaza Strip is a shade of color that is different from that of the West Bank, which may draw a reader to a conclusion that there might perhaps being a different legal interpretation to its sovereignty than that of the West Bank.
  • The red line is interpreted to be a Border of Israel; therefore it should not be drawn around the Gaza Strip (the Gaza Strip should bear the same sort of border as the West Bank and Golan Heights) and the Golan Heights.

(Note: These are general comments that do not necessarily apply to all the maps)

Not all of the files have widespread usage, but some of them do. Therefore I think it is an issue that should be discussed and I am interested to see what others have to say. -asad (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

These are pov maps following the view of one country instead of the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the maps. The maps showing outlines of administrative districts contain no text, so there is no simple way to note nuances here, but it's not important because the maps show which territory is under which administrative district, without bias to that territory's political status. It is important for NPOV to note that not all territories in these maps are internationally recognized as part of Israel, and this is duly noted in every article they are used.
The other set of maps, that include text, do clearly label the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as separate entities, with boundaries that are specific to them. With regards to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, their status is indeed different; the entire Gaza Strip is recognized by Israel as a separate entity, while the West Bank is subject to final status negotiations. The internationally-recognized boundaries of the Oslo Accords (areas A, B and C) would be counter-productive to show on these maps, although one of my maps (the one of the separation barrier) does show them.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The maps shows the international border in the wrong place, so that West bank and Golan Heights are shown as part of Israel. In several of the maps, this is not only to show Israeli administrative divisions (which even then the OTs should be striped and the international border in the right place), but location maps for places in Israel and the OTs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The location maps clearly show the Golan Heights and West Bank as distinct entities. Please have another look. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The location maps show the same color for the border with Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt as it does with the ceasefire line with Syria, the same color is also not around the Westbank, this means that your maps are presenting them as part of Israel. At the same time the lines around the WB and western GH are very weak and the color difference between the OTs and Israel is very little also. This is not clear "distinct entities". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess at some point the maps need to be updated to use the project-wide standards. I'm not a big fan of the colors used in the current standards but at least they are standard. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sean, is this official policy? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No, not that I'm aware of. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be willing to take that up as a long-term project. However, other than being non-standard, I don't see an immediate problem with the maps. Everything SD mentioned as perceived problems are present in the standard version as well, and I doubt that most Wikipedia readers (as opposed to editors) are aware of the standard version's legend. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What "standard version" are you referring to that has the same issues that I said was problems? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hard to work collaboratively when you say "better map" (it introduce ambiguity that the other map did not have and the only really better map that does not show POV would be one with the Golan in highlight and grey stripes). SDs versions of maps are poor since they only show one POV (what people want and even what the intl community gets behind) but disregards reality (how it is, how it has been, and how it will continue to be administrative wise). SD can propose new maps but until he is willing to acknowledge that the other POV needs to be addressed the it is a waste of time. So lets do it. Show me a map that does not spit in the face of every other tertiary source and I will be on board with making it happen here. Find me an atlas or 5 that do not show it as Israel or as disputed with dashed lines. SDs proposals and edits go against reality. It hurts but it is the way it is. Wikipedia is not here to take sides.Cptnono (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion shows the international view (according to wiki policy npov, thats what we should follow) unlike now when it shows the view of one country, and disregards the IC view. My suggestion does not disregard reality, the purpose of the maps are to show where locations are in Israel, not to present lands outside of Israel as if they were part of Israel. You also say: "how it is, how it has been, and how it will continue to be administrative wise". But the OTs are not part of Israel, they have never been part of Israel, and you do not know the future if they will continue to be occupied by Israel, but this is still not a reason to present them as part of Israel. See for example this UN map:[21] and CIA map: [22] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness maps are fine, we are lucky to have them license wise. Adopting common standards for community generated maps might save us all a lot of time in the future, irrespective of their legal arrangements. I'd support Ynhockey effort to rework the maps to follow this guideline, originally pointed by Sean.hoyland pending Supreme Deliciousness agreement. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where this idea that we are supposed to base things on reality comes from as it's explicitly contradicted by policy. As for other maps/tertiary sources, unless they use the same kind of policies as us, their maps are bound to look different from maps we make ourselves based on our policies and someone is bound to challenge them for not complying with our policies. What SD wants is for these maps to comply with mandatory policies. Seems reasonable to me. It's not clear how to do that but at the very least it will certainly involve making a clear distinction, using the mapping standards at our disposal, between Israel, the Israeli occupied territories and the rest because those are the distinctions that reliable sources make. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask what policies we are talking about, how they apply to the maps above, and what exactly in the maps violates them? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Generally relevant policies are to ensure WP:V by using WP:RS produced maps. We need to keep in mind though that Wikipedia is not an evil organization, it is a collaborative project which in addition to being Bibliotheca Alexandrina of textual content also extends itself to create a free map of the world. In case of community generated maps sources used to generate the graphics/images should be elaborated and found WP:RS reliable by the community. Ideally, given accurate raw data sources attribution, anybody should be able to take cited rs raw data and re-generate exactly the same image verifying that we don't put Everest at the location of Rotterdam, where actual topography is evenly flat hardly sea level one. Such mistakes could be really embarrassing for the project. Generally agreed by all legend, system of signs could be nice in case of maps so hopefully we don't have to re-open the same old can of worms multiplying, well worms in sisyphus circles. I'd leave ensuring WP:NPOV and WP:MOS part to Sean, Good Night. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very interesting. Any chance we can get soon into the "usable suggestions" step of this discussion? :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's one. How about using a solid green line to designate the position of the Green Line and label it so that people know that it's the Green Line that distinguishes Israel from not-Israel... ? Radical I admit. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Solid green for the Green line should be fine, prima facie. How about solid blue for the Blue line? I'm not really sure about this one though. It would be interesting to know Supreme Deliciousness's opinion on this and color and style of the remaining lines. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't really an objective solution to the problem. Although it is easy to pretend there is one. Why is it POV to present occupied Golan or East Jerusalem in an Israel map, why should occupied Jaffa or West Jerusalem be so different? Unless there is some new arbitrary threshold that I don't know about, WP:IKNOWITWHENISEEIT or something. I'm going to cross my fingers and hope that doesn't turn to blue when I post this. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's possible to produce objective maps of disputed spatial objects. Oil companies manage it. I don't think anyone is saying that it's POV to present occupied Golan or East Jerusalem in an Israel map as long as those named spatial objects and their edges describe things in a way that is consistent with what reliable sources have to say on the matter e.g. there is a thing called "Israel" and it's shape is defined by the green line in the same way that the shape of a dinosaur does not include the Discovery Institute's version of reality with Jesus sitting on the dinosaur's back. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, all my maps (except those without any text) already clearly label the disputed areas and mark them in a different color. Some users here (not you) have presented a sort of visual version of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but this doesn't change this fact. Everyone commenting here must understand that making these maps takes great time and effort, and if I can't find the original SVG copies of the maps (which is possible), the time and effort required will be increased significantly. If the necessary changes included changing some lines from grey/red to green, this is not worth the effort; standardizing the maps however, is. Also I will make sure to release the SVG versions next time, so that it won't be as hard to make changes later (SVG as a format has text-related problems though). Still, the standardization isn't really a POV issue, it's just something that should be done and I completely agree with and believe in.
Regarding actual POV issues, I would like them to be presented by someone who is objective and has actually had a good look at the maps. I am not willing to make changes because of one or two users who make some off-hand comments about supposed issues. One important point I will raise however, is about administrative districts; when making a map that is mainly about showing administrative districts, they must be shown as defined by the administrative body, not any other body. If someone different is shown, the problem will be less POV than telling blatant lies to the viewer, because it would imply, for instance, that the Golan Heights are administered by Syria, which they are not (according to any source). This is quite different from which country/entity these territories belong to (de jure), which could be Syria according to the international community, and again, the relevant territories are clearly marked on all my text-containing maps.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems that it is you who are applying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, by refusing to acknowledge that your maps are claiming that occupied territories are part of Israel, when evidence of such has been presented.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And what evidence would that be? All you have provided are some personal opinions. The maps don't have a legend and are ambiguous, but clearly demarcate each area that has a different status. I think that's a good thing; it's certainly the most neutral, and definitely more neutral than the Syria map someone pointed out here which does not have a color difference between Golan and Syria. Here is an example of another map where both administrative and de jure borders are shown (with Egypt and Sudan). This is fairly standard. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The evidence presented here: [23]. This is not a personal opinion that these maps have the same color for the border with Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt as it has with the ceasefire line with Syria and lack of it with the international border with Syria and the West Bank. Your maps are slightly highlighting the OT areas and demarcating their status as areas "within Israel". Therese nothing neutral about that. Golan is Syria according to the international community so there is no reason for that parts of Syria should have different colors from each other. And this is the same way UN and CIA maps of Syria has the same colors for all of Syria: [24][25]. And the Syria map someone pointed out here shows the international border and ceasefire line in accordance with the IC view, so how can you say that your maps are more neutral? I don't know the disputes Sudan has so I cant really comment on the territorial issues, but the map doesn't show the white parts as being part of Sudan, while your maps show the OTs as being within Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop taking sides. If it is disputed then all maps should show it as disputed.Cptnono (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, the Syria map I created takes less side then when it is presented in the Haifa article that the city is in Israel. To give equal weight to one country and the international community would be a violation of npov. In the case of Ynhockeys maps, they are giving opposite weight, as the views of one country is presented, disregarding the IC. But the occupied land could be striped in the Syria image I created as well. I dont know how to do that effect in Inkscape. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to tell any editors here who are participating in this discussion about the mountain of worldview sources/maps that show the EJ, WB, GS and GH as occupied Israeli territory. If need be, I will provide it, but I don't think there is a dispute about that. The dispute seems to be that some people believe that the Israel opinion is more pertinent than the entire world's opinion, which is a very flagrant violation of NPOV policy. I think the best example provided about how Ynhockey's maps violate NPOV is the Gaza demarcating. The only country in the world who views Gaza as no longer being occupied by Israel, is Israel. This is in extraordinary contradiction to the world's countries, the UN, the International Court of Justice and the world's respected human rights organizations. And yet, we are being told to be believe that these maps are entirely neutral and that the only issue with them seems to be uniformity?

As far as the administrative districts go, I don't have a problem with showing them as a contiguous peace of land (IE Golan and East Jerusalem), but the internationally recognized borders must be somehow marked. I don't think this will change the information that these maps are trying to provide and, in fact, will provider a broader perspective about the territories that are being occupied. -asad (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think all of the issues can be resolved with some simple changes to the maps to ensure that areas occupied by/administered by/under the effective control of etc Israel are visually distinguishable from Israel by line and color. The boundaries need to be clear e.g. the green line, the ceasefire/disengagement lines in the Golan (whatever is already being used) etc and the color contrast between areas need to be clear. The first step is probably to stop arguing about it and just try to propose some changes for a map to see how it goes. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ChasteRoue

I think user ChasteRoue and the project in general would benefit if some IPCOLL editors could spend some time looking at Special:Contributions/ChasteRoue and talking to the editor. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Palestine topics

Hi all - would be grateful for any thoughts on the discussion of Template:Palestine topics. Palestine is long overdue a Country or territory topics template. Given the different interpretations of the word "Palestine", different readers expect to see different topic areas covered when learning about the subject. This template attempts to be as broad as possible to take in to account all major viewpoints, which should help give the reader the best possible navigation aide. Hopefully most editors see this as a positive addition - grateful for thoughts on the talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Late Muslim immigration to Ottoman and British Palestine

Late Muslim immigration to Ottoman and British Palestine, a new page with multiple issues has been created. On Talk:Late Muslim immigration to Ottoman and British Palestine there is a discussion about whether and where to merge that page with other more established pages. Please contribute your thoughts.--Carwil (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a copyvio from http://www.shamrak.com/Masada2000-HistoryofPalestine.htm and have tagged accordingly. Please remove the tag if I am wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

West Jerusalem

There are currently some articles that state that locations in West Jerusalem are "in Israel". Can someone provide a worldview source that confirms this? If no such source can be provided I'm gonna start removing that claim. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what a "worldview source" is, but there are articles and books on all sorts of subjects that put West Jerusalem in Israel. Here is a smattering of them:

Articles:

  • def of west jerusalem by wikipedia disambig page West Jerusalem "The section of Jerusalem which became part of Israel following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. .."
  • geonames, Google maps[26]
  • weather page: [27]
  • Learning words from New York Times: "Few cities can be more confounding that Jerusalem -- Israel's ancient, conflictg-ridden, ponderously pious capital."
  • btselem seems to concede it as "under Israel control" and "annexed":[29]
  • Southeastern University in Jerusalem claims to be in Israel: [33]

Books in various fields:

  • Geography: Margaret W. Young (1982). Cities of the world: a compilation of current information on cultural, geograph., and polit. conditions in the countries and cities of 6 continents, based on the Dept. of State's Post reports. Gale Research Co. ISBN 9780810311114. Retrieved 9 May 2011.

172.190.41.59 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The links in the "articles" section represents specific company's or authors views, your links in the "books" section is the same, only represents the authors views, though I can not access and see all of them, you can ad quotes if any of them contains information representing an International perspective. By "worldview", I meant the view of the majority of the international community as can be seen in UN votes and large organs such as the UN and the European Union. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please login to your account and re-sign your posting. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Are IPs not permitted to comment here?
Anyways, same arguments over and over again. West Jerusalem functions as part of Israel and many maps in atlases point to it being in Israel. I think this source puts it interestingly:

States and scholars alike are divided over the legal status of Jerusalem under international law... It should be pointed out that the cardinal dispute revolves around the rights of the State of Israel in east Jerusalem, whereas broader agreement exists regarding west Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel over this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty).[36]

Much like similar discussions in the topic area, there are several concerns that might pop up.
For example: Is the question the lead? If it is, simply say it is part of "Jerusalem" or at least don't say that it belongs to any country. Let the body do the explanation.
Another example would be if we are discussing infoboxes. Lending the impression that the are belongs to any country picks a side so the infobox should not have a map or it should be a map of Jerusalem without surrounding states receiving more space in the fame or the exact same coloring). Those are two balanced solutions to what I assume this request is about.
If the request is actually about it being in the body, then I agree. The prose should not say one way or the other but instead point to sources describing the differing variables and opinions.
We are not here to make a point or to take one side over another. And keep in mind that minority opinion does not equal fringe. Although the legal opinion might favor that it is not Israel, it is not to the point that makes those saying it is in Israel fringe. So it is fortunate for us as editors that we do not get to definitively say one way or the other. If Israel is removed to add another country then it is just as bad as saying it is in Israel.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Your source says: "whereas broader agreement exists regarding west Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel over this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty).", so this does not confirm that the worldview is that today its part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
"Are IPs not permitted to comment here?"...not if they are topic banned compulsive liars who sociopathically use deception to subvert the project, harass editors, cause conflict and treat the principals and policies of the project like a piece of shit, no. If the IP is genuine and not breaking any rules (by typing even 1 character onto this page) they are very welcome. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That must be the first time someone has cited the Monopoly board in support of a politically contentious assertion! RolandR (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
If West Jerusalem is not in Israel, East Jerusalem certainly isn't. But neither is either section in the "West Bank" or Palestinian Territories. Chesdovi (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Neither West or East EJ is part of Israel, but a large majority of the IC regards EJ as part of the PT:[37]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Positions on Jerusalem makes it clear that the UN views the city as a self contained entity unto itself. How unfair it would be if EJ is recognised as being part of the PT while WJ is not part of Israel. Can't be right. Chesdovi (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between that a large majority of the IC regards EJ as part of the PT today, and how the IC say the entire city should be later. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please reread my comment SD. I did not say it was in Israel. Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please reread the comments SD. What the IC considers it is not the only thing to go off of. And it is certainly not the only way to word it. So what specifically do you want to change? This mention of removing it is too vague. Are you instead planning on replacing it? Are you ignoring other variables to make a flat-out statement of who it belongs to? Have you considered other options since a definitive statement is not the only solution?Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the worldview source (or lack of it), EJ is by a large majority of the IC regarded today as part of the PT. No source has been provided showing that the majority of the IC today views WJ as part of Israel. So that is what the articles should say.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You have failed to respond to other rebuttals or clarification on your actual intent after multiple requests so I think we can safely say that we are done here.Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? I already said above that I was going to remove the claim if no source could be shown that WJ is internationally recognized as part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - While not directly related to a question that contains the term "West Jerusalem", I stumbled across an interesting article the other day by Ian Lustick, Professor of Political science at the University of Pennsylvania, in which he argues that Israel has never officially annexed East Jerusalem or more specifically he discusses "the absence of official Israeli declarations of sovereignty or annexation with respect to expanded East Jerusalem". Tautologically speaking, it may be of interest to those interested in such things. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment For the record, Supreme Deliciousness used this discussion to claim he had consensus to remove Israel as the location in multiple articles about neighborhoods in West Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I asked for a source showing that West Jerusalem was internationally recognized as part of Israel, it wasn't provided, source showing that its not was provided, how is the conclusion of the discussion not that we can now remove the inaccurate claim? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you know what "consensus" means? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure you do if you think this discussion resulted in consensus for you to do what you did over multiple articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus "consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability.", I wanted to do this by opening up a discussion asking people if they could verify the claim that WJ is internationally recognized as in Israel, no such source was provided, sources showing that its not was, "What consensus is" "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised.", what legitimate concerns has been provided showing WJ internationally reckognized as being in Israel and how does this comply with neutrality? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So you unilaterally decided you have consensus not based on what other editors have said, but based on your interpretation of what they didn't say? That's what you think consensus is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Its about a pov claim that is not backed up by anything, I asked for anyone to confirm it and no one could, and Cptnono brought source showing its not internationally recognized as part of Israel, but ill ask an admin later and see what they say.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's similar to removing the "Palestinian territories" from a sentence that says something like "located in East Jerusalem, Palestinian territories"...or is it ? I suppose that's what this discussion is for...not sure. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Source was provided above showing a large majority of the international community regarding East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territories. I'm not adding "PT" after "EJ" but PT maps and cats can be added for places in EJ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Time to start reverting then. You did not read the discussion above and do not have consensus for your changes. How about you list your intended changes instead of putting them in. It appears covert and contrary to consensus building since you have stayed vague about it. You also have still not addressed the other variables and solutions presented. This is AE waiting to happen and they are all about being sick of this stuff so I suggest we find a way to make it work without resorting to dragging problematic edits there.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean reverting? Some are claiming/adding the point of view that WJ is Israel, but the claim can not be backed up. So how can you say "no consensus"? The changes are to remove the non-backed up claim that places in West Jerusalem are "Israel", since that is the pov of Israel and not internationally recognized, therefor claiming such things is a violation of npov. Besides the source above you brought, here is another one: "As already noted, Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem had not been recognized in international law or by the international commu-nity other than through the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which merely confirmed the fact of its presence there." p 39. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume this is about the following edits (...I can't be bothered to link them)
  • 17:45, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Batei Ungarin ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
  • 17:44, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shmuel HaNavi (neighborhood) ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
  • 17:40, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Ma'alot Dafna ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
  • 17:39, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Arnona ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
  • 17:38, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Givat Mordechai ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
  • 17:37, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha'arei Hesed ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
  • 17:36, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Givat Beit HaKerem ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
  • 17:36, 12 May 2011 (diff | hist) Geula ‎ (Removing pov, Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.)
SD is making a valid and important point central to resolving the edit warring that goes on here. No one should be making reverts without a legitimate policy based reason to revert. What is it ? What precisely is wrong with saying 'Jerusalem' instead of 'Jerusalem, Israel' in those articles ? Wiki editors disagree with it isn't a valid reason. I'm not saying I support the edit but I support SD's entirely reasonable expectation that people explain themselves and only make edits based on policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I typically don't agree with SD but this and this seems perfectly acceptable. Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that Gilabrand and a sockpuppet have reverted the edits without addressing the policy based concern SD raised. I've reverted the sockpuppet simply because they're a sockpuppet and weren't allowed to make the edit. Gilabrand really needs to justify the reverts (and not like this) or this whole process will break. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It should not be that difficult to assemble enough examples from independent third-party RSes like The New York Times where Jerusalem is used as a metonym of Israel, in the same way that London is a metonym for the United Kingdom or Washington is for the United States. When world leaders visit Israel, they typically kick the visit off or wrap it up with a press conference in Jerusalem; and oftentimes when a statement or policy is attributed by the press to Israel, the article or headline will use the word Jerusalem. I'll produce sources to confirm this myself, but not today.—Biosketch (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that approach will help. The same argument can and probably would be made to label places in East Jerusalem as being in the Palestinian territories. I could probably assemble enough examples from independent third-party RSes that use Morocco as a metonym of something that includes offshore Western Sahara but a metonym doesn't make those identified but undrilled oil and gas prospects Moroccan and exploitable by Morocco for Morocco under international law. They aren't in Morocco. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure either, but I figured it was worth the try. If it can be demonstrated that the attitude of the media is generally to associate Jerusalem with the State of Israel, that would be something worth mentioning when describing the city's status – like, "Although Jerusalem's formal political status remains disputed, it functions de facto as a city in Israel and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders." But burden of proof is on me to substantiate that claim, and I haven't the resources at my disposal to do that just yet.—Biosketch (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment
This is, of course, not the first time that the status of Jerusalem has been discussed. It should be clear to most by now that the status of Jerusalem is a matter of significant dispute and that a form of words is needed that expresses that. We can state as a fact that Jerusalem is under Israeli control, but not that it is in Israel. The sequence of acts by the international community (expressed through United Nations resolutions) and Israel has been listed elsewhere and is well established. For the international community, the status of Jerusalem is yet to be determined. In addition, East Jerusalem is regarded as being under occupation. There is ambiguity about the position of the United States. It's politicians say one thing, but it actually does another. Despite the fact that, counter to UN resolutions, it has passed a law requiring its embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, presidents have repeatedly invoked the law's discretionary provision to avoid implementing it. For those of its citizens born in Jerusalem, passports are still issued stating that they were born in Jerusalem without giving a country. Also, the US has never renounced the votes it made in favour of the UN resolutions passed.     ←   ZScarpia   13:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the US is only one country and its opinion does not reflect the international community, but only its own out of about 200 countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
True, but a large and, as far as the IP conflict goes, pivotal country which has a veto on Security Council resolutions. On the Middle East, going back to the immediate postwar era when Truman, who was facing an election, backed, for party-political reasons, the partition of Palestine while the State Department opposed it, also a very split country.     ←   ZScarpia   02:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Please post some UN resolutions that express the views of the "international community" regarding West Jerusalem. Preferably after Israel gained control of it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Whole UN resolutions or clauses in UN resolutions apply to either Jerusalem as a whole (which obviously includes West Jerusalem) or to those parts occupied in 1967.
As an example of the former which dates to the period when Israel was in control of West Jerusalem and Jordan in control of East Jerusalem see United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV)[38], December 9, 1949: The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.
Advancing in time to 1968, we have Nations Security Council Resolution 267 (Urgently calls once more upon Israel to rescind forthwith all measures taken by it which may tend to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, and in future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect.) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 252 (Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.).
In 1980, to counter the Jerusalem Law, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478[39] was passed: Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem ... Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council.
Later resolutions refer back to previous ones, so you quickly end up with a long chain of resolutions going back to Resolution 181. The Positions on Jerusalem article serves as useful background. Anything else I can help you with?     ←   ZScarpia   02:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably missing the part where they say they don't recognize Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. With the exception of UNGA 303, which was made when the UN had less than 1/3 the members it has now. That is, less than 60 states could have even voted for it. How many actually did? What else you got? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Serving as an example, The UK position on Jerusalem (from the UK National Archives): We recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. In 1967, Israel occupied E Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal military occupation by Israel. Our Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. In E Jerusalem we have a Consulate-General, with a Consul-General who is not accredited to any state: this is an expression of our view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. (You'll notice that the document mentions UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949, suggesting that the UK government, at least, holds that it is still applicable.)
Resolutions of the enlarged UN of later years invoke the earlier resolutions, implying that the earlier resolutions are accepted by countries who were not UN members at the time. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 63/30, 2009: Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in particular its provisions regarding the City of Jerusalem.
By any chance, do you have any sources which say that any country does recognise Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem?
    ←   ZScarpia   03:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I like UNGA 63/60. They start out by "Expressing its grave concern about any action taken by any body, governmental or non-governmental, in violation of the above-mentioned resolutions", then go on to call East Jerusalem part of the OPT in violation of their own resolution, or at least your OR interpretation of what it "implies". That's pretty amusing if not surprising. Anyway, the operative part of the resolution talks about "the Holy City of Jerusalem". Is that "West Jerusalem"? I guess I'm once again missing the part where it explicitly says the "international community" doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. I must need glasses.
By any chance, do you have any sources which say that any country recognizes Dutch sovereignty over Amsterdam? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Who cares? West Jerusalem is a neighborhood of Jerusalem. There is no conflict there. Jerusalem's disputed status can be discussed in the body. The reader should have a vague understanding of where the city is, who controls it, and who claims it already. If they don't it can be mentioned in the body with wikilinks and fully expanded in the body for those readers looking for that type of information. We should not be offering a definitive statement for something that has so many variables. This is an easy fix much like the flags were an easy fix (surprisingly giving props to SD again) and much like the maps should be. Stop defining stuff that cannot be defined without a 10 footnotes worth of explanation.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Relevant details can be elsewhere, but inaccurate non neutral claims like "West Jerusalem, Israel" which no one has been able to back up with an international view source and only sources show it to be false has been provided. This gives us no other choice but to remove this inaccurate claim of where West Jerusalem is located.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No. This discussion was initiated a week ago. I made my first comment four days ago. Not all of us here have a team of PR interns editing Wikipedia articles round the clock. So hold your horses, and refrain from making nonconstructive edits in order to make a WP:POINT just because you determined that discussion leaves "no other choice."—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you call my edit at the Israel article "nonconstructive" or to make a "point" ? I added it because its disputed. And that edit has nothing to do with this discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll tell you what's nonconstructive. Opening a discussion here on May 9th saying there are "some articles" which you think need a source. Then 3 days later going and changing about 10 of them, where you informed exactly nobody about this discussion. All this regarding a very contentious topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What was the procedure whereby consensus was reached in relation to the boilerplate text used for describing Israeli settlements? Here is the sentence I propose as a boilerplate text for (West) Jerusalem: Although Jerusalem's formal political status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders.

The anonIP who left the second message in this discussion already supplied evidence in support of the sentence above. Here is some more:

Bush to visit Jerusalem and West Bank in January

WASHINGTON - President Bush will make his first trip to Jerusalem and the West Bank next month to push Israel and the Palestinians toward peace. On a nine-day trip beginning Jan. 8, Bush plans to stop in Israel, the West Bank, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Beck Announces Major Rally in Israel

Glenn Beck -- whose "Restoring Honor" rally last August drew close to 100,000 Tea Partiers to Washington, D.C. -- announced on his radio show on Monday plans to hold another rally, this time in Jerusalem.

Glenn Beck announces rally to 'Restore Courage' in Israel this summer

Glenn Beck will hold a rally to "restore courage" in Jerusalem this August, he announced on his radio show Monday.

Pope Benedict XVI lays a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial's Hall of Remembrances on May 11, 2009 in Jerusalem, Israel.

JERUSALEM, ISRAEL - MAY 03: In this handout photo provided by the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO), Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu shakes hands with Middle East Quartet Envoy Tony Blair on May 03, 2011 in Jerusalem.

  • George W. Bush (Wall Street Journal)[45]

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

(Jerusalem)

Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel.

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, and prayed at Yad Vashem.

About the show: The Israeli capital, Jerusalem, was this year's host city that welcomed 19 different delegations. Turkey withdrew from the contest because it took place in Israel and many Arab countries put some pressure on Turkey not to go to Jerusalem.

  • National Geographic[47]

Jerusalem, Israel

&c.—Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is about to remove a non neutral pov that can not be backed up, why would we ad a long incorrect sentence like that into all articles about places in West Jerusalem? "it functions de facto as a city in Israel" so why not also have something like "Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not recognized in international law or by the international community", which can be sourced to:[48] in all WJ articles? or that in all East Jerusalem articles: "Largely recognized by the international community as part of the Palestinian territories" ? "and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders." .. this is factually incorrect, you have cherry picked a couple of news sources that follow the Israeli narrative, this doesn't confirm that all news agency's acknowledge it as in Israel and same thing with World leaders, where is the sources that says that all world leaders acknowledges it as in Israel and why would we ad this text in all WJ articles? By only removing the incorrect and non backed up and non neutral pov as here:[49] we would easily take care of the problem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Changing the tense of the quote you provided from The politics of Jerusalem since 1967 is extremely dishonest. Particularly since it has been pointed out to you that that book's conclusions are not what you claim and you admitted you don't have access to a large part of the text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think I would change a quote from a book, present it as a quote from the book and then link to it so everyone can see that I have misrepresented it? The quote I added above is not a quote from the book,, its a sentence I suggested for what to have in the articles. I also gave you a reply here about the "past tense" [50] and I told you that I didn't see anything in the book superseding the quote and asked you to provide quote if it did, and you did not reply. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I doubt you don't understand the difference between "had not been" and "is not".
The fact you want to say East Jerusalem is part of the PT but West Jerusalem is not part of Israel is just another example of your longstanding and deliberate POV pushing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You are not addressing my reply at the Geula talkpage, the book is divided and speaks about post 1967 in that chapter, Israel controlled WJ after 1948, so that's why it speaks in the past tense in that part. Could you provide the quote from the book that supersedes this quote I brought? Could you provide the quote that shows that its internationally recognized as part of Israel or that "Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem had not been recognized in international law or by the international community" is incorrect? East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories: [51], do you have a source that says the situation is the same for West Jerusalem in regards to Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Your quote uses the past tense. Go ahead and read the book you brought as a source instead of cherry picking stuff and then trying to pretend tense doesn't matter. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Anyway, what's going to happen is this. If this discussion turns out the way you want it to, I will bring sources that show that East Jerusalem and Bethlehem were supposed to be in the Corpus Separanum and that the UN technically still supports enacting the CP. Then I will remove any reference to any of these places belonging to the Palestinians. This includes towns and villages, holy places, PA governates, etc. You know better than anyone else it's easy to POV push this kind of bullshit. You can't have your cake and eat it too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes it uses the past tense in that chapter because the chapter is about post-1967 and Israel controlled West Jerusalem after 1948, so that's why it speaks in the past tense in that part. You have confused what the UN thinks it should be, with what the international community (in this case large majority of it) regards the area today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You have confused UNGA votes with the official positions of the governments voting. But like I said, feel free to continue with this. I'll make sure to take it all the way to its final logical conclusion if you're successful in your POV push. If you really think the "international community" thinks East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians but West Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel, you are in for a nasty little surprise. Your tactics can be used both ways. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Votes at the UN represents the country's views. Its not what I think, its what the sources says. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Question - why have boilerplate text for West Jerusalem? Boilerplate text was created for Israeli settlements because there are dozens (if not hundreds) of such articles, and having the same discussion at each one was tedious. Do we have articles on the neighborhoods of West Jerusalem, or some reason to have a centralized discussion? ← George talk 07:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The answer must be yes, because Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) has asked an uninvolved Admin if he may start editing Jerusalem-related articles and removing any content in them suggesting that Jerusalem is in Israel. (The uninvolved Admin politely told him no.)—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The admin did not tell me "no" to if I could remove it, the admin said that she wasn't going to look at it. And stop wikistalkign me.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are surprisingly more than expected. SH mentioned a handful up above. Much much less though. I think editors would have more fun detailing why the neighborhoods are considered Israeli instead of defining it in the lead. I am a little surprised that trying to remove it even came up but I do get it to a certain extent. I was almost more surprised to see a long boilerplate added that says how it is but still makes a mess of any lead. This is what happens.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We can have that discussion, but Biosketch, be aware that doing so is a long and involved process, and the result may not come out saying what you want. In fact, you may end up opposing whatever version gains consensus.
I think the better thing is just to respond to SD directly. Sources that say Jerusalem is in Israel/controlled by Israel/part of Israel can be assumed to be referring to West Jerusalem without dispute. Whether or not those same sources refer to East Jerusalem might be in dispute, but sources that say Jerusalem is in Israel (ergo, West Jerusalem is in Israel) shouldn't be a point of contention. ← George talk 07:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Any discussion about West Jerusalem will equally apply to East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and all the other neighborhoods and villages that are in the area that was supposed to be in the Corpus Separatum. If we're going to play this silly game, we're going to play it to its full silly conclusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories: [52], do you have a source that says the situation is the same for West Jerusalem in regards to Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Who says a vote on a UN resolution means this is the official position of the government voting on it? We know that's not the case for the UK which voted for the resolution you provided above while it officially says it supports the Corpus Separatum. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Source? Once again, What someone believes something should be, is not the same thing as what they believe something is today. If you can provide a source for that the UK supports that all of Jerusalem should be Corpus Separatum, then this doesn't contradict that they today see it as part of the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What nonsense. I find it hard to believe even you are buying what you're trying to sell here.
Here's the official UK position on Jerusalem. Show me where it says East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Now explain to me how you deduce that they think East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory based on a UNGA resolution they voted in favor of. Your main problem here obviously is that you're once again cherry picking words and phrases and trying to give them meaning that is not inherent in the issue the resolution discusses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That source says: "The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined", and that contradicts the UK view at the UN, but this is still only one country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The salient points of the UK position are:
  • It regards the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties.
  • Pending agreement, it recognises de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory.
  • It does not recognise any sovereignty over the city, Israeli, Palestinian or otherwise.
  • It considers that the city should not again be divided.
    ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
But is does recognise Israel’s de-facto sovereignty in West Jeruaslem as expressed by the then British foreign secretary, as shown below. Chesdovi (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office document linked to above uses the phrase de-facto control; the quotation in your source has the Foreign Secretary using the phrase de-facto sovereignty (though, it seems strange that he would say that the UK recognises no sovereignty and then that it does recognise de facto sovereignty). I think that, in order to properly establish whether one phrase or the other better encapsulates the UK position, further evidence would need to be found. In the meantime, I, for one, am not going to quibble about it.     ←   ZScarpia   19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Pre-1967, 10 countries, including UK, recognised WJ as the capital of Israel with "de-facto sovereignty". 23 countries, including Holland, recognised Israel's "de-Jure sovereignty." Not sure what the current view is. How confounding. I think I recall the CIA book saying EJ is not part of the WB. Chesdovi (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please bring sources for this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The stated position of the UK government regarding West Jerusalem is that it recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West Jerusalem. In 1950, the UK government recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. The UK government's position continues to be that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. You say that the UK recognised WJ as the capital of Israel with "de-facto sovereignty". There is nothing in the UK government statement which can be read as a statement that the UK recognised West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The statement says directly that the UK does not recognise any state's sovereignty over Jerusalem, East or West, de facto or otherwise.     ←   ZScarpia   17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"About 10 countries agreed to recognise WJ as the capital of Israel, though they qualified this by calling it “de-facto sovereignty.” An example of such recognition was the British formula, as expressed by the British foreign secretary: “His majesty’s Government cannot recognise Israel’s sovereignty in the part of Jerusalem which is held by it. Even though this matter is subject to the decision concerning the final standing of Jerusalem, we recognise [Israel’s] de-facto sovereignty....//" and "By the mid-1960s, the number of countries that recognized Israel's 'de jure' sovereignty in Jerusalem had risen to twenty-three." [53] For arguments, see [54]. The area of the West Bank is given by the CIA fact book with the accompanying note: “includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967. [55] ---Chesdovi (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the U.K. government's official website trump's Amirav's book on the issue. Regardless, NMMNG's source is pretty clear on the UK's stance, which isn't at all a surprising one. They don't recognize East Jerusalem as Palestinian, but they also consider it illegally occupied by Israel despite Israel's de facto control of the area (which nobody can deny). They basically take no stance on who it should belong to, so I'm not sure what everyone is talking about. ← George talk 18:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The two issues here are 1. The fact a country votes for a UNGA resolution that incidentally uses the term "Palestinian territories" does not mean that its official position is that a certain area is Palestinian territory, and 2. The UK recognizes that now West Jerusalem belongs to Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The UK does not recognise, now or at any time since 1948, that West Jerusalem, or East Jerusalem, belongs to Israel or any state. You may like to note, by the way, that Moshe Amirav, while saying that new UN resolutions are required in order to address current realities, states: the holy places, as well as Jerusalem itself, are supposed to be internationalized according to Resolution 181, which was passed in 1947 and is still considered binding.[56]     ←   ZScarpia   20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"De facto sovereignty" = belongs to someone now, as opposed to "de jure sovereignty" = should belong to someone.
If Amirav says 181 is binding, he's in the minority as far as I can tell. I've seen countless sources that say that 181 isn't binding since 1. UNGA resolutions are by definition non-binding and 2. it refers to itself as a suggestion and since there was no agreement it is void.
By the way, the embassies were moved from West Jerusalem after the Jerusalem law in 1980, not in 1967 as you say below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
De facto sovereignty or de facto control means in the possession of, not belongs to.
If Amirav is incorrect about the provisions in Resolution 181 regarding Jerusalem still being considered binding, then that suggests the book being used as a source by Chesdovi should be regarded as being of suspect reliability, doesn't it?
On your last point, I was suffering from UN resolution numbering confusion. I meant Resolution 478, not Resolution 242. My apologies; I'll try to be more careful in future.
    ←   ZScarpia   22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
De facto sovereignty and de facto control do not mean the same thing.
Are you arguing that a book that argues a minority position is of "suspect reliability"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you on #1 NMMNG, but #2 seems to contradict your own source, which says quite explicitly that the UK does not recognize anyone's sovereignty over the area. How are you coming to the conclusion that the UK now recognizes West Jerusalem as "belonging" to Israel? ← George talk 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Your source, on page 48, says: ten countries agreed to recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, though they qualified it by calling it 'de facto sovereignty'. It quotes the British foreign secretary as an example of that formulation. Nowhere in the quote does the foreign secretary say that the UK recognised West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. If that was actually the UK position, that would be stated in the UK Foreign Office document already linked to. However, despite that fact that that document refers to de facto control rather than de facto sovereignty, in the quote the foreign secretary does use the latter phrase. In addition, I can find other places on the Web where de facto Israeli sovereignty is referred to, such as a document outlining the Catholic Church's position on Jerusalem, and other contexts in which the phrase is used. Therefore, in the absence of sources that say otherwise (and in the absence of a source which shows that the foreign secretary is being misquoted or made a slip of the tongue), I concede that the use of the phrase in relation to Jerusalem is legitimate. Your source goes on to say that twenty-three countries were prepared to recognise the de jure sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem (presumably it means West Jerusalem) by the mid-60s, all of which moved their embassies to West Jerusalem (and most of which were recipients of Israeli aid). Since the mid-60s, of course, the situation has changed. In the wake of UN Resolution 242 478, no country maintains an embassy in Jerusalem (at least not any part which necessarily must be regarded as an integral part of Jerusalem) any more. The UK says that it does this as "an expression of our view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem."     ←   ZScarpia   18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) (Link to the Wikipedia article on Moshe Amirav)
Some observations on the suggested boilerplate text ("Although Jerusalem's formal political status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel and is acknowledged as such by news agencies and world leaders"):
  • The current situation has arisen because some articles state unequivocally that West Jerusalem is in Israel, implying that Israel has undisputed sovereignty over West Jerusalem, the complete reverse of reality. In many, if not most, of those cases it is unnecessary to state anything about where Jerusalem is (a wikilink to the Jerusalem article would serve as all the disambiguation required) and therefore no real requirement for the suggested text exists.
  • The last part of the suggested text is unnecessary as the first part can stand as a fact in its own right. Also, there is an undesirable ambiguity in the last part because it doesn't quantify how many or what proportion of world leaders or news agency have actually acknowledged the truth of the statement, quantities which it would actually be hard to determine. I would suggest that, if text has to be inserted, something more stripped down such as one of the following (presumably, for, West Jerusalem it would be referred to as a part of Israel rather than a city in Israel):
  1. Although Jerusalem's de jure status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel.
  2. Although Jerusalem's formal political and legal status remains unresolved, it functions de facto as a city in Israel.
  3. Although Jerusalem's formal political and legal status remains unresolved, for practical purposes it is a city in Israel.
    ←   ZScarpia   23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My suggestion: "West Jerusalem is de facto administered by Israel, while its legal status remains disputed." There's a lot of wiggle room in there though. ← George talk 23:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In situations where text is required, that which you're suggesting is fine by me.     ←   ZScarpia   00:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
←The proposed boilerplates are fine by me as well.—Biosketch (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. East Jerusalem is also "de facto administered by Israel". The status of East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem is not the same. I also disagree with the "functions de facto as a city in Israel" language. What does that even mean? Does East Jerusalem not "function de facto as a city in Israel"? Israel is the de facto sovereign, while the status de jure is currently undetermined. You're not going to be able to avoid that.
Also, any status of West Jerusalem that derives from the CP applies equally to many other places. Again, you're not going to imply that West Jerusalem doesn't really belong to Israel while East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Abu Dis, etc, belong to the Palestinians. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with NMMNG. Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi & NMMNG - What did you think of my suggestion? It doesn't talk about all of Jerusalem, only West Jerusalem (which is where this text would get used, apparently). ← George talk 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, East Jerusalem is also "de facto administered by Israel". What's the difference between being "de facto administered" and just "administered", by the way? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
EJ is too, but I thought we were talking about a boilerplate specifically for WJ articles? We could use a similar piece of text specific to articles about EJ if you guys wants, though I suspect other editors will want to tack more information onto any text about EJ. The "de facto" simply establishes that the administration is the "facts on the ground" state of things, not the legal/de jure state of things. This sort of phraseology is common when talking about places that are administered by someone whose legal right to administer said place is disputed (Google Books examples: [57]). We could contrast it with "de jure" explicitly if that's preferable, like: "West Jerusalem is de facto administered by Israel, while its de jure status remains disputed." Thoughts? ← George talk 22:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Why just West Jerusalem? Lets do it for everything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I was just trying to stick to WJ because that was the topic of this discussion, and I thought we already had a similar boilerplate text for EJ. I don't have any problem using similar language for EJ though. ← George talk 23:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs), perhaps if you proposed a sentence of your own, we could evaluate it and come closer to a mutually agreed-upon formula.—Biosketch (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Bethlehem)

I don't know what it should look like, but I do know it should apply to everything. I'm looking for example at Bethlehem which says unequivocally that it's "a Palestinian city in the central West Bank... It is the capital of the Bethlehem Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority..." I assume we're going to change that as well to something like "a city de facto governed by the PNA, while its de jure status remains disputed"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Since Bethlehem's status is undetermined, I think that the word Palestinian should be removed from the phrase Palestinian city in the West Bank. Since the Bethlehem Governorate is just an administrative entity, unless someone can show that there is a dispute about it, I can't see a problem with the statement It is the capital of the Bethlehem Governorate of the Palestinian National Authority. Similarly, if someone had written Jerusalem is the capital of the Jerusalem district of Israel, I wouldn't see a problem. If you feel inclined to expand city in the central West Bank to something such as city in the central West Bank de facto governed by the PNA whose de jure status remains unresolved, for myself, I don't have any objections.     ←   ZScarpia   15:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Bethlehem is in Area A of the West Bank, which means it is under full security and civil jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. The agreement at Oslo supersedes a mere recommendation by the UN back in '40s. It is not de facto governed by anybody, it is legally governed by the Palestinian Authority. -asad (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The Oslo Accords do not supersede it. The internationalisation plan was reaffirmed in 1952 and 1979 and has not been revoked. Bethlehem has Christian holy sites, just like Jerusalem. The Oslo Accords are an interim agreement only to allow for Arab self-government. The PA is only an authority, not a quasi-state. Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course Oslo supersedes it. You cannot pretend to compare a non-binding recommendation in the '40s to what became law in Israel and the Palestinian territories, which was in fact, then recognized by the world. Yes Oslo was intended as an interim plan, but did I miss the breaking news story that we have gone passed the "interim" period? Because last time I checked, Bethlehem was still in Area "A", and there is a big sign at the entrance of the city in Hebrew and English saying that "Palestinian Authority Territory ahead, entry by Israelis is forbidden by Israeli law". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk facts for a moment. I know, I know, we don't deal in facts here, we deal in POVs, but humor me for a second. Nobody thinks the CP is actually going to happen. It was a plan, the plan was rejected, and practically every single country that commented on this issue agrees that Israel and the Palestinians will settle this as they see fit, and neither is in favor of the CP. Putting this bit of trivia in a prominent place in the lead of every article it theoretically effects is doing the reader a disservice IMO. Yes, in theory Jerusalem and Bethlehem are supposed to be in the CP but everybody knows that Bethlehem will be in Palestine and West Jerusalem in Israel. So instead of pushing stupid political points for no other reason than pushing stupid political points, let's try to give this issue the weight it deserves (not very much) and the people who read the articles realistic and relevant information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what's CP? And is Bethlehem disputed? Does Israel claim that Bethlehem should be a part of Israel like the Palestinians do with Jerusalem? I'm not sure if the two cities have the same status. Even in a two-state solution, there has been talk of splitting Jerusalem, or making it an international city run by the UN, while I haven't heard such proposals about Bethlehem. I don't think those are likely outcomes, but the odds of anything being agreed to by the Israelis and Palestinians is exceedingly unlikely anyways, so shrug. ← George talk 18:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
CP = Corpus separatum. Bethlehem is as disputed as West Jerusalem is (meaning not really). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
One significance of the corpus separatum is that it provides a definition of what the 'international community' means by Jerusalem. UNGA Resolution 303 details where the boundaries are. As can be seen, Bethlehem is used to mark the boundary and is included in the corpus separatum. Using the UK as an example of the international community's position on Jerusalem, the last paragraph of the FCO document describes how the position is affected by the peace process:
The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should not again be divided. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties.
Notice the first bullet point:
The UK position was formally expressed in April 1950, when HMG extended simultaneous de jure recognition to both Jordan and Israel. However, the statement withheld recognition of the sovereignty of either Jordan or Israel over the sectors of the city which each then held, within the area of the corpus separatum as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV) of 1949. In the British view, no such recognition was possible before a final determination of the status of this area, although HMG did recognise that both Jordan and Israel exercised ‘de facto authority’ over those parts of the city and area which each held.
    ←   ZScarpia   19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't really need UNGA 303 describing the boundaries. There's a map. See the page about the CP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Territory cannot be acquired by war/force only by legal annexation, which requires a referendum of the legitimate citizens of the territory to be annexed. E.g., the annexation of Texas where Mexican citizens of Texas voted to become a part of the US. As Israel has never legally annexed any territory, to be reliable any opinion by secondary sources claiming the territory as Israeli should surely have to show legal annexation documentation or at least a date. Yes?/No? talknic (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry didn't mean to terminate the discussion by asking a hard question ... talknic (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbis

Please see The Arizal was a Palestinian with various disscussions at User talk:Chesdovi, User talk:Debresser (with next 8 talkback sections), User talk:Supreme Deliciousness, Assesing regional identity. Chesdovi (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem

It might be nice to create a consensus regarding Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem topic articles. Questions like location (Jerusalem/East Jerusalem/West Bank/Over the Green Line) definitions of nature and politics (neighborhoods/settlements) styling guidelines is a direction worth exploring. See WP:DERRY/WP:LDERRY or MOS:ISLAM for successful precedents which minimize disruptive editing like slow motion WP:EW in highly conterminous topic areas. The final objective is {{faq}}, {{consensus}}, {{notice}} tags to publish on article's talk pages to avoid endless POV loops. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Still a bit confused how Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem is different than East Jerusalem. Aren't they talking about the same place? Almost seems like a potential POV fork to me, but unsure if there are differences. ← George talk 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Could I get some fresh views?

Here is the relevant section on the TALK page: [58] for the article 1948 Palestinian exodus I put my concerns on the talk page and have tried to edit the page for balance, but at every turn I am reverted and told I am favoring a particular viewpoint and that the lead is balanced as it stands. Could I get a some real collaborative editing over there? Eyes appreciated. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As often, editors aren't seeing the wood for the trees. First and foremost, the analysis of the significance of the events should be in a section of its own, towards the end, not in the lead. The lead should summarise the article so it should lay out the different phases of the exodus. And the assessments of the historians should be simply stated, and attributed to them, without interpretation. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation

Link to discussion here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

References for above

  • Comment. Just want to mention that while it's feasible to aggregate all the references on a talk page into a single section, as appears to be the intent here, there's a better way to do it. When you include text in a section that contains sources enclosed between ref tags, just add {{relist|local=yes}} to the bottom of your section. This only works if everyone on the page who posts text that includes ref tags does it; otherwise references cross-over from other sections and show up where they don't belong. Nice to have one's references appear immediately below the text they support, though. If people want to do use this method, then the (invisible) reflist template that immediately follows this text should be removed, probably along with this whole section. More documentation available here. Regulars: feel free to delete this comment if you decide to retain the status quo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking of just deleting it since not used recently. But good idea and will put it on my cheat sheet! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaza War

Recently an RFC was held over the inclusion of alternate names (Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre) in the lead of the article Gaza War. That discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin with the result of "include". A user has ignored that RFC and again removed the material. More eyes are needed at the article and talk page. nableezy - 16:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel

A discussion on a possible re-naming of this Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel is currently taking place that may interest members of this project. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Afd Hagit Borer

While article obviously needs better sourcing, the fact that she is a former Israeli currently taking part in the Freedom Flotilla II action probably has to do with the AfD. See deletion discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else notice removal of mentions of Palestinians?

In the past 3 days I have noted two different anon accounts removing references to Palestinians from articles[59] and [60]. Obviously there is always a steady trickle of this stuff, but does anyone else notice a change in flow?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a moderate amount if PI articles in my watchlist, and I'm following the watchlist closely in the last days, but can see nothing special. The IPs mentioned above are from different parts of the world. Could be a conspiracy, but I'd bet a coincidence. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I came here rather than one of the main drama boards as I was not sure whether it was coincidence. I did note the two different countries but trolls such as the JIDF puppetmaster regularly worked through proxies.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
One more: [61] (I still bet on sporadic vandalism). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This one is in the same city as the one I reverted on Sunday. Different ISP though.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Israellycool

Israellycool....um....something needs to happen to this article, not sure what it should be although speedy delete springs to mind. Someone may want to try to rescue it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause

There is an AfD now. While the title and article aren't perfect, obviously there are a variety of Palestinian resistance organizations using different tactics and if Palestinian political violence is worthy of a topic, then the larger topic of Palestinian rights activism does seem worthy of one article, not just mentions here and there spread over a variety of articles like: [Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], Palestinian people, Boycotts of Israel, 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, List of Palestinian solidarity organizations, etc. Thoughts in general and not just on this particular AfD? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Geez, say the word and List of Palestinian solidarity organizations is up for deletion. As I detail in my note there, there's an article called List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel which just links to 6 articles by years called "List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel." This is getting absurd.
I wonder if an article on Palestinian nonviolent action would get deleted, even as Palestinian political violence was kept. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I put on my long do list creating an article on Nonviolent action groups in Palestine and/or Worldwide Palestinian solidarity groups with actual references, since evidently no one wants to quickly ref the articles above and I don't have time right now myself. (Though it seems to me there was such a pretty good article in past that got deleted. Anyone remember?) But if someone else wants to go for creating such article to balance articles like the Rocket attack articles, go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist exists and is not up for AfD. Reported at Wikiproject Palestine, but seems that project not too active. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Historic designation of the Palestine region

Please comment at Historic designation of the Palestine region. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Taxation, Template:Capitals of Arab countries

At least two templates, Template:Taxation and Template:Capitals of Arab countries, give a misleading impression that there are countries called "Palestinian territories" or "Palestine." Reliable sources indicate that those aren't countries. Is this to be attributed to WP:IAR or is there consensus to correct this?—Biosketch (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is it misleading or in need of correction ? The template uses the word "country" without elaborating on which definition is being used. Obviously the word has several meanings as the Wikipedia article country points out. The source you cite doesn't mention the term "country" does it ? The Palestinian territories have been assigned an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code so in that context (and many others) it is treated as some form of "country". Perhaps the template is vague rather than misleading. Are you suggesting a different wording should be used ? Perhaps Template:Countries of Africa might help. The header says "Countries and territories of Africa" and it includes Somaliland for example (who routinely refer to themselves as a country by the way). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
If we agree to follow the list at ISO 3166, we'll want to change the designation "Palestine" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries to something else in order to be consistent. "Palestinian territories" is the established convention, and it's what I changed "Palestine" to at Template:Taxation last month. A clarification in the header along the lines of "Countries and territories" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries, where it wouldn't profoundly affect the template's appearance, would be a welcome addition as well. As to the meaning of "country," yes the article Country clearly isn't about sovereign states. Presumably in American English "country" is overwhelmingly equivalent to "sovereign state," whereas in British English the word is frequently used to mean other things.—Biosketch (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Palestine has been recognized as a state by more than 130 other countries, so there is a very significant view that Palestine is a sovereign state. While I for my part recognize that Palestine isn't as "sovereign" as Sweden or Australia in the sense that the territories are occupied, I don't agree that we should adopt a view that's presented as fact that it isn't a state, as 130 countries (the majority of the world's countries) disagree with it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Diplomatic recognition is an attribute of a state. Palestinian, let's say for now, autonomy, definitely has many state attributes (postal stamps, for example), but also is missing many others (like sovereignty). In writings (the two I did read), it's mostly defined as state coming into existence, state to be, not as an accomplished fact. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A fun game (Mein Kampf in the Arabic language)

In the hopes of actually being collaborative, I have a fun little project for anyone who is interested. There is currently a dispute regarding the publication of Mein Kampf in Arabic. It is already clear that an Arab version became a bestseller. And no one should be shocked that some Arabs do not like Jewish people. But was the '95 (or a later) edition only distributed by the PNA or did the PNA actually publish copies. We have an RS saying it was "published". But the opinions of some editors is that they don't think they actually did. I would love to spit in the face of WP:V if we have enough evidence to say otherwise. I would love to find RS that details "distribution" instead of "publishing". But does it exist? No need to comment here since I have already started the contest for searching supremacy at Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. If anyone wants to bring in a ringer from the reference desk it wouldn't hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampf in the Arabic language

Please could editors kindly have a look at this discussion (Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language) and consider whether it may be worth reopening the deletion debate? I believe the existance of this article is degrading to wikipedia, as it is blatant propaganda. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

An AFD would be a waste of time. No consensus for deleting it is possible, so the result would be Keep. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It could result in a consensus to merge the material into the main Mein Kampf article. I think that would only be a realistic possibility if enough genuinely independant policy-minded editors participated. The AfD would probably attract sockpuppets too which never helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive_8&oldid=1137378770"