Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 1 August 2007

Palestine Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

missing in this article

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/3/Passover%20suicide%20bombing%20at%20Park%20Hotel%20in%20Netanya

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/855852.html

various structures have been destroyed as a result of Palestinian bombings in israel - these are not yet covered in the article. Zeq 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the relevence of the first link. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of a structure was demolished. but in any case there are many others examples of homes that are attcked by militants and are demolished or partly demolished. BTW. the article fail to mention that israel have stopped the pratice of demolishing homes against families of suicide bomebers. Zeq 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Criticism and responses" section does say that the practice was discontinued in 2005. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, do you not see the difference between the destruction of a house as a punitive measure and the destruction of a house by suicide bomb? Tarc 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not just about demolitions as a punitive measure. Isarig 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions by Isarig

Isarig removed a sourced addition with the false claim that it had been discussed on the talk page. Well, it haven't but it's never to late to start so I bring it here. It is relevant to this article as it deals with house demolitions as a way to deal with the ethnic challenge. // Liftarn

You may want this article to describe "house demolitions as a way to deal with the ethnic challenge" - but it clearly does not. As it says in the lead: "House demolition ... is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes". The Margalit quote is not about any of this, and this has been discussed, with your participation, in the TAlk page of this article's predecessor - House demolition. Here is a link to the relevant discussion - with your input. Your accusation that my claim that this has been discussed is false and dishonest - don't do it again. Please stop adding this irrelevant, POV-pushing quote to the article. Isarig 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with what you describe as "ethnic challenge" (i.e. the fact that Arabs exist) does come under "other security purposed". ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is Liftarn who described it as an '"ethnic challenge" (perhap he'll be next on your shitlist as an "Evil Zionist"(TM)). But regardles, no, it's not. Isarig 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, as it say "a Palestinian home without a permit is a strategic threat" thus demolishing a house because those living there has the "wrong" ethnicity is covered by "security purposes". // Liftarn

First of all , this is ICAHD's POV and phrasing, and a NPOV article shoudl not accept a partisan's claim as fact. More importantly, a "strategic threat" is not the same as "security purposes". The US faces a "strategic threat" of the Euro replacing the Dollar as the main currency for international commerce but steps that the Federal Reserve may take to remedy this would not be "security measures", would not be considered an act of the US armed forces, etc... Isarig 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting interpretation, but I've never heard it before, so unless there is a wider discussion framing it in these terms, Margalit is talking about something else which doesn't belong. Tewfik 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly interpret it that way? The quote is from a report on house demolitions so if it somehow "doesn't belong" then the framing is wrong rather than the quote. Btw, the article is about "the use of house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" so it clearly belongs as it's about house demolitions as a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. // Liftarn

No, the article is about a "controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces" . It is not at all about civil demolitions of houses constructed w/o permit, no matter how desperately you or ICAHD want to conflate the two. Isarig 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even if you want to narrow the scope to exclude the majority of the house demolitions. // Liftarn

No, it's not. You might want it to be, and it migh be in the future, but right now, it is not, and won't be, until consensus for such an expansion is reached here. For the thrid time, the article's lede expalins what it is about: "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes in the Israeli-occupied territories. Although it is justified by the IDF as a deterrent against terrorism, its effectiveness and legality has repeatedly been questioned by human rights groups." Isarig 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Notice what it says in large letters above, "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". // Liftarn

The scope of this article is military and security actions. Jayjg 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) The editorial decision to include so much material about the permit demolitions in an article that purports to be about military/counter-insurgency/security purposes is POV. As I say below, I think the easy solution is merely to expressly expand the scope of the article. nadav (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See below. And demolitions based on security purposes (like that the building was built y someone with the "wrong" ethnicity) is valid. // Liftarn

Zoning and planning issues, or allegations of discrimination, belong in other articles. Jayjg 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In 'which' other articles? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Arab citizens of Israel is one such article, delaing with allegations of discrimination. Isarig 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Outdent:

Isarig removed a large section of the article with the comment "this article is not about demolition of houses built w/o permit by civil authorities". But Isarig does not WP:OWN this article so his opinion on what should be excluded from this article is not necessarily the last word on the matter. And his opinion here is unreasonable, as Israel routinely denies building permits to Arabs as a result the majority of buildings built in the Arab sector are built without permits. The subsequent wholesale demolition of Arab buildings by the Israeli authorities on the grounds that they have no permits is part of Israel's conflict with the Arabs living under its rule and merits inclusion in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I obviously don't own the article - WP works by consensus. Get consensus for the inclusion of this material, and it stays. Fail to get consensus, and it's out. So far in addition to me, editors Jayjg, Humus sapiens and Tewfik have expressed similar objections, and nadav has called the repeated attempts to include this material "POV", so it appears that you not only don't have consensus for including this material, but a majority of editors oppose it. Isarig 22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know that there are a group of Zionist editors who can always be relied on to attempt to censor anything which they feel does not paint Israel in a favourable light. This is not new. And it is not convincing. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated allegations that your edits are being reverted by group of Zionist editors censoring information, alongside blatant POV pushing edits such as this reflect badly on you. Please stop it and start contributing porductively to the project. Isarig 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename and refocus article

I suggest we rename this article "House demolition in Israel and the Palestinian territories" to get away from the POV problem. That way we can be free to discuss any demolitions we want without implicitly making the POV claim that Israel demolishes Arab homes for being threats to its national character. We would be able to include explicit discussion of this POV as well as the contrary opinions. nadav (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think such a name would make it unfocused. It is intended to be about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not generally about any house demolition in a specific geographic area, i.e. it's about context, not geography. // Liftarn

Demolishing a house built without a permit is not part of the "conflict". Perhaps we should include the Israeli demolition of houses in various settlements as well? A few thousand were demolished as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, and wildcat settlements are regularly destroyed as well. Jayjg 15:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps scorched earth destruction of houses also should be included. First denying building permits and then demolishing the house as part of the conflict may be included. // Liftarn

Also, Israel regularly destroys Israeli homes in every Israeli city and town, under various laughable excuses, such as "being demolished to make way for new residences" etc. We need to get the records of the various municipal offices in charge of this, to start documenting these pathetic covers for conflict demolitions. Jayjg 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If Israeli homes would have been demolished by the Palestinian authorities on flimsy excuses then it would have made a good addition to the article. Just find sources before you add it. Good luck. // Liftarn

Why should we limit ourselves? why should we look only at hypothetical demolitions by Palestinian authorities, when there are plentiful demolitions of Israeli homes by Israeli authorities? Isarig 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be an excellent idea to rename this article, since a lot that has happened (eg demolitions in Jerusalem and the Negev) have virtually nothing to do with "conflict".

However, there is one small problem. Israel has carried out House demolitions outside it's own territory, and outside territory it occupied - is it possible to somehow include these examples too?. Here are a couple of edits I had intended to make:

===1966 Samu===

Samu was a small village (population 4,000) in Jordan (now the West Bank) which was attacked by 4,000 Israeli soldiers in jeeps, personnel carriers and five Patton tanks. They demolished 46 houses and the mosque, apparently in retaliation for the placing within Israel of a mine which had killed 3 Israeli soldiers. The Israelis waited for Jordanian troops to arrive and killed 16, including the pilot of an elderly jet. Three civilians were killed and 96 wounded. The Israeli battalion commander was killed, and ten Israeli soldiers wounded.

Special Assistant Komer wrote to President Johnson after this incident that he had told (Israeli) Ambassador Harman "fully understood Israel's problems, but that use of force was dubious at best and use of such disproportionate force--against Jordan to boot--was folly indeed. It undermined the whole US effort to maintain Jordanian stability, which was so much in Israel's own interest that Israel's action was almost incomprehensible."

For the 40th anniversary of the Six Days War, a UN observer came forward to describe what he'd experienced. Dutchman Colonel (ret.) Jan Mühren told the Dutch current affairs program Nova that Israel provoked most border incidents as part of a strategy to annex more land. He tells how Samu (indeed, the entire West Bank) had nothing to do with attacks on Israel "only western officers operated here and we did patrols". Moshe Dayan confirmed that Israel had provoked 80% of incidents preceding the 1967 Israeli attack, and the Dutch television program includes a clip of Israeli journalist Rami Tal describing the interview (the contents of which were not made public until after Dayan's death).

===1956 Qibya===

Qibya was a village in Jordan (now the West Bank). Arial Sharon, then commander of Unit 101, equipped his men with 600kgs of explosives and they blew up 45 houses with the death of 69 civilians, mostly women and children crushed in the rubble This incident was in retaliation for the killing of 3 Israelis within Israel, but no evidence the intruders had used the village was ever presented.

1. Incident at Samu Time Magazine, 25th Nov 1966. Accessed 23rd June 2007
2. Six-Day War deliberately provoked by Israel: former Dutch UN observer - text and video link to Dutch current affairs program Nova on 4th June 1967. Accessed 20 Jun 2007
3. From butcher to 'Lion' to Prime Minister of Israel. Accessed 22nd June 2007

PalestineRemembered 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Both incidents (Qibya, Samu) have their own WP articles (written in a much more NPOV and better refernced than your suggestion above, BTW). If the article's scope is expanded, we may include a pointer to these articles, or a "See Also" list. Isarig 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They're famous mass house demolitions by the Israeli military and a quick recount of the major details is necessary in this article. Qibya, at any rate, was and is universally recognised as an atrocity. I'm not aware we give the perpetrator any "right to reply" in these cases - or can you show us examples in any other region where we do so? PalestineRemembered 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the renaming of the article. The vast majority of sources addressing the topic a) treat it as part of the I/P conflict, b) describe the demolitions citing security and the demolitions citing lack of permit as part of the same phenomenon, and c) do not address odd instances of demolition of homes of Israeli Jews or Bedouin. The reliable sources have defined the parameters and the purview of the subject. Gerrymandering by Wikipedians violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.--G-Dett 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This article covers house demolitions for military purposes; I don't see the sources used here discussing it in other contexts. How did you decide that a "majority" of sources did so? Jayjg 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By actually reading them instead of indulging in I-feel-lucky bluffs and guesses about their contents. The only sources of ours who do not fit my description are those that are either a) reports focusing on a specific instance (such as the Human Rights Watch report "IDF House Demolition Injures Refugees" about a demolition in Gaza), b) general sources addressing the legal context of the Israeli occupation rather than demolitions per se, or c) partisan/propaganda tracts such as Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars, which don't belong here anyway because they're written by non-experts and touch only glancingly and rhetorically on the topic at hand. I'm hoping you'll self-revert; it will be a more pleasant means to an inevitable end.--G-Dett 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you've just listed a whole bunch of sources that don't actually refer to "demographic demolitions". Which ones specifically deal that that topic, then? Jayjg 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you wrote: "This article covers house demolitions for military purposes; I don't see the sources used here discussing it in other contexts." Have you changed your mind about that?--G-Dett 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You call my idea gerrymandering, POV, and OR?! The intent of my suggestion was to make extended coverage of civil Palestinian home demolitions uncontroversially relevant to the article. And I believe you are misinformed about the Negev Bedouin land issue. nadav (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that G-Dett may be misinformed about the Negev house demolitions. 100s have been carried out recently eg , and I think the Israeli minister responsible said he wants to demolish 42,000, leaving the inhabitants with nothing. PalestineRemembered 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, wikipedia is not a soapbox, please refrain from spreading libeleous claims. Jaakobou 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some demolitions were this week: , . nadav (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant that most RS's have not addressed the demolition of Bedouin homes as part of the same phenomenon as that of Palestinian homes. I can see now that at least in the case of Amnesty International, I was wrong, and I may well be misinformed on that subject more generally. It may be a moot point, but the OR and NPOV issues I had in mind were WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, not pov-pushing.--G-Dett 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be undue weight etc. if we kept the article's title/purpose as is; that's why I proposed explicitly broadening the scope of the article. nadav (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

More info

There is more info on house demolitions here:

• User:PalestineRemembered/House Demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• User:Timeshifter/Al-Aqsa Intifada Archive. Old page

I am not vouching for the quality of the info. I did not do the compilation of the info on either page. The second page does not focus on house demolitions. I recently finished converting the embedded links there to reference links. --Timeshifter 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 AfD

I've closed the June AfD as keep. This isn't a comment on the quality of the article. The redirect form is perfectly compatible with the keep. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The recent AfD on this article has now concluded with a substantial majority in favour of keeping this article (for the record, the outcome was 62.5% in favour of keeping it, 30% redirecting, 7.5% deleting). Consequently I've unprotected it, but I've restored only a stub. I'll explain why.

I still don't particularly want to get involved in editing this article - it's not my area of expertise or interest. However, in the interests of providing a constructive way forward, I'd like to suggest an outline. When writing an article from scratch (as in the case of House demolition), I usually find it helpful to sit down and work out a rough structure for it in advance. That way I don't end up with a baggy, undifferentiated mass of content and a rambling narrative. The article should be organised into clearly focused sections which aren't excessively long.

The version of this article that existed immediately before it was blanked suffered from a lack of focus and direction, quite apart from any issues with the specific content that it incorporated. I don't know much about the issue but from the content that's been posted already (and extrapolating from the existing House demolition article) I would suggest something like the following:

• Lead

- Summarise issue and controversy

• Israeli policy

- Establishment of house demolition tactic (British Mandate), previous policy, current policy, statements by ministers & military

• Usage

- Numbers, locations (West Bank? Gaza? both?), time periods (e.g. just during the intifadas or before then as well?)

• Reasons

- Targeted killings, punishment, administrative issues (e.g. alleged illegal construction), counter-insurgency - give examples of each

• Legal status

- Legality under Israeli and international law, legal opinions, position of Israeli courts

• Political issues

- Opposition and support (who opposes? who supports?), campaign groups (e.g. Israeli committee against house demolition), international opinion (what has been said by UN & foreign governments?), activism (e.g. Corrie case, other demonstrations)

This should of course be written neutrally from the outset, relying on reliable and verifiable sources. Please try to remember that you're not here to condemn or defend either Israel or the Palestinians, but to summarise accurately and fairly what other people say about the issue.

Good luck! -- ChrisO 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Obviously good coverage of the issue would be preferable to folding all coverage into the main House demolition article. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. It's obviously impractical to fold all coverage into the main House demolition article for the simple reasons that (a) it's an overview article in the first place; detailed coverage of a particular conflict would overwhelm it and defeat its purpose, and (b) a complex topic like this needs to be dealt with systematically, not shoehorned into the corner of another article. The best way forward here would be for editors to agree in advance on an outline and topics to be tackled, and then systematically work through each heading and fill out the content. -- ChrisO 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the outline is a good suggestion, with one exception: I don't think it should include civil demolition of houses built without permit, as that is a civil matter.we may include a brief mention that some partisans who are opposed to the military policy view such civil demolitions as being part of some grander conspiracy. Isarig 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

I guess we'll need to go down the usual route – RfC, revert wars, locked page, mediation, mutual recrimination, etc. – to establish the inevitable: that this article will include so-called "administrative demolitions." For the simple reason that the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources treat these as part of the subject. You'll succeed in exasperating editors, draining their energy, resources, and faith in the project, and so on – but in the end the article will follow its source material, rather than manipulate or gerrymander it.--G-Dett 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) --G-Dett 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

stating, at this stage, that the result of the RfC is "inevitable" is puzzling, to say the least, and the attitude reflected by your edit above does not seem to be in the spirit of this project. You are, yet again, strongly advised to reevaluate your approach to editing this encyclopedia, which is just that, an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for Israel-bashing. Isarig 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not examined much of the evidence yet, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that "administrative demolitions" belong in this category according to the sources. Why don't we produce and write-up the evidence first and let the community decide whether it belongs? Do we need to have an argument before we've seen what people produce? PalestineRemembered 06:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another puzzling statement - an editor that admits he has not looked at the evidence, yet boldly states that it is "overwhelmingly likely" that something belongs. Why don;t you just go out and say you wnatthis included, whether or not it belongs? The article's lead saysy "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. " - this clearly excludes civil demolitions of houses w/o permits. Isarig 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead used to read, "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency, other security purposes, and civil planning in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," which had the advantage of presenting the topic as the reliable sources present it, rather than as ideologues on Misplaced Pages prefer to carve it up. Jayjg performed his gerrymander here, with a characteristically helpful edit summary, "Nope." You are now tautologically citing Jay's gerrymander as authority for itself. Go figure.--G-Dett 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when this article was created, by Abu Ali, the lead read "House demolition (also known as house razing) is a tactic for combating an insurgency. ". It contained this formulation (or others similar to it, all of which excluded civil demolitions) up until the AfD, redirect and subsequent stubbing by ChrisO, who intorduced the "civil planning" aspect. Perhaps you should use your usual uncivil style and chastise ChirsO here, or on his talk page, for gerrymandering or carving up the article to suit an ideological position. Isarig 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not following. The version of the lead written by ChrisO and gerrymandered by Jayjg is authoritative not because it "came first," but because it followed the sources rather than undermining/second-guessing them.--G-Dett 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. The version by ChrisO had no sources whatsoever, it was a minimalist stub. So, are you going to claim he was gerrymandering, by clearly changing the scope of the article, which had remained constant since its inception? Isarig 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The IDF justifies it as a deterrent against terrorism.", clearly does not belong.

In the interests of consensus and feeling our way forwards, I've left in place the statement "The IDF justifies it as a deterrent against terrorism.", but it clearly does not belong. It's not acceptable to International Law, not acceptable to world opinion, and the most notable element (demolition of the houses for the purpose of punishing the families of suicide bombers) has been stopped by the controller of the IDF (Defense Ministry) with the comment "An army committee earlier reported that the policy had little deterrent effect and inflamed Palestinian hatred." As of this moment, the IDF clearly does NOT think it a deterrent, they've found that that is not the case, they've said so, and the recommendation has been acted on. PalestineRemembered 06:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

CHange it to past tense? "The IDF justified it..." // Liftarn

Or "Until 2005, the IDF acted in the belief that demolishing the family house of a suicide bomber acted as a deterrent to terrorism and justified it thereby. This particular practise was abandoned in Feb 2005 by order of Israel's defence ministry after an army committee reported that the policy had little deterrent effect and inflamed Palestinian hatred." PalestineRemembered 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We must be clear, though, that this was never the only reason for house demolitions, and demolitions for other reasons continue. Sanguinalis 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'm not sure how anyone got a different impression. PalestineRemembered 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

The article, as it is currently described in the lead, and as it was initially conceived by its creator, is about house demolition as a military tactic. Some editors want to expand the scope to include ANY kind of house demolition in the I-P conflict, including civil demolition of houses built without permit, demolition for public purposes under eminent domain etc...I think this is inappropirate, but as a compromise, I'm willing to entertain the following:

• The article's lead will make clear that it is about demolitions of 3 kinds (military action, including punishment for terrorism; civil demololition of houses build without permit; demolition for public purposes of houses taken under eminent domain)
• The 3 will be treated seperately, as they are different things, and not conflated together as if they are part and parcel of some grand scheme.
• In the seperate section about civil demolitions of houses w/o permit:

• It will be made clear that such demolitions are carried out against Arab as well as Jewish illegal construction.
• There will be mention of the POV allegation by partisan groups (such as ICAHD) that the civil demolitions are part of a grand startegy against the Arabs, and that it is applied in a discriminatory fashion to Arab vs. Jewish construction; This will be balanced by claimes (quoting Palestinian leaders) that Palestinian illegal construction is part of a land-grab strategy that has nothing to do with availability of building permits.
• There will be mention of the allegations by Partisan groups (such as Btselem) that building permits are impossible to get, and this will be juxaposed against counter-claims using offical statistics that show actual availability of permits to Palestinains, in percentages similar to (and sometimes exceeding) those granted to Jews in Jerusalem. It will also be made clear that since the Oslo accords, 95%+ of the Palestinian population gets its permits from the PNA, not Israel.
• There will be a detailed subsection about the demolition of Israeli "outposts" and other settlements built w/o permit

• In the seperate section about civil demolitions of houses taken by eminent domain:

• It will be made clear that in such case the owners of property are compensated for the taken property
• There will be mention of the allegations that eminent domain is used to take houses from Palestinains for the purpose of building Jewish settlements or roads, and this will be balanced by counter allegations that this is unproven.
• There will be a detailed subsection about the demolition of Israeli settlements built in Gaza and the West Bank which were evacuated and demolished as part of Israel's unilateral withdrawal plans. Isarig 15:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Initially this article was to be about house demolitions as a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some highly vocal (and disruptive) editors have constantly been trying to exlcude the majority of the demolitions on spurious grounds. // Liftarn

No it was not. When it was created, it stated in the lead "House demolition (also known as house razing) is a tactic for combating an insurgency". Isarig 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whack open this trojan horse piñata of compromise, and out come a whole lotta little CAMERA-candies. The suggestion to treat punitive, administrative, and security demolitions in separate sections is good, since that's what the RS's by and large do. The rest of this consists mostly of preposterous violations of WP:UNDUE ("This will be balanced by claimes (sic) (quoting Palestinian leaders) that Palestinian illegal construction is part of a land-grab strategy that has nothing to do with availability of building permits" is especially precious), and a ridiculous proposal to present the highest-quality reliable sources (scholars and human-rights organizations) as "partisan groups," whose immense research data will be "balanced" by what Isarig deems to be The Truth – a synthesis of CAMERA-clippings, "official statistics" of the Israeli government, and his own original research. Sorry, no. Let's just structure the article according to what the RS's say, and present other minority opinions each according to its prominence, and with a watchful eye on WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and other relevant policies. --G-Dett 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of 'highest-quality reliable sources' is ICAHD - a self-professed partisan group, whose leaders have been caught, more than once, simply fabricating "facts" out of thin air, to promote a political agenda. If we cannot describe these POV allegations as what they are, and provide counter claims, per WP:NPOV, then we'll have to stick with the article's current and original scope - dealing with house demolitions as a military tactic. Isarig 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course we'll attribute statements, and provide counter-claims. And no, ICAHD will not have the final word. No one gets the final word – not even the scholars and human-rights organizations you routinely denigrate, and whom I refer to as our "highest-quality" RSs. But our presentation will not be guided by nonsense like the following:

There will be mention of the allegations by Partisan groups (such as Btselem) that building permits are impossible to get, and this will be juxaposed against counter-claims using offical statistics that show actual availability of permits to Palestinains, in percentages similar to (and sometimes exceeding) those granted to Jews in Jerusalem. It will also be made clear that since the Oslo accords, 95%+ of the Palestinian population gets its permits from the PNA, not Israel.

You're not going to turn this article into another talking-points state propaganda flier, Isarig, sorry.--G-Dett 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. If we are going to provide counter claims (attributed, of course), are we supposed to avoid providing counter claims like this that say Palestinains are building illegaly as part of a land-grab startegy, or keep official government statistics like this out of the article, just because they present facts and points of view you don't like? Isarig 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Justus Reid Weiner, the sage who staked his reputation on the Edward-Said-summer-home thesis: showing that Said's family was rich and tended to spend only summers at their home in pre-48 Palestine, Weiner concluded that Said had only a tenuous connection to his homeland; Weiner then asked readers to "now substitute the Palestinian people" for Said and voilá!, the hoary old myth of a land without people for a people without land acquires a fresh coat of cheap paint. In the book Isarig is now hocking, Weiner turns his analytical powers to the issue of house demolitions in East Jerusalem, and "based on scores of interviews from across the political spectrum," concludes that Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and every other major human rights organization and previous scholar of the subject are lying through their teeth. I haven't got my hands on Weiner's magnum opus yet – Harvard's only copy is in offsite storage – nor can I find any proper scholarly review of it (only extended blurbs from CAMERA and FrontPageMagazine), but I have thoroughly enjoyed the promotional link Isarig provided. It includes a blurry aerial photo of some buildings and a parking lot, which apparently shows how an "illegal building built on basketball court prevents the expansion of a school" (demolish it! let 'em have it!), a scanned photo of a "brochure in Arabic advising residents how to obtain a building permit, published by the Jerusalem Municipality" (easy as one-two-three), and a few pie charts demonstrating how "new Arab construction has outpaced Jewish construction" (to Palestinian families rebuilding their house for the fifth time this last may actually make some sense). Great stuff, Isarig.

In answer to your questions: yes, you can include Weiner. No, NPOV does not mean equal air time for Weiner's cheerful little book, on the one hand, and the conclusions of every major international human-rights organization and the vast majority of scholars and experts, on the other.--G-Dett 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Your ad hominem attacks aside, the academic publication, by a well known researcher, cited by several other academic papers should be given MORE air time, not equal or less air-time, than the shrill hyperbole of a self-professed partisan group like ICAHD. Isarig 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) we're not talking about ICAHD, we're talking about the consensus of "every major international human-rights organization and the vast majority of scholars and experts"; (2) Weiner is well-known as a "researcher" who levelled a petty charge against Said and extrapolated preposterously from it; (3) Weiner's book is not an "academic" publication, and was not peer-reviewed; (4) Until I find or you produce some concrete evidence that the Weiner thesis has been taken seriously by anyone beyond the CAMERA/FrontPageMagazine fringe, I'm not sure his argument belongs in the article at all – and you can forget about it getting equal air time with consensus knowledge. See WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don;t intend to debate your personal opinions of Weiner. He is a well known jurist, an expert on human rights, and published in numerous peer reviewed publications, from The Journal Of Human Rights to The Virginia Journal of International Law. That you know of him only through his expose of Said's fraud is testemant to your ignorance, not his lack of credibility. If there is any 'highest-quality reliable sources', comprised of academic research vs. partisan POV-pushing, it is his work on the topic. WP policy REQUIRES that he be given prominenc over the likes of ICAHD, or the polemics of B'Tselem. Isarig 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

B'Tselem is a major human-rights organization. They are "polemical" only in the sense that Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. are polemical, that is, insofar as they take human rights seriously and report on violations accordingly. They do not comment ideologically on media coverage, the peace process, American foreign policy vis-á-vis Israel, and so on in the manner of MEMRI, CAMERA, the ADL,et al. If you have objective evidence (e.g. peer-review journal reviews or statistics from scholarly citation indices) demonstrating that Weiner's argument regarding "illegal construction" in East Journalism is taken seriously beyond the CAMERA-MEMRI- FrontPageMagazine-MEQ circuit, I welcome it, and promise to revise my editorial stance accordingly. I've even looked for reviews in The New Republic, which can usually be counted on to give a thoughtless veneer of legitimacy to charlatan scholarship of the Joan Peters/Alan Dershowitz variety. I've not yet checked Commentary, so that might be a place for you to start. So far I can't find anything, but despite my skepticism my mind remains open. In the meantime, I'm still chuckling over the stupid picture of the basketball court.--G-Dett 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't intend to debate this. Just to get this silly line of POV argumentation out of the way, Wiener's research is accepted and cited by H. V. Savitch and Yaakov Garb in "Terror, Barriers, and the Changing Topography of Jerusalem" (2006; 26; 152 Journal of Planning Education and Research), as well as by Gerald M. Steinberg, the head of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University (see 'Learning the Lessons of the European Union's Failed Middle East Policies' - paper presented at the conference on “Troubled Waters: Europe And Its Relations With The United States And Israel”, The Helmut Kohl Institute for European Studies, Hebrew University, May 2003). Enough with the ad hominems, it's time for you to move on. Isarig 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Isarig, that's a start.--G-Dett 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a false start, it seems. the Steinberg conference paper is about Europe's Middle East policies, and makes passing reference to demolitions and to Weiner's book in exactly one sentence. That one mention is positive, I'll grant you. But I was (and am) asking for a scholarly review, not a passing mention in an unpublished conference paper on a different topic. But it's better than nothing, which is what I've found in the Savitch and Garb piece. The Weiner book is in the bibliography, but is not once mentioned in the lengthy text. I do not see how you concluded that the authors have "accepted" his thesis; technically speaking, they haven't even cited it. I remain skeptical but open-minded. Perhaps there's a review or something in USA Today? My guess is they'd like his pie-charts.--G-Dett 13:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a potentially fraudulent use of citations. I believe the response is "This looks very bad, I hope you have an explanation". PalestineRemembered 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. He hasn't used these citations anywhere in an article, and there's no evidence he's used them "fraudulently" either. Jayjg 20:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that neither G-Dett nor PR can read well enough to find the clear cite of Weiner's book in the Savitch paper does not make anything here fraudulent. Isarig 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I never was a very good girl of the book – the written word just ain't my medium. Pie-charts, satellite-photos of parking lots, scanned brochures and suchlike pretty things are more how I learn, and with them I learn good.

Mr. Weiner is listed in the bibliography, misspelled "Wiener," p.173. I do not find his work "cited" anywhere in the text, much less endorsed and "accepted." I am ready, even hopeful, as always, to be proven wrong, while growing accustomed to having such hopes dashed.--G-Dett 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Page 154 : "�Palestinians have built quite extensively and mostly informally in neighborhoods such as Beit Hanina, Al Azariya, Shua’fat, Hizma, and other others. Aerial photography confirms this pattern of explosive growth in Arab areas (Kimhi 1997; Wiener 2003)." Perhaps you should spend a little less time mocking pie-charts, and a little more time actually reading. Isarig 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and again on pages 155 and 171. My humble apologies. But you didn't expect me to actually read the thing, did you? That's a tall order, Isarig. Life is short, Proust is long, and sometimes when you send me these links I rely on a little ctrl-F – and these damn authors of your misspelled the name of this other damn author of yours every damn time. OK now, so these two agree with the other that "Palestinians have built extensively and mostly informally in East Jerusalem," which they suggest is part of an informal territorial struggle. Very well. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether this finding is generally accepted (it seems plausible enough to me), can you explain how it contradicts the findings of human-rights organizations and scholars that permits are near-impossible to obtain for Palestinians, and that this near-impossibility reflects the state's own demographic/territorial goals? Savitch and Garb do quote a city official (p.171) "who claims that equivalent proportions of permits have been issued for Jews and Arabs." Now that claim would contradict the findings in question. But Savitch and Garb conspicuously back away from endorsing it, clarifying that their goal is only to "demonstrate that regardless of formal prescriptions, land use is contested highly by both sides." In other words, they more or less concede the consensus wisdom about the discriminatory issuance of permits, but claim that this is only one tactic within a larger demographic struggle, another tactic being rampant illegal construction by Palestinians. Are we agreed that that is their claim? My hummingbird-like dartings around the rest of their text confirm this is more or less the flavor of its nectar. I'm not going to read the whole damn article, unless you force me to.--G-Dett 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You've asked for evidence that Weiner's book is an acceptable academic source- and I've presented you with such. The question is not how S&G will be used in the article, but rather how Wiener's research will, and I've already given you an overview of how. Once the article is unprotected and, if we agree on this compromise as a framework, I'll provide quotes from Wiener that describe the availability of building permits to Arabs (to counter the claim that they are impossible to get), as well as information that Arab non-permit building is done as part of a national strategy, financed by the PNA, and often on land not owned by the builders at all, rather than as a last-resort measure by poor land owners who can't get a permit. Isarig 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lordy, give him an inch etc. You've presented me with one source that cites and endorses Weiner's claim that rampant illegal building on the part of Palestinians is part of a territorial struggle. Weiner and S&G thus make this claim; very well. Your "compromise" suggestion added a rather breathtaking extrapolation to that claim. You wrote: "Palestinian illegal construction is part of a land-grab strategy that has nothing to do with availability of building permits." The latter clause (with emphasis added) may reflect Weiner's conclusions or your extrapolations or both, but it is decidedly not endorsed by S&G, who – notwithstanding their strong and manifestly pro-Israel POV – also give a wide berth to the "offical statistics" that you embrace, to wit, those that you claim "show actual availability of permits to Palestinians, in percentages similar to (and sometimes exceeding) those granted to Jews in Jerusalem." The fact that that position is put forth by Mr. Weiner in a rather obscure book, by a Jerusalem city official in private correspondence, by you on a Misplaced Pages talk page, and by CAMERA in one of their innumerable online fliers (this one a screed against the Washington Post), does not make it worthy of equal editorial weight with the consensus conclusions of human-rights organizations, NGOs, scholars and other experts on house demolitions.--G-Dett 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing two things. If we were to use only those Weiner claims that are explicitly mentioned by S&G , we could just quote S&G. But we were debating a different issue - is Weiner a reliable source, and can his book be used. You questioned this, falsely alleging that his research is only used by what you termed the "MEMRI/CAMERA" crowd. I've proven this false, and will use Wiener's scholarly research (which is of high quality enough to be used as support for material in peer-reviewed academic publications and in papers presented at international academic conferences) to advance whatever points he makes there, not just the points that happened to be explicitly referenced by S&G or by Steinberg. Isarig 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing not two things but many things. Read my posts again, esp. the concluding sentence of the last. We are not debating whether Weiner can be included (did you not notice my edit summary?) but rather how much editorial space and weight to give his arguments. Based on what you've provided here (one citation in a peer-review article on a related topic, and one passing mention in a conference paper on an unrelated topic), it seems his influence in this area is very slender outside of the propaganda circuit; and the one relevant scholarly work you've provided that cites him endorses only the most general and least controversial part of his argument (i.e. that Palestinians have their own demographic agenda).--G-Dett 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) On wikipedia, we give more prominence to scholarly research, such as the one by Weiner, than to partisan POV allegations by political groups such as ICAHD. We're done here. Isarig 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By "ICAHD," of course, you mean B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, et al – the world's major human-rights organizations. Such groups are constantly compiling evidence and writing reports on human-rights violations all over the world; they are by charter and by definition non-partisan. Of course, apologists for whatever state or entity falls under their scrutiny – be it Serbia, the United States, Hezbollah, or any number of tinpot dictatorships – react by accusing the human-rights groups of having a "partisan" agenda, but this is as trivial as it is mechanically predictable, and has no bearing whatsoever on the groups' status within Misplaced Pages as reliable sources of the highest quality. As for "scholarly research," the preponderance of it appears to be unimpressed by or unaware of Mr. Weiner's odd claims, and to privilege the latter in this article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett 18:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By ICAHD, I mean ICAHD - a partisan, extreme-left group whose members have repeatedly fabricated "facts" out of thin air to forward their political agenda. To give them as much air time as to scholarly research by an academic would be not only a travesty, but a clear violation of WP editing principles. HRW, B'Tselem and AI are in the same boat,, but they are nonetheless still biased organizations, with a strong anti-government bias. I am not opposed to having their allegations presented in the article, so long as those allegations are balanced with counter claims. Isarig 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the "background" section of the Hezbollah article, "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians." Should this be "balanced" by a counter claim from a Lebanese intellectual citing Hezbollah officals and the party's own "official statistics"?

Should the extensive material in Srebrenica massacre sourced to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights, et al, be "balanced" by the counter claims of a relatively obscure Serb writer citing official Serb statistics?

If so, then you have your work all laid out for you. If not, then stop shilling and give the special pleading a rest.--G-Dett 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up these examples, which make my case perfectly. The "background" section of the Hezbollah article is 573 words long. Of these, there is one 18-word sentence (which you quoted above) dedicated to the accusations of war crimes against Israelis, and another 18-word sentence mentioning that it is considered a terorist organization by some countries. The rest of the section, more than 500 words (more than 93%), is dedicated to descriptions of Hezbollah's social services and to justifications of its actions against Israel, sourced to such high quality academic references as the website of the Socialist Workers Party of Ireland, or directly to Hezbollah through it's Al-Manar TV station. I am more than happy to have a similar balance of 90% Weiner's views and 10% accusations by HRW and AI in this article as well, or in the specific sub-sections dealing with building w/o permit. Isarig 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm always pleased to help you articulate your thoughts and more cogently "make your case" (as it were), though when your posts verge on pure gibberish any role I play becomes something of a dubious distinction. Hezbollah is a general article about a party/movement/organization; the information about its social services, political history and so on do not "balance" the information about war crimes against Israel; they talk about a different issue within a broad topic. The point, a simple one, which you nevertheless appear not to have understood, is that on the topic of human rights and human-rights violations, Misplaced Pages tends to quote renowned human-rights organizations as authoritative. 'Authoritative' does not mean they get the last word, much less the only one. It does mean, however, that we generally don't throw them into six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other kinds of formulations alongside radically unequal sources, as if they were mere pundits to be "balanced" by "opposing views" or "counter claims." It means, that is, that Misplaced Pages articles don't say, "Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International allege war crimes committed by government X, but Joe Blow from the such-and-such institute in the capital of X disputes these claims, citing official statistics of government X." If you're tempted to think I've made another point for you, read this again, more slowly, mouthing the words if necessary.--G-Dett 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You are now hand waving and clutching at straws. I repeat: I am more than happy to have the same balance in our article, or in the subsection on building without permits, as the Hezbollah background section has: 18 words for AI & HRW together (10 of which comprising the lead "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused..."), and then 500+ words dedicated to either the official Israeli government position explaining why the demolitions are necessary and a part of city planning, or to Wiener's research showing how easy it is to get permits. Isarig 00:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you'd be "more than happy" to have 500 out of 518 words devoted to "the official Israeli government position"; this is what I meant by "shilling." If you have a dictionary to hand, look it up. Then look up "balance." Information about Hezbollah's political history within Lebanon does not "balance" information about its war crimes against Israeli civilians. The fact that the Hezbollah article contains other, unrelated information about Hezbollah is a good and normal thing for an encylopedia, Isarig, and it has nothing to do with "balance." "Balance" would consist of a counter-claim from a Lebanese writer or intellectual, or Hezbollah official, disputing the claims of human-rights organizations. The article on Hezbollah doesn't have that. The article on Srebrenica doesn't have that. And it's a good thing too, for the reasons I've described. Enough of your sophistries, Isarig. As much fun as it is to whack these stupid softballs out of the park, one does begin to yearn for a worthy opponent.--G-Dett 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When 18 words are devoted to an allegation of war crimes, and 500 words are devoted to describing social work and providing rationalizations for the attacks (the same attacks that were described as war crimes by HRW), that is indeed "balance". (or rather, imbalance, in favor of thepro-Hezbollah position). Feel free to continue to delude yourself that you are whacking softballs out of the park. From my vantage point, it looks more like you're whiffing on slow pitches. The Hezbollah example didn't pan out quite like you hoped, I'm sure you'll be more thoughtful next time. Isarig 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hezbollah and Srebrenica examples quite exactly summed up my point: Misplaced Pages generally presents the findings of major international human-rights organizations as authoritative, with no "balancing" perspective derived from "official statistics" or obscure nationalist writers. That you see coverage of diverse subtopics within a general subject as an issue of ideological "balance" reflects your conception of Misplaced Pages, as a kind of epic op-ed page, a place for punditry and pamphleteering, claim and counterclaim, justification and accusation, ultimately, that is, a forum for your tireless shilling.--G-Dett 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hezbollah example indeed exactly summed up the point: where grave allegations of war crimes exist, we devote 18 words to them, in the most generic and vague terms possible, and balance them out by 500+ words directly from those accused of war crimes, sourced to their banned-for-incitement-of-racism propaganda TV station, that explain that these are legitimate acts of resistance. I was going for a more balanced presentation in this article, but your example has convinced me to devote much less space to these allegations of HRW's, along the lines of the Hezbollah article. Isarig 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I gather you do not have a dictionary to hand.--G-Dett 03:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarig -> there is one part of the Hezbollah article that indeed does what you claim. I've been over there to protest at this dramatic departure from NPOV, see here. It would be a shame if critics of Israel copied the frequently outrageous behaviour of supporters of Israel. PalestineRemembered 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent, ec) -> Human rights organisations, far less advanced than what we have now, helped rescue 1 million Jews from Russia to Israel (and many more elsewhere?) in the 1980s. I can't rememeber whether the Soviets were given a right of reply or not, or whether anyone in the West dared challenge the claims being made. I can guarantee that western sources treated any and all such deniers with disdain. It seems strange to do a 180deg turn and claim that the modern day equivalents (with both local and international observers and proper recording of what is happening) are not reliable now - and that those who dispute these reports must be given a respectful hearing. PalestineRemembered 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarig has in interesting thought there. Perhaps something we can expand on. Amnesty is clearly biased as they are against human right violations so statistics on human right violations can not be used. The police is biased against crime so their statistics on crime can not be used. Doctors are biased against sickness so their statistics on sickness can not be used. // Liftarn

Yes, indeed. Gives a whole new meaning to neutrality. --Marvin Diode 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I was afraid this would happen. I've protected the page for a week to stop this edit war - I was hoping that you guys would agree on the scope of the article and your sourcing before jumping in and editing it. Maybe now this can happen. I don't have time right now, but later on today I'll post some suggestions on how to proceed. -- ChrisO 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Useful material from Israeli Haaretz Newspaper

Ministries seek AG okay for hiatus in demolition of Bedouin homes ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also here is some stuff on House demolitions in Jaffa. A personal blog of a Jew living in Jaffa so can not be used as an external link. But interresting and informative nevertheless No! to demolitions in Ajami and Jabaliyah. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant to the subject of this article, which is 'a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.' Isarig 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a zionist approach to exclude Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes inside the green line, which is not accepted by the non-Zionist editors here.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, I understand your frustration, but stick to editorial arguments based on policy. The article will include so-called "permit" demolitions because the reliable sources do. If we have to go through the whole RfC, mediation, etc. routine to effect it, we will, but obviously the article will be based on the topic as it's defined by reliable sources. Let the other side flail around in anger.--G-Dett 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This article might include permit demolitions - if and when consensus for such inclusion is reached. Categorically stating that it "will" do so is no better from a WP policy perspective than the rabid rantings about "zionists" that you (rightly) object to. Isarig

If you can reach a consensus that the article should exclude some house demolitions, then (and only then) the content may be removed. // Liftarn

You are under the mistaken belief that both positions are equally valid. They are not. Read WP policy - the onus is on th editor wishing to add content to prove that it is relevant and verifiable. Isarig 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then when you're done reading policy, read the reliable sources, who to a one treat "permit" demolitions as part of the topic.--G-Dett 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that it is reliaablie, verifiable and should be included in the article. That some politicly motivated editors constantly try to remove it is another matter. // Liftarn

House demolitions. Let's create 2 separate articles

Simple solution. I suggest 2 articles along the lines of:

House demolitions in Israeli-controlled territories

House demolitions in Israel.

I think it is more important to get the info out there from all reliable sources. Rather than waste time arguing about the scope of a single article. I think that in many cases this argumentation is a standard delaying tactic seen many times in other articles.

Creating separate articles solves the problem by changing the scope of the articles.

Permit demolitions in the occupied territories are obviously considered part of the conflict since those occupied didn't vote in their occupiers.

All viewpoints about permit demolitions in Israel can be discussed in that article. --Timeshifter 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how that split would solve anything. // Liftarn

I agree with Liftarn that this is not a viable suggestion. Please read the citations in this article - in fact both types of demolitions are occurring in occupied territories (e.g. East Jerusalem, and also the West Bank to expand settlements). So splitting the topic would not be an honest approach.

I'm moving this topic up since it is in the way of an ongoing discussion; please feel free to move it back once that discussion is completed. Thank you, Jgui 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why try to include house demolitions in Israel along with house demolitions in the Palestinian territories? One could argue that house demolitions of the various groups in Israel have many motivations. Let those motivations be spelled out in the article on House demolitions in Israel

We solved the problem of too much content in the House demolition article by spinning out this article. Why not further spinout material to House demolitions in Israel? Please see WP:SPINOUT. --Timeshifter 15:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Our friends will (a) try to get the new article deleted, and (b) remove all content related to houses demolished because they were denied permits etc. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion attempts will not work against House demolitions in Israeli-controlled territories, because that article would contain the bulk of the material that survived the last deletion attempt. House demolitions in Israel will survive if there is enough sourced material. Even if there is not much material at first it would probably survive as a stub. But I gather there is plenty of material. Attempts to delete it as a spinout article would fail due to the attempts by people to remove the material from the current article. So, actually, a deletion attempt would clarify things greatly. --Timeshifter 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that people can't have it both ways. One can't remove reliable sourced material from an article by claiming it is offtopic, and then try to delete the ensuing spinout article that contains the same reliable sourced material. Assuming of course that the material is ontopic for the spinout article. I actually prefer more articles, since then there is room for a more in-depth, encyclopedic breakdown of all the related topics. Misplaced Pages is not paper. We have plenty of room for encyclopedic info concerning notable topics. Please see WP:NOTPAPER.--Timeshifter 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized to address concerns of Liftarn and Jayjg

Jayjg and Liftarn seem to disagree on the scope of this article. It is clear from the title of this page that this page is about "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Please read that a second time in case it is not clear that this is unrestricted in any way. I have reorganized this article to make it clear that this includes any reason for house demolition. This fully conforms with "policy", since the policy is that the article should match its title.

I have kept almost all of the text that was here before, reorganizing it to improve its organization, and removing only text that was very repetitive. If I have removed a sentence that someone thinks I should not have removed, then PLEASE ADD IT BACK. I have also added a few cited quotes from reliable source, in all cases using sources that were already in use.

And I have clarified the statement to be "House demolition in occupied territory is illegal under international law" because it is - please read the law if you question that. Israel does not dispute the truth of this statement; they dispute whether this law applies to their country and the Palestinian territory. So I have left that discussion as it was.

Thank you, Jgui 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks nice and I hope it will be accepted by the deletionists as well. // Liftarn

Obviously not very well... // Liftarn

The cited text I added is being deleted without any discussion here. This is flagrantly against WP rules. Could one of those who has deleted this text (Beit Or, Isarig, Shrike and Tewfik) please explain why they are deleting cited text without discussion? The edit histories indicate "irrelevant", "off topic", NOTHING, and "off topic", respectively. But I stated very clearly above how this is ON-TOPIC and RELEVANT - namely that the title of this entry is "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", and indeed everything I added is about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tewfix further claims in his edit history that "much of that isn't even sourced", although I believe it is all sourced, so could Twefik please note specifically which material is not sourced so I can improve it? I will restore it so you can make your comments. Thank you, Jgui 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summaries, the assertions are not only off-topic and not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but are not even sourced, and make ridiculous allegations like theft that are entirely unrelated. While I'm sure you meant well, it is your responsibility to ascertain that every statement you add is actually supported by RS, and isn't a personal synthesis. Tewfik 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, you deleted huge swaths of direct quotes from human rights groups, with proper citations. Furthermore, while some assertions you deleted ("house demolition is illegal") were unsupported, you replaced them with statements which were also unsupported ("the legality of house demolition is disputed"), but more flattering towards Israel. Simply because an allegation strikes you personally as "ridiculous" has no bearing on anything. Indeed, someone who believes that Israeli theft of Palestinian land is a "ridiculous" accusation would have to know very little about the relevant history.

I suggest that the properly sourced material be restored, and not touched without a proper discussion on talk. I suggest that unsourced statements be tagged {{cn}} and discussed on talk for at least a week or two, only then deleted if no citations can be found. Currently, it would seem the criteria for deletion of material are related to personal opinions of Israel, and not to citation policy. Eleland 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I removed off-topic information and original research. I also would like to point out the policies on sock puppetry. Tewfik 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you removed relevant sourced material. AGF & CIV violation removed. Tewfik 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Tewfik voted to make this article a redirect, not delete it. I don't think what Abu Ali said was all that uncivil, but I will attempt to rephrase his point in a way that is not in any way an attack: Tewfik, your comments in the AfD discussion indicate that you did not want an article devoted to this subject in the first place. That suggests that you may not be the right editor to decide what is "on topic" for it. Sanguinalis 11:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I could say the same about you for commenting in the opposite direction. What is far more worrisome are the blatant violations of civility and assumption of good faith above and below my comments which seem to be attempting to disqualify any differing opinions, and the efforts of other editors to preserve them. Tewfik 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik and Jayjg have a long history of deleting reliably-sourced info that criticizes Israel. I have documented it in detail here:

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict

Here is the current revision of that project page. Check the "notice board" section with the monthly requests for NPOV help.

I am bringing this up because it is really tiring to see it happening yet again, and I want to help others to see the various methods used for deletion. The easy way to stop this deletion is to create more spinout articles. See WP:SPINOUT.

I want plenty of reliably-sourced criticism of all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict to be included in all relevant wikipedia articles. --Timeshifter 12:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said!ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. You are totally out of order. DO NOT KEEP EDITING THIS TALK PAGE. I am well aware of what WP:Talk says and here is the relevant excerpt -

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed. There are exceptions, however. Some are:

If you have their permission Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything.

I have also posted a message on your talk page about this --Nickhh 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxies

Whoever is using TOR proxies to revert this article, I remind you that one is not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages using proxies, and particularly not in order to edit-war. Jayjg 23:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay has cross posted to ANI. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring reminder

Regarding the ongoing edit war on this article, I'd like to remind everyone of Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Please bear this in mind and use this discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion concerning removal of comments from this talk page

Please see this discussion. --Timeshifter 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

House demolition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

NOTE: This section was moved since the proposed change did not seem to get traction, having been undone by Armon soon after the changes were made; and because there is an ongoing discussion below. Please feel free to move it back when that discussion has wound down.

I was bold and changed the name from House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to House demolition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

This way we can discuss ALL house demolitions. No matter the reason. Including the ones in settler areas. Let us stop the mass reversions and the deletions of reference links.

Both Jgui and Jayjg need to stop deleting reference links. Instead, someone needs to integrate all the reference links and info. Blanking is blanking is blanking. No matter who does it. Please see the section on blanking in WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism.

We can spinout more articles if any subtopic becomes too long. We have the room. Misplaced Pages is not paper. Please see WP:SPINOUT and WP:NOTPAPER.

I think this name is better than "House demolition in the Palestinian territories". That is because some people say that those territories do not include settler areas or any areas not under direct control of the Palestinian National Authority. Since demolitions are sometimes done to expand settler areas, then that name may end up causing more unnecessary arguments about the scope of the article. --Timeshifter 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You realize that this change implies that demolition of Israeli settler homes now warrants mention and that demolitions within Israel won't be covered? nadav (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have no problem with discussing the demolition of settler homes also. I think it is too confusing to cover demolitions within Israel too. Anybody can create another article called "House demolition in Israel." --Timeshifter 04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss the virtues of the move a bit more first. Personally, I don't think it's it's too confusing to discuss demolitions within Israel, and there probably should be something about the demolition of settler houses as well -regardless of what we title it. In both cases there would seem to be tactical considerations at work. <<-armon->> 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you just tag-teamed another mass reversion. See this diff of your last edit. And you haven't stated whether you support the page renaming or not. So how are you helping? You did not try to integrate any of the material of Jgui and Jayjg. You just deleted stuff. Demolitions in the part of Jerusalem within the West Bank as defined by the Green Line would be covered by my new article name. --Timeshifter 05:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed for a bit previously and none of the editors who commented (except Timeshifter) seemed to think it was workable, viable, or a good idea. It seems to me that someone will have to do a lot of very convincing arguing. As I said above, I think it would be fine to create a separate article about settler houses, but doing that would not require changing the current article name; and it certainly doesn't require using the names that Timeshifter has suggested which seem to me particularly bad. Jgui 05:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No one disagreed with me there. And that discussion was about a different name. Why is this new name a bad name? And this latest name makes it clear that discussion about settler demolition is OK. The current name obviously does not make that clear. And your last edit was another tag-team mass reversion. See this diff. So you and Armon are opposing each other with tag-team mass reversions of each other. How are either of you helping with these last edits?--Timeshifter 05:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I think you are trying to be helpful, but I admit I am rather offended by your equating my reorganizing and adding material to this page, with Jayjg et al's mass deletions. Because of your previous accusations I took the time to go through every change that I had made, and noted every bit of cited text that I had actually removed from the page as part of my edits (see above). If you question that I am being truthful, then please print out the diff that you have provided a link for - notice that the diff does not note when text is moved - and take the time to see where I moved identical sentences or paragraphs without changing them. If you do this you will find that I indeed removed only the sentences that I noted above. So do you think that the things I changed are equivalent to removing nine full paragraphs of cited text - because that is what Jayjg et al are doing?

Furthermore, Jayjg accused me of making specific NPOV edit, even though I was reinserting essentially the same text that he was inserting. Nevertheless I addressed his concern by rewriting the paragraph he complained about in the way that he requested, and that is the version that I restored last night. It is unfair of you to call this a "tag-team mass reversion" - I am looking for input on ways to improve my edits, and I am then making those changes. Since you have called my changes "spin", I challenge you again to point out to me where I have added "spin". My goal is to improve this page by writing NPOV text; if you think it is POV, then PLEASE TELL ME WHERE. I cannot change it if no one tells me where the problems are. Of course it would be even better if the Jayjg et al editors were to follow WP guidelines and make these changes themselves, instead of deleting them.

Timeshifter, if you want to insert yourself in this conversation as an intermediary, then I hope you will do a more thorough job of fairly analyzing the data. Thank you, Jgui 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete cited material without stating why

I have taken the time to re-insert an improved version of the material that I added previously. I have addressed some of the concerns stated above, namely I have carefully cited EVERY sentence that I have added, and I have replaced the discussion under "Legal Status" with text taken verbatim from the parent "House Demolition" page, since that text has apparently met with approval as being NPOV.

The text that I added earlier was deleted by a number of editors including Jayjg before Jayjg semi-protected the page. I appreciate his semi-protection, and I hope that editors will this time abide by WP guidelines, and leave the cited text that I have added and discuss it HERE in these Talk pages without removing it.

I found particularly problematic the fact that a long term editor and Administrator, Jayjg, was one of the editors who deleted without discussion the material that I added previously. Instead he wrote an edit summary that stated "Please get consensus for widening the scope before inserting off-topic material; much of that isn't even sourced - this has been explained many times, please avoid false edits summaries)".

Jayjg, please write your comments here in this Talk page. It is impossible to have a discussion with an editor who simply deletes text. To address some of the concerns that you stated in your edit summary:

Jayjg, I am not "widening the scope" with "off-topic material" - the scope and topic of this page is plainly stated as "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Could you please point out anything that I have added to this page that is not related to "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"?

Jayjg, I am not inserting "unsourced" material. I have very carefully cited every sentence that I have added with a Reliable Source that meets WP standards, using sources that were being used in this page before I made any edits. Could you please point out anything I have added to this page that is not properly sourced?

Jayjg, I have not made "false edit summaries". That is simply an unfair accusation. Could you please point out any edit summary that I have made that is "false"?

Jayjg, I hope that you will accept that I have made edits in good-faith in an effort to improve this page. I would also, of course, appreciate your and other editors' improvements to my edits.

Thank you, Jgui 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, could you substitute commas for the colons in your above comment? I could not tell at first what was happening. I thought you had copied and pasted a conversation from elsewhere. But then I finally figured out that you were addressing Jayjg, and not quoting him. In particular, you are addressing his edit summaries.

I have looked at your last edit (please see this diff). It is good that you have sourced your additions. But you deleted other info and references. I suggest you incorporate all reliably-sourced viewpoints, info, and references. This allows the reader to make up their own mind, and I believe it better fulfills WP:NPOV. I suggest in the future that you not change much what has already been written. Instead, I suggest adding more sourced info. --Timeshifter 11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, thank you for your suggestion; I changed to commas. I think the diff you are using is a bit misleading, since I moved a lot of text to improve its organization and to clarify the objections to demolition that have been made. In addition, I replaced the Legal Status section with one that should be non-controvertial, since it is taken verbatim from the WP page on House Demolition. If you look carefully you will find that aside from thae Legal Status section, I moved every other cited sentence that shows up in the diff without any modification, except for the following relating statistics about demolition as a punitive measure:

House demolition has been used in an on-again-off-again fashion by the Israeli government during the al-Aqsa Intifada. More than 3,000 homes have been destroyed in this way.

and:

According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem:

• From October 2001 to December 2005, Israel has demolished 668 homes as punishment, leaving 4,182 people homeless;
• Israel has demolished 1,746 homes for alleged military purposes since B'Teselem started keeping statistics in this category in 2004;

Which I rewrote as:

In October 2001, Israel renewed its policy of punitive house demolitions against the al-Aqsa Intifada. More than 3,000 homes have been destroyed in this way.

You forgot WP:NPOV; opinions must be cited to the groups expressing them, in this case B'Tselem. Jayjg 17:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I hope you are joking. Please note that I left the second sentence (the one from Btselem) EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE. So are you claiming that you removed all of my four hundred lines of changes because I left this one sentence the same as it was, and that this was somehow introducing POV??? Very amusing indeed. Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I left out the original versions since I thought my version was more to the point, and I did not want to overwhelm the reader with too many statistics. But if you think these sentences are important to the article and are not adequately covered with the senteces that I replaced them with, then PLEASE add them back.

As a summary of what I changed in the Legal Status section, this is the previous version (not including sentences that I retained but moved elsewhere in the article):

The legality of house demolition under International law is disputed. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 says: "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons … is prohibited."

Israel, which is a party to the Convention, denies that it is applicable to the Palestinian territories, on the grounds that acceptance of this convention would imply recognition that they are sovereign territories of other states, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.

And this is the new version (please note that it is taken verbatim from the House demolition WP page.

The use of house demolition under international law is today governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, enacted in 1949, which protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 provides that "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons ... is prohibited." A number of war crimes prosecutions have included charges relating to the illegal destruction of property.

Israeli use of house demolitions has been particularly controversial. However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that it does not exercise sovereignty in the territories and is thus under no obligation to apply the treaty in those areas. This position is rejected by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, which notes that "it is a basic principle of human rights law that international human rights treaties are applicable in all areas in which states parties exercise effective control, regardless of whether or not they exercise sovereignty in that area."

Again, you forgot WP:NPOV; we don't state one side as "fact", instead we list the positions of both sides, and we don't take sides. Jayjg 17:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, again you seem to have lost sight of the fact that I have not written this text and I have emphatically not taken sides; I have copied text from the House demolition article of which you are one of the editors, that you have personally contributed to eleven times in the last two months. Since you have not changed or deleted it from that article, and since it is the same text, then your accusation of me "taking side" is plain ridiculous, and you have no justification in deleting it from this article. Thank you, Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who wrote the text, other articles are irrelevant, and you have taken sides in every single edit you've ever made regarding Israel. Deal with this article. Jayjg 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jgui 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I removed Jayjg's name from the title of this subsection. See WP:TALK to see why. So the new subsection title is now: "Please do not delete cited material without stating why". And it applies to anybody. If questioned, then all deletions of reliably-sourced material have to be defended.

I am not interested in editing this article. I was just looking in a little bit to see if there were any obvious problems I could help with. The obvious one I see is that people from various viewpoints are deleting reliably-sourced info. In the end it will all stay in the article in one form or another. So everyone needs to stop trying to spin the article, in my opinion. It just wastes time.

Instead of weighting the article with this or that info, just put it all in, and let people think on their own. It does not matter to me that some of your info came from some version of the old article before it was spun out to this article. That does not make it better or worse info. That does not give it priority over other info. All the ontopic sourced info needs to go in the article in some form or another. And feel free to rename the article, or to spinout more articles if necessary. --Timeshifter 15:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, thanks for your change to the title and reference to WP:TALK since I had not noticed that suggestion previously. I gave a detailed response to your post because I want it to be very clear that I am NOT deleting material, I am reorganizing it but leaving it unmodified. I have therefore noted all the deletions that I made above, in case you or any other editor feels it is important to re-add it. Thanks, Jgui 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please stop deleting text wholesale. Simply add your own points, or add notations that the issues or information are disputed. --Steve, Sm8900 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, please stop telling people not to delete material they think is inappropriate for an article. If material doesn't belong in an article, then "adding your own points" or "adding notations" won't help. Jayjg 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, to be fair Jayjg has not deleted any text since I added this new version, and I hope that he and other editors will not this time. I certainly agree with you that all editors should abide by those rules. Thanks, Jgui 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, sorry. I was not trying to pick on any individual, merely to move the entire discussion along. sorry again. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your detailed replies should be very helpful to those doing serious editing on this article. I looked at your last article edit enough to notice that you did spin a few points, and you replaced some references with others. There is no need to remove reliable references in order to use other references. More reliable references are almost always helpful in my opinion. Misplaced Pages is not paper. We have the room. We can always spinout more articles. See: WP:PAPER. --Timeshifter 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I hope you will comment on anything in my latest version that you think is "spin", so that I can fix it. The only specific complaint against my previous version was that the statement "house demolition is illegal" was unsupported (although this editor also noted that the existing version was similarly unsupported), which is why I changed my version and replaced the Legal Status section with WP text that has already been accepted in the House demolition page. I also addressed the general complaint that I had added uncited text, by citing each and every sentence that I added in this version. I already answered your question about reliable references, by noting all cited text that I removed above and explaining why (and suggesting that you reinsert the text if you disagree with its removal). And please specify any other complaints you have with the current version and I will be glad to address them. Thank you, Jgui 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick note, Jgui. I see that you have referenced the info you inserted. That is great! But in the diff I previously linked you removed several reliable reference links. Please return them. Until you do that, then you are playing the same spin game of Tewfik and Jayjg. Blanking is blanking is blanking, no matter who does it. Please see: WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Blanking can be called vandalism after a person is notified and doesn't fix it, or doesn't stop doing it. I just pointed this out to Tewfik on another page. Please see this diff for Al-Aqsa Intifada. --Timeshifter 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop widening the scope of this article, and please don't continually revert in version that assert opinion (e.g. about international law) as fact. Jayjg 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and change the name of the article in order to make the scope more clear. This is not an endorsement of your position, Jayjg. Because it is obvious that you are blanking and removing sourced info and reference links. Info that meets even your bogus arbitrary setting of the scope of this article. Please see this diff of your last blanking edit and mass reversion. Others seem to be helping you in this tag-team blanking. At least Jgui seems to be making an effort to have a dialog, and to rewrite the article. Why don't you set an example (as an admin) and engage in the dialog fully, and try fully integrating all the info and all the reference links? Instead of taking the easy way of mass reversions. And you are an admin??? --Timeshifter 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I restored the material deleted by Tewfik and Jayjg, since they don't seem to taking the request from multiple editors to discuss very seriously and deletion of sourced info with one-sentence explanations isn't really sufficient. I would add my voice to those asking for a detailed explanation of the problem. Thanks. Tiamat 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained before. The scope of this article is houses demolished as part of the conflict, for counter-insurgency purposes. Some people insist on trying to expand the article to include all sorts of things not particularly related. Also, jgui wants to rewrite existing sections in a way that obviously violates WP:NPOV. Please avoid blind reverts based on personal animus, thanks. Jayjg 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not about personal animus Jayjg. I have this page on my watchlist and when I see -4,000+ bytes there for any article I go to check out what's going on. After reading through the talk page, I can see that there are editors here trying to engage in a discussion so that they can contribute to this encyclopedia. On the other hand, I see you and Tewfik continue to persist in deleting additions wholesale, rather than taking people up on their request to discuss. I've noticed it's quite a pattern, based on my experience with you both at Palestinian people. Perhaps a little self-reflection would serve you better than making accusations that fail to assume good faith. Tiamat 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, thank you for stating your concerns here. I think that upon reading my text more carefully you will find that your stated concerns are not supported by the truth. To address your specific comments:

• "stop widening the scope of this article": I am not "widening the scope" - the scope and topic of this article is plainly stated as "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Could you please point out anything that I have added to this page that is not related to "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"?
• "don't continually revert in version that assert opinion (e.g. about international law) as fact": You clearly have not read the version that you just deleted, since the statement about international law is not in the text that you deleted. As I carefully explained above, I replaced the Legal Status section with WP text that has already been accepted in the House demolition page that makes no assertions about international law other than those made in the WP House demolition page which has been widely reviewed and accepted (and which was not written by me).

Clearly your reasons for deleting this properly cited text are not valid. I hope you will revert to my version; and if not I hope you will repond here as to why. Thank you, Jgui 18:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't respond to all of my points. Second, you did indeed revert to your version regarding internatinal, which misrepresents Israel's position, which is actually that the territories were never part of any sovereign state; it it makes no difference what another articles says. That article could also be wrong, but regardless, we are talking about this article. Finally, there has been a lengthy debate on these pages regarding the scope of this article; for example, it hasn't been opened up to the demolition of Jewish homes in various settlements. The current scope is that of homes demolished for counter-insurgency purposes; there is no agreement to widen it. And finally, please don't assert that my reasons are "clearly not valid"; your personal opinions don't really add anything, and it is inevitable that I will think they are wrong. Jayjg 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, First, I think I answered all of your points, except for your vague and unsubstantiated claim of POV. Since I kept the text that was already in this article, and added only cited text from WP:RS, it is hard for me to see how I was so flagrantly POV that you feel justified in removing everything I added. But I would appreciate it if you would either fix these POV sections, or point out to me where they are so that I could fix them myself. (I have just found your well-hidden notes above regarding POV; and have addressed your concerns above and summarized my changes below Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Jayjg, Second, the text that I used regarding international all came verbatim from the page House demolition that you have been an active editor in, with 11 edits in the last two months. Could I ask why you have neither deleted, corrected, nor complained about this text from that article in those two months? Could I further ask why you are using this same text to justify your wholesale deletions of a great deal of other cited text on this page??

Jayjg, Finally, I think the discussion below is addressing your final question. Thank you, Jgui 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained why other pages are irrelevant; why do you keep repeating yourself, and failing to respond to my points? Jayjg 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg. Your latest edit summary highlights a major problem here The article title is "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", and not House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for counter-insurgency purposes. The "counter-insurgency purposes" part is your extremely restricted explanation of the purpose of house demolition, but not the title of the article. Please stop misleading other editors as to what this edit war is about. The material being added is directly relevant to the article title. Your attempt to artifically demarcate the borders of content here effectively prevents any POV that disagreed with your rationale from being presented in the article. Please cease and desist you unwarranted deletions. Tiamat 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, claims that I am "misleading other editors as to what this edit war is about" are uncivil and inaccurate. Please try again, this time addressing the issues, not the individuals. Jayjg 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think people can decide for themselves what's uncivil and inaccurate. I repeat: The article title is House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for counter-insurgency purposes. Artifically demarcating the borders of content here by insisting that all sources address home demolition as a counter-insurgency tactic only effectively prevents the inclusion of any POV that views house demolitions as a punitive action that flies in the face of international law. These views deserve inclusion. So stop taking them out.Tiamat 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

People can decide whatever they like, but I'm telling you what kinds of comments I won't respond to. Let me ask a question; do you think this article should cover demolition of settler homes? Jayjg 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles follow the lead of reliable sources in circumscribing their topic. Most reliable sources treat permit demolitions and counter-insurgency demolitions collectively, and none that I know of address demolition of settler homes.--G-Dett 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And the sources are..? Beit Or 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

They're listed in the mainspace, under "References" and "External Links."--G-Dett 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think G-Dett is absolutely correct on this. It would be fine if Jayjg wants to write a separate article on demolition of settler homes, e.g. "Demolition by Israel of Abandoned Settlements" when Israel unilaterally left land that they had been occupying since 1967 in Gaza. It would be interesting to see a discussion of why Israel finally left after forty years and why Israel demolished those structures rather than leaving them standing. And I personally think it would be fine for this article to include a link to that article. Thanks, Jgui 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Claims of POV

Jayjg had sprinkled two accusations of "POV" in the above, which I did not see until now. I have answered him above, and modified my text to try to address his stated concerns. Here is a summary of the changes I made: Jayjg stated that I needed to refer to B'Tselem in a paragraph I slightly modified from the earlier version that Jay has restored several times, even though B'Tselem is not referred to in the paragraph he prefers. Apparently he thinks that this paragraph is NPOV when he adds it, but it is POV when I add it. Nevertheless, I have rewritten making this change to refer to B'Tselem to satisfy his concern.

Jayjg also stated in referring to the Legal Status section that: "Again, you forgot WP:NPOV; we don't state one side as fact, instead we list the positions of both sides, and we don't take sides.

Jayjg, again you seem to have lost sight of the fact that I have not written this text and I have emphatically not taken sides; I have copied text from the House demolition article of which you are one of the editors, that you have personally contributed to eleven times in the last two months. Since you have not changed or deleted it from that article, and since it is the same text, then your accusation of me "taking side" is plain ridiculous, and you have no justification in deleting it from this article. Since you claim that the article that you have been editing (and that I copied) "misrepresents Israel's position, which is actually that the territories were never part of any sovereign state", then I strongly hope that you will not delete this text from this article again, but that you will modify it to correctly represent Israel's position both here and in the House demolition article, since you are apparently the only one who knows what that position is. Thank you, Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, I see that you have also chosen to delete all of these changes, without making any comment here in the Talk pages, but with an edit history claiming simply "rv POV". Since I have addressed all of Jayjg's concerns regarding POV, I hope you will abide by WP rules and not revert my modified changes, instead contributing here with any concerns you have. Thank you, Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you too have performed a mass reversion claiming "POV" in your edit summary, but without posting anything here in Talk to substantiate your claim. What text do you now consider to be POV - the only text that has been claimed to be POV by Jayjg has been rewritten to address those concerns. Please abide by WP rules and do not perform any more mass reversions. If you see POV text, then please modify it or discuss it here.

I will restore my text with the above changes to address Jayjg's stated concerns about POV. If there are other concerns about POV, then please state them clearly here in this Talk page. Thank you, Jgui 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't taken my concerns into account at all; please stop falsely claiming you have. Leave the original text as it was, or get consensus first for a new text. And stop trying to expand the scope of this article. Jayjg 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, could you please AGF and stop accusing me of making false claims? You have made exactly two accusations of POV: 1. You stated that it was POV to not include a reference to which group had made a statement, so I added it, and the statement now includes that reference; 2. You claimed that I had written text that had "taken sides", but I proved to you that I had not written the text but had lifted it verbatim from a WP page that you have been a contributing editor of. So I have rewritten text that you have expressed concerns about to make it NPOV - it is obvious that I have taken your concerns into account. And as has been exaustively discussed above, I am not expanding the scope of the article - I am addressing a topic that is clearly covered by the title "Demolition in the Israli-Palestinian conflict". I even agreed with your suggestion that the demolition of Settler homes is a worthwhile topic for a separate page as suggested by G-Dett. In contrast you have simply deleted all of my edits, sometimes with discussion in the Talk page, sometimes without. I have to ask whether you think your behavior is befitting of a WP editor and highly placed Administrator? Thank you, Jgui 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this process. I disagree with the whole atmosphere which is starting to emerge. I do not believe that editors should need to "seek consensus," as Jayjg has put it. What they need to do is provide well-written, well-sourced text. What any dissenters need to do is to provide their own counter-balancing facts, concerns, viewpoints or data. Some might call that too colloquial. however it has almost alwayts resulted in an orderly, well-intentioned and well-mannered process. In contrast, the approach of each sides accusing the other side of POV or not achieving consensus has almost always led to counter-accuasations and recriminations.

I am disturbed by the tone which is creeping into this and other articles on this conflict. There is absolutely no reason for contention or adversarial tones. yes, i mean that. By allowing one good-faith editor to supply well-sourced text, and then simply providing valid sources showing the other side, we can gradually bring the valid concerns of boths sides to the fore, without any intrusion whatsoever or any denigration of anyone's beliefs, viewpoints or ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Through No Fault of Their Own: Israel's Punitive House Demolitions in the al-Aqsa Intifada. B'Tselem
2. House Demolitions as Punishment B'Tselem
3. Through No Fault of Their Own: Israel's Punitive House Demolitions in the al-Aqsa Intifada. B'Tselem
4. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - Frequently asked questions
5. ^ Israel and the Occupied Territories Under the rubble: House demolition and destruction of land and property. Amnesty International Cite error: The named reference "Amnesty-rubble" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
6. Alan Dowty, The Jewish State: A Century Later, University of California Press, 2001, ISBN 0520229118, p. 217.
7. Gerson, Allan. Israel, the West Bank, and International law, Routledge, Sept 28, 1978, ISBN 0-7146-3091-8, p. 82.
8. Roberts, Adam, "Decline of Illusions: The Status of the Israeli-Occupied Territories over 21 Years" in International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 64, No. 3. (Summer, 1988), pp. 345-359., p. 350
9. Fourth Geneva Convention, International Committee of the Red Cross
10. "Warrants of Arrest for the Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs of Sudan, and a leader of the Militia/Janjaweed", International Criminal Court, 2 May 2007.

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles