Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli-occupied territories: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:19, 13 January 2012 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Israeli-occupied territories/Archive 3.← Previous edit Revision as of 10:46, 14 January 2012 edit undo79.182.196.113 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 47: Line 47:
::::Sean, there is no need to insult other editors. There is a natural tension between two meanings of the word ''neutral''. Linquistically, aruablly, the word ''disputed'' is more neutral and less loaded than ''occupied''. However that is not how Misplaced Pages understands the word ''neutral''. Misplaced Pages's understanding of ''neutral'' is to use the terms used by the majority of reliable sources. Clearly, the majority of reliable sources use the word ''occupied'', and thus this term, however biased, is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies. - ] (]) 03:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ::::Sean, there is no need to insult other editors. There is a natural tension between two meanings of the word ''neutral''. Linquistically, aruablly, the word ''disputed'' is more neutral and less loaded than ''occupied''. However that is not how Misplaced Pages understands the word ''neutral''. Misplaced Pages's understanding of ''neutral'' is to use the terms used by the majority of reliable sources. Clearly, the majority of reliable sources use the word ''occupied'', and thus this term, however biased, is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies. - ] (]) 03:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::Apparently you haven't seen me insult other editors. It doesn't look like this but I'll bear it in mind if I decide to insult other editors. I gave the editor some feedback that should save them the trouble of wasting their time and other people's time discussing things because Danny Ayalon says something in a Youtube video. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC) :::::Apparently you haven't seen me insult other editors. It doesn't look like this but I'll bear it in mind if I decide to insult other editors. I gave the editor some feedback that should save them the trouble of wasting their time and other people's time discussing things because Danny Ayalon says something in a Youtube video. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Well if it's a simple matter of tallying up the reliable sources I'm willing to spend some time to verify that indeed the majority refer to the territory as occupied. Before I do that, in order to avoid any unnecessary controversy, I'd like to know what is the Misplaced Pages definition of a reliable source ? ] (]) 10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It is trivial for the parties on the ground to not treat this as an occupation. Simply hand out voter registration cards to the natives and invite the displaced populations back. Until then it is being treated as an occupation and we are correct to name it so. ] (]) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC) It is trivial for the parties on the ground to not treat this as an occupation. Simply hand out voter registration cards to the natives and invite the displaced populations back. Until then it is being treated as an occupation and we are correct to name it so. ] (]) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:46, 14 January 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli-occupied territories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconSyria B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The photo of the Israeli "checkpoint" is odd

It's hard to say it's a checkpoint it looks like a fence with a bunch of rocks and a couple of soldiers standing on the fence stopping the a few people from claiming over the fence. I'd assume a checkpoint wouldn't require people claiming over the rocks at right side of the picture. The photo should be labeled a "a breach in the security wall" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.184.24 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

West Bank barrier construction started when?

The article states without a citation that "In 2000 the Israeli government started to construct the Israeli West Bank barrier, separating Israel and several of its settlements, as well as a significant number of Palestinians, from the remainder of the West Bank." If I understand correctly, the barrier's construction started not before 2002. VelvetSkies (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

IP edits, whats wrong and whats right

Ghajar is split in half by the Blue Line, with the UN marking the northern half as being in Lebanon and the southern half as being in Syria (see this map). Israel continued to occupy the southern half of the city. The residents, both north and south, say that it is a Syrian village, Lebanon and Syria dont seem to say much about it, and Israrl announced about a year ago it would withdraw from the southern half, though I cannot find any record in my brief search of them actually doing so. A good article to read about Ghajar and how the Blue Line came to divide the village is Kaufman, Asher (2009). "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie": On Ghajar and Other Anomalies in the Syria-Lebanon-Israel Tri-Border Region". Middle East Journal (Middle East Institute) 63 (4). The Shebaa Farms issue is just as complicated. Israel claims that the territory is Syrian and is thus not required to withdraw its forces from the territory as part of its ending its occupation of southern Lebanon. Syria and Lebanon say that the territory is Lebanese, though whether or not this is Syria's official position or if it is just an attempt to remove Israeli forces from the territory is a question that does not have an answer. Hezbollah uses the continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms as justification for continued action against Israel, as the say action against Israel is justified so long as Israel occupies any Lebanese territory. Where the Shebaa Farms actually is wont be decided until a comprehensive border treaty between Syria and Lebanon is signed.

So what should the article say? Thats a bit hard to figure out. I think the right way to put this is to spell it out. Say that Ghajar straddles the Blue Line between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied Golan, and that the Shebaa Farms continues to be occupied by Israel which says it is part of the Syria's Golan while Syria and Lebanon say it part of Lebanon. nableezy - 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

173.57.158.145's edits and Lebanon/Jordan

(Due to an edit clash with Nableezy we had two sections appear on the same subject. I'm turning my section into a subsection of his. Hopefully comments can address both of our initial posts.)--Peter cohen (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I reverted these edits because I think they produced quite a confused state of affairs including poor formatting. It will be better to thrash something out here and then introduce material on Lebanon. The latter only appears in the table and we need to explain Southern Lebanon's presence there both in the lede and in its own section. The two remaining Lebanese areas seem to arise from a history of confusion over the country's border with Syria and these need to be explained. The status of the two Jordanian areas need to be thrashed out here with reliable sourcing etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

From the little I remembered about Ghajar and the Shebaa Farms, the issue is as complicated as Nableezy described it (thank you for taking time to write it down). Definitely it has its place in this article, not so sure about the lead. How common is it to count Ghajar and the Shebaa Farms among "the occupied territories"? My cursory impression is that commonly OP refers to West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights, and that the sources mostly just omit the two smaller areas. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

242

Biosketch, even if one were to accept that UNSC Resolution 242 is what defines the Israeli-occupied territories (which I dont), that does not support removing the word the. 242 calls for withdrawing from territories occupied, and while the lack of the use of the word the in the English version of that resolution is used as an argument that Israel need not withdraw from all territory occupied in 67, it is not an argument for claiming that the territory Israel captured in 67, all of it, is not occupied. Could you explain why you want to remove the? nableezy - 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


The article is named incorrectly

Please watch this explanation why the said territories are to be called disputed and not occupied http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.18.242 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:FIVE then WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia with a mandatory neutrality policy. It isn't Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article uses the common name and informs readers that Israel prefers the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm I'm reading the the NPOV and it says Misplaced Pages should have neutral point of view. I think the term occupied is pretty much the opposite of neutral. Would you not agree that the term occupied suggests there is an occupation which is a seriously(international courts and such) disputed claim ? The name is a blunt example of bias. It's as if the article about Palestine would be named "The Terrorist State of Palestine" and then in body it would say they rather have the name Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.184.24 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view. If you think occupied is the opposite of neutral in this case you are misinformed and perhaps you should consider broadening your reading material. The Supreme Court of Israel has referred to the status of the West Bank as a territory held under belligerent occupation in many of their rulings. That's why it is administered by the IDF. The international community regards it as an occupation and has said so repeatedly. Misplaced Pages follows the reliable sources. Claims that we should say disputed rather than occupied are based on ignorance of how sources deal with this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sean, there is no need to insult other editors. There is a natural tension between two meanings of the word neutral. Linquistically, aruablly, the word disputed is more neutral and less loaded than occupied. However that is not how Misplaced Pages understands the word neutral. Misplaced Pages's understanding of neutral is to use the terms used by the majority of reliable sources. Clearly, the majority of reliable sources use the word occupied, and thus this term, however biased, is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies. - BorisG (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't seen me insult other editors. It doesn't look like this but I'll bear it in mind if I decide to insult other editors. I gave the editor some feedback that should save them the trouble of wasting their time and other people's time discussing things because Danny Ayalon says something in a Youtube video. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Well if it's a simple matter of tallying up the reliable sources I'm willing to spend some time to verify that indeed the majority refer to the territory as occupied. Before I do that, in order to avoid any unnecessary controversy, I'd like to know what is the Misplaced Pages definition of a reliable source ? 79.182.196.113 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is trivial for the parties on the ground to not treat this as an occupation. Simply hand out voter registration cards to the natives and invite the displaced populations back. Until then it is being treated as an occupation and we are correct to name it so. Hcobb (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those has any bearing on whether a territory is occupied or not, at least not according to international law. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Categories: