Talk:Struggle over Palestine

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

---

I disagree with the vote to delete this page. I do not understand the reasoning.

Policy is that info should be preserved.

This deletion smacks of censorship.

The occupation of Palestine and Israeli occupation of Palestine articles are as accurate and neutral as I can make them. If anyone can point out any sections which are inaccurate or biased, please do so. That would be better than simply eliminating the articles.

The info in those articles has not, AFAIK, been moved into Arab-Israeli conflict or any other suitable article. Until it has been, a summary REDIRECT is out of line. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, there is nothing stopping you from moving this contents yourself, definitely not the fact that the page is now a redirect. Please clean after your own mess. Gadykozma 15:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't see why this page should be a redirect. That option got only 29% of the votes - far less than a consensus.
2. The usual practice is: move the info first, then replace the old article with a redirect.

If you're trying to impose your will and disregard the vote, I may have to report this to the, er, authorities here. Please don't make me do this; I'd rather work with you then see you get admonished, or worse, banned. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The consensus was quite clear Ed; get rid of the content, either by pure delete or by re-direct (see Cecropia's comments on the Vote to Delete talk page). You've gone off on your own tangent here with an entirely new article (make that pair of articles), and now appear to be abusing your admin status in order to enforce your preferred solution. It is you who is imposing your will and disregarding the vote, and any consequences which devolve from that might well be applied to you as a result. Jayjg 15:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, Jay, and I will withdraw from any article edits whatsoever for the indefinite future. I consider myself chastened. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, there was not a clear consensus to "get rid of the content":

• Delete (18)
• Redirect (4)
• Redirect or Delete (1)
• Keep (13)
• and Ed's vote to move.

That's 23-14, and a good number of the people who said "redirect" were objecting to the title and the separation, not to what it said, and were explicitly suggesting that Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the right place to take this up. -- Jmabel 17:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, you somehow missed 8 votes for "redirect and protect", which makes 31-14. That's almost 70%, which is considered a consensus for this purpose. Gadykozma 19:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By "get rid of the content" I meant there would be no independent "Occupation of Palestine" page; i.e., the "Occupation of Palestine" page itself would have no content, whether it was simply deleted or whether it was a re-direct. There was a large majority in favour of this; in fact, the consensus was quite clear, as I stated. Incorporating the content back into the original Israeli-Palestinian conflict was of course, always an option; indeed, as a person who voted delete, I suggested doing so several times, on the very day I put up the VfD notice. Anyone can contribute content to any page, whenever they like. However, this is not relevant to the vote itself, which is really about what happens to Occupation of Palestine as an independent page, and not about the ultimate fate of the content in it. Attempts to characterize this vote in a narrowly legalistic sense ("delete" vs. all other options) are disingenuous at best; I encourage all editors to re-read Cecropia's comments under Consensus demonstrated in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine on the topic. Jayjg 18:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to have this page. The issues being described are either about the Arab-Israeli conflict, about the Palestinian Authority, or about some other number of issues. The term "occupation" is inherently problematic as a location of an article, and the issues being described here don't naturally all fit together, IMO. --Delirium 18:10, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I made the final choice to keep this article. I did not read the debate, but the box listed votes as being 18 delete, 13 keep, and 12 redirect. There was no consensus to do anything, thus the article had to be kept. While some might argue there was consensus on the middle option because "25-18 voted against deletion" or "31-13 voted against keeping." I consider it a very bad idea to choose the option with the fewest total votes because of a failure to reach consensus. If this became standard practice almost every contentious article would end up being redirected. We have many VfD votes along the lines of 5 delete votes, 3 keep, and 1 redirect. If what is being proposed became standard behaviour all of these would be redirected, despite it being an unpopular option. We must respect that 31 people, for one reason or another, felt that a redirect was not appropriate. I am also certain that this page will appear on VfD again in the future. If at that time consensus is reached towards deletion I shall gladly delete it, or if the consensus is to redirect I shall with equal delight create a redirect. Until that time, however, the wiki system has decided this article should stay. - SimonP 16:10, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oh no you don't. It's a fairly safe conclusion that most, if not all, of those who wanted to delete the article would want it redirected instead of being kept as is. It'd be patently illogical to do otherwise. The wiki has decided, 31-13, that this article should go, and no amount of wiggling on your part (short of another vote, or an alternative consensus here) will change that. Sometimes we lose deletion votes. It sucks. Deal with it. Ambi 22:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dislike your accusation that I somehow like this article or am in favour of keeping it. I do believe in the VfD process, however, and for many months now I have not been counting deletion votes as being in favour of redirection. I am not going to suddenly change because some people feel a certain vote has gone against them. If you want this page deleted or redirected relist it on VfD and hope for another outcome. Others who have objected to the results on close votes, such as for European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics, have taken that route rather than debase themselves by engaging in edit wars. - SimonP 17:42, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, I think you do need to read the page. A number of people have stated explicitly that if there's no majority for delete, redirect is their second choice; There is a section that suggests this interpretation (i.e. that delete should count towards redirect) that was there during most of the voting stages and raised no objections; etc. In short, your interpretation is uninformed. Gadykozma 18:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

The current redirect is POV and unhelpful. It equates Occupation of Palestine to the current conflict, which is inaccurate. I propose that it should become instead a disambiguation page, pointing to both History of Palestine for previous occupations and Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the current positions. The page is currently protected, and I believe it would be an abuse of sysop powers for me to edit it. As soon as it can be unprotected let's give this a try. Andrewa 09:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with that but you really should ask the other side. BTW, see my "special disambig" text on Hebrew Bible, maybe you can use it here too. Gadykozma 09:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle. However, I agree only on the basis that this stays a disambiguation page. I don't want to have to have this discussion every time another POV warrior comes along and wants to make this a rant page. Ambi 10:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with all three of you :-) --Uncle Ed

You guys can do whatever you want with the page, but leave it alone until saturday PST. Thanks for understanding. Christopher Mahan 16:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm under Martha Stewart-style house arrest until Monday, confined to my lovely estate in the Hamptons. Me only haunt talk pages till then. --Uncle Ed 17:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because Ed's been so conciliatory, I'm happy to leave the article as it is. However, I strongly disapprove of Chris' unwanted and unrequested attempt at playing arbitrator. Ambi 01:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually did ask him to arbitrate, though he said he wouldn't, so I am not sure how he defines his current activities. Gadykozma 01:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another compromise attempt

How about putting discussions on the term occupation under the title Occupation (Israeli-Palestinian discourse)? Gadykozma 02:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Ambi 05:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, relax. I meant an article describing how the term occupation is used by Israeli and Palestinians, which is what Pir, Node and Ed wanted, if I understood them correctly. Gadykozma 12:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, Node and Ed, in opposition to myself and thirty other Wikipedians. Sometimes the consensus goes against you. Tough. I don't think the disambiguation idea was too objectionable, however. Ambi 12:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, those 30 Wikipedians (including myself, if you remember) objected to the text as it stood with that title. Not to the very idea of discussing occupation on Wikipedia. Gadykozma 12:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Create the thing, and we'll have another vote. Happy? Ambi 12:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, threatening should come after an attempt to negotiate. Please state your objections to such an article so we can refer to them (and see also my reply to pir below). Thanks. Gadykozma 13:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not threatening. I'm just not keen to go through this again. Ambi 22:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Me neither. Jayjg 02:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good attempt, but we should agree on some guidelines first, so that everybody's concerns are addressed. I suggest the following principles:

• the article is not to be an alternative account of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may include a brief summary of the conflict and should refer to that article ;
• the different meanings and definitions (as far as they are relevant to the article) of "occupation" and "Palestine" should be explicitly stated ;
• all the main different views of the concept of "Occupation of Palestine" should be described (NPOV), attributed to named people/political movements/organisations/institutions, and sources provided ;
• criticisms/responses addressed at these views by opponents should also be described, attributed and sourced.

Feel free to criticise and improve these. - pir 13:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, your 3rd & 4th points make this quite similar to the Occupation of Palestine. I had in mind a more discourse analysis page than a political one. It's difficult for me to explain exactly because I'm not a humanist myself. However, one thing for sure, the last thing we want is something similar to the "views" section of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That might be a solution for POV wars (and it might formally comply with Wikipedia NPOV policy) but it is disasterous for the reader. It conveys the information in a way which is almost impossible to read, and adds no insight to what you could get from the five o'clock news.

So, pir, do you like this views section? Gadykozma 13:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem with the Arab-Israeli conflict article is the organisation, it is just split in two halves. But the content itself is important and not that bad. I think for that particular page, it would have been much better to contrast the two views item by item (e.g. by chronology of historic events). I don't really understand what you mean by "discourse analysis", but note that analysis itself cannot be NPOV because you can only analyse something based on a certain world view and certain political assumptions. MAybe you could explain how you envisage this? - pir 13:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, about the views section, yes it would be much better arranged by topics. Maybe we can get to it after a vacation of 2-3 months.

About this paper, what I don't want is discussion whether or not Israel occupies and what. Not even as an exchange of quotes. Not because its POV - because it is just plain boring. Spreading this kind of material over endless pages will make the reader leave Wikipedia. It should be concentrated on a few select pages, like the Arab-Israeli conflict. Smaller pages (not in the sense of length, Deir Yassin massacre is not short, just specific) should concentrate on bringing to the reader information he does not have.

So, I am only really familiar with the discourse of the Israeli left, but here the term occupation is used in many interesting ways (like the link I sent you ;-)) and I think that it can be expanded to an interesting section. Could you find interesting uses of the term occupation on the Palestinian side? Gadykozma 14:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean now. Could be very interesting. Need to ponder the question. - pir 14:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this page is going to look like any more. Jayjg 02:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, what I have in mind is to somehow make a coherent article that will contain facts like these:

• Yeshayahu Leibowitz was the first to warn that occupation might lead to moral corruption. (Actually, I might start by translating his page in the Hebrew Wikipedia).
• Menachem Begin removed the term "occupied territories" from the official media (I really need more info on this piece of trivia. when? why? what was the replacement? what were public reactions?)
• Stop occupation [די לכיבוש] is an important left NGO in Israel

etc. I know it doesn't come together to something coherent yet, but I hope it might have some potential. Does this help at all? Gadykozma 03:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the article supposed to explain? What area of knowledge will it cover? Jayjg 03:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a discourse analysis article, i.e. an article that explains how people use terms, expressions, what is their cultural and political meaning etc., for occupation. Gadykozma 03:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of a "definitions of..." series of articles which I've created. The Definitions of Palestine article has stood the test of time, and has NOT ONCE had an edit war problem.

It's because it's an article which is only about the various definitions of terms. There are no factual discussions in it, so no 'accuracy disputes'. And so far, everyone has been happy to see "the way THEY use the word" defined in black and white.

So maybe we need a Definitions of occupation page. Since I'm still making delicious pastries and finger food with Martha Stewart at her Hamptons estate, I can't create the article; but house arrest should be ending for me, any day now.

• Occupation of a territory means military control by a sovereign nation of land outside of its recognized borders.
• An illegal occupation is similar control which the UN or other nations generally declare to be against international law.

If the info in the above bullet points is already at Occupation then maybe we don't need it. But these are just MY definitions. And I'm no expert on anything. --Uncle Ed 01:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but it would (or should) probably be covered at Occupation, I'd think. Ambi 01:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitions of Palestine has had it's share of reverts, and has probably only not been involved in an edit war because very few people have found it. It lacks definitions of Palestine pre-1917 and 1917-1922, which are quite important, and misses the 1923 Golan Heights transfer. Jayjg 02:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, just start writing under your user space and leave a link here. Martha will be pleased. Gadykozma 03:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We made some lovely lace doilies Sunday night, so I was released on parole. I'm back to editing articles again; want to be my parole officer? ;-) --Uncle Ed

Factual Inaccuracies ??

Many countries

Many countries do not recognize Israel as a nation, so the non-Gaza, non-West Bank, non-Jordanian parts of Palestine are seen by some as "occupied territory".

Hmmm....Israel is recognized by the the United Nations and many countries. The block of Islamic countries (Organization of the Islamic Conference) has a number of countries that do not have recognize or exchange diplomats with Israel. Yet a number of OIC countries, do including: Jordan, Egypt, Morocco. (Please note that Egypt recalled its ambassador but has not revoked the credentials of the Israeli ambassador to Egypt...kind of a both sides of the fence position.)

I would like to change the "many countries" to "some countries, particularly those of the Organization of the Islamic Conference". Lance6Wins 14:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, a fact! Yes, facts are always welcome. It's POV that causes so much fuss.... --Uncle Ed 17:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Based upon you note Uncle Ed, i'll go ahead and make that change. Lance6Wins 17:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I wont...seems that the page is protected.

Pilate to crucify Jesus

How about this one?

a fact which is significant for Christians because a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus.

Hmm...."a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus." is this a fact? It is certainly a religous belief and may well be recorded in the Gospels (with being able to provide chapter and verse, i won't say "is recorded"). Are we to declare Scripture to be factual? Whose scripture? What of scriptures that disagree, say Christian Bible and Muslim Koran? Could we delete these words from the article? If not, I would like to add factual material based upon Scripture. Lance6Wins 17:55, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Web search produced this, if someone could validate it?

Tacitus says (Annals 15:44): To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.--Jirate 19:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jirate, excuse me I was not clear in my statement. What basis do we have for this statement: "Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus". To the best of my knowlege the only source we have is Scripture and other writings based upon Scripture. Lance6Wins 19:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

Lance asked me to either add the protected page notice, or unprotect the page. It poses a minor dilemma for me. I don't think it would be "fair" for me to add the "protected page notice", because:

• I would (technically) be "editing a protected page", as well as endorsing the protection of my own favored version of the article.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the page should be 'unprotected'...

Let's hear some discussion. Meanwhile, of course, if some other admin 'unprotects' the page that ought to settle it. --Uncle Ed 19:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, why don't I just 'unprotect' the occupation of Palestine article. I hope that no one will turn it into a redirect without first moving the info somewhere good. But why do I feel like I'm leaving my homework on a seat in the high school cafeteria? . . . --Uncle Ed 20:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page is now unlocked. --Uncle Ed 20:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it for the time being, but you can always get the information out of the history. When do you plan to move the information, Ed? Ambi 23:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge, move, redirect, etc.

Thanks for bearing with me, Ambi. I'm not planning any sudden or swift changes. I'm still trying to get up to speed on what "Palestine" means, and how this affects the various proposals made for the disposition of Palestine.

I only found out this month, that the term Palestine had been redefined! It turns out everyone but me has known all along that Palestine no longer includes Jordan. So when people argue that "there ought to be a Palestinian state" for "Palestinians" they just naturally never consider Jordan. After all, it's not even IN the region!

I've been laboring (rather ineffectively) under the misapprehension that Palestine included Jordan. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say:

• the eastern portion of what used to be called "Palestine" is today's Jordan; and,
• the region that used to be called Jordan now consists of two distinct territories: (1) Jordan and (2) modern Palestine.

Either I'm behind the times, or someone's trying one of those "shifting ground" arguments. (It could be a bit of both...)

The key problem, still, seems to be the clash between two very appealing arguments:

1. that the Jewish people desire or even deserve a Jewish homeland; and,
2. that the non-Jewish residents of 'the region known from ancient times as Palestine' ALSO desire or deserve a homeland

What makes things a bit tricky to understand, is that so many people use the term Palestinians to mean NOT 'any resident of the region known from ancient times as Palestine' but ONLY a certain subset of that population (what some newspapers call "Palestinian Arabs"). --Uncle Ed 00:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where's THE Occupation?

Apparently everyone occupied Palestine but Israel.

Palestinian resistance is described as 'unrest in the area, variously described as a "war", an "uprising", a "terrorist campaign", or even "anarchy".

But Israeli occupation is just "varying degrees of military and administrative control".

Come on, guys. HistoryBuffEr 07:06, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

As I've said before, according to the people promoting this page Palestine is a region that can only be "Occupied". Every single country and group which has owned it and lived there is apparently an occupier. This means that both the Palestinians and Israelis are "occupying" it now. Jayjg 16:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Democratic?

What's "democratic" got to do with facts in the sentence "The democratic government of Israel and the PLO-dominated Palestinian Authority each claim a patchwork of areas" --- other than to bias the reader to favor the party with such attribute (also note the "PLO-dominated", apparently intended as a slur).

Not to mention the fact that a country that treats its minorities as dirt cannot be called democratic at all. HistoryBuffEr 07:12, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

The word "democratic" describes the government of Israel, and the word, "PLO-dominated" describes the PA. Where is the bias? --Viriditas 08:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It does have the appearance of poisoning/sweetening the well. Gazpacho 08:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd have to disagree. We don't say here that democracy is good and (whatever form of social system PLO runs) is bad. In dry encyclopedic manner we describe the factual difference in the form of governance between two neighboring territories. The rest is in your head, as they say. Another attempt by HB to discredit Israel. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's not fight. History Buff is correct about the connotations of democratic and PLO-dominated. When I wrote those words, I was conscious of favoring Israel's side because it is democratic; and of disliking the PLO. If someone thinks this is poisoning the well, they have every right to bring this up on the talk page.

Anyway, Ambi is probably going to REDIRECT the occupation of Palestine article to another page. And I have withdrawn my objections to that. --Uncle Ed 13:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing Occupations

We seem to be missing some occupations, the Crusades for one. Shall I add it? Lance6Wins 13:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I've been wondering (for years!) when someone was going to get around to pointing out that Christians (not only Jews) have thrown their military weight around, in the Holy Land. (I'm not sure why I didn't just bring it up myself...) --Uncle Ed 16:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

If anybody makes this page into a redirect, I would like them to state explicitly the reasons for doing so (reasons related to the content of the article, rather than any previous discussions), in reference to relevant Wikipedia policies if possible. - pir 13:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, Gad, Lance, Jay, Buff & everyone -- please see my new article on Definitions of Palestinian occupation. I hope it will (or can) make a few things clear. I tried as hard as I could to suck all the POV out of it, particularly my own POV. But I know from experince that the hardest bias to detect is that which I put into my own writing ("I thought that was a fact!"). --Uncle Ed 15:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)