Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

critical judgments section

I understand why it is there. However, I think it should go. We shouldnt have a criticism section anymore than we should have a praise section. Beyond that I dont think Israeli views are much more important than Palestinian views, or European views, or Iranian views, or whatever. Where the views expressed in that section are from reliable sources and have sufficient weight given to them in third party sources they should be included in the sections they are relevant. But I generally think the section can, should, be chopped. User:Nishidani, what in that section do you think is really necessary and do you think it could be worked into the prose elsewhere? nableezy - 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm busy, but I'll address this shortly. As stated elsewhere, I put it in because I often hear people confusing 'Israelis' (a nationality) and 'Jews' (an ethnoreligious-cultural community), or even if they make the distinction, talking about Israel in terms of its occupation. It seemed necessary per WP:NPOV to make it absolutely clear that what the state may do cannot be confused with what its citizens may think and that the record of abuse tells you nothing about Israelis (or Jews). An anti-Israeli POV pusher (I'm not reading your remark that way of course) would be happy not to see evidence that what Israel may do leaves many of its citizens, in whose name this is done, disturbed. Must rush however. Sorry for being late in pushing on with the downsizing - life has been hectic here, and I shall only, I hope, be clear of larger personal obligations by next week.Nishidani (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I get that, but I just dont think this is how to do that, or even really it should be done. I suppose my main problem is grouping "critical judgments" together at all. I think Leibowitz belongs in the article, but in the section "Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation" because he is talking about a social cost of the occupation. Harper and Magalit belong in the section on surveillance. Where there is criticism of some aspect it should be included where that aspect is covered. Also, I cant see how having a critical opinions doesnt necessitate including a praise section, or that an Israeli judgments section doesnt require adding a Palestinian judgments section. nableezy - 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's be clear. I've no particular attachment to the section, and, for a space consideration, it could all be expunged effortlessly. Palestinian comments would be predictable and a waste of space. Israeli praise would be mockingly ironic in context, and we don't want that. I'll leave it to whatever the consensus is, and wait for others to comment.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

3O request: Security Concerns

@Lagrange613: given the time you have invested in this matter, would you be kind enough to propose a WP:3O solution to this “security concerns” question? (no longer to do with your DYK work, but because you aren’t involved in the Israel-Palestine editing but have spent time on this particular matter)

I see the two opposing arguments as follows:

  • (A) Requires detailed and heavy coverage: The article provides information which casts Israel’s policy in a poor light, so the information must be contextualised with what Israel’s politicians state as the rationale for Israel’s occupation. It must not be sprinkled around the article, but must be a detailed and high profile component of the article.
  • (B) Requires a nuanced approach: ”Security concerns” are described by scholars as being PR spin. The claim does not explain key elements of the occupation like the settlements; nationalist-irredentist desires are considered by scholars to be much more important. More importantly, the claim does not explain why the West Bank has not been incorporated into Israel but rather left in “occupation” limbo – that is documented as being driven by a desire not to let too many Palestinians become Israeli citizens. The matter is covered in the article in numerous places, and given due weight.

So the question is, what might a reasonable middle ground look like here? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Some rather serious defense studies scholars (as opposed to various lily faced humanities (or int. law scholars) scholars - who have not seen nor studied guns, tanks, and fighter jets) have explored Israeli security concerns at quite some length - so the claim that scholars (in a different field, usually in a very particular political camp - politics transcends scholarship in I/P) have dismissed this as "PR spin" - is, well, rather poorly sourced. Anthropologists (and other off-topic fields) do publish valuable research - however, proper military analysis (as opposed to cultural/ritual aspects of war) is not within their professional realm. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That sentence in my description of position (B) was too loose. What I should have written is: ”The concept of security concerns being the primary reason for the occupation” is described by scholars as being PR spin, masking other more important factors. I haven’t seen any editors who support position (B) suggesting that security concerns don’t exist – they are instead saying that security concerns exist everywhere, including between many neighbouring countries, yet nowhere else in the world is permanent domination-without-citizenship used to assuage them. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It might not be the only reason for the ongoing Israeli occupation, however considering this article is about the Israeli occupation and currently comprises of 17 top-level sections (and many sub-section) - certainly it deserves its own section. We could also have a section on the religious/historical Jewish/Israeli claim to the land, which is also perhaps a motivating factor in some Israeli circles. And there may be other Israeli motivations as well to cover.Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a section which summarizes the Israeli PR talking points on the occupation, or are you suggesting a balanced explanation of why the occupation has continued for 50+ years? Or somewhere in between? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am suggesting a section(s) that details Israeli motivations (for initiating and continuing the occupation). Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: can you provide a top-of-your-head bullet-point outline of the key statements you would expect that section to include? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
With sources plz. nableezy - 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Religious/Historical grounds (e.g. in regards to the settler movement this seems an important motivation of Gush Emunim et al) and security concerns (invasion from the east, terror, possibly something else). I'm not sure - I'd be happy to try to develop something (with sources and all) if I don't get reverted all the time - :-) (or at least - get incrementally improved/modified instead of blanket reverted as happened last time I tried to introduce something). Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to edit the article as you see fit. As is anybody else, including reverting edits they see as problematic. Expecting that an edit will stand is not a reasonable expectation for any Wikipedia editor. But, if I am not mistaken, the last time you were reverted it was not for developing something. nableezy - 18:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Look - I have better things to do with my time than to deal with insta blanket-reverts to any new content (which is basically how editing in this article has gone so far). You want this to stay a POV mess? Fine. The revert you are referring above was to a constructive edit, however I am happy that following that edit other editors have taken to trimming the article. Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Well we disagree on what is constructive. Nobody is forcing you to edit this article. Nobody is making you stay away. But if you think that because you spent time on something nobody is allowed to disagree and revert you, well then let me introduce you to a website called Wikipedia. Its this place where individual editors make up their minds on whether or not they think an edit is an improvement or it is not. And if they feel it is not, they sometimes will revert that edit. nableezy - 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No one's going to revert you here, because what we are asking for is a collaborative effort on the talk page to develop a section. As to Gush Emunim, its views are already on the page.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. @Icewhiz: that's a good start. Let's work together to agree an outline on the talk page. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than to deal with insta blanket-reverts to any new content.

Just to clarify this. Your last significant action here was this, precisely an ‘insta(nt?) blanket revert’ gutting the article of 149,943 bytes, more than a third of the text. It added no new content. Unilateral reverting an undiscussed edit of this dimension almost automatically leads to a revert to restore the content.

The revert which cancelled ‘new content’ dealt with just one, this, namely Bellezzasolo’s attempt to write an historical background relevant to the motivation for Israel settlement of the West Bank, which consisted of

  • A mention that a yishuv existed from 135/6 CE after the Jewish–Roman wars to the 19th century
  • In 1840 this consisted of 10,000 Jews mianly in Jerusalem, Tiberias, Hebron and Safed
  • Who were subject to antisemitic attacks in 1834 and 1836
  • Zionism started a new Yishuv, which was subject to pogroms in 1921 and 1929
  • The Irgun was formed to make reprisals against Arabs, which was against the norm of a policy of restraint and war broke out
  • In 1949 Jordan occupied and then annexed the West Bank, where 200,000 Palestinian refugees settled.
  • Fedayeen mostly from Jordan then mounted attacks for 18 years until 1967, and the Samu attack by Israel was a reprisal.

This was a WP:OR patchwork stitched up from 12 sources, 6 of which contain no mention of the West Bank but deal with Ottoman history, contrary to the usage of the page. The edit was saying: Jews lost their nation due to Rome, but an old yishuv hung on for 2 thousand years in basically four towns, and, in the 1830s-40s they were subject to antisemitic pogroms. Zionism introduced a new yishuv which was subject to antisemitic pogroms. Ben-Gurion exercised restraint, but the Irgun organized reprisals for Arab violence (again nothing specific to the West Bank). War broke out, Jordan occupied the West Bank, a large part of whose new population were displaced refugees who ‘settled’ there (implying the population of the West Bank in good part arose from recent Palestinian settlement, and thus is scarcely much older than post 67 Jewish settement). From 1949 to 1967, Jordan was a base for attacks on Israel from the West Bank. Israel made a reprisal raid and 1967 war again broke out, and (Israel took over the West Bank).

This was farcically inept, - a narrative of continuous Palestinian antisemitic persecution of a people exercising a desire to come back to their homeland -when not outright misrepresentation, on nearly all points (Fedayeen attacks were suppressed by a combined Jordan-Israeli intelligence and military taskforce for over a decade after 1956 etc.etc.etc. The evidence is on this page, and was ignored to favour an old meme sunk into desuetude ) That is why it was reverted.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Belated reply

A belated thank you to Onceinawhile for the invitation, and for what I suppose is a vote of confidence. Sorry for the delay—I needed a break from this article. Someone has helpfully transcluded the nomination above, so I don't feel a need to restate my concerns about NPOV here. I will make two brief points, and then I don't expect to return to this article or this topic area. (1) I consider the concerns I listed necessary for achieving NPOV; I do not hold them out as sufficient. (2) As long as editors continue exhibiting ownership behavior and throwing WP:COI accusations at everyone who disagrees with them, there is little chance of an NPOV article emerging here. Lagrange613 04:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There is exactly one time anybody has used COI prior to you on this page, and it wasnt throwing a COI accusation at anybody. And, if you actually paid attention to the material you are remarking on, Nishidani rewrote an entire section on security concerns. There is little chance of you recognizing a NPOV article here, I grant you that, but NPOV does not depend on your reading of editors unsourced claims on talk pages. nableezy - 07:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Brief review of sources

As part of a brief review of sources, deemed necessary after a conversation here, I have found the following issues. Some of these are relatively minor, but they are still listed as despite being minor they will need to be resolved. I have also mostly focused on the issues of Original Research and Synth, but on occasion have included explicit examples of the most notable violations of undue weight and neutral POV - although the largest issue, having carefully reviewed the entire document and the sources therein, is with UW and NPOV.

I should note that this is a far from comprehensive review:

  • Aside from the one issue noted, I did not review the lead as it is possible sources for it are, as is allowed, not included there - though I do believe that the lead should, in a contentious case like this, include all sources
  • I do not have access to all sources, and so have only reviewed the ones I do have access to, using WP:AGF to assume that any statement which is referenced by one or more references I do not have access to properly reflects the contents of that reference
  • I have not reviewed the notes, except in the context of where they are located.
  • It's a long article, and even for the sources I reviewed I have probably missed things - in particular, later sections are reviewed in less depth than earlier ones, and many of the larger later sections have been, for the moment, left unassessed. Should others wish to work through those I would appreciate it, but I believe the issues in the other sections indicate that issues will be found in those sections.

I have also included a few notes about prose and other issues as I come across them.

Lead

  • Original Research (OR): "Widely considered to be a classic example of an "intractable" conflict" - Source does not support the claim that this belief is widely held
Nonsense, and patently vexatious since one is not obliged to multifootnote the obvious. Please google at least to see how often it is cited as such in specific technical works on 'Intractable Conflicts'. It is virtually a default term for the IP conflict. I'm not going to do work any one with a query can answer for themselves in seconds, except here, note.
Is there a policy to that end that you are referencing? As far as I know the relevant policy is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which would require you to provide evidence for the statement that this is "widely considered". I would also ask that you be WP:CIVIL. If you believe I am being vexatious then please take that to the appropriate forum, but apart from that such an accusation has no place here. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
NoCOBOL, prepare yourself for many ad hominem attacks.
On this one, "intractable conflict", I lean towards including it because of WP:BLUESKY obviousness. I think if there's one thing that everybody in the world knows about Palestine-Israel (and Arab-Israel before it), it's that these conflicts are intractable; i.e., going on for a long time without resolution, hard to control or deal with, difficult. Would you agree (that this is common knowledge)? If you disagree, is there another word that would work for you? Levivich 16:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear. I was hopeful that my response would be sufficiently neutral to avoid those from all but the most intractable editors, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised if that is not the case.
As for the use of intractable here; thank you for WP:BLUESKY. I think in this case my issue was that it seemed like more of a technical term than a general one, but looking at it again in the context of what you are saying it does appear fine - thank you. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
NoCOBOL, I believe your response was more than sufficiently neutral. Prepare for ad hominem attacks anyway :-) Levivich 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed "widely". That resolve this? nableezy - 17:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The language of conflict and coverage in academia and the media

  • Unreliable Source (US), Undue Weight (UW) and Neutral Point of View (NPOV): "The West Bank vs Judea and Samaria; the IDF "says" or "confirms" while Palestinians "claim"; Israelis are "kidnapped" whereas Palestinians are "arrested"; for Israel, violence refers to occasional events, for Palestinians it is an everyday feature of the occupation; what Palestinians regard as assassinations are "pinpoint preventive operations" for Israel; what some call "colonies" are called "settlements" or "neighbourhoods" by others; what some call "displacement" is for Palestinians "dispossession"; Israel military actions are "responses": Palestinian actions are "attacks". " - This is sourced, though two paragraphs later - a fact that makes reviewing this document all the harder, as sources might be provided, but in unusual positions. There was a nearby source that discussed "terminology bias" in favour of Israel, including examples such as "Martyr" vs "Suicide Bomber", but these examples were omitted. The source itself is unreliable because it is a "Diary" (essentially unreviewed blog) entry on the London Book Review site. There is also a possible issue with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:NPOV; this segment focuses on the issues Palestine and its supporters has with coverage it deems pro-Israel, but does not cover the reverse. In particular, I question why it omits the above example of "Martyr" vs "Suicide Bomber"; while this is from a source complaining about "martyr" not being used enough outside of Palestinian Coverage, it is an example that would illustrate the Israeli position.
  • OR and NPOV: "The way the conflict is reported are extensively monitoring and analysed: in addition to Israel's public diplomacy, intent on countering negative press images, there are also many private pro-Israeli organizations, among them CAMERA, FLAME, HonestReporting, Palestinian Media Watch, Canary Mission and the Anti-Defamation League which claim much reportage is distorted. The term Pallywood was coined to suggest that Palestinian coverage of their plight is manipulative fake news." - The article makes a statement about Israel working to coutner this "negative press image", but provides no source on it. There is also an issue here and in the surrounding sections with WP:NPOV, as it discusses the Israeli efforts to affect the coverage in depth, but barely mentions Palestinian efforts.
  • UW: " Tamar Liebes, former director of the Smart Institute of Communication at the Hebrew University, argued that Israeli "Journalists and publishers see themselves as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders"." - while this is correctly quoted to the individual, as it should for a US, this would appear to be undue weight of a single individual who is effectively publishing within a blog (see above)

Notes: I have mentioned a few times within this section review of UW and NPOV, but it pervades the entire section; every single source here appears to be pro-Palestine, and as the pro-Israeli view is not WP:FRINGE this seems like it needs to be corrected.

This is just a mishmash, and one can't respond to hodgepodgery. The intricately detailed sourcing for every statement there, from RS, is here or in the main article. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If there is a source for the statement I reviewed as OR, then could you perhaps link it here? It is possible that I missed it, as sometimes the references are in locations that do not appear to correspond to the statement needing the source. As for the rest, I feel they can be replied to; for instance, you could reply to the first with an explanation on why Israeli issues with terminology are not needed here to provide a NPOV despite the extensive coverage of Palestinian issues; to be honest, if you can't then this suggests to me that the issues I have raised are solid. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree here, this section talks a lot about Israeli distortion or misuse of language, and little or not at all about Palestinian distortion or misuse of language. For example, it doesn't mention that the PA refers to suicide bombers as "martyrdom-seeking operations", or that settlers are referred-to commonly as a "herd" or "gang". It doesn't mention the "Great Satan" and "Little Satan" language. There are other examples. Everybody on both sides has been twisting language for 50+ years, so there are many examples. Levivich 16:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich- Do you really want to get into the language settlers and Palestinians use of each other, 'Arab scum', 'Nazis swine', 'Hitler's children', 'bacteria' etc. I have dozens of sources on this. Point taken that this can be fine-tuned, but I've been asked to cut drastically things that are facts? I know there is an expectation that once Iì'm below say 100kB, there's no reason why we can't then boost it way over that figure with what editors take to be a balancing 'Jewish/Israel' POV. But this is about media reportage as scholarship reviews it, not about back yard sledging and name calling.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I too agree maybe we should take this section out till if will fixed for NPOV ---Shrike (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed unreliability, this is by Yonatan Mendel, who has edited a book about this specific topic published by Edinburgh University Press. Even if this were his personal blog it would be a usable source per WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I am not opposed to adding more material on "suicide bomber" vs "martyr", but the material from Mendel is properly sourced. nableezy - 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It also says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Given the general insistence of scholarship over news in this article, it also seems quite odd to include something equivalent self-published source. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)l
It's even odder that at History of Alexander you contradict the scruples insisted on here, by citing sources that are self-published. You can't have it both ways: in your own wiki work cite experts published by lulu.com, and then come here and cite policy insisting on a high bar for reliable sources. W P:COI notice. My first degree was in classical Greek.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You see? Ad hominem. You can't just keep it to the topic of the content on this page, you must expand and comment on the behavior of the editor with whom you disagree (in this case, suggesting hypocrisy). Every time. I can set a clock by it, Nish. Levivich 22:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I ask you again, please be WP:CIVIL. If you have an issue with my work elsewhere then I am happy to discuss it there - I am quite literally only here through the random page button, and would be overjoyed to go back to topics I enjoy. I will quickly note, however, that there is a difference between a contentious modern occupation and a relatively obscure lost worm written before Christ. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That is not ad hominem. On wikipedia formally editors are obliged as part of NPOV to adopt the same criteria of judgement re policy uniformly, and not play with policy, depending on the article, to score points. You are clearly using a double standard over the two articles compared. You are asking for an extreme high bar of what you imagine to be policy requirements for the article here while in the wiki article you yourself wrote, there is no trace of any awareness of the same policy requirements - to the contrary (conversations from Forbes magazine; private blogs, the Encyclopedia Britannica's outdated 1911 snippet article, unpaginated primary sources, etc.) To employ such shoddy sourcing there, while getting on a policy high horse in trampling through this is problematical, particularly since you take exception to the sourcing. Your last remark is nonsensical, suggesting that with an historical topic whose interpretation is notably tricky and contentious, any 'stuff' goes, but with a contemporary topic, the stringent academic or technical literature is to be challenged. In both, you either disregard or dispute the relevant scholarship, which is the advised best sourcing for any wiki article per RS. It is very difficult for other editors to take your comments splashed all over this talk age seriously given such an astonishing contradiction in what you do there, and what you preach here.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
All I ask is for you to be WP:CIVIL. Maybe you disagree, but attempting to discredit a statement by working to discredit the person making it is the definition of ad hominem. As for the article itself, it seems that you have misrepresented many elements and appear to be confused about others; I am particularly curious how I referenced the primary source when the primary source is lost, but that is a discussion to be held on that page, not here. I will not respond further to this line of questioning, no matter what baseless accusations you throw my way.
I will, however, make one final statement. I believe that the more controversial a subject, the harsher the restrictions on sourcing should be. A relatively non-controversial article, such as one on an old book, can take advantage of the full range of sources allowed by policy, though only in deference to sources meeting harsher requirements. A controversial article, such as this one, should only take the most restrictive view of sources, and in particular should not use sources that policy cautions against using, such as the source under discussion. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Where have I been uncivil? The fact of the occupation is not controversial, the facts adduced here are not controversial; the mechanisms described here are not contested but have been repeatedly examined in Israel's supreme court. What is being asserted is that setting forth the data no one challenges, cannot but be controversial. Now, if you will allow, I will get back to doing what several editors asked for, a size reduction, which I willingly do in full awareness that, ironically, I am doing half of the 'dirty work' the objectors wanted, and that once I satisfy that 'concern' per WP:AGF edit warring will automatically resume to try and either gut the article, or fill up the saved space with justificatory political material. Back to work.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry, but I just quoted what specifically allows this source to be used. Policy explicitly allows for an established expert's self-published work. And this isnt even self-published, because as you note it is published by the London Review of Books. It is a reliable source and there is no cause for arguing its removal. nableezy - 23:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Blogs are not considered reliable sources, even if the site they are on is otherwise considered reliable. And yes, it does say it can, but it also warns against it. In this case, I would argue the subject matter is to contentious to do so - the way I see it is if it is not a fringe view, you should be able to provide a reliable source for it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This isnt a blog. I have provided a reliable source, the writings by an established expert are reliable. I quoted from policy what explicitly allows this source to be used. Your request here is not based on policy. nableezy - 17:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The West Bank in 1967

No major issues found here, though if someone with access to "The Economic Case for Palestine" can confirm that it explicitly states that "Compared to Israel, the West Bank had a favourable educational basis", and that this isn't SYNTH.
You can ask a direct citation.user:nishidani can you provide one? --Shrike (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Conquest

  • UW: "who also recognized that year that for Arabs what Zionism undertook to do was seen as theft" - there is no apparent reason for the inclusion of this line in this section, as it adds nothing to the a discussion of the Six-Day War
  • Synth (SY): "That Zionism thought of partition agreements as temporary and aspired from the outset to incorporate all of Palestine into a Jewish state went back at least to declarations of intent made by Ben-Gurion in 1937-1938" - it is a synth of two factors. 1, that a statement to this end was made by Gurion, and 2, that Gurion was later the head of the World Zionist Organization and the first Prime Minister of Israel. The source does not support ascribing this belief to Zionism itself, and though I can understand why some may consider this synth reasonable given Gurion's position, it is still synth.
  • OR: "Israel expelled many people from areas it had conquered, beginning with an estimated 12,000 people who on the very first day were rounded up in the villages of Imwas, Yalo and Bayt Nuba in the Latrun Salient and ordered by the Israeli military into exile eastwards." - the source does provide evidence to support that those 12,000 people were expelled (abet in different words, but close enough to not be synth), but it does not make statements that the expulsions were wider than this, as is suggested by the line fragment "Israel expelled many people from areas it had conquered, beginning with". Also, the source states this to have happened on the second night, not the first day - a minor problem, but worth correcting all the same.

Notes: "After Israel attacked Egypt at 8 a.m. on 5 June 1967", in "Conquest" - it would seem to me that including the reason Israel attacked would be useful for comprehensive and neutral coverage - even something as simple as "After Israel attacked Egypt, following the closure of the Straits of Tiran, at 8 a.m. on 5 June 1967"

  • With regard to Zionism, I am going to quote Nishidani (on this talk page): There is not just ... one Zionist perspective or historical account, and Nableezy (in an edit summary for reverting a background section about Zionism): ...this page isnt about Zionism. That we talk about the Arab perspective of Zionism but don't talk about the background of Zionism (i.e., don't give the Zionist perspective anywhere) is one of the POV problems in this article. That we ascribe one view to all of Zionism is also a problem, as noted by Nishi. I agree about including more background info in general, including the reasons for the '67 war, and the reason Jews moved to the area in the first place. This suggestion has been met with huge opposition previously. Levivich 16:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Military Administration

  • OR: "for the 'welfare and benefit of the population'"; the inclusion doesn't appear to add anything to the article, though if its contributor, USER:Nishidani, has one that I have missed than I would welcome an explanation. The main issue with the line, however, is that it is effectively OR. By including the WP:SCAREQUOTES the line is indicating that they are not there for the "welfare and benefit of the population", and the sources do not make such a statement. Alternatively, removing the scare quotes would result in it stating the opposite without a reliable secondary source to back it up and so I believe it is best if it is removed entirely, even if the contributor does have a reason for its inclusion.

Notes: The title of the section seems to inaccurately reflect the contents, and I feel a better title would be "Israeli Administration".

  • Is this a direct quote from somewhere? Levivich 17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not find it in any of the sources I reviewed, but it is possible I missed it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The title is Military Administration to distinguish the Israeli Military Governorate from the Israeli Civil Administration. The use of quotes is because it is quoting the military order that established the Civil Administration. That order read "the Civil Administration shall administer civilian affairs in the Area [the West Bank] […] with regard to the welfare and benefit of the population, for the purpose of operating and providing public services and in consideration of the need to maintain good governance and public order in the Area". Those are not scare quotes, they are quotation marks around an actual quotation. nableezy - 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue with the title is that the section discusses more than just the military administration, and not just in the context of the transition from the military to civilian administration.
The issue with the quotation marks, meanwhile, is that it is not clear from the context that they are a quote, and instead can easily come across as "scare quotes". If the segment is to remain, this needs to be corrected, but corrected in a manner that doesn't imply any conclusions about the veracity of the statement - and to be honest, I am not sure this can be done, and since I also cannot see how that fragment contributes to the section I do believe the best solution is to remove it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That does not make a whole lot of sense to me, can come across as scare quotes? It isnt making any conclusion, implied or explicit, about the veracity of the statement. We can attribute it to the military order to make it clear it is a quotation. nableezy - 18:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I reworked that bit to make clear this is a quote from the military order. nableezy - 21:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Territory

No major issues found here in regards to specific sources, though a general issue of UW is found.

Note: Section is generally confusing. It states to cover territory, but goes into a much more expansive coverage than this. I am not sure whether it would be better to rename the entry or strip the ancillary items out.

Initial impact of occupation

  • OR and UW: "By June 1967, only a third of West Bank land had been registered under the Settlement of Disputes over Land and Water Law and Israel quickly moved, in 1968, to cancel the possibility of registering one's title with the Jordanian Land Register." - The phrase "quickly moved" is unsupported by the source and suggests towards certain motives on Israel's part. I also believe there is undue weight on this cancellation; the absence of a discussion of the replacement system leads one to certain conclusions that may be inaccurate. I am also not certain about the reliability of the source; it comes from Al-Haq, and their reliability appears to be disputed, but since the reliability of those organizations disputing Al-Haq's reliability is also disputed there is some confusion on this point; it might be worth bringing to the reliable sources notice board.
  • OR: "imports of grapes and dates banned" - the provided citation does not state anything about this as far as I can tell, and definitely does not around the page number cited.
  • OR: "By defining any area as a closed military zone, Israel has often used the classification to prepare the way for a civilian settlement. " - this statement is, as far as I can tell, not supported by any provided citation, though the absence of a citation at the end of the paragraph makes it unclear what citation was intended to support it.

Notes: I don't understand why the first paragraph is in this section. The possible long-term Israeli plans for the area have nothing to do with the Initial Impact. USER:Nishidani, again it appears you included this - can you comment? I also wonder about the accuracy of the title. It might be better to title it "Impact of the Occupation" or similar, as the article goes well beyond the initial impact, including elements that happened years after the war.

  • I'm not going to respond redundantly to each instance of this, but a general comment applicable to all the "not in source cited" points: if it's not in the source cited, of course it should be removed. Levivich 17:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The minister of agriculture prohibited or restricted the sale inside the 1949 armistice lines of major West Bank and Gaza products, like grapes and dates, to forestall competition with Israeli producers.
The line on closed military zones becoming settlements doesnt currently have a source, Ill work on getting one. nableezy - 18:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I just removed that line for now. I also removed quickly moved, even though that seems fairly obvious with the dates. Anything else here? The claim on undue weight because it doesnt include a replacement system doesnt hold water, Israel has not made a replacement system. The suspension of the ability to register was made specifically to deny the possibility of further registrations. nableezy - 21:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Dates is fine, thank you for that, as well as for correcting the other two. As for UW, while registration is not possible it is possible to assert ownership of land that was unregistered. This probably should be mentioned, as the implication is that this is not the case. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Source please. Absent sources to support your position there is no UW issue. nableezy - 17:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Settlement

Generally no major issues, though I had an unusually high number of sources I could not completely access in this section compared to previous ones. However, it does appear there are a few issues with NPOV, such as mentioning the settlement of Gaza but not the withdrawal, and having a sub-section of violence by settlers but very little on violance towards settlers.

State of asymmetric war

Again, a lot of sources that I could not access complete copies of, so most of this section has been WP:AGF to be properly cited.

  • NPOV: The section on Armaments covers numerous things beyond armaments, but excludes any mention of Palestinian Armaments beyond rocks and molotov cocktails. Along this same thread, the article doesn't cover the molotov cocktails in any detail, which it describes as "primarily non-lethal", while it goes into extensive detail on the impact of the "non-lethal" techniques employed by Israel, such as stating "tear gas canisters (which have often produced fatalities)".
  • (?): "The first Intifada was relatively unarmed" - I cannot access the article, but I find it surprising, given the deaths on the Israeli side, that it would make such a statement. Can anyone verify that this one does match?
  • OR, UW: The section lists the number of Israeli's killed at 90, which is considerably less than the number presented at the First Intifada. The article does have the clarifier "by Palestinians", so that may explain it, though I suspect that even if accurate such a specifier makes this an example of undue weight, using overly restrictive criteria to present a certain picture. However, the issue is that the citation doesn't support this, with it list the casualties between 2000 and 2008, well after the end of the Intifada.

Notes:

  • The sub-sections go far outside what their title would imply. For instance, the subsection armaments doesn't cover just the weapons used, it goes into criminal sentences and other unrelated matters. I also would appreciate input on whether the casualties should be limited to those just occurring in the West Bank or if they should provide a coverage of the conflict as a whole. There is also a general issue with inconsistent terminology (Soldiers and Security Forces), as well as the conflation of Civilians and Militants in the Palestinian figures but their separation in the Israeli.
  • There is also a significant focus on violence by Israeli's, including their psychological motivation and impact, but nothing on violence by Palestinians. This seems to be a NPOV issue, as such violence is directly relevant and not fringe.
  • Multiple thoughts here:
  1. Armaments should include discussion of bombs (explosives), suicide bomber vests and suicide bombers (including vests worn by children and women, including apparently-pregnant women), and the different kinds of mortars, missiles, and rockets, including the difference between the three, and the differences in range. Also drones. I was also surprised that white phosphorous (or whatever you call that stuff) wasn't mentioned, but I wonder if that's because it was used only in Gaza and not in WB.
  2. "Primarily non-lethal" is based, as far as I can tell, on one person's opinion. I'm sure there are a lot of other people that would disagree with that person's opinion. I think it should go unless it can be demonstrated with RSes that this is a widely held view by RSes and not just one person.
  3. The armaments section conspicuously "relatively unarmed", I always wondered: relative to what? The Second Intifada?
  4. There is no way, in my opinion, this article can present just one number as the number of Israelis killed (or the number of Palestinians killed). These numbers are hotly disputed; in my view, any neutral presentation of such numbers has to include a discussion of the dispute and the various numbers put forward by various people/organizations.
  5. The security defense motivation issue is relevant here. Levivich 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The First Intifada was in fact largely unarmed. Hell, the BBC article on it 20 years later opens with The Palestinians were largely unarmed, so the enduring picture of the intifada is one of young men and boys throwing stones and rocks at Israeli troops. As far as deaths on the Israeli side, over 6 years from the start of the intifada until Oslo, 271 Israeli civilians were killed in Israel and in the occupied territories combined. nableezy - 17:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: 271 according to B'Tselem. Do other sources give other figures, or do all sources agree on 271? Levivich 21:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Cant honestly say that I looked, B'tselem being my go to for such figures. Ill look around though. nableezy - 21:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich. Israel has a standing army, and Palestinians are forbidden arms. There were two historically short periods of suicide bombers, etc., but it is not a general feature of Palestinian protests, which have occurred daily, with stones basically, for 40 years. I mentioned suicide bombers. I'll touch on this when I review that section. As to statistics, I avoid government sources, Israeli or Palestinian. I'm interested not in what government or semi-official sources state when a conflict is live, but what field researchers report after a lapse of time. This is what historians normally do, except for Anthony Cordesman. There are even well-researched books and articles on the systematic distortion of figures from both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. I leave that junk untouched. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but that reads like you are saying that you are the arbiter of what is reliable enough for Wikipedia or not? As it stands, those figures have been assessed as sufficiently reliable for inclusion, and as far as I can tell your objection to their inclusion comes down to personal preference - Wikipedia does not work that way. If you don't want to use them here then challenge them there and get a concensus for their removal first. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Technologies of control

Not yet assessed

Collective punishment

Not yet assessed

Fragmentation

Not yet assessed

Agriculture

Not yet assessed

Loss of cultural property

  • OR: "Albert Glock, among others, argued that the thrust of archaeology has been to interpret the Palestinian past in Christian and Jewish Zionist terms, in the latter instance, providing a charter for the occupation, to the detriment of the Palestinian cultural heritage." - the source provides that Albert Glock argues this, but it does not establish that this is a popular opinion, or even merely held by others, as the first past of the paragraph claims - it seems WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies here.
  • Agree here, and again, a general comment that I won't repeat for every example: all of the instances of "so and so says..." should be removed unless there's a particular reason why so-and-so's individual opinion is important in context. I don't care about Albert Glock's argument; I care about the general consensus of reliable sources; that's what we should be presenting to the reader. This is why some people say the sources are "cherrypicked". Levivich 17:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If so and so is a reliable source then it can and should be included. If nobody is disputing the statement it doesnt even need to be attributed. nableezy - 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy: No, and you know that's not how it works. We don't include everything that any reliable source says. "Reliable source" is the floor, the minimum required for inclusion. After determining that it's an RS, we then must consider WEIGHT and so forth. So just because one person says it doesn't mean we include it. In fact, if only one person says it, it means we shouldn't include it. And, um, how hard do you think it would be to find someone who disagrees with Glock's argument that the thrust of archaeology has been to interpret the Palestinian past in Christian and Jewish Zionist terms? Because if you say "any reliable source gets to be included", then hey, let's bring back quoting Bibi's book published by a reputable publisher? No, of course not, because it's more than just RS that needs to be considered. Levivich 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry, but no, absolutely not. Yes, something being in a reliable source does not mean it has to be included. The idea however that if one person says something that means it is undue weight is an error in reading undue weight. Weight is determined by the proportion of reliable sources that hold a position. If no reliable source disputes what a single reliable source says then there is no POV issue in including what that single reliable source says. Things are not non-neutral just because some Wikipedia editor finds them uncomfortable. There have to be actual reliable sources showing that some statement is disputed. nableezy - 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
These are objections that illustrate unfamiliarity with the topic area. What Glock wrote became an academic truism, commented on even in the Wall Street Journal, not to speak of specific monographs and articles by numerous scholars, such as Nur Masalha and Thomas Thompson. You are all calling on me to cut back, and asking for major expansions on things anyone who reads this stuff regularly will nod at as obvious.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel WP:OBVIOUS is needed here -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy and Nishidani: I want to assure you I am very comfortable, and nothing on this page or the article page makes me feel uncomfortable in any way. If it did, I just would stop coming to these pages. An academic truism should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, sourced to multiple RSes that show the broad consensus for the truism, rather than an attributed statement sourced to one speaker. This is how we tell the reader the difference between an academic truism and one man's opinion. Levivich 21:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
My view on this specific issue is that attribution be removed from Glock. Him writing in a peer-reviewed journal makes this statement a fact absent any reliable sources disputing it. If some source can be brought to show that this is a disputed view then fine we can discuss weight. But as it stands it is an unchallenged factual statement from a reliable source. AKA a fact here. nableezy - 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Tourism

No identified issues

Resource extraction

No identified issues (though it needs a clean-up)

Economic and social benefits and costs of the occupation

Not yet assessed

Wider implications

  • SY, OR, NPOV: "Since the late 1970s, according to Jan Nederveen Pieterse writing in 1984, Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza, together with an aspiration to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka to put down peasant revolts against land expropriation." - for a comprehensive analysis of the issues in this fragment (I spent considerably more time covering that sentence than I have most sections hereto) see the Original Research section on this talk page.
There is no SY/OR/NPOV problem. Summary is not synth, read WP:SYNTH, but more particularly read the first six pages of Pieterse's article at least, which is compressed into two lines, with no synthetic OR of different points.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In the section referenced I gave three explicit statements that need to be directly stated by Pieterse for the summary to not be synth. Can you provide citations to that end, or does the statement need to go? Unfortunately, while I will always WP:AGF I also need to verify in cases like this where I have carefully analysed the statement in question and found that it appears to be synth and OR. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Israeli critical judgements

No identified issues

Sources

In general, I have noted an issue with source coverage and thus UW, with the overwhelming majority appearing to be from pro-Palestinian sources, and most of the rest from neutral sources. This is particularly pronounced in the inclusion of twenty-seven separate items from the Journal of Palestinian Studies - while it is a reliable source, it is commonly accepted as biased on these issues and so appears to have had undue weight placed on its opinions. Other pro-Palestinian organizations with significant coverage includes B'Tselem with fifteen separate articles cited. As I have mentioned above, the pro-Israeli position is not fringe, and so an article with such significant pro-Palestinian coverage should we working towards balance, but unfortunately I see no evidence of this.
it is commonly accepted as biased on these issues, um what? The Journal of Palestine Studies is a peer-reviewed journal published by the University of California Press. Who exactly accepts it as biased? And how is that a commonly held view? Is it "pro-Palestinian" because it has the word "Palestine" in it? nableezy - 17:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not exactly controversial that they are pro-Palestine. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur. The Journal of Palestine Studies is an enthusiastic cheerleader for Palestinian resistance, with footnotes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That is one of the dumber claims I have seen. nableezy - 21:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Source please. The Journal of Palestine Studies is a reliable source, full stop. You are making unsourced claims, back them up please. nableezy - 21:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, calling B'tselem "pro-Palestinian" is another one of those claims that need backing up. They are a human rights organization. That they document violations of Palestinian rights does not make them "pro-Palestinian", and regardless, "pro-Palestinian" is not a demerit in WP:RS as far as I can tell. nableezy - 21:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a breakdown by ethnicity of the original article, and from memory there were twice the number of Israel/Jewish scholars cited than of Arab scholars, while the third 'western' scholarly contribution lay in between. That was calculated. If there is an ethnicity bias, it is not towards Palestinians, and most of the authors cited from that journal are not Arabs. What you are getting here is standard fare at any reputable Israeli university or doctorate level history course. That it is not covered by newspapers reporting the conflict is well, stiff cheddar, but a global readership is entitled to know what the lay of the scholarship is.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how ethnicity is relevant in determining bias - ethnicities aren't a homogenous block where all the members of it agree on all matters. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree as a general matter that "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" is not a reason to exclude a source, in and of itself. All sources have biases. It's about balance. B'Tselem shouldn't be excluded, but nor should it be treated as the ultimate arbiter of anything. In other words, just because B'T says something, doesn't automatically mean we repeat it in WP's voice, or even include it with attribution. These issues must be decided on a case-by-case, sentence-by-sentence and cite-by-cite basis (unfortunately). I'd also add that 27 cites out of 300 doesn't really bother me on its face. I have the same feelings about JPS and also things like books written by Bibi, or statements from the IDF. Levivich 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason I raised those two were as they were the largest sources. However, the issue doesn't stop with them and instead it appears that most sources are pro-Palestine. And so there is no doubt , I am not saying that sources with bias should be deleted, just that we need to be careful of balance. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not calling them unreliable, I am calling them biased - I am not quite sure where you got that misunderstanding from. Biased sources are acceptable if reliable, but one needs to be careful to avoid undue weight. When faced with this situation, I have a simple question that I ask myself: if the only sources for the article were from this entity, would this be a balanced article? In this case the answer is clearly no; B'tselem describes itself as "B’Tselem devoted itself primarily to documenting Israeli violations of Palestinians’ human rights in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.", and while this is a noble goal, and one that it appears to persue with reliability, it does not lend itself to balance. Beyond my simple rule of thumb, though, B'tselem is another source generally considered pro-Palestine, and honestly I am not sure how you are disputing that, given their explicit aims and what they report on. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
B'tselem is not 'pro-Palestine', tout court. It reports on human rights violations, like Amnesty Interenational and Human Rights Watch, and has the largest data base on the topic in the world, in an area where 99& of them happen to Palestinians. It also regularly reports and deplores Palestinian violence, and in its field reports has frequently corrected information initially given by Palestinian sources. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
B'Tselem is pro-human rights. They also report on Palestinian violations against Israeli civilians (here). There is literally nothing that has been presented to back the claim that the Journal of Palestine Studies is biased. Not. One. Thing. nableezy - 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nableezy and USER:Nishidani, and anyone else who wants to chime in, let me ask you a question. If the only source you used for this article wad B'Tselem, would you consider it a balanced article? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
No, because this article is not only about violations of human rights in the West Bank. You are making assertions about sources being "pro-Palestinian" and that we are lacking "pro-Israel" sources, but you havent actually brought any reliable sources for any supposed POV issue. If you think there is a POV issue then bring reliable sources showing that there is some POV dispute over something in the article. nableezy - 18:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That would mean it would be incomplete, not that it would be imbalanced. Would you consider it to be balanced? If you don't, then it is self-evident that the source is balanced towards a certain viewpoint, and thus pushes the article towards that certain viewpoint by its inclusion, which needs to be balanced back by sources on the other "side". Further, it's important to note that by policy the onus is on those who create articles to prove the various aspects of them are correct, not on others to disprove it. However, when I am less burnt by the discussion on this page I will return with a more complete analysis of the sources and their respective biases. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No, if you say there is an issue with the balance of sources you need to demonstrate that issue with sources. You are making assertions based on feelings. nableezy - 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Zionist

As a general note, I feel the term Zionist and Zionism is overused. In some cases it is relevant, but in most cases it appears to be out of place and given the controversy over the use of the term in the context of criticism of Israel, I believe it would be best reduced. Perhaps someone with more experience of this topic can go through this article and decide whether the use is valid or not?
Specific examples of where it is inappropriate. Just saying something is controversial is not meaningful. nableezy - 21:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"governing the Zionist creation of Israel" - it is sufficient here to say "governing the creation of Israel"
"much as the pine introduced by Zionist arboriculture" - Zionist arboriculture? What? Israeli arboriculture, sure, but I do not see the need for Zionist.
Just a few where it is unneeded. There are others, but I would prefer to leave the more controversial ones to editors better versed on this. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Ive gone through the article, the one that was mentioned I left because the source talks about the pine being planted by early Zionists, pre-Israel, and contrasts that to what it calls the Palestinian olive. But Ive removed or changed a few others. nableezy - 20:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What to do?

Given the extent of these issues, I am not sure how best to resolve this. I am wondering if it might be best to return this article to draft space and only return it to mainspace if and when a consensus is established that it does present the situation from a NPOV, and does not have a significant quantity of OR or SY. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
For the moment, I've been WP:BOLD and dropped this article to C class, as it doesn't meet the requirements of B class due to the various issues found above and elsewhere, but that is an alteration of no significant relevance - further decisions need to be taken. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously exercise patience. We had a long thread centered on the claim, with some merit, that this was too long. So, dutifully, I set about reducing the article's length, and it is down from 165 Kb of readable prose to 124, and I am not yet half-finished. You have made a patchy sketch of work in progress, whose contents and sometimes sourcing are under constant reduction per précis. So the above - what I have read there is far too generic and unfocused- is premature. You say you haven't had access to many of the sources here, so jumping into a general review without mastery of the topic is again premature. Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote several months ago in my first post here way (way, way) at the top of this page, I believe the most efficient way forward is to first reduce the size of the article (currently in progress), and then discuss the POV sections piece by piece (now in progress thanks to NoCOBOL's efforts here). So my first reaction to "what to do" is "keep doing what we're doing now". As to moving it to draftspace, the best argument I can think of for that is that when you move it back out of draftspace, it can be a DYK nom (which I think it should be, and when it's ready, a GA nom as well, and FAC if possible). I don't know if that's important to the authors, though, and it may be that it'll be a DYK nom as it stands now; I don't know the answer to that, either. Levivich 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I will note that seeing Nishidani's constructive efforts at prose reduction, I am holding off editing the article as well as commenting until he is done. While in an optimum world this would have been done in draft space - given that he's working here at a good pace - discussing POV, sourcing, additions, and other issues will be easier once the article has been trimmed. Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It couldn't be done in draft space for the reason given above. To present the relevant details required massive sourcing in order that readers seeing the basis for the article in detail, could then get to the meat of whatever issues they wanted to raise, in full knowledge of the topic. Some editors objecting here appear to be unacquainted with the topic's intricacies. That is not ad hominem, it is simply a fact that public knowledge of the voluminous academic works on this topic through fairly exposure to newspaper coverage and general books is not, as the article itself notes, particularly informed. I appreciate the restraint being shown here. I have very little free time, but am going as fast as circumstances allow. As for nominations, I don't care for them, though I did oo-author Shakespeare Authorship Question in good part, whose main editor certainly deserved the FA credit our work got.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I feel I may have missed something. What reason did you give for this being unsuited to draft space? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This isnt a draft, and that you feel there are undue weight issues does not make it so, or make it so this should be moved out of article space. I for one disagree with nearly every instance of a claim of undue weight above. nableezy - 00:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If I can be honest with you, saying "I disagree" isn't very useful. If you do disagree, the please, don't hesitate to explain the issues in my reasoning. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I have, in each of the sections above you brought something up. But mostly the issue I have is you are just pointing at something and saying this is POV based on what I can only assume is a feeling. I can only assume that because you havent brought any source disputing what is in the article. There is a POV dispute only if there are reliable sources disputing something. Not if somebody on Wikipedia says there is. nableezy - 18:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The way I see it is that patience for determining neutrality is not suitable at the current point; while if the article was being reduced it would make it easier at a later stage, it is not being reduced, only split, so the workload is constant or even increasing. Further, this is in mainspace, not draft space, where "wait and see" is applicable - indeed, this is part of the reason I support a move to draftspace and a review before it's return, so we can leave you to it until you believe it is properly sourced and neutral.
However, I will go a bit further into why I created this here and now; above, I created a short section discussing a line in the piece. Rather than defending or changing it, you choose to dismiss it as a non-issue, and this raised concerns for me as to the general neutrality and accuracy of citations for the article, as well as a fear that while you may be revising it you will not be correcting the POV issues.
As for the sources, I shouldn't need access to all of them to determine whether a specific element and its sources are correct - and if I do, then to me that suggests that there is a major synth problem. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is thrown around loosely in all talk page discussions, when it used to be proven with some rigour, in which case one responds.(a) You quoted the wrong date for an article, confusing a book with an article: I acted on your suggestion, and it proved to be incorrect, and this required a revert to the text as it originally stood; (c) you asserted I synthesized two sentences, when I was making an extremely concise 'summary' of, at a minimum, 5 pages; (d) you assert above 'the page is not being reduced only split' again, untrue and extremely misleading for a series of edits that have summarized the scholarship succinctly, reducing the page from 163kB to 124 kB, while conserving the original material on main page articles. That reduction has been acknowledged by others, but 'you' dissent; you challenged an obvious phrasing that the IP conflict was widely said to be an 'intractable conflict' when any familiarity with the topic should have told you, if not an instant google glance, that this is a commonplace part of the literature and a thematic topic discussed frequently at book length; (e) you challenged a generalization cited to Glock, and say it lacks a source as a 'popular opinion'. This is 'not about popular opinions': what Glock wrote is now a truism that has abundant scholarly coverage in everything from the Wall Street journal to scholarly works by Nur Masalha, Thomas Thompson et alii. All of this raises concerns for me. I can't see any evidence that you are familiar with this topic -everything points the other way, and this huge bolus of suspicion-sowing confusion is blocking what other editors asked me to do, concentrate on a radical shortening of the text to an acceptable level of readable prose. Could you indicate to me the best quality wiki article you have produced to date, so at least I can get some idea of your approach to complex article composition? I think it fair to have some idea of where you have shown your abilities to work at this level of thorough article creation and overhauling according to Wikipedia's accepted standards. Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not going to reply to most of these, as I cannot see a good faith reason to bring them up here, though if an interested party wants to see the full context of (a) then please see "Imprecise references", while for (c) please see the yet unresolved "Original research", as is (e) which is still disputed by multiple editors in this section above.
What I will say is that I am not familiar with the conflict, and have no real opinion either way on it, having come here by chance - but this should be considered a good thing. This article needs more neutral and unconcerned editors, not less. Yes, my unfamiliarity may be an issue in some cases, but it's also important to note that if there is a matter that an uninvolved editor does not find obviously true then perhaps it is not as obvious as an involved editor may thing - and the standard is that of an uninvolved individual, not an involved one.
As for the (d), the split - you say content is being removed and preserved elsewhere in mainspace. To be honest with you, that sounds like the definition of a split. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You should not need access to all the sources to see if any single source supports a statement? Want to run that back by me once more? I dont actually agree with most of your claims of Undue Weight or POV, but where I see an issue I have been correcting them. nableezy - 21:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What I am saying is that if I need to access a citation that is outside of the section that includes the information I am attempting to verify in order to verify it, then there is something very wrong with the article - I apologize for any misunderstanding. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, then, yes, I agree. There may be some issues with citations now that a bunch of material has been moved to other articles. Im sure where there are issues we can correct them though. nableezy - 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have just read this page for the first time, and I am shocked. The bias is pervasive and extreme. I often see articles about minor political causes, non-notable businesses, self-published novelists, and wannabe singing stars with this sort of PROMO tone, but for a page political topic of this importance to be this bad is a serious threat o to any pretention Wikipedia had to being a reliable and neutral source. If this was a page about an indie film, a political candidate, or a hotel, I'd suggest that we WP:TNT. In fact that is what I am going to suggest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over - I propose that we do something radical with this piece of POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I do not know if we have a precedent for this sort of thing, but could we possible appoint a small working group of willing an dknowledgeable editors, and recruit a panel of administrators to supervise, and see whether it is possible to come up with an NPOV article on this topic?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Lol, this is not even a little bit "political propaganda". nableezy - 21:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. You want to "put lipstick on a pig." That is not Wikipedia's purpose. (Hey, there is a reason that old anti−Apartheid activist say that the situation on the West Bank is much worse than it ever was in SA.) (PS: just incidentally, has any of you ever been on the West Bank?, seeing how the Palestinians there live? (Visiting an Israeli settlement doesn't count, here)) Huldra (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is not a policy based objection but some WP:SOAP --Shrike (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Lol, and Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an essay, not policy, did you forget? Huldra (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be interested to hear NoCOBOL and E.M.Gregory's (and anyone else) thoughts on what the harm is in leaving it in mainspace and editing it, as opposed to either draftifying or TNT? (Also what does TNT mean in this case, exactly? Something other than just AfDing it?) Levivich 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I also want to add that I do not want Nishidani or any other editor to in any way feel rushed or pressured to do something or to act on a certain timeline. Participation here is voluntary. So, like Icewhiz said above, I am comfortable waiting unless there is some reason not to wait, and hence why I asked the question above. Levivich 21:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: I mean, what does "and start over" mean for this article? We don't have another version to replace it with. So, does TNTing this article mean nominating it for AfD? Or does it mean replacing this text with some other text and if so, what text? Or does it mean cutting this whole article drastically down to some skeleton version? That's what I'm asking. Levivich 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
My personal preference would be to move the article to draft space until it meets the standards of draft space, specifically NPOV. While an article covering a less contentious issue could probably be left to stand in main space until corrected, we should be much more careful with matters like these. I also feel draft space would provide a good incentive to correct these issues for the creators; as it stands, they appear unwilling to admit there is an issue - for instance, arguing that the ethnic balance of the sources means it can't be pro-Palestinian, an argument that I personally believe is a little bit silly, to put it mildly - and sending this to draft space may help nudge them along. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Responding to Leviv. My proposal was to handle this fraught topic in a collegial way. By recruiting a team of experienced editors to blank the page, perhaps by moving it to draft space, and, under the aegis of two or three wise administrators, hammer out an NPOV article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This article already is NPOV. If you would like to nominate a copiously documented and obviously notable topic for deletion feel free. But you not liking that Israel's occupation is covered is not something that really matters here. nableezy - 22:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: - there are strong policy merits for an AfD. Obviously WP:TNT would be bandied about in the nom, but more importantly - WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (depending of size at the time), WP:NOTESSAY (this is essentially an anti-occupation essay written from an activist slant), ]WP:NOTSOAP (same as NOTESSAY in this regard) and a WP:POVFORK (of several existing articles that cover the basis) - and these are policy and guidelines. On a pure policy basis - the case for deletion is very strong. However, policy is not everything as we well know. Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Please drop the silly remarks. This is not an 'activist' article anymore than the article on 'Israel' is activist, and, unlike the latter is not a proud paean of achievement (to which personally I have no objections, even if the disappearance of the 20% of Israel's population's history in that country is striking). It sets forth the facts of an occupation: no one here has given any grounds for challenging significantly the large body of facts or mechanisms outlined here, from top quality source. What is being largely objected to is that these facts and mechanisms should not receive thorough coverage in Wikipedia because they are offensive. The facts are offensive. The objections here are overwhelmingly emotional, not technical. Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
And patent egging on editors to denounce me to AE is itself probably reportable, Shrike.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nishidani, then bring it there. Otherwise, I can't help but feel this is another example of an attempt to discredit the editor rather than their work. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
USER:Nishidani If you think I violated some policy go ahead and report me --Shrike (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't report people, and perhaps have the lowest rating as an AE whinger or plaintiff in the I/P area. I write articles, and bloody well know how to do them, whatever the complexity. That is on the record. Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One should consider carefully what it means for an article like this to be "neutral". Despite the wishes of some, what it doesn't mean is that the article should be written as if the Palestinians and the Israelis have been militarily occupying each other for 51 years. On the contrary, the facts are extremely non-symmetrical and good sources don't pretend otherwise. A good article on this subject will openly present the facts in accordance with the sources and not employ weasel words or euphemism, much less censorship, to hide the non-symmetry. Zerotalk 11:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course, articles about occupations will almost always read favorably for the occupied, and this is right - but that doesn't mean that the article cannot go too far. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You have made a series of assertions about POV and undue weight, but not once have you brought any source to demonstrate the issue. If there are reliable sources disputing something in our article then please bring them. Just asserting some issue based on feeling is meaningless. nableezy - 17:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank/Archive_5&oldid=1079502763"