Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 11

capture vs. occupation
see here to continue discussion.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * per .

the term occupation is a common POV charged term used mostly by palestinians and the left. i now gave it a bit of extra thought regarding a new phrasing which does not imply POV and gives more detail. i came up with this:


 * Local Arab nations and Israel fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, in which Israel won control over borders which remained in place until during the Six Day War, it seized control over the West Bank (Jordan) and the Gaza Strip (Egypt). (See also: West bank: History, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt'')

thoughts/suggestions?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Jaakobou's proposal. --GHcool (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Capture" is factually correct and "occupation" is loaded, so I agree with "capture". &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It has to be capture. Occupation is not only loaded, but arguably incorrect. (I'll not argue it here.) Hertz1888 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, so "occupation" is good when it refers to Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt but not when it is the Israelis in Gaza and the West bank? We had this discussion above and I won't restate all the arguments except for the bottom line: every official body, except for the Israeli government, uses the term "occupied".
 * Look, it is not a POV term and your compromise (especially the "See also:" bit) does not make the text clearer. I do not agree.  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.11.2007 08:12
 * pedro, four people believe that the word "occupied" is loaded. considering the Jordainian article is called, Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan, i promote that we name change the egyptian article. this way, we won't be supporting a loaded "occupied" narrative.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i've gone and done a page move on the egyptian article.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And you've conveniently ignored the entire discussion we had a week before in which it was the opposite ratio (against you) and who's arguments you failed to refute. Discussing for just half a day is somewhat jumping the gun and your move was a rather crass violation of WP:POINT. Don't make any more reverts (remember WP:3RR) until we've reached some agreement here.  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.11.2007 13:08


 * i think your perception of the previous discussion is inaccurate. to remind you i suggested an RfC, a suggestion that you have not followed - so i started this subsection to clear up the perspectives on whether or not the term is loaded.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed vs. Occupied, yet again...
Jaakobou, why did you do this? There were two RfCs on the issue and a solution to which everybody involved (you somehow stepped out of the discussion -- did you lose interest?) agreed to was found. Why are you all of a sudden re-introducing this terminology?

I seriously hope, for your own sake, that you are not trying to start another edit-war.

Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 24.01.2008 15:01


 * it needs to say 'occupied' and it needs to link to the page about the "occupation", i think we (i was reading though not commenting on it then) went through all this already and that came up as a very good solution. theres no rule against re-opening debates but i think ts in very poor taste to edit something out that you KNOW will cause trouble without discussing it first and when there is a recent consensus.  SJMNY (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Gonnet and SJMNY, I don't quite see any reason why one narrative should dominate over the other here in a paragraph that starts with: "Core issues in the conflict as seen by both sides are...".  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not aware of any recent consensus, my apologies if i missed something of value.
 * 2) I can't see why "it needs to say 'occupied'" and I find that phrasing combative.
 * 3) The contested settlements are built on Israeli land (settler perspective), Occupied land (Palestinian perspective) and the political status of these settlements is clearly a matter of 'dispute of territory' that will be resolved only if the regional culture changes.
 * 4) Side-to-side POV exchanges   -- replacing the Ultra-Zionist perspective with the Palestinian-nationalist one -- are certainly not helpful for creating a neutral encyclopedia.
 * Pedro is right. the existing wording is the result of a compromise which i arrived at with him, and with input from several other editors. So I really would ask that we leave it as it is. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to leave it if you could explain to me how a paragraph starting with [*above*] can allow one narrative to be dominant over the other. I don't have a problem with the occupation narrative being well represented, but this paragraph is supposed to be a generic presentation of the middle ground between the participants.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * you say you are "not aware of a consensus", then what would you call that huge highlighted section above called "RfC: On the use of the term "occupied" (2nd try)"? SJMNY (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as Jaakobou's mentor I've been asked to weigh in. Would you please supply links to the two RFCs? Jaakobou, if these RFCs really are what the other editors say they are, then consensus wording stands until/unless a new consensus emerges. Durova Charge! 07:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Durova, the RfCs are both on this very page. The first one failed because User:Jaakobou didn't like the form. The second one, in which User:Jaakobou participated (I counted 6 contributions in total) and which he himself closed (note the version that he accepts), concluded with the solution presented here. There is no reasonable argument within good faith that User:Jaakobou did not know about the RfC and its solution.
 * Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 25.01.2008 08:10
 * I agree that WP:AGF is not an acceptable explanation here.
 * Additionnaly, there is no subject of debate on this issue. Anybody, whether he agrees or not with that, knows that Cisjordan and Gaza are named occupied territories by the big majority of media, politicians and international organisations.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the memory jog SJMNY, My personal perception of that RfC is that it was not on the overall use of 'occupied' wherever you want it but rather on a certain paragraph - (see 'original version'). As the arguments were going nowhere, I've decided to agree on that version "Israel declared its independence. Five Arab...The status of the city as Israel's capital and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has remained a source of bitter conflict.".

Anyways, giving it a second look, I see GHcool, Armon and Hertz1888 were clearly supporting my motion and there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus as Pedro Gonnet and SJMNY (were you part of the discussions?) suggest.

Staying topical (and repeating myself a little), I don't believe a paragraph that presents the issues from the perspectives of the rivals, should give one perspective dominance over the other.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, This paragraph is not about the media's general terminology but rather on the perspective of the two disputants. In israel, the term "Yesha" (and it's derivatives) exists far more often than the term "occupied", and "disputed territories" is mentioned quite often also in it's shorter version. i.e. "territories".  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) correction of text 12:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * all these folks are right . "Occupied Territories" is the main term used by most govrnments and organizations. The reason for that is that these territories are clearly not part of Israel proper; if they were, everyone there would have Israeli voting rights, which clearly they don't have. So "Occupied" is simply a diplomatic term, denoting the fact that there is currently no nation which considers this territory to be within its own official national borders. So that's why i agreed to the use of "Occupied." Bascially, I consider this term well-founded, and also, when it comes to indivudal terms, I don't wrangle over single words, as long as my side's viewpoints or concerns can be expressed somewhere in the article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit uncomfortable. The reason I'm repeating myself is because you're ignoring what I'm saying. I have full understanding of the international perspective - however, a paragraph that states "as seen by both sides", not "as seen by the international community", needs to avoid the pushing of either "Yesha" or "Occupation" narratives or I'm sure this paragraph will be a source for disputes in the future (with future wikipedians) also.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, write that for "some people to specify", 'occupied territories' are in fact 'disputed'... but explain who states this and what it means (with source at each time). Ceedjee (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i thought the point of linking occupation to the occupied territories article was to allow people to read about the dispute there and keep it out of the opening here? that seems sensible to me at least SJMNY (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SJMNY, with that logic, the obvious motion would be "why not link it to yesha and explain the dispute there?". I'm looking for a more long term neutral dispute.
 * Ceedjee, your suggestion maybe balances the text a little, but it's not enough to make it neutral. If you want to change the paragraph's directive, removing "as seen by both sides", then we can probably agree on your suggestion - however, I don't see it as a neutral suggestion considering the phrasing.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have been trying to stay out of this kind of thing, but what can you do? Jaakobou you are wrong on so many levels here -


 * 1) The phrase is Occupied Territories. This has long been agreed in the wider world, and it seems that most Wikipedia editors have come round to that as well (as if they ever had any right to rewrite the terminology anyway);


 * 2) The phrasing in this paragraph is simply about how the settlements - which it then describes, correctly as per the above, as being in the Occupied Territories - are an issue for both sides. It does not say or even suggest that both sides necessarily define the territories as "Occupied".  As usual, partly due to the limitations of your English language skills, your argument isn't quite as clever as you think it is;


 * 3) And actually of course, plenty of individual Israelis, and Israeli sources, do accept the standard terminology and describe the territories as "Occupied" anyway. --Nickhh (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh,
 * Did you just mention "the limitations of [my] English language skills" and "cleverness" of my argument? I honestly don't know how to respond to that.
 * I don't believe your argument is correct, that "plenty" (? more like a clear minority) Israelis promote the occupation narrative. What matters is that the dominant view is [that] the status of these territories (Yesha), esp. the ones with large Israeli settlements (like Ariel) is clearly an issue of dispute. I believe the percentage of the Jewish-Israeli population who would support a second disengagement after the "successful" Gaza disengagement (2005) is practically non-existent.
 * If you want the paragraph to be "simply about the settlements" we can just remove the wiki-link to 'occupied territory' and finish the argument at that... I would even consider it more accurate.
 * --  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that Ariel will hardly be given back to the Palestinian state doesn't change anything to the fact it is in the occupied territories and that these territories are named as such by a majority of people. If you pursue with your argumentation, then you should consider to rename the article Israel because there are in the world people who talk about Zionist entity and following your " "argumentation" ", none should be used. Don't forget you respect NPoV and AGF and that you are not a Yeshivot student practicing pilpul.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 'clear minority Israelis promote the occupation narrative.'
 * When facts become a narrative here, wikiworld reels at the discovery that our Jaakobou is now subjecting Israel's colonial history to the rigours of post-modernist analysis! Has the man been reading Jacques Derrida, Edward Said, Tzvetan Todorov, Jean-François Lyotard, in the interim, while waiting for the Arbitration Committee to publish its deliberations? Will everything now have to be recast in terms of 'narratology' theory, which so bemused us three decades ago? I can imagine its extension in articles on Namibia. Lothar von Trotha's Vernichtungsbefehl as a mission civilisatrice as opposed to the Herero's genocide narrative, etc.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ceedjee, we're not discussing whether or not the territories are deemed occupied or not. The issue here, as I've repeated a number of times, is "as seen by both sides". The Israeli mainstream does not support the 'occupation' narrative -- what Nishidani suggests to be part of a larger scheme of "universal facts". I suggested the compromise, per "simply about the settlements" (Nickhh 14:47, 26 January 2008) that we remove the wikilink. I'm open to hear other suggestions that don't give one perspective the upper hand when discussing things from the viewpoint of the disputants.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about the pilpul ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou - whether the territories are occupied or not is exactly what we are discussing, yet again. As I explained above, your argument about "as seen by both sides" is utterly specious and seemingly based upon your inability to understand English grammar and sentence construction. You completely ignored my earlier point about this. The current wording is totally neutral, totally factual and totally clear. I'm assuming good faith here by suggesting your attitude is down to ignorance rather than a malicious desire on your part to pick a tedious fight over an old issue like this. Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this anymore. If you try to change the wording here I will revert it, as will many other editors. End of story. --Nickhh (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * comment - obviously we're at a dead-lock over this issue. I see no alternative to a medcab case being open.
 * p.s. Ceedjee, I request you avoid repetition of that one Hebrew word/expression (only used in rabbinical studies btw) you've recently grown fond of.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Ceedjee's use is quite proper. It is quite often used in American Jewish novels, and is acceptable English by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou,
 * You used the term Yesha and you request me not to use the term pilpul.
 * In France, we don't use this word only in the context of "rabbinical"(*) studies but I never heard about Yesha. I will ask my friends from Yad Vashem to give more details about this.
 * (*) For your information, pilpul is not used in rabbinical studies but in Talmudic studies. I may wonder if Israel is still a Jewish state nowaydays with too many russian immigrants who are no more Jew than me I think. Ceedjee (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou's argument
It's been suggested again that as Jaakobou's mentor I ought to step forward. As a neutral outsider, I see one side pointing to two prior RFCs and arguing that the current thread is a disruptive reopening of a matter already settled by consensus. Another side argues that the particular context here makes things more nuanced than that, and delves into a terminological discussion. The former argument looks clear and compelling on its face and I lack the expertise to understand the latter. Would it help to bring in other Israel-Palestine collaboration participants whose content knowledge is greater than my own? It looks like people here are frustrated: please do your best to keep the temperature of discussion down and let's look for solutions. Durova Charge! 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is at least one other RfC which User:Jaakobou is credibly accused of ignoring - and even encouraging other editors to ignore. He was asked for an explanation (via your good self) of this at his ArbCom, and never presented one. I'm not sure of the history of this remarkably similar case, but this section is already 2,700 words now. Though of course it would be difficult to say how much time-wasting behavior is tolerable.
 * There is another article where Jaakobou is apparently rejecting the view of every other editor (8 in total) over a period of 16 months. Would it be reasonable to expect you to deal with the situation there as well, and point out that the "Saeb Erekat a liar" narrative has hugely UNDUE weight and, by all consensus, is not worth mentioning? PRtalk 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Maybe a useful first step would be to figure out where Jaakobou agrees with his opposing interlocutors and clarify his points of disagreement. This will help me gauge the degree to which his arguing has become obstructionist. I'm not sure, but I think he concedes/agrees that 'occupied'/'occupation' is the predominant language in mainstream reliable sources. Further, I think both sides agree that there is a "significant minority" (in WP policy terms) that uses or prefers other language (e.g., 'disputed' territory). Is this correct? If so, then it's a pretty good level of consensus. So where does Jaakobou disagree? Summing up. The encyclopedia employs the mainstream terms of the majority of reliable sources. It wouldn't be feasible to argue: if 22% of the sources say 'XYZ' instead of 'occupation', then XYZ should appear 22% of the time in our articles. Nevertheless, it is important to problematize the terminology at certain points, describe the debate and the "significant minority" terminology. In an article as central as this one, the terminology should be broached and, as here, spun out to a longer article(s) on the terminological/discourse aspects of the conflict //per links below//. Hope this is useful and I welcome feedback -- both from Jaakobou, to see if I've fairly reflected your views, and others. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Jaakobou argues (above) that 'occupation' "is a politically charged term, and should be avoided when there is no intention or need to expand on the topic WP:TOPIC." I'm afraid I find this unpersuasive from a WP policy standpoint. Even granting that it's "politically charged" (itself a viewpoint), I do not see that as a reason to second guess the mainstream terminology.
 * Second, he seems to be saying that occupation should not be used in a combative (WP:Battle) manner. I gather he means that the term shouldn't be used excessively, to keep battering home the point. Is that right? Ok, I can see this as a editorial concern, perhaps related to Undue Weight. However, I'm inclined to think, since "occupation" is the mainstream term, that when a term is generally needed (not excessively) then 'occupation' would be employed for the encyclopedia's voice. I'm sure this is unsatisfying to those who disagree with the mainstream terminology, but I believe it's the proper way to proceed. Of course, when presenting any given real world viewpoint, they can be quoted and paraphrased with their own terminology.
 * Third, he expresses concern about how the situation/terms are characterized. See above re: "as seen by both sides." I see this as a fairly minor and resolvable editorial concern. Somehow, the parties devolve into the larger argument again. Maybe I'm missing something? Within reason, each side gets their own language. Editorially, sometimes that doesn't work. I have no opinion on this specific text.


 * Just as a side-note, the issue is discussed in the section Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This was part of the solution to the aforementioned RfC. There are also already other articles that discuss the nomenclature, e.g. Status of territories captured by Israel, International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli-occupied territories.
 * Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 28.01.2008 16:32           .....Thanks. //Noted above.
 * HG's approach sounds excellent. Pedro, your point about the previous RFC is well taken.  It's the other side's argument that confuses me right now, and it's best if Jaakobou clarifies that himself.  Durova Charge! 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Jaakobou will speak for himself, but I can't see why we're indulging this. This is a non-point, which has come up because of Jaakobou's poor English and inability to understand English sentence construction. It's not a nuanced argument, it's a confused argument, hence the confusion. He seems to think that the "as seen by both sides" refers to the description "occupied". It doesn't - it refers to the fact that "the future of the remaining settlements" is one of the "core issues". --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

$$\leftarrow$$ User:Jaakobou, if you have a suggestion for re-wording, then paste it here, in the discussion, not directly into the article. Your "facts on the ground" approach only foments edit-warring. Seriously, dude, this is a warning: continue to disregard the word and spirit of the last RfArb (i.e. here), and I'm sending you straight to enforcement. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.01.2008 09:24


 * I can't believe both his mentor and HG have offered him the opportunity to expand on his point of view here, and thereby very generously given him the benefit of the doubt. And then, instead of contributing to that debate, he just | deletes the reference to occupied territories again, unilaterally. To clarify the content consequences of doing that - the article lost the detail of what settlements were being referred to. Plenty of people refer to towns and cities within Israel proper as being "settlements" - we need the specific reference to the settlements within the occupied territories, otherwise the article is not immediately clear about what settlements are under discussion. --Nickhh (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nickhh, thanks for explaining the grammatical problem w/J's edit. (I also agree that it would be better for him to propose it on Talk rather than do it on the article.) Is there another way to re-edit that sentence and leave out the term "occupied" do you think? For instance, is there a geographical term like "West Bank and Gaza" that might suffice in this case? I'm not saying it has to be modified, I'm just trying to figure out what alternative might exist. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Nickhh (who I didn't know before).
 * *We* can also be very kind and look for consensus and suggest people to collaborate. That is easy you know. I do it everyday. But here there are long term disruption based on content issues discussion performed behing the protective shield of WP:AGF whose purpose are to block articles and up-setting other editors.
 * There are people who want to develop articles, who know the topics, its real difficulties, who have the material, the contacts and the capability of discussing real content issues. Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Offtopic) Note to all, per WP:CIVIL, please restrict your comments to discussion of article content, not other editors.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

HG, If there are no further suggestions/agreement from my dispute counterparts, I don't see any option from further exploration of dispute resolution.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the predominant term is 'occupied'/'occupation'; However, I'm not certain this description fits each and every situation. There are a significant number of reliable sources that prefer use of "[Palestinian/Disputed] territories" instead of "occupied territories". There is also a significant minority (majority in Israel) that prefer the use of "Yesha" and "Judea and Samaria" based terminology.
 * 'Occupation' is a politically charged term and should not be overused (at least considered heavily) when there is no intention on a mention of the issues behind it. This is not to second guess reliable sources but prevent wikipedia from over-selling this as an uncontested neutral point. Samples:, , , . We should use this term as the predominant one, just that not to abuse it at every corner you can insert it.
 * "as seen by both sides." is the only issue raised here, since the majority of Israelis don't see the 'occupation' narrative as valid, especially now that disengaging the Gaza strip settlements failed to diffuse the conflict. This paragraph, in my opinion lacked respect for the Israeli viewpoint that the settlements are on Jewish homeland territory despite the Arab residents, and that the political status of these settlements is complex -- on a similar note, well placed mentions that many Arabs view all of Israel as Arab land are valid for mention. Therefore, a more neutral link to "political status" rather than "Occupation/Yesha" linkage, will allow the reader a quick jump to the related information and prevent future editorial conflicts like this one Samaria/Occupied.
 * Another note/suggestion to make for this issue is that "occupied territories" is an inexact term - they're in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.


 * Thanks for your reply. (a) For your 1st bullet, maybe we should clarify/discuss. Even if a reliable source uses an alternative term, that might justify such a term in the article, but not necessarily. If the source is used for "factual" info rather than to express its own view, then I believe you should still use "occupied" terminology. Only if the source is quoted or paraphrased as a (notable) opinion, or to describe such an opinion, would alternative terms be applicable. Do you see what I mean? (b) Your second bullet seems to be in agreement with my analysis. However, how to stop overuse? As an invested party, I would recommend that you raise the issue on Talk pages and ask for uninvolved editors to judge the overuse. Also, maybe this is the kind of across-the-board item that WP:IPCOLL might address. (c) I'm sympathetic to your 3rd bullet. As I said above, I see this as a minor editorial decision. You all should think about why this has flared up so much. If you don't mind my saying so, maybe you are overly focused on "respect for the Israeli viewpoint" and are taking umbrage, rather narrowly articulating this as a technical question, not one relevant to the overarching consensus. Perhaps you and your interlocutors can soon revisit and settle this. (d) Hmm. Perhaps you are pointing out another technical aspect of how we implement the consensus about mainstream terminology?
 * I welcome your reply, Jaakobou, and perhaps you could ask Durova esp about my (a) and (b) here. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take the liberty of disagreeing on a number of points here...
 * Yesha is a Hebrew word and a term not used in English. If you want to disprove this, you'll have to supply some quotes from mainstream English-language sources. You won't find any.
 * Judea and Samaria are very, very badly defined geographical regions.
 * The "Samples" you gave are two CNN interviews in which Ehud Barak and Shaul Mofaz use the term, one editorial, and one article in which none of the terms appear. What are they supposed to mean? Did you even read them?
 * As User:Nickhh was kind enough to point out, the "as seen by both sides" refers to the core issues, not the nomenclature used. We also don't use nationalistic terminology when describing the Palesinians' goals.
 * We agreed in the previous RfC that the term "occupied territories" was commonplace and sufficiently precise when used in this context.
 * As for your quip regarding WP:CIVIL, everybody here is making a huge effort to be reasonable and polite with you. I suggest you read WP:DICK before floating any more accusations of incivility.
 * In any case, since I took the time to specifically address you points, I am looking forward to seeing you do likewise.
 * Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.01.2008 16:30


 * Jaakobou you still haven't addressed the point that "as seen by both sides" simply doesn't refer to the phrase "occupied". I think I've mentioned this three times in total, and it's been reinforced again just now by another editor. This very basic fact totally undermines any argument you have about how the agreed usage of "occupied" is somehow different in this context from any other.  We know some Israelis used the term "disputed" and this is acknowledged, in the appropriate parts of various articles, as a minority world viewpoint.


 * Nor do I understand the implied reference to incivility. All I have pointed out in respect of your behaviour as an editor is that a) your understanding of the subtleties of the English sometimes lets you down; and that b) you re-ignited an old war, over a single word, without initially engaging even with people who were being sympathetic to you.  Both of these facts are uncontroversial. If I was really going to depart from basic civility I would not be wasting yet more space on a talk page.  Or alternatively I would use that space to accuse you of deliberately picking a fight for the sake of it, or in order to start my own ridiculous debate elsewhere about how Wikipedia articles should regularly give weight to the viewpoint that describes Israel as the "Zionist Entity", or Tel Aviv as a "Settlement". --Nickhh (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

''Note. J, N, P, etc: This page shouldn't get preoccupied with counter-points on civility. I suggest that you deal with this in other ways, e.g. user talk, WQA, etc. Why not strikeout or remove this aspect of the conversation, stay focused on the editing issues? Thanks.'' HG | Talk 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * HG Staying focused on the editing issues is what plainly disruptive wikilawyering militates against. Sometimes people are simply wrong, since the term disputed is the term endorsed by the highest legal authorities in international law. To mediate on this is rather like mediating between someone who insists on solecistic usage as aceptable, against the majority of native speakers who simply remark that the usage invoked is solecistic. It is not in dispute, in Israeli historiography, that the West Bank was occupied, for the simple reason that before 1967 the Israeli army wasn't there, and afterwards it, and settlers, were, and that is what occupation means in English. That some Israelis hope, by settlement, and subsequent negotiation, to change the status of that territory, or parts of it, from Occupied Palestinian territory (the ICJ term) to Israeli territory, following upon an agreement between the PA and the state of Israel or further military fiat that finds endorsement in international law, is not material to the article being written now. It simply reflects an aspiration, and specifically Israeli jargon, and not the legal perspective of international law, and customary mainstream usage abroad. Jaakobou in short thinks that by allowing the standard term to pass, he is somehow prejudicing future changes in topological denomination, and thus prejudicing Israel's claims. He fails to understand that to admit the de jure status of the area as now existing in no way prejudices future changes, subsequent to negotiations, that may alter the status of these lands. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Revised wording
Hi. At the risk of simply being wrong, let me ask a question. Without going into the broader issues of terminology usage, I'm wondering if the disputing parties could state whether they would accept the following language, even if it's not your first choice or preferred wording. By accept, I mean that you would not contest it and even help restore if it gets disrupted (absent further consensus). Here's the idea:
 * Core issues in the conflict as seen by both sides are the future of the remaining Israeli settlements built in the West Bank occupied territories , the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, ....

Oh, I left out and Gaza but it could be added after "West Bank" if need be. Also, I still believe the conversation in the preceding section could continue, I don't mean to cut off the discussion of the broader implementation/clarification of the consensus. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My personal view is that this wording is broadly OK and accurate, although it may want to include some reference as well to building projects which fall within the boundaries of East Jerusalem rather than the West Bank proper, such as Har Homa (I'm no expert on the technicalities there). Other than that it describes the situation pretty clearly, as there are no settlements in Gaza now. However as a lawyer might say, this is without prejudice to all the arguments deployed above against any change, and without prejudice to the general principle, which is that "Occupied Territories" is the official terminology, not simply the "Palestinian narrative".  Nor should it be seen as providing a precedent for Jaakobou or others to fight or bore their way to the removal of the phrase from other pages as well, just because they don't like it and in a bid to chip away at its use on Wikipedia. --Nickhh (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, this wording concerns only this specific edit. We assume the good faith of all editors in realizing, as I state above, that this does not deal with broader issues or implementation. That said, I would like to ask you, Jaakobou and Pedro to sign up as members to the new WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which aims to quiet the battleground atmosphere with these kinds of articles -- and where we do hope to deal with and clarify the general principle/consensus about "occupied" terminology. Even if you don't plan to contribute much to the WikiProject, as a favor to me, I'd really appreciate that you all sign up temporarily at least to help us clear up the general principle and how it might be implemented. Our discussion above should be a good starting point (close-to-finishing point?). Thank you. HG | Talk 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with that phrasing. And I suggest this one: settlements built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Provided the East Jerusalem settlements are verifiably a core issue and your interlocutors allow/consent, then it's fine with me. In terms of typing in the consensus edit, I'd appreciate you all giving me the privilege. Jaakobou, thanks for replying. HG | Talk 16:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the re-wording is better. The settlements-issue is a problem in the conflict because a) the land is occupied and b) the settlements are thus illegal. If we only say that the Settlements are a problem, we're hiding the wider issue.
 * Furthermore, I don't see why we should have to compromise on this just because one editor doesn't like the word "occupied". Seriously, and this from the same editor who's pushing for harsher language in other articles? There is no justification for changing the wording. Period. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 01.02.2008 17:23

(outdent) Well, your objection makes sense to me. You're saying that in this sentence, where the "issues of the conflict" is the subject, the occupation aspect is much of what makes the settlements a core issue. Right? So, going back to the consensus about the mainstream language, I'm assuming that the mainstream way to describe this aspect of the conflict involves 'occupation' wording. Let me try it another way then. If I'm reading him right, Jaakobou (perhaps on behalf of a few other editors) is saying that "as seen by both sides" may imply that the Israelis would describe the issues this way. I don't think this is a necessary reading, since the sentence represents the encyclopedic voice and the encyclopedia's choice of language, but I can see the concern. Therefore, we could try another tack. Perhaps the phrase as seen by both sides could be deleted altogether? I'm not sure "both sides" adds much -- who would assume that one side denies that these issues are crucial -- or it could be addressed in a second sentence. (e.g., Both sides recognize these core issues and have grappled with them throughout the attempted peace process. Further tinkering assumed.) What do you think? Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being seen to say yes to every option, I'd be happy with this too. In fact losing the "as seen by both sides" is probably a better move than losing the "Occupied".  As Pedro has pointed out, the fact that the settlements are built on occupied land is precisely what makes them an issue, objectively speaking (it's not because the Palestinians don't like the look of the architecture).  I think it might even have been me who added the whole "core issues as seen by both sides .." section in a bid to clarify, very generally, and taking the history of the conflict as read, what the main themes are in the current debate about how the conflict might be resolved (it's fair to say that the majority/mainstream on both "sides" know what problems need to be dealt with, even if they still disagree on exactly how). It probably is superfluous.  --Nickhh (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind a rephrase based on the removal of "as seen by both sides", I think I may have even suggested this above. Pedro, is this suggestion acceptable to you?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. As per User:Nickhh, remove "as seen from both sides" and keep "occupied". Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.02.2008 13:23


 * Splendid. There is a consensus among active editors to this article, Jaakobou, Nickh, and Pedro Gonnet, to delete the phrase as seen by both sides from the sentence Core issues in the conflict.... (Several other active editors may be read as having given tacit acceptance, including Ceedjee, Durova, Nishidani, SJMNY, Sm8900.)


 * It is my view, which need not engender further discussion, that the consensus reflects an understanding that: (a) 'occupied/occupation' territories is terminology used by most mainstream sources and sufficiently encyclopedic. (b) Such terminology may not be suitable in certain narrow situations, though, e.g., when paraphrasing a particular viewpoint, including the Israeli view. (c) The terminology clearly may be needed to describe aspects of the conflict, as in this case, but it shouldn't be used excessively in articles (e.g., when geographic terms are adequate).


 * As a matter of good faith editing, editors who accept this consensus are expected to consistently apply and support this consensus wherever there is a question about 'occupied/occupation' terminology regarding the Isr-Pal situation. The consensus may not reflect your preferred choice, but acceptance means (as stated above) you would not contest the edit and even help restore if it gets disrupted (absent further consensus).


 * As a favor to me and my effort here, active editors are requested to join the new WikiProject set up to promote cooperation among editors on Isr-Pal topics. By joining, you would be affirming the Project but not making any specific time commitment. Thanks very much for your cooperation and patience here. HG | Talk 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad we resolved this issue.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: On the use of the term "occupied"

 * restarted here: .  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Status of territories captured by Israel, those territores can and should be referred to as "occupied". Some editors, however, argue that the term is POV and biased. Comments and arguments for or against are welcome. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.11.2007 08:22


 * It's a no-brainer, Pedro. One cannot argue that a term is 'biased' when it is standard in international legal language. The phrase 'Palestinian Occupied territories' is current, and endorsed by the text of the International High Court decision of 2004. Indeed, to argue the contrary, is proof of bias, because editors who reject it are rejecting the conventions of international legal usage, for an alternative terminology current only in Israel, which unilaterally refuses to recognize the validity of that International Court's 14-1 decision. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the exact terms are "occupied territories" (see eg resolution 242)
 * They don't often refer to the *palestinian* occupied terrories.
 * which is not a wise diplomatic langage.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he meant "Occupied Palestinian Territories" (google resutls). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.11.2007 14:37
 * yes... yes...
 * but anyway. I meant it may not be clever to refer to these as Palestinian.
 * jsut from the international point of view etc.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

$$\leftarrow$$ Let us not get too lost in specifics. What this is about is using the term "occupied" for territories that are effectively "occupied". The contentious phrases are of the type: and so on. These are the types of wordings that are being deleted. I'm not talking about using the phrase "Occupied Territories" every time we refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip specifically (although the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" should be used if the context is to discuss occupation), but when we refer to the occupation or occupied territories in general, as per the examples above. In these cases the term "occupied" is correct, concise and widely used.
 * after victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip...
 * the continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is one of the major sources of...
 * the United Nations has called on Israel to pull out of all territories occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war...

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.11.2007 15:14
 * yes. That is indeed the case and wp must use that term too in that context. Ceedjee (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One can argue the case that presently, at least part of the '67 territories are not "occupied", since East Jerusalem and the Golan have been de facto annexed. It's a weak case, but it's available to be made. However, I've noticed that some editors want to remove the word "occupied" even when referring to the initial seizure of the territory. This is just nationalist exceptionalism and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By definition, land which is not legally the territory of a state, and which is captured in military operations by that state, is occupied until something is done to change its status. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - this thread is not really an RfC IMHO, this is an opinion piece by one side of the discussion. please go over the notes for how to open an RfC, and try to reopen this thing properly. see example here, and note the instructions. i also suggest you note (rather than ignore) the issues raised by the other side of the discussion.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think it's such a bad thing (I had followed the instructions you linked to -- both are identical -- and looked at the current running RfCs for inspiration), then feel free to add "Statement" and "Comment" subsections. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 29.11.2007 17:11

Okay, wise guys, mea culpa. I will practice my seppuku rituals with a preprandial phlebotomical incision on my typing digits as an act of self-chastisement. I meant 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' as per the International Court of Justice decision of 2004. See the following passages. There can be no dispute, and no discussion, on this, since it is simpy a matter of technical legal language, and the highest world authorities sanction the use of the term 'occupied'. According to my search of the relevant document, cited below, the alternative wording 'disputed territories' is not used in the ICJ decision. As to Eleland's remark, the ICJ decision specifically rejects the status of annexation, and refers insistently to East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory:-

General List No. 131 LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
 * INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2004 9 July 2004   2004 9 July


 * “Legal consequences” of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem


 * Settlements established by Israel in breach of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory . Construction of the wall and its associated régime create a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent . Risk of situation tantamount to de facto annexation.


 * Applicability of those instruments in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.


 * Restrictions on freedom of movement of inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.


 * Recalling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities, Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources


 * 90. Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particular, in paragraph 3 of Annex I to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, citing “the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt” and inferring that it is “not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention”. (nota bene, in this document the summary of Israel's legal position uses the phrase)


 * 91. The Court would recall that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention. Jordan has also been a party thereto since 29 May 1951. Neither of the two States has made any reservation that would be pertinent to the present proceedings


 * 96. The Court would moreover note that the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention approved that interpretation at their Conference on 15 July 1999. They issued a statement in which they “reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. Subsequently, on 5 December 2001, the High Contracting Parties, referring in particular to Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, once again reaffirmed the “applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,''. They further reminded the Contracting Parties participating in the Conference, the parties to the conflict, and the State of Israel as occupying Power, of their respective obligations.


 * 114. Having determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to reply to the question posed by the General Assembly, and having ruled in particular on the applicability within the Occupied Palestinian Territory of international humanitarian law and human rights law, the Court will now seek to ascertain whether the  construction of the wall has violated those rules and principles.


 * 120 In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.


 * The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

(nota bene: the ICJ actually cites 'Palestine' as the country occupied)


 * (A)121. Whilst the Court notes the assurance given by Israel that the construction of the wall does not amount to annexation and that the wall is of a temporary nature (see paragraph 116 above), it nevertheless cannot remain indifferent to certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine,


 * (B)162. The Court has reached the conclusion that the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is contrary to international law and has stated the legal consequences that are to be drawn from that illegality. The Court considers itself bound to add that this construction must be placed in a more general context. Since 1947, the year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures on the former mandated territory. The Court would emphasize that both Israel and Palestine are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law, one of the paramount purposes of which is to protect civilian life.

In sum, this is a no-brainer, meaning, international law uses the contested term, occupied and therefore those who reject it, as Jaakobou, reject international law, its decisions and terminology. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * you're not really helping this RfC progress, please make note of my previous comment on RfC structure.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we really arguing about this again? "Occupied Territories" is by far the most common term to refer to the territories Israel captured in 1967. It is used by everyone outside Israel, and by many people within Israel. To use a propaganda term like "Disputed Territories" is to elevate a very small minority right wing zionist POV over all others, and obviously it is not wikipedia's job to make up our own "neutral" terms (especially because, in this case, even a made up term would be POV, in that it would serve to validate the right wing zionist POV that use of "Occupied Territories" is wrong, in spite of its vast predominance in common usage). Common usage obviously supports "Occupied Territories," and there is no alternative term which anyone could possibly agree is NPOV. Why do we have to refight this battle every fifteen minutes? john k (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: On the use of the term "occupied" (2nd try)

 * closing RFC started 08:22, 29 November 2007, the RfC issue seems to be resolved with the current version.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Preference to use term occupation

 * What this is about is using the term "occupied" for territories that are effectively "occupied". The contentious phrases are of the type:
 * after victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip...
 * the continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is one of the major sources of...
 * the United Nations has called on Israel to pull out of all territories occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war...
 * and so on. These are the types of wordings that are being deleted. I'm not talking about using the phrase "Occupied Territories" every time we refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip specifically (although the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" should be used if the context is to discuss occupation), but when we refer to the occupation or occupied territories in general, as per the examples above. In these cases the term "occupied" is correct, concise and widely used. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 30.11.2007 08:36


 * yes. That is indeed the case and wp must use that term too in that context. Ceedjee (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One can argue the case that presently, at least part of the '67 territories are not "occupied", since East Jerusalem and the Golan have been de facto annexed. It's a weak case, but it's available to be made. However, I've noticed that some editors want to remove the word "occupied" even when referring to the initial seizure of the territory. This is just nationalist exceptionalism and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By definition, land which is not legally the territory of a state, and which is captured in military operations by that state, is occupied until something is done to change its status. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In sum, this is a no-brainer, meaning, international law uses the contested term, occupied and therefore those who reject it, as Jaakobou, reject international law, its decisions and terminology. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we really arguing about this again? "Occupied Territories" is by far the most common term to refer to the territories Israel captured in 1967.  It is used by everyone outside Israel, and by many people within Israel.  To use a propaganda term like "Disputed Territories" is to elevate a very small minority right wing zionist POV over all others, and obviously it is not wikipedia's job to make up our own "neutral" terms (especially because, in this case, even a made up term would be POV, in that it would serve to validate the right wing zionist POV that use of "Occupied Territories" is wrong, in spite of its vast predominance in common usage). Common usage obviously supports "Occupied Territories," and there is no alternative term which anyone could possibly agree is NPOV. Why do we have to refight this battle every fifteen minutes? john k (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All the above posts make the obvious points in some detail. This really is a non-debate, centred around how much some editors simply don't like the phrase despite the fact that is the phrase used - sorry to be slightly flippant here - everywhere in the real world, by everyone in the real world. The comments cut & pasted below (actually from one specific example of this debate) only go to flag that up - no argument or explanation is offered, just a vague assertion that the phrase is "loaded" etc.  Well yes it is I guess, if by "loaded" you mean "descriptive" according to all standards of international law, and according to near unanimous usage in the worlds of government and the media. The description "Serial Killer" is loaded, but there are plenty of examples of people who are, by accepted definition, "Serial Killers".  This is not a POV issue, it is an accuracy issue. It's slightly embarrassing that 3 or 4 Wikipedia editors genuinely think they can overturn a totally standard and accepted phraseology. --Nickhh 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Preference not to use term occupation

 * I believe the term occupation, is a politically charged term, and should be avoided when there is no intention or need to expand on the topic WP:TOPIC. Israel won territory (and lost other territory) in a war imposed upon her by the surrounding nations. to insist on the politically charged, legal terminology within' this context, seems to promote anti-israeli POV. therefore, i suggested this as a replacement (when using the term 'captured' was under contention).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Jaakobou's proposal. --GHcool (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Capture" is factually correct and "occupation" is loaded, so I agree with "capture". &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It has to be capture. Occupation is not only loaded, but arguably incorrect. (I'll not argue it here.) Hertz1888 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * I took the liberty of copying the main arguments down into this new section. If any of the authors take offence or feel I have taken their words out of context, please tell me and I will self-revert. User:Jaakobou, care to join in now? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 30.11.2007 08:36
 * i added the comments for preferring 'capture' over 'occupied' on said paragraph - "seized" was another option preferred to the loaded term.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * question - What exactly is "loaded" about the term "occupation"? john k 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * reply - - control and authority over a territory belonging to a state passes to a hostile army. i marked out the most controversial part of the general definition; as far as this conflict goes, the area did not legally belong to any government and the term implies that it legally belonged to someone as was stolen from that country. if this explanation does not suffice, we can open a subsection to the subject where people state whether or not they see the word as politically charged or not... however, i believe several editors already stated just that.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * debunk: The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (aka Resolution 182), which was the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel, also postulates, using the same language, an Arab state on half of the territory of the British Mandate. This is the state to which the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 15:29
 * reply - (1) which arab state would that be? (2) didn't the arab states rejected the UN proposal? (offtopic: "debunk"?!)  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a useful source for definition of terms. Dictionary.com defines occupation in this sense as "the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory."  American Heritage gives "Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces."  In neither case does the territory have to "belong to a state". john k (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The question has already been arbitrated, not by anonymous wikipedians but by distinguished representatives of the best legal opinion in the world, i.e. by the International Court of Justice. Stack the vote by emailing around friends for consensus as you will, the area is technically, in international law, 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' and any attempt to censor this established usage violates language as it does reality. As to the POV junk Jaakobou's writing has dished out, I suggest if this kind of rhetoric is accepted, then it opens the door to numerous edits from the other side detailing the massive amount of destruction of infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza consequent upon Israel's occupation of those areas, and therefore cannot be acceptable, if only because to accept it would induce useless 'balancing' statements of a similar POV-gearing type.Nishidani 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, much of Palestine is occupied by Israel. The biggest problem with Israel is how they treat the indigenous people of the land they occupied to create a country. If you read the Balfour Declaration, it states that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". This has not been done, which is why there is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So yes, feel free to use the word occupy. The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to rename the country Palestine and provide civil rights to everyone. 199.125.109.58 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i see you don't know much about the issues behind the "indigenous" mythology or the pan-arab movement's history. The only solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict is to stop holding descendants of Arabs from the mandate days as hostages for political reasons.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you, please try to confine your remarks to improving the article in line with policy. General discussions on history or morality are unlikely to resolve anything, or to be themselves resolved. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this a joke? Are you trying to inject some levity? You think it's "loaded" to use the term that everybody except Israel uses (although Israeli politicians, even Sharon, were known to slip up and talk about the "occupation" sometimes), but it's non-loaded to offer a laundry-list of Israeli greivances and Arab violations, with no reference to the concurrent Israeli depravity (shooting fellahin "infiltrating" back into their farms, the post-war military rule of Palestinians within Israel, regime of land confiscation, dispossession, and "present-absentee"-ism, draining the Jordan River.....) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

 * Suggested compromise.Ok, here's a suggestion: how about we simply have a paragraph explaining what is meant by the term "Occupied Territories", and explain that the phrase is used widely, even though Israel does not consider all of the pre-1967 West Bank land to be illegitimately occupied.


 * Then after that, we use the phrase "Occupied Territories", with capital letters to make clear that we are using an official term of usage, and not necessarily making any statement or verdict here as to the political/diplomatic status of the territories. Please note, I am agreeing to use of the "occupied" phrase, with merely some explanatory text somewhere in the beginning, which clearly this article would need to have anyway. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is more than one article detailing the phrase "Occupied Territories" -- I don't think adding a paragraph here will help much. Furthermore, if we do that for "Occupied Territories", we'd have to, following WP:Undue weight, add a paragraph for the phrases "British Mandate" vs. "Historic Palestine", "Exodus" vs. "Ethnic cleansing", "Irgun" vs. "Terrorists", etc... I also think that any "compromise" on such a clear issue favours the anti-occupationist side disproportionally. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 03.12.2007 08:51


 * I don't think I've ever heard anything more needlessly execessive than the last comment. i fail to see what is excessive about adding one paragraph defining an important term, especially one which is so important. I AGREE with your position, and you STILL disagree with me? You have to be kidding me. this is a little unbelievable. Ok, guess we'll keep the article protected. thanks so much--not. --Steve, Sm8900 14:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pedro that a paragraph would be excessive. If anything is needed at all, a simple one sentence footnote should suffice.Suicup 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember reading in the Israel article about how it considers the territories to be "disputed" rather than "occupied," because they never belonged to any state which is a requirement for occupation. This of course is an Israeli POV, but perhaps should be worked into the article. It is true that generally the territories are considered "occupied territories," and as such it would be OK to use that term to describe them. A decent compromise would be to call them "occupied territories," but with a footnote noting the Israeli POV. This IIRC was what was done with the Israel article.Ngchen 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, but no, footnotes seem a bit too obscure for this. I think one sentence is ok, but I feel it would be better if placed somewhere within the article. --

Steve, Sm8900 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a footnote 'obscure'? it is exactly the sort of tool you use for an issue like this. Suicup 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, I appreciate your trying to find a compromise, but adding a paragraph to satisfy the lone Israeli POV would only open a huge can of worms. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 15:18
 * I'm not trying to find a compromise, i'm expresing my own views on the nature of this article. I am concerned by the above comment which denigrates the Israeli side. The view I describe is sourced in documents of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.  Israeli Settlements and International Law Israeli Foeriegn ministry. It states:

"'Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue."

End of post. --Steve, Sm8900 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're concerned? How do you think any Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza Strip feels when you refer to raids, checkpoints, house demolitions, economic sanctions, targeted assassinations and collateral damage as a mere "dispute" and not an "occupation"? Denigrated maybe?
 * Look, it's nice of you to have supplied the quotation and all, but nobody here is suggesting that nobody calls it the term "disputed". Yes, the Israeli government uses it, but they are the only official body to do so. The fact that even the Israeli Supreme Court uses the term "occupied" should be enough proof that they are in error. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 16:11
 * thanks for your reply. Could you please explain what is so excessive about a one-sentence summation of this issue? whatever you may think of the Israeli government, even if you think they are a pack of liars, the official, publicly-stated views of the central Israeli government are clearly notable, since, officially speaking, they are one half of this conflict. The other half is the Palestinian government.


 * By the way, it's nice that you feel you have proof that "they are in error." we do not render verdicts here as to who is "in error." we report facts. I agree with you that the opinion of political advocates for Israel need not be given undue weight. however the statements of the Israeli govt are not an opinion; they are a factual part of the conflict. in other words, they are not notable as a view of the conflict; they are notable because they are the conflict. so if you think israel is in error, it only helps your side to make the official Israeli views plain on this . --Steve, Sm8900 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely: the position of the Israeli government is notable and should be stated. However, it should only be stated where the nomenclature is the actual topic of the article or wherever the nomenclature has any relevance -- not every time the word "occupied" is used.
 * But you're somehow missing the point that if you make this exception for the "occupied" vs. "disputed" issue, you're going to have to allow it on a number of other names, which would make this and many other articles completely illegible. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 17:22

Possible footnote text:
 * Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict. The Israeli government uses Disputed Territories. The area is also referred to as Judea and Samaria by some extreme settler groups.

I added the last bit purely for informational purposes, not to push a view. Suicup 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am NOT TRYING to expalin a term. I am TRYING to expalain this important ISSUE. --Steve, Sm8900 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, as far as I can tell, the issue here is which language to use in the article. There is one official term which we should be using, however clearly other actors (such as the Israeli govt) use a different term. Some editors here have expressed dismay that one term is being used without acknowledging the others. A footnote solves this problem by listing other terms in a way which doesn't clutter the article. I do not see your point here? Suicup 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) Ok, but this issue has nothing to do with the current article. There are several articles detailing this issue which give ample space to the "disputed" position. We do not need footnotes describing issues for every name or term we use. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 17:52
 * Thankls for your reply. however, sorry, but I do not see your point. the information which i refer to is actually already in the article, under "Settlements." i simply want to add a phrase explaining the use of terminology. After that, I am basically giving complete agreement to you on the terms to use. i do not see why there needs to be any further issue over a small phrase or sentence which would explain terminology. --Steve, Sm8900 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedro, thanks for your reply. However, this article has everything to do with every issue in this conflict, since this is the overview. I agree with you that we should not overstate issues, in order to over-extend this article, so i would not write this too lengthily. --Steve, Sm8900 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

further debate, and another idea

 * Ok, we're back to where we were a couple of lines farther up... Tell me, Steve, would you like there to be a footnote on every term that anybody considers loaded or controversial? Consider the terms "Palestinian people" (raging debate as we speak), "Zionists", "West Bank", "Gaza Strip", "exodus", "hostage" (i.e. Gilad Shailt), "Palestine", "abandoned properties and villages", "rocket attacks", "hudna", etc... Can I get a statement from you to that effect?
 * Furthermore, your argument that the topic is detailed further on in the text is an excellent reason not to add a footnote for its use in the introduction. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 18:05
 * Pedro, no i am not asking for footnotes on all those terms. I am asking for a simple, concise, even-handed solution on this term. Let's work together and add the one or two sentences which can be fair both to my concerns and to your very legitimate concerns, ok? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any opinion on any of those terms. I'm not suggesting that any of them should be included or not included. All I'm commenting on is this specific issue. If you feel any of those phrases or points should be included, feel free to suggest or propose it, and we can discuss. --Steve, Sm8900 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedro, it isn't detailed further on in the article, and nor should it be IMO. As you say there are plenty of other articles. However given this is the overarching summary article of the entire issue, it makes sense to have signposts everywhere to all relevant articles. Suicup 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I suggest the following solution: instead of using "occupied", we use, in the first occurence of the term, "occupied". This way, any user can follow the link and read-up on both sides of the issue if he or she wants to. Any takers? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 19:17 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try to think about this, and then reply. perhaps others here could also comment as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea Pedro. Suicup 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pedro - simply use the term "Occupied", since this is the agreed current term (as above, with fringe dissent) and this article should be about the current conflict, and what should be done in respect of those territories now. The wiki-link to that, and other relevant links, can then take people to detailed discussion about the legal status of the territories, and to the history of the conflict. --Nickhh 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just on a side note, it is a shame there is so much duplication of material on Wiki, eg for the piped link you quoted (which I think is a good choice) virtually the same info exists on Palestinian territories, Israeli-occupied territories and International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The discussion we are having here (ie do debates on one page and then link to it, rather than having the same debate on every page) should be applied globally to all articles in this category IMO. It would clean up everything so nicely. Suicup 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, once all these little disputes have been resolved, I propose putting a big banner at the top of the page stating the several issues which have already been resolved as a result of talk page discussion (with wikilinks to the relevant archive), and directing the user to only reopen debate after they: 1. have read the archived discussion. 2. are positive there is new information that wasn't discussed originally. Suicup 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we should start considering merging or cross-linking the articles you mentionned. In any case, I see a lot of editing in our collective futures... ;) Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.12.2007 20:43

Possible solution
What is wrong with a footnote? Can you explain how it clutters the article? I agree that the footnote should not explain the issue, but rather list possible alternatives and direct the user to an article where there already is a discussion. I did not see this information under 'settlements' - in fact i couldnt really find a discussion anywhere in this article. Here is another attempt.
 * Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict. The Israeli government uses Disputed Territories. The area is also referred to as Judea and Samaria by some extreme settler groups. For a discussion see Palestinian_territories

Suicup 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Suicup, that text sounds totally fine like a good start, with the following changes, and if placed in the article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict. The Israeli government uses Disputed Territories, to indicate its position that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967.* The area is also referred to as Judea and Samaria by some extreme settler groups.

'' * Ref: Israeli Settlements and International Law, Israel Foreign Ministry website, 5/4/01, accessed 7/11/07. ''


 * Thanks Steve, however if you read further down, a much better solution was suggested by Pedro. If we simply pipe Occupied Territories to Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel, ie Occupied Territories, it benefits everyone, and is the cleanest method - this is exactly how a 'wiki' should work. Furthermore, while i do advocate footnoting certain points, i am warming to pedro's 'slippery slope' argument below. I mean no offense, but his argument applies equally to all controversial terms so really the solution agreed upon for this one will most likely be applied to all of them for the sake of consistency. saying you don't have an opinion on the other terms is a bit of a copout IMO. cheers Suicup (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry, i know your motives here are positive. however I find your answer slightly counter-productive. please judge my suggestion on its own merits, not on the basis of whether some hypothetical editor later on might use it to shoehorn in more terms. besides if other people want more definitions for other key terms, and they have good reasons for that, then we can always accomodate them as well.


 * I do not agree with pedro's suggestion. i would like simply a sentence or two to accomodate this. there is no reason that this article cannot accomodate an additional sentence, in my opinion. so i do not think that is unreasobable, and I am unclear as to why that cannot be implemented. thanks for your reply. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Piping the link as Pedro suggests is a perfect use of the wiki medium. It accommodates alternative viewpoints with minimal clutter. Having explanatory sentences throughout the article will quickly make it a mess, not to mention ruin the flow. How is the reader supposed to keep a train of thought going when every 3 sentences he is confronted with a segway accommodating every possible interpretation of a word. The discussion regarding 'occupied' doesn't exist in a bubble - how can you not see this? If we are going to be consistent (not just in this article, but all articles in the category - which are in need of a severe cleanup) we need to make this discussion apply globally. By having firm resolutions, the same arguments no longer have to be debated again and again and again which is the current situation. The article already is a mess IMO - I proposed a structural rewrite however nobody seemed keen to join me. IMO, all this tinkering misses the point. If significant progress is to be made, we have to aggressively rework the article. Suicup (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. i will try to think about it further. in the meantime, i suggest we continue of course to consider all others' input from all other comments and postings here. Of course, i am open to any other comments which anyone may choose to post here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * by the way, one more thing i feel i should add: I dobn't plan to comment here continually as this discussion takes shape. so if you can find consensus with anyone else at all, please feel free to do so. i don't plan to necessarily comment when others are genuinely finding consensus here, merely when i am directly addressed. So i am not sure why this article is still edit-protected, or why admins are still concerned. if you can find other editors to reach consensus, I will allow the process to go forward. Alternatively, if the talk page remains stable as it basically is now, we can simply leave things generally in equilibrium, and let the admin come back at some point and address the edit-protection at some point. thanks. (I will now generally step aside here where possible, abnd allow others to comment.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(reindent). i would just like to ask, is there silence here because most pro-Israel editors here accept my proposal, and would be willing to abide by it, and are waiting for a reply from the other side? Or is there silence here because there are other issues which they feel are completely unresolved? I ask this in order to be fair to the those on the other side of this issue, as I feel that many of them have already in large part indicated what sort of solutions they might be willing to accept. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I and others think the piped link solution is best and you are going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise, because I see so much going in favour of it. As it stands, me, Nickhh, Pedro (and steve, sort of) think it is a good idea. Given the silence, i'd say that is close to a consensus. Suicup (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

responses
If you want, enter your responses below, to the proposal which is shown above. (You may enter your response, no matter which side of this issue you are on.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reading my 'original' proposal and notice it had been modified (lengthened). Despite the fact that I dont don't agree with it anymore, it is very bad form for someone to put words into my mouth. Suicup (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) strong favor. per comments above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Opposing: I already rescinded my proposal in favour of Pedro's which was to simply pipe the link to an appropriate page explaining the different meanings. My reasons have already been stated, however in a nutshell: it is simple, clean, best use of the wiki medium, and IMO fair to all parties. Suicup (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

further debate, and compromise

 * 1) GHcool - Suicup's proposal on 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) contains a dubious claim ("Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict"). If this claim can be cited to a reliable source, then I'll accept the proposal.  Otherwise, I will reject it unless the claim is amended so that it conforms with a reliable source.  --GHcool (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ok. thanks for your reply. how's this as an initial item? article: Israel and the occupied territories, US State Dept., Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, February 28, 2005. it states:

"'Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem during the 1967 War. Pursuant to the May 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement and the September 1995 Interim Agreement, Israel transferred most responsibilities for civil government in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank to the newly created Palestinian Authority (PA). The 1995 Interim Agreement divided the territories into three types of areas denoting different levels of Palestinian Authority and Israeli occupation control. Since Palestinian extremist groups resumed the use of violence in 2000, Israeli forces have resumed control of a number of the PA areas, citing the PA's failure to abide by its security responsibilities."


 * thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That proves that the U.S. has referred to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "the occupied territories" before. The burden of proof for the clause "used by virtually all actors in the conflict" has not been met.  --GHcool (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, but how many parties do you want? We already know that the UN< EU, and most major newspapers and governments use that term. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In order for the phrase "Occupied Territories is official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict" to be acceptable, the following must be done:
 * Cite sources proving that "virtually all actors in the conflict" (meaning every actor except Israel) calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip "occupied territories" as their official term. The other actors include the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, the E.U., the U.N., the Arab League, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, the P.A., Hamas, Fatah, etc. etc.
 * "Palestinian territories," "disputed territories," or "West Bank and Gaza Strip" must not be used interchangeably with the term "occupied territories" in the above actors' official writings in order to make that term the "official" one. --GHcool (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the article Status of territories captured by Israel there is a good list of who says what. Remember that we are only trying to introduce the term "occupied" when the context requires it. If I remember correctly, the sentence that started this whole dispute was something like "after the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip".
 * In any case, I'm against Steve's proposal. I favour the wikilink I suggested earlier. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 19.12.2007 08:33
 * Steve, are you able to explain specifically why you oppose the piped wikilink proposal? Suicup (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. thanks for your question. Only because I don't see why it is so excessive just to add 2-3 sentences. If you want, i can agree to just one sentence. or just a phrase. is there a way that we can compromise here? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, i was going to try to address this at length, but now that GHcool nixed the mediation, I'm ready to agree to a more immediate solution. So let me know what you think, and we'll reach a compromise on this fairly quickly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding a footnote like that is not good Wikipedia style and the footnote can by no means contain as much information on the subject as the separate article on that topic. Also, when we write "Israel occupied the WB and GS", what are you going to write in the footnote? That the term "occupied" is not preferred by Israel? What does that have to do with the statement? That's just inserting a POV-statement because you don't like the word "occupied"... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 19.12.2007 14:55

[re-indent]] I don't mean to use that text in any footnote; I mean that it should be put somewhere in the article.

Pedro, this has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. i am surprised at you for saying that, and I am slightly taken aback and hurt by your mischaracterization of my motives and actions. We are all dealing with issues which are of great sensitivity to all of us, and it would behoove us to give each other the benefit of the doubt when possible. i have always tried to give you respect, and wouyld appreciate it if you would please show me the same courtesy. thank you.

In answer to your question, no, it's not because i don't like it. It's because the status of these territories is one of the major defining issues of this entire conflict. Are you saying you didn't already know that? Let's try to avoid being a bit disingenuous with each other, ok? thanks.

By the way, to answer your question further, my text would refer to text from the Israeli Foreign Ministry only. i would not refer to any commentator, political group, political opinion or set of ideologies. It would only refer to a brief official definition and clarification. So I hope that sounds like an good and useful response to your concerns. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, with all due respect, I think you're forgetting what this discussion and RfC is about. The whole problem started with the wholesale deletion of the word "occupied" in all its forms from the article. The issue was the refusal to call the occupation an "occupation".
 * I have nothing against mentioning, at an appropriate place in the article, that the nomenclature and it's implications regarding the Geneva Conventions is an issue. I do, however, object to a footnote or qualifier every time we use the word "occupied". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 19.12.2007 15:23
 * Oh. so do I. I would simply like an initial note of explanation. i think then we can more or less use the term "occupied", give or take some references in one or two other relevant issue sub-sections. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is where I differ: if we can't use the term "occupied" in the introduction without first explaining that some people have a problem with that wording, then it's introducing POV: It's putting semantics before content and opinion before information. Using a Wikilink is a good compromise since it doesn't automatically highlight some controversy before the word is actually used, whereas a qualifier points more to the controversy than to the issue (i.e. occupation) itself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 19.12.2007 15:40
 * we probably don;t need the text to be in the introduction. we can put it in the body of the article. is there a section you had in mind? let me know, and I'll try to think about which section to use on my own, and get back to you. please note, i am not proposing a footnote or a wikilink, but rather some regular text tio appear somewhere within the article. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding a paragraph to the section "The status of the occupied territories". The first sentence there alludes to the problem and could be extended to include the nomenclature issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 19.12.2007 16:04
 * that sounds fine. thanks for your help. is there any way to get the attention of an admin, so that we can get the edit-protection to be changed? thanks. We can try going to the page for that, which is linked to from the edit-protect notice. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We can also use this template if we really need to, but it might be hard to explain the edit to another editor. thanks. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept the agreement you have come to, however i still think the instance of 'occupied' in the intro should be wikilinked as discussed above, lest a large part of this argument be in vain. Suicup (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about stopping the mediation. That was not my intention. I made an error. Please see my talk page for an explanation. --GHcool (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi GHcool. Oh, ok. I totally understand. don't worry about it at all. it's totally ok. In fact, it's more than ok, because as it turns out, we reached a resolution and the article is now ok again. thanks so much for writing. it's totally not a big deal at all. thanks again. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments
Comment-- I'm entering the fray a bit late here, but I believe that the use of the term "occupied" is non-controversial. It is the correct term from every standpoint except the most nakedly propagandistic one. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - i think you're not following the discussion. it's not about the possibility of using the term 'occupied' but rather the overuse of it to situations where it's non-valid, such as israel capturing territory from egypt/jordan who also captured territory which was not legally owned by anyone. the term occupied most definitely suggests 'non-ownership' and this term should be used with reason and not to promote a certain perspective.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation" again, and Introduction
Further to the above, but more generally ... so four random Wikipedia editors in two days of discussion on a talk page disagree with the the standard terminology used for the last 40 years by the UN Security Council, the Red Cross, the US Government, 98% of countries in the world, 90% of the English-language Israeli media etc etc (it's an outright falsehood to say it's mostly used by Palestinians and the left btw) - and suddenly the word "occupied" to describe, er, territory that is occupied, is flung into the dustbin of history and excised from the earlier parts of this article? This is an old, old and very futile debate and I can't believe that it's now going on on this page too. I'd also make the point that a lot of material has been added to the opening paragraph recently by an anon editor, which has left it a bloated and one-sided parody of an introduction, stuffed with references to everything the Palestinians have ever supposedly done wrong, and what they have to do now to "deserve" their own state. For example the relatively trivial - and disputed - textbooks issue does not belong in the introduction to this article; by contrast the issues of Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements etc do. Don't take my word for it, just look at the coverage of the Annapolis summit if you want to see what issues are really at stake, and what is being discussed by serious people. --Nickhh (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i invite you to give a content based, referenced WP:NOT opinion here:.
 * i don't think that general ranting about everything you don't like with the article will get any content issues resolved.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither do I, that's why I started to have a go at cutting back and re-balancing the introduction as well (other editors seem to have started on that as well, so hopefully it will get somewhere). I opened a new section for my comment as it was covering two separate points.  And of course I wouldn't have to rant about the "occupation" issue if people didn't continually revisit it every four days or so on different articles .....  --Nickhh (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * please try to remember to not replace one perspective with the other, but add the perspective you feel is missing without taking out the other POV.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Disputed" vs. "Occupied"
I couldn't help but notice that the article only uses the phrase "Disputed Territories" whereas all the external references use the term "Occupied Territories". Has there been any official decision here on which term to use? The page Status of territories captured by Israel states that the International Court of Justice, the U.S. State Department and the Supreme Court of Israel have ruled that the territories are "occupied"... Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. sorry, I don't see which items you're referring to. could you tell me which section you mean by "external references"? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * References 33 and 43 and the B'Tselem link in the "External links" section have it in their titles. Pedro Gonnet 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think it is possible that you transposed the terms? in your original question you say the refs call it "disputed" but the two references which you cite 33 and 43 both call them "occupied territory". Did you mean that the article calls it "disputed", whereas the references call it "occupied"? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I screwed up. Fixed it now. Cheers and thanks! Pedro Gonnet 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. thanks for writing. To answer your question, the Israeli Foregin Ministry and other entities on the Israeli side feel that some parts of the land are occupied Palestinian land, while other parts are simply disputed territory for which no final resolution was ever achieved. So there is dispute over the status of territories in the "disputed" category, and there is also considerable dispute over which territory actually falls into either category. So using the word "disputed" is a way to reflect this overall ambiguity. --Steve, Sm8900 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree - the wiki article which is linked to under that heading uses 'occupied'. Given this is a summary article, if disputed is going to be used here, then it should be used on the seealso article. That would involve a renaming of that article. Suicup 18:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) wiki uses the terminology used by the sources when we say "XXX claimed that...", however, the encyclopedia itself uses neutral terminology.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This simply is not an issue about "neutrality". You are abusing the concept in order to impose a fringe terminology on this article.  Virtually every serious international source and institution - from the UN collectively to individual governments and organisations, as well as most media outlets - uses and understands the phrase "occupied territories". Most other wikipedia articles, quite correctly, use this phrasing.  Any dispute about whether the territories are occupied or not is on a par with a dispute about whether the earth is round or not.  Give it up Nickhh 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (EC) Right, but in this case, what you (Jaakobou) call the "neutral" terminology is a massive violation of WP:NPOV. How would you consider using the "neutral" term Armenian relocation or Armenian deportation preferred by Turkey instead of Armenian genocide? The problem is that this is not a matter of neutrality or taste, but of correctness. Every official body (even the Supreme Court of Israel) except for the Israeli Government (note the difference between the Legislative and Executive) uses the term "occupied territories" (see Status of territories captured by Israel).
 * Since this issue seems to bounce around every so often, I suggest we just push it through WP:DR and get some final ruling on this.
 * Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 12.11.2007 18:57


 * Exactly, it's not about random editors adding the qualifier "occupied" in order to make a point, equivalent to describing President Bush as "the inept President" at every opportunity. It is simply the phrase that pretty much the whole world uses to describe these areas.  Objecting to it is as absurd as communists saying that the phrase "Red Terror" isn't neutral and should be replaced on wikipedia with the phrase "Red Discipline". I agree there should be some form of authorative ruling on the issue, if only to settle it once and for all. --Nickhh 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i've made an edit that you might agree on. in general, i believe the earth round/flat and the armenian genocide/relocation comparisons are at fault to the occasion; i undertand your position but disagree that this opinion is marginalized on such levels as the first or so controversial as the latter. that organizations such as amnesty use the term occupied territory, does not resolve the issue of what parts are occupied (some would say tel aviv is occupied also) and what parts are not. i think we should try to avoid this conflict where possible rather than push the point.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the argument is that "occupied" territories is the correct term (as Pedro Gonnet puts it), then I'll gladly accept provided that all of the references to Palestinian "militants" to the correct term: "terrorist." --GHcool 05:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that's just clouding the issue and is a rather irrelevant attempt to set up some kind of "deal". The terminology "occupied territories" is used, as I have said, by every international body and most world governemnts to identify the areas under discussion.  It is also the standard terminology in the mainstream Israel media (see Haaretz and even The Jerusalem Post).  The phrase "disputed areas" is used by virtually no-one.  The Tel Aviv issue is also a red herring, since in standard discourse it is not included in the areas described as occupied.  Saying Tel Aviv is "occupied" is as wrong as describing the West Bank as "disputed", and for exactly the same reasons.  This really is a very simple point and has nothing to do with what you or I might think, or our personal opinions on the matter.


 * By contrast the distinction between "terrorist" and "militant" is far more subjective and nuanced, as you surely know. There is no international standard for whether a group is a "terrorist group" or not.  Wikipedia guidance quite rightly suggests that the phrase terrorist should be avoided, for this reason. --Nickhh 08:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) GHcool actually brought up a good point explaining how wikipedia terminology works. (2) you'll excuse me if i reject your "expert" assessment on what the israeli media uses (haaretz, the 'anti-national' ultra-leftist paper aside) to describe the territories and what parts of the territories at that.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Not looking too good regarding the Israeli media. A quick search on www.jpost.com for the terms "occupied territories" vs. "disputed territories" favours the former by a factor of almost 10 (2331 vs. 246 hits). Care to call the JPost an "'anti-national' ultra-leftist paper"? I think not.
 * Uhm, and what is exactly the point GHcool made?
 * Seriously, Jaakobou, if you think you have an argument, lets take this to WP:DR.
 * Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 13.11.2007 10:15


 * Update: doing the same dance at www.ynetnews.com (the Enlish language online verison of Yedioth Ahronoth) gives an even worse ratio (270 vs. 19 hits). Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 13.11.2007 10:23


 * are you going to lookup hebrew sources also because i do believe israel's main language is hebrew and a quick search (in ynet) finds more than 5 the term "judea and shamaria" (in ynet) over "occupied territories".
 * p.s. like i said earlier, i think we should try to avoid this conflict where possible rather than push the point.
 * p.p.s. i still think my (reverted without a comment ) edit was fair to both sides.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, last time I checked, this was still the English language Wikipedia, so I think what all these papers call it in English is what's relevant. I'm all for staying on topic and moving on to WP:DR if you don't mind. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 13.11.2007 10:55

(Reset) However of course this is the English wikipedia. In the English language, and probably in translation from most other languages (whether that includes Hebrew or not), the phrase is "occupied territories". This will apply even more when we look at official government and other third party positions, rather than simply media sources in the country that is doing the occupying. Again this is not a point about whether you, I or anyone else thinks this terminology is accurate or not. The point is that this IS the terminology. And as a result there's no need to find a middle ground which is "fair to both sides", as if there is a genuine debate over this. --Nickhh 10:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * please go over my arguments, it's a tad tiresome to repeat them while they are being ignored.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have gone over your arguments and refuted them. If you're still not happy, then don't just restate (or refer to) your arguments: If you think we don't understand them, then rephrase or illustrate them such that we may. If you think we have understood them, yet you don't understand our argument, then try to refute our refutations. This is the way discussion works. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 13.11.2007 12:23


 * here . you are free to open an RfC btw.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, so your argument is that the term "occupied territories" leaves room to interpretation as to the extent of these territories. Well, the definition of "occupied territories" is pretty clear -- territories which Israel is occupying, according to the definition in Occupied territories:
 * Occupied territories is a term used by advocates who assert that a region has been taken over illegitimately by a sovereign power (compare disputed area). It is distinguished from a colony where there is no war, conquest (meaning military), or sovereignty of the territory.
 * Which would, it seems, exclude Tel Aviv but would apply, for instance, to the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Now, by the same token, if you think "disputed territories" is a better term, you're going to have to make the case that it is less ambiguous then "occupied territories". Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 13.11.2007 15:51
 * Would it be enough to make a case that "disputed territories" is more NPOV and equally accurate? From what I gather in the mainstream media, the Golan Heights is not generally included in current discourse by the phrase "occupied territories" because it is not Palestinian land. The Old City of Jerusalem doesn't count either in ordinary discourse.  Furthermore, a strong case can be made that the capture of Gaza and the West Bank during the Six-Day War was not illegal or illegitimate.  Gaza was captured from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan; two enemy nations that started a war against Israel just.  Furthermore, Palestinian Arabs from both territories faught in that war and prior to it against Israelis.  The same can be said for Syria and the Golan Heights.  In short, "occupied territories" favors the Palestinian point of view while "disputed territories" describes the international status of the territories.  --GHcool 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, the acquisition of territory through warfare is, since the establishment of the League of Nations, a big fat no-no. So no "strong case" here. "Occupied", according to Wikipedia's own definition (quoted above) is NPOV and accurate, whereas "disputed" is a huge can of worms that one-sidedly favours the Israeli government (as opposed to legislative) by obfuscating the legal status of the territories in question.
 * On a side note, it is kind of useless to argue that "occupied territories" isn't specific of what territories are meant (it is not: the definition makes it pretty clear that it is all territories unlawfully under Israel's control). The wording "disputed territories" does not amend this perceived problem.
 * Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 14.11.2007 08:28


 * Will you PLEASE stop missing the point quite so spectacularly? It is utterly irrelevant whether you happen to prefer a certain phrasing, or whether in your view that phrasing is more NPOV or not. For the 14th time, the standard phrasing in 99% of all official and media discussion of this issue throughout the planet is "occupied territories", or referring to a subtly different area, "Palestinian territories".  Both phrasings for example would include the West Bank, but exclude Tel Aviv. Any attempt by any editor to impose alternative phrasing constitutes original research. The fact that some elements of the Israeli establishment and the extremist right-wing blogosphere have tried to push the phrase "disputed territories" is interesting and relevant, and is rightly referred to in several wikipedia articles, however that terminology should not be allowed to replace the standard one, on the whim of one or two editors here. --Nickhh 08:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (ps: our comments seem to have crossed Pedro .. my plea for relevance was of course addressed to GHCool's prior comment, and also to Jaakabou's posts) --Nickhh 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * you're both missing the point, this is not the article to fight over these issues.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, you are the one who brought this up here two days ago. If you want to take it elsewhere (I still strongly suggest WP:DR), be my guest. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 14.11.2007 10:38


 * i followed a POV edit that changed "disputed" to "occupied" . you are free to open up an RfC to this issue. i still don't see the problem with my suggested compromise which you reverted with the suggestion that i've gone mad.   Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that wasn't a "POV edit". In the whole article the term "occupied territories" is used. Somebody introduced a section with the term "disputed territories", which was corrected to match the status quo of the article.

The problem with your "suggested compromise" is that it is a compromise between a correct terminology and an incorrect, biased terminology. If there is a correct terminology, then there is no need for a compromise to suit your POV.

Furthermore, I suggested you were off your rocker for your blatantly incorrect edit summary, insinuating that we had agreed in the talk. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 14.11.2007 12:56

Trying to shed light rather than heat. It is genuinely problematic, but there are a few things to hold on to: 1- "occupied" does not imply "illegitimate" and never did - Japan and Germany were occupied after WWII and nobody claimed it was illegal, at least nobody other than Nazis made that claim as far as I know. 2- The internationally accepted legal definition of occupied territory, which seems to apply everywhere except in Israel, is territory of a sovereign country that is occupied by another sovereign country (see applicable Hague convention). Nobody has ever amended that definition. No sovereign countries have a recognized claim to the West Bank other than Israel. Syria considers that the West Bank (and Israel) is southern Syria and Lebanon is Western Syria, but Wikipedia is probably not about to recognize that claim. Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank. Egypt doesn't claim Gaza even if it is occupied. That leaves the Golan as indisputably occupied territory. 3- ICJ can only issue legally binding rulings on cases between sovereigns who have brought their case to the ICJ for resolution, or if the UN SC asks for a binding ruling. The ICJ has never issued any such ruling regarding the territories in question. The ruling on the security fence was not binding and is not international law. 4- Unfortunately, "disputed territories" is an "official" term used only by Israeli government at one time and now used mostly by right wing Israel partisans. Using that term therefore indicates bias.

5-The use of the term by Ha'aretz and some other Israeli sources is indicative of two things. A) They are translating from Hebrew, where there are several possibilities - "shtachim Kvushim" means conquered or occupied territories. "Muchzakim" means "held" and is generally translated as "administered territories" There is no word for "occupation" in Hebrew. B) Ha'aretz has a definite political bias against the occupation/conquest/ and therefore uses this term deliberately.

6- Ariel Sharon used the word "Kibush" (literally conquest) meaning "occupation" and translated as such. The best way to avoid an article or articles that sound like propaganda is to refer to specific areas like the West bank or Golan heights, or to say "territories conquered by Israel in the 6 Day War." It also makes a difference if a term like "occupation" is used once or twice in an article, or if it is used over and over in inappropriate places and contexts.

7- The Israeli Supreme court has ruled that some aspects of international law applied to the territories. I doubt very much if the original Hebrew text of their rulings uses the words "Occupied territories" - the Israeli Supreme Court does not write any judgments in the English language. At variance with the ICJ, the Israeli supreme court ruled that the separation/security/fence/wall whatever is not illegal.

The article should have a discussion of the issue of terminology - citing the pros and cons and the relevant authorities. Eugene Rostow had something to say on the matter. Mewnews (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008