Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 4

Article trim per TOOLONG and MOS:LEADLENGTH
In accordance with WP:TOOLONG and MOS:LEADLENGTH I've trimmed the article. I'll note that the post-trim article, with some 76K chars of readable prose in the body, 2k chars in the lede, and a staggering 50 footnotes with 16k additional prose - is still bloated (the article should be under 50K per WP:SIZERULE) - and is particularly still bloated in regards to the possible insertion of additional content. Please discuss here. Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow that must have taken you a long time! Thanks for the effort; I wonder how long until it's reverted :-) Can you comment on whether the material that was removed: was already in the child articles, will be added to the child articles, should be added to the child articles, etc.? Were there child articles for everything, or do any new ones need to be created? FWIW, I think 50k is too little for an article of this scope (longest occupation ever, one of the dominant conflicts of the 20th/21st centuries), and perhaps it's appropriate to IAR somewhat and allow it to go over 50. Now, the previous length was way too far to the other extreme, but it strikes me as a reasonable length the way it is now, so FWIW I'm not bothered if it were to stay at 75k. (Still, that means more condensing to allow room for new sections, etc.) Levivich ? ! 22:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of it could be forked off if one really wanted to - e.g. to Language of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or Views of the Israeli radical left on the occupation. Alot of what I cut out were examples that where meant to be illustrative but cluttered the article up with weeds. And repetitions (and I believe I left a few repetitions in - some sections still are repetitive of others - e.g. land ownership and settlements). And yes - POV assertions or random opinions. I focused on the newly created article on hand - which should be a manageable size - the body was at 168K chars, the notes at 55K chars, and the lede another 5K. There simply is no policy basis to justify such bloat - it is unreadable and furthermore not conducive to editorial agreement on content (as it was unwieldy to edit).Icewhiz (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh?? Removing half of the article without discussing it first? What are you thinking of? Huldra (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost two hours–much longer than I expected! :-), wouldn't you agree, at the rate we're going, for every word that is changed in any way on the article page, we are writing 10,000 words on the talk page? There must be a better way to reach consensus. I'm all ears for suggestions. Levivich ? ! 00:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Was discussed previously (a number of times). - your revert runs foul of Article size, which is an editing guideline (as well as the restored content containing numerous other problems - I do hope you read what you reverted back in, as you are supposed to). Please provide a policy based rationale for this rather severe flounting of TOOLONG with your blanket revert. Breaking editing guidelines with a false "undiscussed" edit rationale is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * TOOLONG does not allow an editor to simply chop off material. You did not move it to any other article. Your efforts at neutering this article, from its very creation, are not going to just be accepted. You removed, without discussion, 150kB. And you have the gaul to ask others for policy based rationales. Get off it.  nableezy  - 00:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You removed, in its entirety, the material on a terminology bias. You removed, in its entirety, the material on American media coverage. You removed, in its entirety, material on land seizures. About the seizure methods used to create settlements. About Zionist leaders plans to seize territory from the early days of the Mandate. The creation, rapid expansion of said settlements. The creation and general indifference to outposts. The entire section on settler violence. The material on crowd control, the disparity in sentencing. The material on disparity in arms. The sections on technologies of control. The section on population transfers and deportations. Material on torture. Most of the section on the effect on children. The material on the road system. Much of the material on agriculture. Its use as a waste zone. The entirety of the critical judgments. You have any justification for the uniform removal of material that does not show Israel to be the beacon of justice and humanity that we all know it to be?  nableezy  - 00:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, the readable prose size of Israel is 96 kB. The readable prose size of World War I is 136 kB. WWI covers 4 years and change. This covers 50-plus.  nableezy  - 00:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare indeed War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which covers 18 years and far outstrips this in length with no sense among editors of, to use that ridiculous Podhoretz phrase, 'clear an d present danger' laying siege to it. Patience, gentlemen, patience. Guidelines are not dictates (and are mostly written to help people with little formal familiarity with or competence in encyclopedic writing). Personal confession. I have been commissioned to write for a prestigious encyclopedia, by an editor who disagreed with my conclusions, but recognized my methodological and technical competence, and trusted me to give a neutral overview of a topic we looked at differently.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From time immemorial writers have complained when editors do editing and cut down an overly long tract of text. This is Wikipedia - not a book. We have size guidelines, which should be followed. I retained most of the subject matter. The only topic I really cut out entirely is the last section on "Israeli critical judgements" which for an odd reason is a long section devoted to fringe Israeli anti-Zionists (while not reflecting other POVs - Israeli or non-Israeli). Indeed - when cutting an article that at 200+K readable prose (overly long notes included) is well over four times the required size - there is plenty of cutting to do, which in this case contained off-topic as well as overly long and detailed on-topic material. Perhaps this poorly written mess (POV, sloppy repititions, length) should be moved to draft space until a reasonable consensus can be found to meet Wikipedia policy. Dumping a poorly written 367kb mess (for a topic well covered in pre-existing parent and sub-topic articles - spinoffs weren't created since we already have them) in mainspace and then in rather blatant WP:OWNership resisting any change to the mess is not Wikipedia editing. A collaborative cut down edit would have been to return bits you thought were important, while condensing further other bits - so that we all together turn this mess into something readable.
 * Again - this is Wikipedia. WP:NOTSOAP, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. If you can't work by Wikipedia guidelines - take the text to Lulu.com or Createspace.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I retained most of the subject matter, that is um I will be gentle and simply say not the truth. Ive listed several topics you removed entirely. Please dont pretend your latest effort at neutering coverage that you deem critical of Israel on Wikipedia is anything other than that.  nableezy  - 10:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz. If the length of ther article required you to urgently excise 149,000b, why haven't you been equally 'worried' to propose and excise half of the text at Israel? These are the stats at Long pages


 * Israeli occupation of the West Bank ‎[378,368 bytes]

‎:::*Israel ‎[344,355 bytes]


 * The first deals with Palestinians (gut it). The second deals with Israel (fine). The difference between them is 10% (more text in the first. I am not objecting to the Israel article because of some ostensible best policy failure (it's poorly written and has a thousand things lacking. I simply am not interested in it. Other editors are frantically concerned with this kind of length when the topic happens to be Palestinians, and show no interest in applying the same criterion to the Israel article. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but citing that to dismiss the objection, when there are ethnonational anxieties here doesn't erase the disparity in 'concerns'.
 * I met the objection to length by beginning to synthesize and remove to other pages many details, managing in just a few edits to cut it back 7,000b. The immediate response was to expand it again by 7,000b, a 'tactic' which, for me, exposed a lack of seriousness by those protesting at the length. The result? Paralysing the one attempt here to actually find a fair compromise with editors who outlined a best policy objection. To repeat - if a compromise is offered, and the objectors immediately refuse it by playing expansionist games to fill up the space created by a series of précises, then the credibility of the original objection is erased.
 * This edit, removing almost half of the article without any verifiable editorial principle signposts not a concern to handle the outstanding issue, but simply take the axe at length and reduce in Solomonic fashion and the only rationale I can see is that of provocation, since it was bound to be reverted. Since no one disputes the high source quaiity used copiousLy here for every detail, erasing it rather than finding an appropriate wiki article where it might be shifted in order to conserve the information, looks like sheer ideologically motivated distaste or censorship. The only reasonable option is shifting, eventually, to related articles, which keeping a paraphrase of the content here, not excision.  Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A point of order - the occupation is an Israeli institution/regime - not Palestinian, and Jews (native born in the West Bank) live under the yoke of the military gvmt as well. As for article length - an axe is the correct editing tool when an article us four times larger than dictated by Wikipedia guidelines (and when for most of the sub-topics we already have a preexisting article, there is little spinoff creation relevant). A 7K trim here is close to nothing - this needs to be condensed by a factor of four.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, you ignored my question. If this article has to be condensed by a factor of four, that would apply to the article Israel as well. Yet no one has raised that issue there. I certainly never would. If your concern was simply one of adequacy to a policy on length, then, given your interests, it would obviously translate into a radical reduction of that other article. Why is your concern unilaterally focused on anything to do with Palestinians, and your policy objections there exempted from similar articles on Israel, which happens to be the occupying power?Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you should read Talk:Israel before you falsely state that "no one has raised the issue there." Onceinawhile and I have raised the issue there. In fact, trying to condense that article has been the same experience as trying to condense this article, except over there, I think we're only writing 5,000 talk page words for every article word changed. Do you know why that is? I do. Levivich ? ! 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually you should read the archives. Over the 75, I can see two attempts to raise the issue beginninga at archive 35, 8 years ago. Neither of them got a response. There are complaints about any one section's length, but nothing I can see about the whole article, until very recently, so far briefly and after this article appeared. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're wrong. See here, a discussion that began a month before this occupation article was created, and here, the revival of that effort. Also, as Nableezy pointed out, Israel has 96k of readable prose; this article has nearly twice that. Still, editors are trying to reduce both. Your statements that no one raised length as an issue in Israel, or that no one did until after this occupation article appeared, are demonstrably false. Levivich ?! 18:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. I wrote:'There are complaints about any one section's length,' which is what your two links refer to. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad you now realize that some of the same editors who are trying to reduce the length of this article have also been trying to reduce the length of that article, even if you won't admit it. Levivich ? ! 21:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Such niggling is pointless, you are wrong, but I have no problem in allowing you to maintain your belief that I won't own up to the 'truth', which probably is that, unlike here, all efforts to seriously remodulate and reduce that article in the terms set forth here, will flounder or come up against an iron wall. The problem with the Israel article is not its length, but how much of the history of modern Israel it astutely ignores (check out the way the reality of 20% of the population is covered, the 20% that was under military rule from 1949-1966). All I see here is a desire to rid this article of facts, whose relevance to the topic is not seriously contested. The objection is, there are too many facts here, which is rather unique. I've given my viewpoint: the sensible way to handle 'concerns about length' by retaining all of those sections and the essential details in place, and slowly shifting some Frank nitty gritty to other articles. I don't see any merit, other than ethnonationalist dislike, in any of the other proposals or practices in evidence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry, you'll have to clarify that last bit for me: I don't see any merit, other than ethnonationalist dislike, in any of the other proposals or practices in evidence here. Are you saying ethnonationalist dislike has merit? And are you saying I'm racist? That I want to spin-off this article and create more articles on the subject because I'm racist against Palestinians? This is why I want to create two new articles, Methods of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank because of my ethnonational dislike of Palestinians? What's your basis? Is it that my username suggests I'm a Levite? (I'm not, if that makes you feel any better.) Levivich ? ! 23:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What utter nonsense. Jewish settlers, aka the colonial presence, are very specifically governed by civilian law, not military. The native population, the Palestinians, is not. You should read this article, you may learn a thing or two. And again, nothing in WP:SIZE requires this be reduced at all, it recommends it, and as shown before there are plenty of articles that exceed 60 kB. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 10:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * if you want to improve this article, it would help if you would stop antagonizing. "Jews live under the yoke of the military gvmt as well" is a gross misrepresentation and you well know that. And even if it were true, it is one thing being a citizen of the country who rules you, it is quite another living under a regime which has no accountability to you.
 * All the "effects" in this article are very real. If the Palestinians in the West Bank could vote in Israeli elections, Israel would need to balance "security" against the reasonable human rights of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, because Israel doesn't make itself accountable to those millions over whom it rules, we have a totally unbalanced situation.
 * Let's stop with the attempts to whitewash please, and focus on helping readers understand what they come here to learn about.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Israeli law (copy pasted) does not apply in full to recognized settlements (for instance - planning and zoning). It does not apply at all (ignoring personal basis application) to Jews living outside of recognized settlements. Adminstrative demolitions, limitations, and detentions have been applied on hundreds of Jewish residents in recent times. And yes - effects of occupation on Jewish residents should be in as weĺl. Regardless - this article is way too long.Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is long and some balanced trimming might do it good despite the topic being of sufficient importance to warrant an article longer than average. However, Icewhiz's massacre somehow managed to focus on removing material that shows Israel in a bad light. Of course this could not indicate an unwillingness to edit objectively, just as jokes like "Jews live under the yoke of the military gvmt as well" could not indicate a contempt for other editors. Zerotalk 11:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I have just noted on my page, a request to cut back the article was made, and I, for one, adopted the proper procedure by making précises of material, maintaining the bare gist, and shifting the excised text to relevant sister or main articles. The response by those objecting to its size was (a) to add blobs of useless material we have abundantly in other pages or (b) ask that several new topics, each requiring 10,000 bytes at least, be added, as the weight reduction was underway. This halted any further attempts by myself, for one, to continue the process of size reduction, because those concerns looked like pretexts based on double-standards -reduce an article on Palestinian content per WP:TOOLONG, and expand he same article's Israel-related content in defiance of WP:TOOLONG i.e. bad faith. In response to Icewhiz's gutting of the page, once more today I showed that this can be cut back notably by attentive synthesis and the transfer of the original texts under excision to other articles or to articles one can easily create. Attempts to eviscerate content by simple excision without care to preserve factual details based on excellent sourcing are just that, nationalistic exercises in censorship. There is no other way, contextually, to read such attempts to siphon facts down the memory hole, out of sight out of mind. To properly do what was requested requires patience and care, not provocative edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please strike the personal attacks above, and the baseless accusation of edit warring (a single WP:BOLD edit is not edit warring - nor are my other edits - with each of the WP:OWNish reverts made - I took it to the talk page). In regards to your rather bizzare WP:OSE claims regarding the size of Israel - beyond being OSE and dictating how other volunteer editors should spend their time - the Israel article is actually not a violation of WP:TOOBIG as the readable prose there is 96kb - beneath 100kb - though it should probably be trimmed a bit. Israel also doesn't contain an overly long notes section (132 non-reference notes with 51kb of text in the present article!). Most of its binary size seems to come from references and quotations within (contentious subjects often lead to many citations + quotations from the citations to support the text). Israel is also a collaborative effort of many editors (of differing POVs) - as opposed to a text mainly written by a single editor. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Notes arent included in the readable prose. If you have a problem with notes being included in a reference work I suggest you spend your time on Lulu.com or Createspace instead of Wikipedia. Any number of articles exceed or approach this ones size (WWI was given as an example, though it covers 4 years to this ones 50-plus), and again SIZE does not allow for an editor to simply remove material he finds uncomfortable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Occupation from Jordan during war
Instead of hiding the facts, which promotes the writer's agenda, the first paragraph should look like this:

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank began on 7 June 1967 when, during the six-day war, Israel occupied from Jordan the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to the present day.

In general, this article is full of pro-Palestinian bias, so at least add all the relevant facts to the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by כותבערכים (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article covers that Jordan had previously occupied the West Bank in the section The West Bank in 1967. I dont see why that needs to be in the first sentence though, it is, present tense, occupied Palestinian territory, not occupied Jordanian territory. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Imprecise References
There is an issue with imprecise referencing on this article. For instance, in several cases an author known as Jan Nederveen Pieterse is referenced for his 1984 book. The book title is not specified, but as far as I can tell he only published one book in 1984 (and only one book in relation to Israel), which is accessible here and has a total length of 35 pages. The issue is that the referenced pages are stated to occur between page 58 and 71, which can probably be explained by the use of different editions or even a different book, but we cannot determine this from the current state of the references. Can the authors expand on these? --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, I'm having an issue with this reference. It appears to have been created for the Emancipation Foundation based in Amsterdam, but I cannot find any information on this foundation. Research into the book also finds no information on it; it has an ISBN, and while I can find notes about it existing on occasion, including that its publisher was "Intl Ctr Res& Public Policy", I cannot find any more information than this. does anyone know if this publisher meets the requirements of WP:SOURCE? --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are looking in the wrong place. The source is not a book but an article in the academic journal Crime and Social Justice, which changed its name to Social Justice in 1988. This is clearly stated in the bibliography section of the article and confirmed by the page numbers. You can see the article here. Zerotalk 10:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If so, then part of the issue is that, per Pieterse, that article is from 1985, not 1984, though the book was written in 1984. Apart from that little issue, then the rest of it was my mistake - I was not familiar with the style of referencing used in this article. --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As to your request in the section above, I've checked and rechecked some time ago, but the link at given by Zero is the same that my own link provided. It states that the article is to be dated 1984. If Jstor got it wrong, then please supply the relevant details. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * At google books 1985 is indeed the date. Unless there are objections, I'll change 1984 to 1985 within a day or so, or, in the meantime anyone can legitimately correct Jstor's error. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections from me; his personal website also lists it as 1985 . However, this wasn't the issue I was raising where I pinged, which is about how the source is used. If you reread the first post in that section you should understand. --  No COBOL  (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Never use Google's automatically-inferred years. They are often wrong, even by more than a century. I believe that 1984 is the correct year, because the publication year is decided by the journal, not the author. You can see on the journal's website that this double issue has year 1984. I don't know why the author's web page says 1985 — maybe the issue took a long time to come out. Zerotalk 01:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok - makes sense. Thank you --  No COBOL  (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolution of (N)POV dispute ahead of DYK
For those who are unaware, I'm reviewing this article's nomination for DYK. The current sticking point is the ongoing dispute over whether this article reflects a neutral point of view, as DYK requires. At 's suggestion, I have stayed rejecting the nomination over this issue for two weeks, in the hope that editors can work on the article during that time and reach consensus that it is NPOV. To that end, I hope editors who have expressed an opinion on the matter but may not have seen the DYK nomination will make a good-faith effort toward resolving the dispute. In particular, editors who have expressed an opinion on the issue in the past but not lately should know that I will evaluate consensus among editors who are actively engaged in trying to resolve the dispute. So if they would like to see the article reflect an NPOV and be accepted as such, they should revisit this discussion and try to improve the article in good faith. Lagrange613 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of what I think needs to happen involves addition of extra material to result in balance. Since the article is already too big (in top 100 in size) it will be out of policy which ever direction it moves in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked several questions of you when you first commented, you never responded. You wrote about the Jordanian occupation of the East Bank, a phrase which still makes no sense to me. Can you please explain what it is you that you find lacking here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Jordanian occupation of the East Bank" this was used as a comparison to the current article title. The reason I used it was that the country Jordan currently occupies the east bank, but that before the country was created, this area was planned to become part of Israel. This is not really necessary to make this article balanced however as it would be outside the scope. But my current point is that to explain all the who occupies what when and why is getting to big to include. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Jordan doesn't 'currently occupy' the East Bank. It is a duly constituted nation east of the Jordan River, just as Israel is of the area between the Mediterranean and the West Bank. It is also incorrect to assert that 'before the country (Jordan) was created' (1946) this area (Jordan/West Bank?) was planned to become part of Israel. By whom? Certainly by no resident power or authority by 1922.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is certainly too long, but WP:TOOLONG is a guideline. DYK only requires compliance with policy, not guidelines. (The reasoning, as I understand it, is that the newest Wikipedia content, which DYK is supposed to showcase, will be works in progress, possibly falling short on some guidelines at the time of nomination, but the Main Page can't promote links to articles not within policy.) As such, I will not consider the article's length in the nomination (except to note that it easily meets DYK's minimum length requirement). Lagrange613 03:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your patience and precision in this regard is much appreciated. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Original Research
There seems to be an issue of WP:OR at some points in this article. For instance, there is a picture in the House Demolitions subsection captioned with "Israeli military forces arriving to destroy the Palestinian community of Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah, 8 January, 2014, thereby rendering homeless the entire population of 10 adults and 15 minors". I cannot find a source stating this, and instead it appears to be a synthesis of the fact that the houses were demolished, the fact that the population was as stated, and the fact that this typically leads to homelessness.

This issue is then expanded in areas such as the Pieterse references, where the writers of this article appear to create a synthesis of his writings found here. This article, under the Wider Implications subsection, states that "Since the late 1970s, according to Jan Nederveen Pieterse writing in 1984, Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza, together with an aspiration to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka to put down peasant revolts against land expropriation." If I have the correct book (see in this talk page "Imprecise References" for more detail on this issue) then this is a synthesis of ideas presented in the book, with some outright OR thrown in and a POV bias added.

To explain this, I will go through each issue point by point (it should be noted that it is possible I missed some direct statements by Pieterse; given the issue with page numbers, I needed to read the whole book, rather than just the referenced pages, to conduct this analysis, and I may have missed something):
 * Synth occurs where the editors stated "Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza ... led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like...". This appears to be a conflation of this fragment "To understand Israel's methods one must look at Israel's source of expertise in the field of counter-insurgency - the West Bank and Gaza." and various mentions that Israel is active in those countries in various roles - sometimes, but not always, stated to be counter-insurgency activities.
 * Synth, possibly going as far as OR, also occurs here in another section of the above fragment "together with an aspiration to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques"; this comes from the quote included by Pieterse stating "Israel coveted the job of top Washington proxy in Central America"; this is used by Pieterse in relation to Israel being a proxy for the provision of US funds to certain South American groups, not in relation to the export of counter-insurgency techniques.
 * OR and POV bias occurs where the editors stated that this was exported to "put down peasant revolts against land expropriation", a statement that is at no point supported by the assumed source.
 * POV bias occurs when the statement from Pieterse "Israel's involvement in Honduras/Nicaragua and EISalvador issaid to be related to reports of links between the PLO and Central American movements." is excluded from the section discussing why Pieterse believes Israel is active in those locations - a curious omission, given that the article goes to great lengths to explain why Israel is present with theories that are not directly stated by Pieterse but the article does reference to him.

Perhaps these issues are confined to the Pieterse reference and a few other isolated occasions - but I would consider it highly unlikely that the only reference I examined happened to be the only reference with issues.

Of course, I hasten to add, I am not making any statement about the veracity of these claims, just about whether the provided reference is appropriate to support them. --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, actually it is a near-verbatim paraphrase of the description given by the image source, as you can see by clicking on it. Zerotalk 10:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * My mistake. All the same, that doesn't mean there is no issue with the statement, just that the issue is different from what I initially thought. The source appears to be a blog within a wider page, and thus per WP:BLOGS it is not usable as a source. Aside from that issue, the page doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NEUTRAL, and so perhaps taking what is effectively a direct quote from it is not the best idea in terms of creating a neutral article? On an unrelated note, perhaps it would be been better to put this at the end of my writing, rather than in the middle of it? --  No COBOL  (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is from B'tselem. Not a random blog. Anyway, per MOS:IMAGES, we generally accept in good faith the description of an image as most images that are used in reliable sources such as newspapers are copyrighted and cant be used here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have refactored to put the original comment back together, and moved inline responses to the bottom. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  15:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The image MOS states "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken." - the quote states "Israeli military forces arriving to destroy the Palestinian community of Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah, 8 January, 2014, thereby rendering homeless the entire population of 10 adults and 15 minors", of which only the first part is identification of content and thus covered by the policy. Also, destroy is a somewhat loaded word - demolish would be more neutral. In line with this, I would like to propose that the description is altered to:
 * "Israeli military forces arriving to demolish the Palestinian community of Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah, 8 January, 2014".
 * As for the source not being a blog on a wider site, that page describes itself as an image blog, or does that website have an unusual definition of blog? --  No COBOL  (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOGS is about self-published blogs that have no editorial oversight. B'tselem's "Eyes Wide Open" photo blog is not a blog in that sense. That is not a place where any person can publish their own personal views and or images. These are published by B'tselem, they take responsibility for its content (here is where they announced the creation of it). This is not some random person on the internet writing on Tumblr or Wordpress their own personal views. As far as the wording, I dont see how destroy is less neutral, but I dont oppose changing it to demolish. The removal of the rest of the caption however I object to. We can attribute it to B'tselem if you really want, but I dont even think that is necessary. As far as of which only the first part is identification of content and thus covered by the policy, no, sorry, that makes zero sense. The publisher of this photo is saying this is what the photo depicts. Even if it werent B'tselem, even if it were just on Flickr, the policy would allow us to take that description in good faith. However, it isnt on Flickr, this is from B'tselem. B'tselem has routinely been found to be a reliable source at RSN. Including for the fact that this specific demolition left a population of 10 adults and 15 minors homeless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a source for the caption (one of B'Tselem's articles on Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah). B'Tselem uses the word "demolish" and never "destroy" so I changed that word, and I also expanded the caption slightly per the source cited. That said, the picture sucks. The reason is because it shows some humvees and a bulldozer. I believe B'Tselem that these particular vehicles were going to Khirbet Ein Karzaliyah in January 2014, but, frankly, it could be a picture of anybody going anywhere. Compare with the pictures used at House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which actually depict house demolition. I don't see any problem with this picture staying in from an RS or NPOV perspective, but I think a better one could be found. (Or multiple better ones.) Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  18:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Im not wed to the image. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * USER:Nishidani, I see you were the one who added the Pieterson statements and as such your input on that part of this would be appreciated - the photo issue has already been resolved through the addition of a citation. --  No COBOL  (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think my paraphrases are close to the passages in Pieterse, and that there is no original research. I can't see the point you are driving at.Unfortunately I am extremely busy and can't afford the time at the moment to review all of this immediately (that is probably true of all of us) What little time I have consists, as requested,in overhauling the article by a general précis near the 100kb goal, and I haven't got to that section yet. I bow in these things to Zero, and, If in the meantime, if he has the time, would appreciate his judgement, and will adjust according to that advice if there is some flaw detected. Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * USER:Nishidani, I have placed your response in the appropriate section; I hope that is not an issue.
 * Above, I have presented a detailed explanation of how your paraphrase is neither close nor acceptable per policy, detailing extensively how it is synthesis, and I also provided an example of a segment where there is nothing in the source that can support it, synth or not. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to justify this sentence against, if I can blow my own horn, an extensive and well documented discussion of its issues is worrying, and I ask that you reconsider choosing to ignore this. --  No COBOL  (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you knew my personal circumstances, you wouldn't misread the above. I have extremely serious carer engagements with two desperately ill people, and that is more important than extreme wiki punctuality. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for your personal circumstances, but the way I see it is if you have time to contribute, as it appears you do, you should have time to defend your contributions, should they be reasonably challenged. --  No COBOL  (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by every word I wrote, which is a paraphrase of pp.59-64 mainly, and underscored by the whole text. Indeed in rapidly skimming over the article versus the paraphrase, I showed remarkable restraint in the face of a source that is far more damning. As I said, Zero is an acknowledged extremely meticulous arbiter elegantiarum with the issue of sources and OR, and I will duly defer to his opinion, whatever he determines. That's more time than I should allow myself on this farce.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * USER:Nishidani, once again I've moved your response to the correct section. Can I ask that you try to post them here in the future?
 * As for the statement itself, if you stand by it then I ask you to prove it is not synth and not OR. In other words, I would appreciate it if you quote where Pieterson states that "Israeli counterinsurgency expertise developed in repressing the uprisings in both the West Bank and Gaza led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka", where he states "Israeli aspirations to play the role as "top proxy" for the United States, led to the export in the 1980s of these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka" and where he states "Israel exported these techniques to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sri Lanka to put down peasant revolts against land expropriation." - if he did not make statements to those ends, then it is synth and has no place here unless another source that does explicitly state that can be found. --  No COBOL  (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On page 60 Pieterse writes: To understand Israel's methods one must look at Israel's source of expertise in the field of counterinsurgency-the West Bank and Gaza. He then goes on to detail those methods. On page 64, under the heading The Export of Israeli Methods, Pieterse writes the following: We again encounter a configuration of policies similar to Israel ... Months later, in Israel, General Benditto Garcia, Lucas' brother, chief of staff of the Guatemalan Army, attributed the government's military success to Israel's assistance. On page 66, under the same heading, he writes: Israeli assistance on this front consists of military sales to Honduras and acting as a back-up source of assistance to contras. Later in that page, same heading, he writes: In 1977, Israeli technicians built an electrified "wall" at the Namibia-Angola border to keep SWAPO forces from entering Namibia. A similar system of electronic border surveillance (valla electronica) has been under construction since 1982 in Costa Rica on the border with Nicaragua. On page 67, still under that same heading, he writes: Since early 1984, Israeli security advisers have been called in to train Lankan security personnel. Already, the structural similarities between the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the Palestinians are notable-again policies centered on land, control, demography, and terror combine in order to consolidate a configuration of Sinhala hegemony. Pieterse lists each of these places under "export of Israeli Methods". SYNTH? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the effort, but that doesn't address my concerns - it doesn't even mention Israel seeking to be the "Top-Proxy", which as I mentioned is only mentioned once and in a non-applicable context, while it also doesn't mention "peasant revolts" or "land expropriation", which as I mentioned is not mentioned by Pieterse at all.
 * As for the other section; that is indeed less clear cut, but I would still lean towards synth - stating "the expertise gained led to the development of methods that for reason (insert various reasons found in document here) was then exported would be ok", as the article supports the development of the methods being due to the experience, but it does not support the export of the methods being directly due to the experience.
 * Incidentally, where did "repressing" come from? I can't remember if I saw it in the original article. --  No COBOL  (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Worthy of consideration
I'm copying and pasting this suggestion from Darouet on the AfD page. "I would add one further comment: at least two solid sentences should be drafted, probably appearing in the third paragraph, describing 1) The Israeli government's most basic position on the need to control the territory for their security concerns, and 2) U.S. overt or tacit support, since this is a major aspect of the international dynamic. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)"

This is a good idea, but I have a slight problem about 'Israel's most basic position' as a 'security concern'. That can be understood two ways: (a) the West Bank must be controlled because its inhabitants are a threat to settlers or to the state of Israel over the Green Line (b) as a buffer area geopolitically against threats from neighbouring states.

With regard to (b) Contemporary Israeli military thinking no longer thinks of this as a buffer zone, something indispensable in an earlier era of massed armies, and tank and armoured blitzkriegs, which are now superseded by airpower/missile technology.

Simple synthetic sentences of complex realities are extremely difficult, especially when as here, the various motivations are historically variegated.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , I agree with you on both counts: necessary and difficult. Typically, we'd write a section in the body of the article first, and only then summarize that in the lead. In this case, I feel like sections need to be written on these two points (security concerns, and the United States), which could then be summarized into two sentences for the lead. Wrt #1, the article should describe how things went from (b) to (a) (and when and why), which I think is key to really understanding the occupation. Wrt #2, it's not as major of a point, but it's worth addressing in the article how much (or little) influence the US has had over the occupation over the last 50 years (and whether it's changed over time, and I'd say the same for other countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran). Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  21:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, I apologize for my delays in the overhaul, which stopped in mid-track as a result of the distracting demands caused by some bickering and deletionist pressure (if people think this is to be deleted, am I too persist in wasting precious hours carefully redrafting?)Two large précises were knocked out by edit conflicts with material that, somewhat rushed, I failed to save etc., (aside from time-consuming personal engagements). I'll try to resume on Friday, hoping the atmosphere here is amenable to the overhaul asked of me, which requires me to concentrate exclusively on the text as it stands. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, it's still a voluntary website. Thank you for the précises and I also noticed that edits were made in response to (at least some, but a good number of) the NPOV concerns in the threads above. I, for one, was disappointed by the timing of the AfD nomination, which seemed to come smack in the middle of significant productive editing. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  23:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

size pt 2
We are currently at 107 kB of readable prose. A few more minor trims may be needed, but at this point I think the needed work in bringing this down a bit in size is complete. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement, but an axe is still needed to comply with WP:SIZERULE - should be around 60kb. In addition, the 30kb of prose (and lack of balance) in the 72 non-reference footnotes (an irregular article feature to say the least) requires work (quite possibly - cutting most of them out all together). We also have content that should be added per WP:NPOV (e.g. Israeli position, security concerns, etc.) - requiring a further trim of existing content. Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing links like they actually support your position. WP:SIZERULE is a guideline, and nowhere does it say that the readable prose should be around 60 kB. It gives ranges, and says greater than 100 kB almost certainly should be divided. It very much does not support the idea that an article must be 60 kB, and in this very talk page you wrote that 96 kB is not in violation of WP:TOOBIG. So which is it? Do articles over 60 kB need an axe taken to them or not? Now, as you have decided to repeat the incredibly inaccurate claim about "non-reference footnotes", there is literally no policy or guideline that exists that supports the view that notes are included in the size calculation, or that they should be removed. Not one thing. And as far being irregular, well, this should disabuse you of that notion. Endnotes are fine to include, and they do not play a part in the size discussion. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The guidline clearly says we should shoot for 60. A small amount of endnotes are fine to include. Endnotes are not, however, intended to house an article size construction (in this case - some 72 of them with 30kb of prose) - that is a massive overuse of endnotes.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not say that. Please quote where it does. It also very specifically says that it is readable prose that counts for that, which endnotes are not. You can keep claiming that it is a massive overuse, but, repeating your line back to you, if you have a problem with notes being included in a reference work I suggest you spend your time on Lulu.com or Createspace instead of Wikipedia. Endnotes are perfectly acceptable in encyclopedia articles. Your personal view on it being overused is just that, personal, and in any case wholly immaterial to questions of readable prose size. You neglected to answer my question though. Ill repeat it for ease. In this very talk page you wrote that 96 kB is not in violation of WP:TOOBIG. So which is it? Do articles over 60 kB need an axe taken to them or not? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz. You appear to be using a guideline to 'shoot' the article. I haven't finished yet but with a little patience, I will get this to 95-90 kB, if not more. That is on a par with the Israel article, which has nothing like the fuss of obliteration per radical trimming demands being asked of this. The overriding consideration is that this topic has, per meta-statements in sources, gathered one of the most voluminous outputs of contemporary scholarship on any country or conflict, and it is that bulk of intensely focused research which must be covered, even if in minimal terms. One must look at the demands of the content coverage, which determines, within reasonable limits, how long the article goes. I'll get back to trimming (and there are some sections as yet unwritten) when I am free of my obligations on the aboriginal articles shortly. At the moment of the 2,000 long articles it is at position 765, just under Detroit Tigers and Hinduism. Who is kicking up an unearthly ruckus about the length of those, the former of which compared to this has close to zilch academic coverage? Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As old Heiltag would tell his précis class in the 40s, ’cut to the chase, boys, (a) flense it of fat and get to the meat, and once the blubber is whittled, (b) go back through the text to make for concision.' We are not yet at (b).Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft new section - bullet point outline
First draft above. Please feel free to amend. I suggest we focus on structure/weight first, as we all have a good sense of what is and is not sourceable on this particular topic.Onceinawhile (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but this doesnt make a lot of sense to me. We dont make up a set of reasons or motivations and then go looking for sources to document that. First bring sources, then develop a section is the order or operations that makes sense to me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it’s not clear that we all have the same idea re the scope of this section. We need to break the catch-22 cycle that this discussion has been in. Anyway I have started a structure above - perhaps you could point to the sources you have in mind and let’s develop it from there. I will do the same. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * might have some input here, see User:Levivich/sandbox1. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to pretty much cover the main points of the topic as far as I can tell. The only thing I'd have to add is that the text would have to account for the changes in those areas over time. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure there are multiple non-fringe viewpoints about what's a legitimate concern and what's an excuse, and what maybe was once a concern but is now an excuse, etc. But that would come with drafting the text and incorporating the sources. For now, this seems like a perfectly reasonable outline to me. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich. The legitimate/excuse opposition is very complex and difficult to untangle, for reasons given by Johan Galtung in his classic paper of 1971, which is sitting there, relatively unconsulted though it anticipated and covered most bases in this specific topic concern, in the article's bibliopgraphy see esp. pp.186ff.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One must always use great care in attributing to an abstract noun like a state or a people a consistent set of values or policies. The great sticking point in writing this proposed section will be that 'Israel' has never formulated a national security policy (the political sociology for this lacuna is obvious: government is by coalition there, and the respective visions of what is a conditio sine qua non for the state differ radically among government factions. The constitutive parties of any coalition regularly differ as to what is indispensable, from peace along the 1967 borders, peace negotiated with swaps of territory over those borders, partial annexation without concessions, to total absorption, and any attempt to formulate one option defining Israel's basic territorial security invariable is held hostage by claimants who remain dissatisfied with its implications). I would suggest that whoever takes on this epic task on defining Israel's security reasoning re the West Bank clarify that so far no consistent or clear consensus exists in Israel as to what constitutes its core principles of territorial security.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have some relevant experience here from taking Balfour Declaration to WP:FA; the "motivations" question for this are similarly complex. On the day it made WP:GA, the article included a section called "Motivation for the Declaration", with subsections on "Academic interpretations" and "Prime Minister Lloyd-George's explanations". After much iteration, the article reached WP:FA with a different structure: one section called "Approvals" and one called "Historiography". In other words, rather than getting lost in an interminable debate between academics and political commentators, we focused on a practical description of how approvals were achieved for the key decisions made along the way (the British government decision to negotiate with the Zionists, the British government decision to release some form of public statement, the approval of the Allies and the approval of the cabinet), and then an overview of what later scholars have said on the subject.

This structure could be applied here, to make this question focus on the practical decisions made by the various Israeli governments along the way. We would then focus on the particular personalities at play within the Israeli establishment over the decades, and how they reached each of their judgements. The key moments would include:
 * 1967 intransigence The Eshkol government's decision at the end of the war not to give the territory back to Jordan, and the decision to ignore UNSCR 242;
 * Military rule The Eshkol government's decision in 1967 to formalize military rule, settling in for the long haul;
 * Allon Plan The Eshkol government's 1967 decision to implement the Allon Plan re settlements;
 * Golan, EJ and Civil Administration The Begin governments' 1980-81 decisions to incorporate the Golan and EJ into Israel but to leave the rest in limbo under a new "Civil Administration" subordinate to the military
 * Negotiation red lines Various Israeli governments’ numerous publicly-stated red lines vis a vis the West Bank as part of the various failed overall negotiations in the 1990s / 2000s

By focusing on these moments, we keep it factual rather than judgement-based.

are there other critical moments you are aware of that form the fundamental Israeli government underpinning of the current status?

The trouble is, similar to Nishidani's point, most of the reason we are still here today is not because the Israeli government consciously decided to do anything major after 1967, but rather because they never decided to put a stop to this. It's much harder to identify critical historical moments when the it's been, broadly speaking, a continuation of the status quo for 50+ years.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that stressing these inflection points does much. E.g. while the Begin government did change the settlement policy somewhat (but not radically) - but I'm not sure a tie-in with the Golan (a smaller and geographically distant issue, with different demographics dating back to 67) or EJ (Begin didn't really do anything - the Jerusalem law was declarative - legally (internally in Israel - it did generate an international backlash) - it did not change the situation created in 67 (e.g. the High Court has ruled that EJ resident-ship rights hark back to 67, not 80). While Eshkol did set up a military administration and began with settlements - I wouldn't (nor would most scholars per my reading) view this as a strategic long-term decision - the decision was not to withdraw, and the consequence was a military administration - but the duration was indefinite (i.e. a short duration was not ruled out) - settlements in this period were very much a continuation of prior Israeli settlement policy along the borders and was tactical/security driven (e.g. in the Jordan Valley)) ... The only inflection points I think need stressing in the West Bank sense are Oslo (1993) and the regime following the Second Intifada (the new post-Oslo status-quo - which itself developed (and arguably is developing) over a decade since 2000) - other than that most of the rest were gradual decisions, not sharp inflection points. Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I don’t consider Oslo much of an inflection point, but rather a failed negotiation. The meat of Oslo was in what was supposed to happen but never did (and many considered never would).
 * The practical question here is whether we structure this “motivations” section in a historical manner, ensuring that through this the points in the box at the top of this section come through with clarity. would you be willing to participate in the building of a section of this nature, such that if done properly it has the potential to assuage your POV concerns?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "while the Begin government did change the settlement policy somewhat (but not radically)"
 * Immediately invites one to suggest its author read an actual source, which argues that Begin's changes to settlement were radical.
 * Could those who want a security section at least start drafting some prose, under some headings? Just turning Onceinawhile's outline proposal into unsourced personal takes is getting us nowhere, and sinking what is a reasonable invitation to actually do something to address the concerns expressed. I can cite good source grounds casting suspicion on the idea one can get anywhere by examining ostensible 'motivations', but I don't because it would disrupt the attempt to get something down on the page which might cut the Gordian knot of 'opposition' to the article and a concomitant silence as how to fix a number of issues by concrete drafting proposals like this. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per this, Icewhiz, I take it you decline outright to offer a draft? If so, who else among those arguing such a section is needed is willing to step in and roll up their sleeves? If no one does, then I for one will do it, but not before I have finished my précis, which should be by the end of the week.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I might give it a go at it 'round next week (I did write a bit (back a while ago? reverted) in the article + have some sources squirreled away). I prefer however to wait until you are done with your cut-down (précis) Nishidani (could you please radically trim the footnotes, leaving only what is absolutely essential? The current 76 footnotes are excessive - however if I take an axe to them, I probably won't leave in the bits you think are most important) - I might want to chip in and cut-down the article a bit after you are done. Not that things can't be done in parallel - but this article is complex enough that dealing with one issue at a time in the article is probably a good idea. I hope the religious/national crap text can be copied from another article, the security bit probably needs to be developed here.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry. I doubt whether the notes are going to go away en masse. So far I have complied with a minority request to reduce this significantly, and will continue to do so. I still have to add sections myself, so it is not going to go to far below the 95kB level.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not, the footnotes do not need any work at all. Removal of them would likely be reverted. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The notes are indispensable for the reader who may just wish to see the source for some controversial fact or whatever without the exasperation of actually looking it up or finding the e-link inaccessible, to give just one of many reasons for them. Those that will be removed, will be as part of the shifting of material text containing them to sub or sister articles. But I can see no sound policy objection to them. Indeed, articles would be better if this were standard practice. It saves editors all round the trouble of verifying what, unquoted, they might be tempted to question. etc. At the same time, most readers are not going to read them (and most readers are not likely to read this page anyway), given contemporary attention spans.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources for specific 1967 decisions
See below some sources which provide specifics on the key post-war moments in 1967 which created the occupation:

If anyone can point to other sources, it would be helpful.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the best book I am aware of on the period from the war to late 1968. Extremely detailed and thoroughly sourced. Zerotalk 21:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Tiripelli, by whom? etc.
Levivich
 * These queries were unnecessary, since the whole paragraph was multiply-sourced, and everything there comes from a close paraphrase of those sources. The points made can be extensively documented to a dozen different scholars, though it is a documented commonplace, so really, asking 'by whom' just means one would be required to cite a dozen scholars by name. 'It has been argued' could be taken, as you take it, to imply one person, but the notes should have indicated several authors have variously argued for this viewpoint. I have, just to be clearer, added also Hajjar's influential 2006 paper and Weizman, whose book we already used. But this could have been avoided if the original indicated sources had been read beforehand.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy

The following was rather inadequate. "Israel military actions are 'responses' to Palestinian attacks, though preceding attacks are often omitted."

because 'Preceding attacks' could be by anyone, including Palestinians, and misses the point in the source re a choice of language that buttresses an Israeli narrative spin.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me who placed those tags; you may have me confused with another editor with a similar name. I think the sourcing is clear, but FWIW, I think the constructions "it is claimed" or "it is argued" and all such passive-voice weasel words should be written out as a general rule of writing. If it can be stated, just state it (and strike "it is claimed", etc., altogether); if it can't be stated in Wikipedia's voice, then attribute it ("most scholars agree...", "according to Levivich...." etc.). In that particular paragraph that was tagged, I'd say the first sentence can be stated in WP's voice (although not just after 2003), and the second sentence (I believe) could be attributed to the Israeli government (and possibly its supporters like the US govt?). Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, Sorry about that! Lagrange it was! I generally agree about the nonsensical levels to which attribution, claims etc., can go. We can finecomb these things in a stylistic review.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Defensible Borders
Is this the basis for the proposed Security Concerns section

I gather this 4kB addition is a message telling me, just as I was preparing to cut back more material, that my effort at compromise on the matter of length is pointless. I say that because Jonney's sketch only covers a very small part of 'security' issues historically, and if this is typical, then we are going to go to 20kB on Israel's Security Concerns while I am supposed to gut the actual topic's basic data outline. As I said originally, this argument is so complex you would need a full wiki 8,000 word article to deal with it, and this is not the place to write it, except at 1 or 2 para length.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also saw the recent 4k addition, to which my first reaction is that it uses. (in my opinion, which doesn't matter here) an intolerable citation style, that is inconsistent with the citation style used throughout this article (which does matter here WP:CITEVAR). I have two options in applying my periodic "fixes" to this  article. (1) I can run my script on the article as it stands – quickly and easily cleaning up the citation mess, but implicitly accepting the addition of the new (and in my opinion, not very helpful) section; OR (2) delete the new section, then apply my fixes. My own view is that it would be better to delete the section, and instead allow a new section to emerge per  above. This would have the additional advantage of allowing any additions to be co-ordinated with Nishidani's work in trimming the article. --NSH001 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't run the script to convert it until this issue of its adequacy here is settled. Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I am not for automatic removal: it has the virtue of showing an editor has done some of the homework to be expected for an article like this, even though what is not reported in the sources cited is glaring. What I think is needed is a discussion here about (a) what length are people 'shooting for' in the Israel's Security Concerns section we can agree might be useful? (b) Does Jonney think this covers all angles, (it doesn't cover much of many of Onceinawhile's outline, so one would expect that it could easily, if Once's suggestions are applied on Jonney's model, easily arrive at 20kB) or is this a stub to be built on? (c) The primary objection made of the original article was length -too much detailed coverage- and by that criterion, this fails on two counts: (I) it contains details of the kind I have been excising in other sections; (2) it consistently ignores much of what sources state contextually for the bits cited (e.g.)
 * "Securing Israel's borders via border adjustments and demilitarized zones has been an Israeli foreign policy goal"
 * The source that is taken from states
 * "After 1967, secure or defensible borders became the goal of Israel's foreign policy,'"
 * The dating is important because, according to the military historian Reuven Pedahzur, prior to 1967 the Israeli government did not regard the West Bank (or the Sinai/Golan) as having vital strategic value (Gorenberg:2007 p.49, from memory)
 * Abba Eban's Auschwitz borders was astutely emotive rhetoric, but represented a new twist and was quickly adopted as the slogan for an territorially expansionist geopolitical design, namely Likudniks an their like (not simply 'iconic within Israeli political discourse'). Begin used it to justify invading, without provocation, Lebanon in 1982.
 * What the chiefs of staff at the Pentagon thought in one military plan, under Earle G. Wheeler, is immaterial to what Israeli strategists thought, since their calculation was implicitly dismissed by top-ranking Israeli military men like Dayan and Allon himself, and therefore the accompanying phrase 'Israelis were not alone in this determination' hypostasizes as a consensual Israeli view about military necessity something that didn't exist at the time in Israel.
 * "Yigal Allon produced the Allon Plan, which would have annexed a strip along the Jordan River valley and excluded areas closer to the pre-1967 border, which had a high density of Palestinians. The plan was base on Allon's interpretation of Israel's security needs and would have annexing areas he determined to be essential to Israel's security. The Allon plan evolved over a period of time to include more territory. The final draft dating from 1970 would have annexed about half of the West Bank. Moshe Dayan proposed a peace treaty with Jordan on September 3, 1967. Under the terms Jordan would exercise civil administration in the West Bank while Israel would maintain military control. The Jordanians rejected the offer. On October 11, 1967 Dayan further elaborated on his plan to create four military bases in the West Bank hills. Each would have an accompanying civilian urban center."
 * We originally had much of this, far more succinctly, and it was cut down radically:
 * "Soon after the 1967 Yigal Allon produced the Allon Plan, which would have annexed a strip along the Jordan River valley and excluded areas closer to the pre-1967 border, which had a high density of Palestinians. Moshe Dayan proposed a plan which Gershom Gorenberg likens to a 'photo negative of Allon's.' The Allon plan evolved over a period of time to include more territory. The final draft dating from 1970 would have annexed about half of the West Bank."
 * I.e. my original brief 66 words has become 130 and the key point:
 * "Moshe Dayan proposed a peace treaty with Jordan on September 3, 1967. Under the terms Jordan would exercise civil administration in the West Bank while Israel would maintain military control. The Jordanians rejected the offer"
 * Dayan, as Jonney's sources state, was erratic and he was speaking without cabinet authority. Secondly Jonney drops the reason for Jordan's refusal: the Dayan proposal failed to mention the idea that Israel would withdraw. If you want to go into that it gets very complicated, because right in the thick of conquest, the Israel military's research department with Shlomo Gazit came up with a proposal to return the West Bank and Gaza almost completely in exchange for a peace treaty. Unlike Wheeler, they saw no need for retaining any territory on security grounds. The document was given to Dayan, who ignored it. The same mokusatsu was accorded Aziz Shehadah's (a Palestinian notable)'s offer of a peace agreement with Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state, if Israeli kept Jordan off their backs. Zero comment.(Gorenberg 2007 p.39)
 * All of the second paragraph is useless, bar the last sentence, for it has nothing to do with the West Bank, but the history of Israeli military doctrines, and ignores points made in Imbar's book. that military strategy abandoned the notion of borders as security barriers with the advent of missile technology
 * "'According to the new prevalent thinking, strategic depth and defensible borders, articles of faith in the past- are a strategic anachronism.' (Inbar 2007 p.92)"
 * I could continue word by word through this, to show that each point needs qualification (expansion) and grossly oversimplifies the numerous proposals about secure borders just in those early years. My impression therefore is that this is too unfocused and off-topic: we need a 'West Bank-in-Israeli-security-thinking, focus, comprehensive but succinct, whereas what we have is generic, ignores or fails to clarify numerous congruent key issues, and stays silent about the large number of military men and politicians who have dismissed the occupation as (a) aa threat to Israel (b) a pointless military burden and (c) a waste of national resources on settlements that can, in good part, be withdrawn in exchange for peace. Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonney's text
Defensible Borders

Securing Israel's borders via border adjustments and demilitarized zones has been an Israeli foreign policy goal. In 1969 Abba Eban famously referred to the pre-1967 borders as "Auschwitz borders." The term has since become iconic within Israeli political discourse. The Israelis were not alone in this determination. Immediately after the 1967 war then, U.S. Secretary of Defense McNamara commissioned a secret study of Israel's minimum defensible borders. Based purely on military considerations ignoring political ones. The borders which General Earle G. Wheeler, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff drew, would have annexed most of the West Bank to Israel, excluding the area near the Jordan river valley. Yigal Allon produced the Allon Plan, which would have annexed a strip along the Jordan River valley and excluded areas closer to the pre-1967 border, which had a high density of Palestinians. The plan was base on Allon's interpretation of Israel's security needs and would have annexing areas he determined to be essential to Israel's security. The Allon plan evolved over a period of time to include more territory. The final draft dating from 1970 would have annexed about half of the West Bank. Moshe Dayan proposed a peace treaty with Jordan on September 3, 1967. Under the terms Jordan would exercise civil administration in the West Bank while Israel would maintain military control. The Jordanians rejected the offer. On October 11, 1967 Dayan further elaborated on his plan to create four military bases in the West Bank hills. Each would have an accompanying civilian urban center.

In the early 1950s Israel military doctrine called for a territorial defense model in which border settlements would block and delay invading forces until the reserve forces could be mobilised. This approach became untenable after the Arab nations developed significant offensive power. The Israeli defense forces switched to an offensive-defensive doctrine the new doctrine called for a preemptive first strike. Followed by a switch to the defensive. Israel's limited strategic depth combined with the requirement to fight a multi-front war necessitated a strategy that relied almost exclusively on offensive tactics. Following the gain of territory the doctrine called for a switch to defense. Following the 1967 war, the doctrine changed to one of defense. Instead of initiating a first strike Israeli planners were now willing to absorb an enemy attack. The 1973 war illustrated the folly of this approach and Israel adopted a balanced approach. It has been argued that superior military technology coupled with borders which are acceptable to Israel's neighbors are superior to hostile fixed territorial defense.

The launching of unguided rockets from Gaza following the unilateral withdrawal lead to fears among the Israeli public that the West Bank hills could become a launching site for inexpensive short range Qassam 1 rockets. Most of Israel's cities would be in range of even primitive rockets. It has been proposed that, as part of a final status arrangement, a UN peacekeeping force would be stationed in the West Bank. Israel has been critical of the performance of past UN lead forces deployed near its borders. As part of President Obama's peace initiative, General John Allen was tasked with developing a comprehensive security arrangement. Some elements of his plan are still classified. The plan would have included the deployment of a joint force in the Jordan Valley for 10 to 15 years. The force would be lead by American officers and would have consisted of Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian forces. Prime minister Netanyahu and defense minister Ya’alon opposed the terms suggested by the Americans. Netanyahu reportedly sought a 40-year term. Some within the defense establishment reportedly requested assurances that Israeli troops would not be required to take orders from Palestinian or Jordanian officers. The Israelis have also demanded that any future Palestinian state be demilitarized. A position which the Palestinians have rejected.

I opened a discussion on this and got no response for two days, hence its removal. One cannot put a POV tag on the article page, which refers us to ongoing talk page discussion, and then edit in a large mass of ill-organized material while refusing to engage on the talk page. Jonney's piece was just plunked there, and abandoned in silence, despite legitimate concerns, from its failure to have the matter conform to the citational format adopted, to lengthy remarks that had no connection to the specific section concern:Israeli security and the West Bank.

I think, as stated above, that this is highly problematical, but the matter contained there could eventually e used for a large main article on the Ocupation and Israeli Security Concerns. As I have repeatedly stated, I am not opposed to a security concern section, though I thought 32 mentions of this indicated I had, as main drafter, anticipated that. I have written an alternative text which strives for balance and as succinctly as possible an overview of the phases, different schools of thought, of security worries since 1967.

Jonney's effort expanded the 108kB to 112kB, and my adjustment left us at the same figure again,112kB. less a few hundred words, complicating my efforts to pare this down in response to requests. I'll continue to do that.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any edit that is made to this page that does not pass your POV is destroyed. I give up. I cannot take your bullshit.Jonney2000 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by my POV? The 'bullshit' is in the sources, and two of them I used after carefully reading all of those you brought to bear on the topic of security. I set forth some objections to your addition, advised that it be left there while we discussed them, outlined several problems which, in the light of the larger literature, appeared to thread through your version, and asked for a discussion of the merits. All we had was total silence ('take it or leave it'). After two days, I wrote an alternative which, yes, in my view, gave a more comprehensive overview, and then I tweaked a dozen sentences making further improvements unrelated to your addition, while responding to an editor's red-linked observations of sourcing oversights in the version I had provided. You examined nothing of this, refused to discriminate between the security passage and the other edits, and simply wiped everything I'd done, again without a word of discussion.
 * I have been responding here by analyses and redrafting to several issues opposing editors say trouble them: (a) reducing the bulk as requested, now by a third and (b) adding a security issue overview as long as the one you provided, since it was argued this was needed (I doubted it, but part of our job is working out compromises). In response, one sees attempts either to handle the former by blanket gutting of the page or, with the latter now, blind reverting of whatever, even the most harmless and nugatory cleanups, I happen to undertake. And, in addition, you now only deign to justify this by a hostile attack on my good faith.
 * The problem underlying all this hostility to the page is very simple: the serious literature, as opposed to newspaper reports, documents in intricate detail a picture that many find distasteful. No one yet has contested that these things exist, or a fudged or forged or trumped up: they are saying, for example, that if 106 former generals of the IDF declare the 'security concern' warranting in popular opinion the continuation of the occupation is a myth or illusion, we shouldn't mention that. We should rather showcase the hasbara handout sheet version. Wikipedia is not a forum for government POVs, of whatever derivation: it summarizes the best available scholarship on whatever topic is being written about. That I, for one, choose to ignore the nationalist posturing of politicians and interested parties is not a flaunting of a POV. It is simply defending the principle that one must edit to a topic without fear or favour. Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)