Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 9

discussion about israeli settlements article
I am ready to engage in a discussion with the group in charge of this article. I still wait for your responses regarding to your group revert policy, especially I want your justification to have a constructive and balanced appreciation of what is going on --Vanlister (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, with just 700 edits (your familiarity with wiki), by stating a'group (is) in charge of this article, and that they conduct a 'group revert policy'. Normally, if an edit is challenged, one goes to the talk page top justify it. You, with a minimum of experience of wikipedia, made your changes, then threw down a gauntlet to an imagined collective, asking 'them' to justify themselves. This is somewhat eerie practice. For example the page was written in British English and you prefer Amnerican spelling. For example, you rewrote:
 * "Israeli settlers and civilians living or traveling through the West Bank are subject to Israeli law, and are represented in the Knesset; in contrast, Palestinian civilians, mostly confined to scattered enclaves, are subject to martial law and are not permitted to vote in Israeli national elections. This two tiered system has inspired comparisons to apartheid, with many likening the dense disconnected pockets Palestinians are relegated to with the segregated Bantustans that previously existed in South Africa when the country was still under all-white rule. The occupation has numerous critics in Israel itself, with some Israel Defense Forces draftees refusing to serve due to their objections to the occupation."
 * so that we now have:

"Israeli settlers and civilians living or traveling through the West Bank are subjects on a personal basis to portions of Israeli law, including Israeli criminal law, and are represented in the Israeli Parliament; in contrast, Palestinian civilians are represented by a Palestinian National Authority limited to scattered enclaves and are subject to martial law or to the Israeli Civil Administration in areas subjected to its administration, and are therefore not permitted to participate in Israeli legislative elections. This differentiated system has inspired comparisons to apartheid. The occupation has numerous critics, as well as in Israel itself, with some Israel Defense Forces draftees refusing to serve due to their political objections to it."
 * Why is that an improvement, especially with empty wadding like ''on a personal basis (a) 'subjects' is absurd. People are 'subject to' the law, not 'subjects' (with its nuance of royalty) of the law; (c) Writing:' Palestinian National Authority limited to scattered enclaves and are subject to martial law'. Do you realize that this implies that the Palestinian National Authority is the agency imposinbg martial law? etc.etc.etc. you
 * For the moment, I will revert your changes, because they are erratic. Since you have little experience with wikipedia, I suggest you make your proposals here first, to get a handle on some of the pointless confusions several of your additions created.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally the material changed is just factually wrong. Palestinians in Area A and B are still subject to martial law whenever the IDF declares so. All of the West Bank remains under the Israeli Ministry of Defense's control, the "administrational control" notwithstanding.  nableezy  - 15:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * British grammar can be used, that's not the subject of your revert policy. Second part: "and are subject to martial law" ( obviously the Palestinians"), "on a personal basis" per referencing (because we talk about the law, and not a simplification of it). --Vanlister (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your changes have been disputed, simply reverting them back in is not an acceptable tactic. I have no idea what you are responding to in your comment.  nableezy  - 03:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I choose the wrong talk page, I indicated it, my mistake --Vanlister (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , are your communication services down?--Vanlister (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The edits by Vanlister seem clearly biased to me. One of the edits is changing "Israel's use of collective punishment" to "Israel is accused of using of collective punishment". I can't believe this is seriously contested; presenting it as a dispute when it isn't is a violation of WP:NPOV. I call on Vanlister to self-revert unless they can get consensus for the changes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a solid consensus here against the changes, and as such Ive reverted.  nableezy  - 15:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Clause missing from a sentence
Under the "land seizure mechanisms" section, the article says, "Thirdly, land temporally abandoned during the 1967 was deemed absentee property came under trusteeship, but since Israel rarely allows refugees to return." The sentence is missing a part, "Thirdly, land temporally abandoned during the 1967 was deemed absentee property came under trusteeship, but since Israel rarely allows refugees to return the land is rarely returned." would be correct. This reflects the source.

StolenStatue (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well spotted. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

" then occupied by Jordan"
I would like to offer a better term as Jordan did not just occupied the west bank, they annexed it, making it a part of their country. (line 2) sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite_custodianship_of_Jerusalem_holy_sites "Jordan controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1948, and annexed the territories in 1951 until they were lost to Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War"

https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/134

Its a big different when we talk about land disputes. 2A00:A041:3763:1200:B9FC:C117:A25B:CE24 (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed occupied and put ruled instead. The link is also in the main article at the section 'The West Bank in 1967'. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Settlements are Israeli not Jewish
Please change the phrase “Jewish settlements” to “Israeli Settlements” The Jews are not occupying palestine, the Israelis are. 2600:1011:B178:336C:C0DD:A7E1:40AD:4520 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources use the two interchangeably, and the settlements are nearly exclusively Israeli-Jewish.  nableezy  - 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Spinoff article "Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank"
Currently this article is more than 30kb, while WP:SIZERULE recommends a size of 100kb. Additionally its not as easy to follow. Much has been said in news sources about the impact of the Israeli occupation, but we don't have an article that covers that in a straightforward way. My proposal is to take some of the material in this article, along with newly created material, and create a spinoff article called Impact of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I would leave several summaries behind of the material that is spun out.VR talk 18:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * who is quite active in this article's development.VR talk 18:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Worth a look at Palestinian enclaves for sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is currently 115kB of readable prose, so it is a little beyond ideal length. However, it is also a substantial topic and currently meticulously cited. It would definitely be worth waiting for the input on the authors on what, if any, material could be reasonably be thematically split out without unduly fragmenting the whole. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Think this still needs tightening and some chopping but no not splitting. Child articles always welcome, but this as a top level article on the occupation is going to be large, just as a function of how much time, which equates to how much material, it has to cover.  nableezy  - 20:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Under Impact on Education the following needs to be entered
Yumna Patel, Palestinian universities fight back against Israel forcing international academics out of the country Mondoweiss 11  July 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

“Media coverage and bias”
This section needs to include two parts: one on the viewpoint that the media is biased against the Palestinian side & one on the viewpoint that the media is biased against Israel. Currently it only includes bias against Palestine, which does not accurately represent the complexity of the media bias on both sides of the situation. 76.180.97.228 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What sources do you have related to the topic of this article?  nableezy  - 01:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Radical Sunni Islamist"
KlayCax added "radical Sunni Islamist" in place of "Sunni Islamist" in the first sentence.

First of all what exactly is the meaning of "radical" in this context and what is the difference between "radical Sunni Islamist" and just regular "Sunni Islamist"?

Second do a majority of sources agree that Hamas meets that definition?

VR talk 17:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This isnt the article on Hamas, somebody wants more information on them they can click the link.  nableezy  - 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Caused who to be accused of committing apartheid?
Israel has been accused of major violations of international human rights law, including collective punishment, in its administration of the occupied Palestinian territories. Israeli settlers and civilians living or traveling through the West Bank are subject to Israeli law, and are represented in the Knesset; in contrast, Palestinian civilians, mostly confined to scattered enclaves, are subject to martial law and are not permitted to vote in Israel's national elections. This two-tiered system has caused to be accused of committing apartheid, a charge that Israel rejects entirely. Smokerton (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed the typo. Thanks. Not sure how that worked it's way in. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrongly sourced quote from Ben-Burion
The sentence "In 1956, the Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion stated that: "Jordan has no right to exist. The territory to the West of the Jordan should be made an autonomous region of Israel".", which is supposedly based on ·      Slater, Jerome (1994). "The Significance of Israeli Historical Revisionism". In Stone, Russell; Zenner, Walter P. (eds.). Essays on Israeli Social Issues and Scholarship. Vol. 3. SUNY Press. pp. 179–199. ISBN 978-1-438-42140-7 seems to be wrong. This essay can be found here (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41804673), accessed for free, and contains no such quote. Skeptischer Beobachter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Youre looking at the wrong source, that is Slater 1991, Slater 1994 is available here, and it contains the quote on page 185 at the top of the page.  nableezy  - 22:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ref format
, I have no idea how to format this, help plz if you have the time.  nableezy  - 19:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --NSH001 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH
Homerethegreat, material needs to have sources connecting the topics. You cant just decide such and such is related and put whatever you want in the article. What do the restrictions on Israelis entering Areas A and B have to do with the Israeli occupation? What source connects the topics? The source you use, the US State Department travel advisories, does not do so.  nableezy  - 19:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * But Israelis are restricted in their movements as well. It violates NPOV not to mention it. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, NPOV is determined by sources, not a Wikipedia editor's feelings.  nableezy  - 19:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the US State Department: Individuals with Israeli citizenship, regardless of other nationality, including U.S. citizenship, must enter and depart Israel using their Israeli passports in accordance with Israeli law. Due to a passport backlog, Israeli citizens are temporarily allowed to enter and depart Israel on non-Israeli passports until December 31, 2023. Israeli citizens are prohibited from using the Allenby/King Hussein Bridge crossing. They are also prohibited from entering Gaza and are generally prohibited from traveling to parts of the West Bank under PA control (Area A), to include Bethlehem and Jericho. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What source connects that to the topic of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank?  nableezy  - 19:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If Israeli is considered the occupying force and restricts the movement of certain populations, then it should be mentioned. Do you not agree? Homerethegreat (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, what should be mentioned are the things that sources about this topic talk about. What source connects restrictions on Israeli civilians traveling in territory outside of Israel to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank?  nableezy  - 19:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this not a good source? It details restrictions, it's titled: Israel and The Occupied Territories: Israel and The Occupied Territories – The Occupied Territories and talks of how Israel restricts the movements of different populations. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I add the above to the text to make it clearer? Homerethegreat (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because those restrictions are not about the occupation. What that source says is That does not relate the restrictions to the occupation at all.  nableezy  - 20:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
Added NPOV disputed tag following review as seen above in Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank Homerethegreat (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is completely baseless, what specific NPOV issues are there.  nableezy  - 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the review given. I've added a link to the talk section of the review. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The given review does not say there are any NPOV issues. You are required to substantiate the reason you have defaced this article with a NPOV dispute tag. If you are unable to do so it will be removed.  nableezy  - 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Homerethegreat was referring to this section of the review:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I don't know for this one. While, the article is well-sourced using mostly high-quality RS, the overall layout gives me a feeling of lack of neutrality favoring the Palestinian side. For instance the titles of the sections. Also I don't get why the article starts with "Media coverage and bias" followed by "The West Bank in 1967" (describing us the wonderful situation of Palestinians in the West Bank back then, I don't get what the sentence "Education was (and remains[j]) a high priority," has to do with the topic for instance). A more neutral structure of the article could be: "Historical background", "Six-Day War and conquest", "Legal status" (both under domestic Israeli law + international law and recognition by foreign countries), "Socio-economic impact", and "Human rights and humanitarian issues".
 * Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, nowhere does that say there is a NPOV issue. And proposing a different organization is fine to do, but that does not at all justify a NPOV tag. What, specifically, is the NPOV dispute? Absent an answer Ill be removing that tag as unfounded.  nableezy  - 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t object to keeping or removing the tag. Just wanted to point out that the reviewer did mention a neutrality issue. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they said they did not actually know if there is one.  nableezy  - 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, anyways this article needs a lot of work to get to good article standards. It would probably best to follow all of the recommendations the reviewer brought up. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dont actually think thats entirely true, it does need to be trimmed but the idea it needs lose 2/3 of the material is silly, we have plenty of GAs of comparable length, eg World War II is 80 kb in readable prose. This is currently at 113kb, so it needs to be trimmed, but certainly not to 40 kB.  nableezy  - 21:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, as the reviewer, I'm not sure the NPOV tag is needed, as I said in the review. Besides, @Wh15tL3D09N, this review has no special value, it's just the assessment of one contributor, me, among others. It cannot be used to justify adding the tag. You need to provide arguments yourself.
 * Regarding the size, I wrote "trim this article, ideally to 6,000 words (40 kB)". I gave the "ideal" from WP:SIZERULE but the ideal may not be possible nor desirable depending on the topic. Still, it needs to be trimmed, focused, and re-organized.
 * By the way, World War II (80 kb) is not be a good example. It was promoted in 2010 with 59 kB in readable prose back then, 60 kB being the upper limit per WP:SIZERULE (again, it's a rule of thumb). The article would probably not be promoted today with its current length (and overall shape). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for jumping in and clarifying, @A455bcd9! I wasn’t advocating for tag inclusion or removal, and generally I prefer to try not to get into protracted “arguments” with people online. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Some sections are overly "technical"
On a first reading of this article, it seems overly technical to me compared to other wikipedia articles. For example:
 * 1) The quotes "This characterization has been further refined by classifying the conflict as structurally asymmetric,…" and the quote “A continuity has often been observed between t e Realpolitik[aa] processes governing the creation of Israel..." sound too technical to me.
 * 2) The analysis isnt very explicitly presented in the first paragraph of “conquest” section.

Do you agree? I can propose some simplifications of some of the text if so. DMH43 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)