Wikipedia:Peer review/Occupation of Palestine/archive1

Occupation of Palestine
This article is the subject of many arguments and very agressive editing, it is being used for a political purposes. It realy need to be looked over by non of the current protagonists, and should be republished anyware without the discussion page, until it has been de politicised.--Jirate 14:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Jirate is ignoring a very serious discussion about this article and its contents at Talk:Occupation of Palestine by many responsible users, and is is only misleading readers by placing it here for Peer review. IZAK 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * IZAK is trying to excuse a conversation he took part in, in his own talk page.--Jirate 09:49, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * There appear to be the following points of contention in this article (I am writing as a disinterested party who knows little about this article):
 * "Many Arabs and their allies object violently to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which they characterize as an illegal occupation." - this sentence is objected to by HistoryBuffEr. He says ""Arabs and their allies" comprise most of the world" (I believe this to be a doubtful statement and a sweeping assertion) and "The word "presence" is used only by a few Zionist extremists." The sentence, however, definitely needs rewriting. "Many Arabs and their allies" needs to say specifically who they are (it could mean anyone). The comment on "presence" appears to me to be invalid, however. The Israelis' (from the little I know of this topic) definitely have some presence in the region. However, in the spirit of compromise, it would be best to change this word.
 * "Israelis may also perceive this phrase as a hostile statement meant to paint them in a negative light and delegitimize them." - sentence is objected to by HistoryBuffEr because he says the word "presence" is a euphemism that delegitimizes Palestinian Arabs. I disagree, however another word should likely be found.
 * Subarticles. Objected to by HistoryBuffEr because he says they cause problems with the readibility of the article.
 * The section "Intifada, Separation Barrier, Road Map". HistoryBuffErr states that it has been written from an Israeli extremist POV. No specifics of where the POV have been stated. I would tend to agree, however, because the section does talk about many of the things the Palestinians are doing to the Israelis, however the reasons they are doing these things are not stated. It does appear to be POV.
 * The section "Current status". HistoryBuffEr wants this to be renamed "Current occupation" because all previous historical events were called occupations. Jayjg opposes this because he says that none of them should be called occupations as its part of a propaganda war being waged on various pages.
 * There is a statement about maps used in Palestinian schools "depict Palestine as the non-Jordanian portion of the region. Israel does not appear on these maps." HistoryBuffEr has noted that a Map of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs labels the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, and therefore Israeli maps should be also noted in this article. Ed Poor, however, notes that it is a terrain map, not a political map, and therefore not a good example of how Israel "[claims] all of Palestinian territory for Israel" (apparently included in the article). Later, HistoryBuffErr stated that it was just the first he stumbled upon to provide a hyperlink for an example. He says, however, that the map still supports his statement because:
 * Word "Israel" is specified in the link text ("Map of Israel");
 * Judea and Samaria are political, not geographical terms.
 * Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a geographical society, any map they post is inherently political
 * There is a request for expansion of the article by HistoryBuffErr. He states that "The entire section is devoid of any factual information about the occupation itself: the killings, the destruction, the oppression, the occupation colonies, etc."
 * Anyway, that's just the earlier disagreements by HistoryBuffErr that have not been resolved as yet. I don't mean to single out HBE, incidently. He's merely one of the most vocal participants of the article. I note, however, that a lot of points that have been raised in discussion argue for including facts that should be in Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * Lastly, at the risk of making this look like a personal attack, I'd like to comment on the person who brought this to Peer Review. Jirate has stated the following:
 * "Most people do recognize the complexity of the world, it's the supporters of Israel who do not."
 * "Some Israeli act like Nazi so the get called Nazi, its as simple that. The National Religious Parties manifesto views the west bank as Israels "liebensraum"."
 * "There was nothing personal, it's you that keeps dishonestly characterising things as personal, as you have lost the argument."
 * He has also tried to introduce material from http://www.deathmasters.com, which others like Viriditas and Jayjg have objected to, stating that the site is not authoritative and has serious questions over its credibility. Evidently Jirate believes that the site is NPOV. See Occupation of Palestine
 * I would suggest that, though there is nothing wrong with listing this on Peer Review, the discussions being hashed out the talk page are going slowly but surely, largely thanks to Ed Poor. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Taking you points regarding me in order.
 * Firstly with a little more context.
 * 'Most people do recognize the complexity of the world, it's the supporters of Israel who do not. Specifically by not recognizing the terroist activities and gangs that helped in the formation of Israel.'


 * Have you ever read an NRP manifesto?
 * In a world with 'HEALTH NAZI', 'Safety Nazi' , 'Stationary Nazi' are in common use, it's hardly suprising someone uses it in that sense? I didn't use it myself.


 * Why did you even bring this up in the first place? Calling Jews Nazis is highly inflammatory! I think you know this. May I suggest more moderation in your comments in the future? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It is inflammatory but I didn't use it. I was commenting on someone else use.--Jirate 10:22, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * When Viriditas say 'Since your claims amount to nothing but cheap, prejudicial personal attacks, they are worthless.' immediately before my 'There was nothing personal..' is that not worth of a mention, not just as personal?
 * I'm sorry, just because you believe that someone else is engaging in a personal attack, this does not give you the right to do the same back to that person! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Where did I say I thought it was NPOV? Through out the entire exchange Viriditas avoiding the subjects raised. Even when it was pointed out that two of the items on the list Qibya_massacre King David Hotel bombing are entries on here, Sabra and_Shatila Massacre, another by 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0%2C2763%2C433318%2C00.html' and another by 'http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/00-01-22mideastweb.txt'. No considered argument was offered opposing the list, nothing. It would seem to be a more productive course to actually attack what was claimed within the articles, than to question it on the grounds of who has a link to the site on theirs.
 * I might have misread that bit. If that's the case, full apologies are due to yourself, and I give it unreservedly and humbly ask for your forgiveness. However, may I just note that none of these things (as far as I can see) should be going into the article? They should instead be going into the Arab-Israeli conflict article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Accepted and forgiven. It spiraled out from some comments in there. --Jirate 10:22, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)


 * it shows how true my statment, on the same page was 'IMHO the basic unit of humanity is the "Gang" wether that gang calls its self a race,religion,football team or political view point. What we see here and in Palestian/Israel fight is gang warfare, nothing else. People try to show their loyalty to "their" gang in all sorts of ways, deliberate and studied ignorance etc, never admit they are wrong, never compromise etc. What the gangs and the zealot members are after is victory so they can say they were right and all their gangs actions where justified etc. They aren't after peace.--Jirate 15:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)'. In copying that I found this as a comment to it 'Poisoning the well. --Viriditas 00:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)'
 * --Jirate 04:48, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)