Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

{{OoP mess}} If you add a formal vote, please update the Tally too, as this page has become too long to just go through it and search for votes. Discussion if the vote is still open belongs in the Tally's talk page.

{{OoP mess}} Tally 11:18, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Delete (18) - Jayjg, RK, Andrewa, Improv, Masterhomer, Viriditas, Zero, IZAK, Humus sapiens, Rex071404, Xtra, Nyh, Josiah,JFW | T@lk, YUL89YYZ, Cecropia | Talk, Dovi, Evolver of Borg
Redirect and protect redirect (8) - Sean Curtin, Gadykozma, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]], Adam, BACbKA, Etz Haim, Snowspinner, Jewbacca
Redirect (4) - Ambi, Yath, Gazpacho, —No-One Jones
Redirect or Delete (1) - Chessphoon
Keep (15) - Node, Pjacobi, pir, Ce garcon, Joseph E. Saad, Jongarrettuk,HistoryBuffEr, Irate, _R_, Xed, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason , Gzornenplatz, Ropers(see comment #1), User:CeasefireNow
Move all info about the Israeli occupation of Palestine to Israeli occupation of Palestine, and describe the Jordanian, Ottoman, & Roman occupations of Palestine in a new article at Occupation of Palestine (1) - Uncle Ed

Error: User:Ambi redirected and protected, although that choice did not get 2/3 vote

40% 18 delete
29% 13 keep
18% 8 redirect/protect
9% 4 redirect
2% 1 redirect or delete
2% 1 Ed's idea

Consensus demonstrated

I did not make the decision in this case, but I affirm that the admin that redirected made the right decision. VfD decisions are not made on the basis of strict numerical voting. Furthermore, you cannot determine consensus by simple percentages for a single choice when you have multiple possibilities. It is almost impossible to get a 2/3 vote when you have at three or more choices.

Admins are given leeway to determine consensus and it can be a thankless job. Yet consensus has been demonstrated. There were 31 votes to remove this as a stand-alone article; there were 13 votes to keep it; that is 70%+ support for content removal. I'm well aware that there is an intentional bias toward non-deletion on Wikipedia; however, for the article's supporters there is the point that accurate content can be merged into the target article.

For the admin to have taken the middle course of leaving the article name as a redirect is consistent with maintaining the spirit of consensus, since there is significant support for this, as there were 26 votes to either keep or direct the article. One thing I might have done differently would have been to redirect withour protection, since protection is frowned upon. However, if non-protection led to vandalism I would then have protected it. However, that last is just my 2c; I'm not second-guessing. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Time's up, VfD has failed

The guidelines state that if after 5 days of voting there is no consensus for Deletion, the page should remain. There was no consensus to delete after 5 days (September 19), and there isn't one now either. Lobbying around and keeping this vote open does not seem to be productive (and is not endorsed by rules). So, let's close this VfD and move onto providing a balanced article on the subject. HistoryBuffEr 19:30, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

"Consensus" generally means that 2/3 of the people involved think Deletion (or some similar remedy) is required. We have been at that 2/3 stage at several points in the discussion; perhaps we should just delete and re-direct, and work on balancing the original Israel-Palestinian conflict article. Jayjg 19:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, "Delete" means delete, not "Redirect". A Deleted article no longer appears in the index, a Redirected one does. The rules do not state that "Redirect" is similar to "Delete"; in fact "Redirect" is not even mentioned as a remedy under VfD. If you insist we can submit this point to Arbitration. HistoryBuffEr 20:01, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Well, that's part of what the discussion is about. 2/3 of the voters don't want to keep it, that's pretty clear; i.e. the contents go away, perhaps to be POVd and incorporated in some way into the original article that Occupation of Palestine was originally intended to be a POV fork of. And the net effect is pretty much the same; few people refer to the index. Jayjg 20:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong again; "Go away" is not a remedy under VfD rules either. The only remedy under VfD is delete, therefore only "delete" votes count. HistoryBuffEr 20:21, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all those people who voted "re-direct" feel differently. Jayjg 20:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect and delete. Plus, assign some community service to HistoryBuffEr and Jirate for misconduct. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It you and the racism you extole as in the comment that contains the phrase "of Jews returning to their homeland". That should be doing community service. It is racists like you, who a responsible for the deaths in Palestine more than anyone else. In that vaery article you claim a right of return for Jews but deny it to Palestinians, a more obvious item of racism I have yet to see.--Jirate 20:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No doubt "racists" like Humus Sapiens have, in a fit of impotent rage, taken to "massacring" Palestinians from Quad Bikes, (much like Fox Hunters with foxes [1]). Perhaps they will soon be involved in terrorist campaigns, like the Hunt Followers. Jayjg 21:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Showing your ignorance of the UK, it practices and attitudes, makes you seem much more honest. You really don't being shown up for the unpleasant toerag you are, do you?--Jirate 21:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think listing my User: page on the Vote for Deletion (VfD) page [2] [3] is unpleasant, and pretty petty too. Jayjg 22:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So were you comments about me ignoring the vote. When I've never suggested any such thing. I happy to call it quits before we get any pettier.--Jirate 22:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think anyone who claims the VfD failed should read again #Second choice below. It has been here throughout most of the voting and nobody remarked on it. And yes, time's up. Gadykozma 22:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One more time:

This VfD was open on 20:33, 14 Sep 2004.
This VfD expired 5 days later, on 20:33, 19 Sep 2004. The votes cast at that time were:

Delete (8) - Jayjg, Andrewa, Improv, Masterhomer, Viriditas, Zero, IZAK, Humus sapiens, Rex071404
Redirect and protect redirect (4) - Sean Curtin, Gadykozma, Neutrality (talk), Adam 06:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect (4) - Ambi, Yath, Gazpacho, —No-One Jones
Redirect or Delete (1) - Chessphoon 02:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep or merge (1) - Jmabel
Keep (9) - Node, Pjacobi, pir, Ce garcon, Joseph E. Saad, Jongarrettuk,HistoryBuffEr,Irate,_R_

The official tally is 30% (8 out of 27 votes) for delete.
The rules say: "At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" ... has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains."
The rules also say: When in doubt, don't delete.

Conclusion: The page remains. Someone please archive this Talk and remove this VfD. Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 23:18, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Comments

1. I feel just deleting a fubar article is running away from the problem, but my vote is subject to significant article NPOVing. Ropers 16:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A new version

I moved Occupation of Palestine to Israeli occupation of Palestine and gave it a serious overhaul. It's such a different article now, that I'm not sure whether any of the votes below are really still applicable. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we start a fresh VfD vote. - pir 14:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why start fresh? Please recall that many editors objected to the title of the article alone, arguing that it was inherently POV. I think everyone should read Ed's version article, and if they then want to change their vote, they can do so. Jayjg 16:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) the title has changed ; (2) the content has changed significantly ; (3) a lot of the objections were based on the initial editor's alleged intentions. Basically the whole nature of this vote has changed. I think there's no way to ascertain that those who voted already and don't change their vote are aware of this. - pir 16:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) The new title is even worse; (2) the new content is as objectionable as the old; (3) it doesn't address my objections. Jayjg 02:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You object because it contradicts the proganda you want to force down people throats. --Jirate 14:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please review Ad hominem again; this isn't about me, it's about the article. Jayjg 20:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

it's about your dishonest attacks on the article and supporters of the article. It's you that needs to read Ad hominem and understand it's meaning and that your snide remarks are just as Ad hominem. --Jirate 20:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's clear that the author of Fox Hunt [4] and Hunt Followers has no idea what NPOV means, much less Ad hominem. Jayjg 21:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to relax a little from this exhausting VfD. Ed, why don't you move the page temporarily to be one of your subpages, let the whole thing rest for a week, and then people would have the energy to evaluate your page on its own merit rather than as part of this "This page is 88 kilobytes long" discussion? Gadykozma 18:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I read the "new" version. This doesn't resolve even the smallest concerns brought against the original page. Same problems with title, same problems with contents, same same same. Redirect/Delete. Gadykozma 00:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As one of those who voted delete, I'd just like to record my complete disagreement with this. I think Ed has the right idea. By far the best solution to POV is to create an NPOV article on the same subject. Ed has seen, as I did not, that there is a valid topic that belongs under the title Occupation of Palestine. Not surprisingly, such an article will please neither extreme, as it puts things into their true historical context, and thus serves neither side of the propaganda war. Andrewa 01:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Granted, that would be too many articles. Why not just make it simple and write a good NPOV Occupation of Palestine article? - pir 02:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because 1) An article with a POV title cannot, by definition, be NPOV, and 2) because the article already exists, at Israel-Palestinian conflict. The question that has been asked by several editors, and still remains unanswered, is exactly what is it in this article that cannot be incorporated into Israel-Palestinian conflict? I'd really like to know. Jayjg 02:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) That is simply not true (although it is often preferable to have "neutred" titles, there are plenty of article titles that contain implicit assumptions rooted in world-views not universally shared, and we still have NPOV articles on them) ; (2) that is also not true. If you really want to know, please look at my two edits below from 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 and 12:55, 21 Sep 2004 . I was actually a bit disappointed that you didn't respond to them, I would have really liked to know what you think about them. - pir 03:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the new version is an improvment. I think the main problem is the mind set of deleters. Who's main problem seems the Racism, backed up by short termism, ignorance and arrogance. --Jirate 12:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank goodness your comment didn't involve any Ad hominem or Poisoning the well arguments; I'm glad we've finally moved beyond that to more civil and intelligent discourse. ;-) Jayjg 14:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The inteligence of this discousrse would go up immensly if you stoped contributing. Your comment is fairly typical of the type snide little gob shites, manipulative and without any value. When are you going to learn to stop stamping your feet and shouting, like a spoilt brat who isn't getting their way?--Jirate 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please review Ad hominem again; this isn't about me, it's about the article. Jayjg 20:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

it's about your dishonest attacks on the article and supporters of the article. It's you that needs to read Ad hominem and understand it's meaning and that your snide remarks are just as Ad hominem. --Jirate 20:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's clear that the author of Fox Hunt [5] and Hunt Followers has no idea what NPOV means, much less Ad hominem. Jayjg 21:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Anonymous editor 66.93.166.174 originally replaced the contents of Israeli-Palestinian conflict with his own highly POV view of this conflict. This replacement was reverted by a number of different admins; rather than discuss the edits in Talk:, 66.93.166.174 simply reverted to his own text. After the page was briefly protected (by me), the editor created a userid User:HistoryBuffEr and created a new article Occupation of Palestine with the content he originally wished to place in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Within 5 hours of its creation it had already been through a number of edit wars, culminating in page protection. Since the content itself is merely intended as a POV alternative to Israel-Palestinian conflict, and since it will have to eventually be incorporated back into that article, the new article should just be deleted now and the user should bring his concerns and proposed edits to the Talk: page of the original article Israeli-Palestinian conflict Jayjg 20:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to original article, and protect redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

And what, may I ask, is wrong with the present article? Just because it was created by a bad cookie doesn't mean we shouldn't keep it. If you'd actually LOOK, you'd notice its been improved quite a bit since its creation, and there is still an effort to work towards making it more NPOV. Node 03:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I commend you for your efforts in trying to achieve NPOV, but putting "alleged" in every other sentence or before every contentious point is a particularly tedious way of doing so. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, most of the edit wars were "one-sided edit wars" since I'd be adding content, and another user would revert bt I would ignore the reversion and add tons more content to the non-reverted article. Node 03:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The editor in question does not yet appear to understand how to collaborate on creating a NPOV article, since as far as I can tell his only response to debate is to revert to his version. Any valuable content that you have created can be incorporated into the original article. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who the hell cares whether or not he knows what NPOV is? Just because *he* started the article doesn't make him the only contributor. It's not fair to delete an article based simply on the reason it was created. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Voting

Delete. Inherently POV title, no useful material that has not already been at some stage added to Israel-Palestinian conflict. Andrewa 04:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why the hell do you think it has that title? Because it's on that term. Did you actually read the page, or did you just pretend to? Node 06:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Comment: That seems at least close to a personal attack to me. I realise that it's difficult to be NPOV, although I don't think your attempts are particularly commendable but some do, see below. No change of vote. Andrewa 14:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - And how exactly is that a personal attack? How is it even close to one? And why don't you think my attempts are particularly commendable? Can you not see how much better the currentversion is than the original was? And this page is still being worked on at another location with editors from both sides of the rift. Just because the currentversion still has some NPOV problems doesn't mean a whole lot, after all it *is* protected. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - The person who created the article obviously felt it was on the identical topic, since he attempted several times to replace the original article with the text he has now placed in the Occupation of Palestine article. That's why a re-direct makes sense. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - So, what you're saying is that you want to change this into a redirect simply because of the intent of the user who created this article? How is that fair? Aren't we supposed to judge articles by their content (ie, their current content) rather than on how much of a dick their creators are? I agree, HistoryBuffEr is a troll who even admitted he created the page because he was fed up with what he percieved as pro-Israel POV on other pages, but so what? I added content, changed content, and it's much better now. Just because an article was created in bad faith doesn't mean it can't be turned into something good. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - To my recollection the article wasn't about the term until I did the proposed NPOV intro, and clearly most of the article content is not about the term. I was just headed there to remove the "term" stuff as awkward, when I saw that it was on VfD. Gazpacho 21:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Why would you remove it? Other users (myself, ambi) had kept it in after numerous NPOV edits because we saw it as a fabulous addition to an article that really needed some work. And obviously the rest of the article needs to be better linked with the first paragraph and perhaps shortened to arguments for and against the usage of the term "occupation". But so what? Articles that need work, need work, not deletion. And this article is already being worked on. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Yath 06:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Node deserves to be commended for his efforts at trying to NPOV the impossible, but this has an inherently POV title and duplicates the previous article. Ambi 07:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Don't see much overlap with Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which doesn't even mention the word Occupation. -- Pjacobi 09:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any legitimate perspectives missing from the original article can be incorporated into it; that is, in fact, how Wikipedia articles grow. Wikipedia is littered with small articles giving different views of the same topic; let's not add to the mess. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is intended to grow into an article on the term itself and the arguments for and against it, not an article on that particular POV. And you have made it clear before that the only reason you are so into its deletion is because it was created in bad faith. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep or merge -- I don't care which -- but also clean up, radically. This is an article's worth of "some say" with no citations in a very politically controversial matter. If -- Jmabel 00:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) - stricken Jmabel 00:07, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Delete. As far as keeping the article, it is POV and consists of mainly "allegations" and what "many people believe." --Chessphoon 02:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Afraid of "Occupation of Palestine"?

Why are so many afraid of the title "Occupation of Palestine" when it is a universally acknowledged fact, acknowledged even by Ariel Sharon! Many people from all over the world surely enter this term into a search engine. Does it make sense for Wiki not have such an article (or to have it redirected to an obviously pro-Israel titled page)? I didn't think so. Not to mention how lame it is to suppress any article which is not vetted by pro-Israeli extremists. HistoryBuffEr 08:58, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

It is not "a universally acknowledged fact" that there is an "Occupation of Palestine", and Ariel Sharon certainly does not accept that "Palestine" is occupied in the sense you intend (and have explicity stated in your article). This is symptomatic of one of the problems with this article; what you insist are "facts" are, in fact, points of view. Regardless, if there are legitimate perspectives missing from the existing article, they can be incorporated into it. Poisoning the well ignored. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"like you have insisted in your article"? When is the last time you read that page? It now has the POV statements labeled for what they are, and many of them have actually been removed altogether (ie, the last paragraph because it sounded absolutely schizophrenic), and it is still being worked on. If you have a problem with any part of the currentversion, please feel free to mention it at User talk:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete, no merge. Absent POV, ideal content is either equivalent or almost identical with Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Terminology like 'occupation' (which might be construed as minimizing the Israeli-statehood side's claims) or 'conflict' (which might be construed as minimizing the suffering of the Palestinians) is always going to be a sticking point for one side or another. 'conflict' seems less contentious, and there really should only be one article. NPOV is the best we can hope for. --Improv 19:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Did you read this article? It is not intended (except by HistoryBuffEr of course) to be an article on "the occupation", but rather an article on the term "occupation" in the case of Israeli presence in the Palestinian areas, how people who are for the usage of the term justify its usage and how people against its usage justify its non-usage. Currently, I think the article is pretty NPOV, and the first paragraph already meets the objective of an article on the term. If there are parts you find POV or if you'd like to suggest additional sentences/paragraphs to add, please drop a note at User talk:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deniers galore. (More votes)

Occupation of Palestine may not be a universally acknowledged fact to obsessed pro-Israel partisans like you (eg: check Jayjg's contrib log, please; I gave up after 1500 edits in just 2 months -- almost all solely on topics related to Israel). However, outside of your extremist pigeon-hole there is an entire world -- billions of people with an NPOV on the subject, and most call it "Occupation of Palestine". As evidenced by the votes of 99% countries of the world in the U.N.
Also, what would you say if the shoe was on the other foot? Would you agree to have, for example, the Holocaust article renamed to German-Jewish conflict because some people disagree and think the latter title is more NPOV? Somehow I'm convinced you wouldn't. So, reconsider your approach as it perfectly matches the logic of Holocaust deniers. Which is not very helpful to your cause. HistoryBuffEr 20:19, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

While it is true that Jayjg's contribs are far from 100% NPOV, just because billions of people have a certain POV does not mean it is "an NPOV". Obviously those countries in the UN that vote for resolutions against Israel are no more neutral than is Jayjg.

Also, you are mischaracterising the Holocaust as simply a conflict between non-Jewish Germans and Jewish Germans/Europeans. This could not be farther from the truth. Germany also slaughtered millions of Roma, gays, disabled people, communists, and plenty of other groups (yes, including Esperantists. the last thing we need here is somebody yelling about how we forgot to include them in an incomplete list of groups targeted by the Holocaust). I'm not sure I like the usage "the Holocaust" and I'd rather something like "the Nazi Holocaust" or something like that, but a change to something like German-Jewish conflict would be not just as you propose whitewashing the emotional trauma but most importantly it would be a complete mischaracterisation. If you wanted something analogous, how about Tensions in Nazi Europe, or Nazi conflicts? Even those aren't completely analogous. For one, those events were very different in size, scale, and circumstance. For two, those events are over and now *everybody* sees nazis as looneys (well, not *everybody*...), whereas these events are still ongoing and there are plenty of people on both sides.

I do have to say though, it seems like Jayjg is targeting this article because he "strongly dislikes" HistoryBuffEr rather than because he believes the *current* content of the page is absolute crap, and he continues to justify its deletion based on the fact that this article was created in bad faith (however I somehow suspect that if it were preserved on Viriditas' version, Jayjg would be for keeping this article rather than deleting it). Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the new article, and it was a mess; all sorts of unattributed claims, full of weasel words. It started from a hopelessly POV source, and the various efforts turned it from garbage into something that was much better, still fairly useless and unreadable. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? How can a neutral country with no stake in the outcome be as biased as Jayjg the propaganda warrior?
How many times I need to repeat that "some" who disagree does not equal "many"? In your edits you repeatedly use "many" in place of "some" (as well as "some" in place of "few extremists")?
The occupation is 50+ year old. The term is now disputed, just like the Nazi genocides, only by a few loonies.

Which again points out your bias; the "occupation" that most of the world agrees is happening is 37 years old; however, most of the world does not agree that the State of Israel itself is "occupying" Palestine. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your analogy points are valid, but I'm sure that everyone got my point.

I got your point, but it was an invalid one. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article would not be here now if it mimicked other pro-Israel articles in contents. HistoryBuffEr 23:01, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Poisoning the well and Straw man arguments ignored; this is not about me or the Holocaust, it's about the article Occupation of Palestine. Jayjg 21:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Skipped "Logic 101"?

Your apparent bias is a valid point to take into account when weighing your vote.

Actually, it's Poisoning the well; please review the article. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Holocaust article analogy is a valid analogy for this issue. HistoryBuffEr 23:01, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Only in the view of someone who had no knowledge of the Holocaust and a wildly biased view of the Israeli-Arab conflice. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If HistoryBuffer sees errors of fact in that article, he should edit it and give sources on the talk page. The term can be included in that article's intro. Gazpacho 21:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While Node may believe this article is supposed to be about the term (something I did not intend), HistoryBuffer seems to envision it as a POV fork. Even if they both intended it to be about the term, the usual practice for alternate terms is to redirect and put them in the intro of a single article. Gazpacho 19:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, just because an article was created in bad faith doesn't mean it's deserving of deletion. Also, so what if you didn't intend it to be about the term, its clear that's what it's becoming (see User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine). And this is not simply an "alternative term". An occupation is not equivalent to a conflict, in addition whether there even *is* an occupation is disputed, thus this page as a separate page is sorely needed. Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and protect (even better than delete!). There is enough duplicity of material in this section already. With this kind of title the article can never be more than a POV version of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No need to "merge" the junk I've seen. Gadykozma 22:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What is everybody here talking about!? User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict or possibly Palestinian territories. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Folks, discusssion of the topic belongs on the Talk page of the article and not here. I am voting delete because there are enough articles which cover (or should cover but don't cover - go and fix them) this topic already, and because the title is unsuitable. --Zero 01:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why is the title unsuitable if the article covers that term in an NPOV manner? The article is about the term! Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - The name contains the assumption that Palestine is occupied... DUH. Now, even if there is more or less general agreement that some parts of Palestine are occupied, this name implies that all of it is. That's a really poor starting point for a NPOV page, to have a name that stems from the POV of the extremist part of one side. And, surprise surprise, the page now is a heap of propoganda that doesn't even bother to pretend its NPOV. This page has neither past nor present nor future as a NPOV page. Gadykozma 10:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Zero, while I have no choice but to agree that formally discussions of redirect should be in the talk page, I think that (twisting Wikipedia policy a little) if a concensus for redirect is reached here (which definitely seems to be the case, right now there are 3 keep, 4 delete and 6 redirect), it would have the same moral statue as a decision to delete. This would allow an administrator to protect the redirect against changes in the equivalent of a "speedy delete" process. Am I going too far? Gadykozma 02:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect = Bad Idea

Also note that Google hits for "Occupation of Palestine" greatly exceed hits for "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (~ 813,000 vs ~287,000 without quotes) and most people get here via Google. Many people would surely be confused by Wiki's editorializing of the event title. HistoryBuffEr 23:01, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

You realize, HistoryBuffEr, that you're not helping your case? And, more irritably unfortunately for me, you're not helping *mine* either? Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, your article is already just another apologia page for Israel's illegal actions, and one zealot (Ambi) has already endorsed it. If you think that just having a page with that title is great, that's pathetic. See more bellow. HistoryBuffEr 21:11, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

NPOV SchmPOV

It is a matter of law (not mere opinion) that Israel occupies Palestine.

According to the International Court of Justice, Israel Occupies Palestine.
According to the Israeli Supreme Court, Israel Occupies Palestine ("West Bank and Gaza").
According to the International Community, Israel Occupies Palestine.
According to the Hague Conventions, Israel Occupies Palestine.

The matter is well settled and there is nothing neutral about saying otherwise. The few loonies who disagree are free to roam their flat Earth all they want, but Wiki should not present their ravings as a reasonable disagreement. Case closed. HistoryBuffEr 21:11, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

You do realize that Palestine is not the West Bank and Gaza but includes the state of Israel don't you? That the name comes from the Roman province that occupied this ares? It seems you don't... how about checking at least what are you talking about before writing it all down for posterity? Gadykozma 23:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are discussing trivial issues like that, the name of this site is Wikipedia. Wiki is the technology and is used in many other sites too. Gadykozma 23:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Matter of Law? As I understand it, International Law is a very controversial topic in itself. I'm not certain if you can take it for granted that that has any sway here. In any case, all the content belongs in one place, regardless of what the content is. It all should go into the conflict page, categorized and organized as appropriate and NPOV. Mind you, I'm no big supporter of any large side, so I don't invite any position to imagine that I'm frothing at the mouth for their opposition(s). What I care about is keeping the content NPOV, in one place, and encyclopedic. Titles and articles like this should not stand on their own when the other article exists. --Improv 02:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tally: Rephrasing the question

I believe I have accurately represented all opinions to date in the tally above. I think the article as it stands is a mess, but that is not sufficient reason for deletion (or even redirection). May I ask those who are voting for deletion: which of the following are you saying (and it may be more than one, and just putting your name by the alternatives would be fine but comments are, of course welcome, and you can add more alternatives, and all that): -- Jmabel 01:16, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

The word "occupation" is inappropriate to Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories.
The meaning of the phrase Occupation of Palestine is itself an important issue in the propaganda war surrounding the current Middle East conflict. Various POVs attribute various meanings to the phrase, and an NPOV writer would avoid it except when describing the views of significant players who use the phrase. But if this article is to focus on these views, then its title should reflect this. Occupation of Palestine is not good title for either topic.
- Andrewa 07:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Israel currently "occupies" the Palestinian territories, but calling the territories "Palestine" is objectionable.
- Not "objectionable", just plain wrong. As in 2 + 2 = 5. Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Independent of its title, this is an inappropriate topic for a Wikipedia article (and I'd sure appreciate if anyone can indicate on what grounds - JM)
In theory, this would be a perfectly good topic for a Wikipedia article, but your objections to the process by which it came to be are so strong that any such article should start from scratch.
- Agree, but my other reservations are more important. Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In theory, this would be a perfectly good topic for a Wikipedia article, but given that we have an article on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this material should be developed as part of that.
- Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are at it:

~~None of the above, hence keep. -- Jmabel~~ stricken Jmabel 00:07, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, just curious but have you seen the proposed revisions at User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine? If you have anything to add to the revisions, ***please*** make a note on the talkpage! I don't want to leave anybody out. Node 01:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, after doing your tally, I think it is wrong. I voted on three points, but they are one and the same really. The reason the title is biased, the reason the history of the text is so, and the reason it was separated from Israeli-Palestinian conflict are one and the same. This is just POV pushing. Separating it into components doesn't elucidate the issues involved, only hides them. Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article tries to pass off misinformation as fact in an effort to dehumanize the Israeli people, and thus I recommend the deletion and/or protected redirection of this article to the parent --Masterhomer 02:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

None of the above -- Keep, because:

Occupation of Palestine is not just a POV but an undeniable fact (see above). Deleting or redirecting the article would effectively censor that fact from the Wikipedia index.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, believe it or not, does not even mention "occupation". Editing that article would take enormous amount of time as it is rife with propaganda -- and many edit wars as plenty of zealots sit there guarding every comma. Besides:

This one and the above one (with some caveats) for me. I agree with those pointing out that "Palestine" is used to refer to different entities and therefore I agree, that the term must be settled at the start of the article. The term "occupation" is much less problematic, and I'm really baffled, that the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict article is working around it. Even Belligerent occupation does mention it, giving the right (but strangely formulated) qualification that some parties deny the term. Calling it "occupation" is just plain the world's majority POV, it is not a case of obviously bending the definition of Belligerent occupation and so it should have its coverage in Wikipedia. Pjacobi 08:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The title Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself is clearly biased and factually and legally wrong, much like titling Bank robbery as Conflict between a bank and a customer.
Those who disagree with details in Occupation of Palestine are free to contribute to the article as everyone else. HistoryBuffEr 03:30, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I like the part where you say "Editing that article would take enormous amount of time ... and many edit wars as plenty of zealots sit there guarding every comma." So, the purpose of this page was and still is to avoid other peoples POV, right? Gadykozma 03:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I'd like to work on this, but if a major objection is to the title of the article, then any work I can do in trying to cite references, etc., and fix this is moot. I want to know whether I should be working in Occupation of Palestine or in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- Jmabel 06:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think the latter. This *should* have been a redirect beforehand, but just because a POV warrior came along doesn't suddenly make it a legitimate seperate article. The information about the occupation is at the latter, NPOV title, not this inherently-biased one. Ambi 07:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the latter, too. As I said above, it's best to avoid the phrase Occupation of Palestine, not just in the title but also in the text except where it forms an important part of the opinion of a significant player whose views you are quoting. Then of course you use their terms, and it's obvious from the context that you are also using their definitions of the terms, and reporting their POV rather than supporting it. Andrewa 11:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The latter, definitely. Check the tally at the top: 12 people have already voted one way or the other that this page is unsuitable. Gadykozma 12:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

@Andrewa: If there is no Occupation of Palestine, all inhabitants of the West Bank would be citizens of Israel, enjoying full citizen rights. Now applying a simple Syllogism... -- Pjacobi 12:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andrewa, I also dislike the wording of your reply. The fact that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied is not really controvertial. The point here is the confusion between Palestine and a putative Palestinian State. Gadykozma 13:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I agree that Palestine is currently (and obviously) occupied but I don't think it's relevant to the points I was making. Does that help? Andrewa 01:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't know where the best place is to vote on this very messy page, but I vote Keep. The term "Occupation of Palestine" is obviously commonly used (a google search gives 43'000 hits for "Occupation of Palestine", compared to for example 190'000 hits for "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", a much broader subject). However this article should deal mainly with the controversy surrounding this concept (which is very important and not dealt with in other articles) and only give a very brief summary of the history of the occupation and instead link to the relevant articles dealing more in depth with the history. - pir 15:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Citation on "Occupied Territories"

Here is a citation of George W. Bush using the phrase "occupied territories" in this sense: [6]

Interesting: even Bush, who is staunchly pro-Israel, here mentions occupation and "occupied" five times, while mentioning conflict ("MidEast" and "this") two times.

So, who is really POV here:

Those who want to add the term "occupation" (and have not asked for deletion of "conflict"), or
Those who want to delete/redirect "occupation" (but have not asked for deletion of "conflict"). HistoryBuffEr 17:42, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

A question to Node

Node, honestly tell us, how do you envision this page? How would it be different from the current "major" page? Why do you think this topic is not adequately covered there? Do you envision a short page for something specific or long, general page about the "conflict"? Gadykozma 12:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did I not link you to the proposed revision, what, 1000000000000000 times? User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine. Node 04:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS why is "conflict" in quotes? Do you believe that there is absolute peace in the middle east?

The reason I asked despite having read the page is that the current form doesn't tell me what you have in mind for it in the future. I see 2 possibilities:

The page will stay as it is. In this case, please explain what you have against merging the contents into Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Right now it doesn't say anything except "most people agree this is occupation, some don't". This could easily go into the "views" section.
The page is intended to evolve into a longer page. In this case, please explain how you intend it to different from Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how will you stop other contributors from making it nothing but a POV version of it?

Node, this is not just another round of bashing (not that I don't do that, but not this time). I really want to know if I didn't miss some fine point.

Oh, and about putting conflict in quotes, I guess I was still amused from HistoryBuffEr's bank robbery example. Don't try to read anything fancy into it. Gadykozma 04:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fine point here is this: It isn't *about* the conflict. It's specifically about the phrase "occupation of palestine". Node 02:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How does this answer my questions? Gadykozma 02:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not being Node, but offering an answer, what would make sense as a separate Occupation of Palestine article (even if renamed): I'd consider it informative to many readers, to detail out the different legal theories regarding the status of the West Bank etc. The major POV would be that of Belligerent occupation, but that is questioned among others because there may be no subject of internal law, previously owning these territories, etc. Please forgive the clumsiness of my formulations, I'm not an expert on this. Anyway, this aspect isn't explicitely covered in Israeli-Palestinian conflict or West Bank. -- Pjacobi 14:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't an article like that better be called "Legal status of the Palestinian territories"? Gadykozma 14:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This title, and the mentioning of Belligerent occupation as the major POV, would be my favorite choice, after seeing all the discussions here. -- Pjacobi 14:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Evidently I am not saying this loud enough. I do not object to "occupation". I object to "Palestine". If the title would have been "Occupation of the Palestinian territories", or "Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza", many of my objections would go away. Gadykozma 14:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did hear you already and IMHO you are making yourself perfectly clear. I was only highlightening the and for others to read. -- Pjacobi 15:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep:

Why not just revise the article to make it more NPOV? Even if right now it is POV, I think "Occupation of Palestine" needs an article of its own in some form or another. --Ce garcon 09:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==Delete:== Both the title of the article and the content is slanted POV. The article was created to disrupt, not inform, and the author has even admitted (and acted) as such. Attempts to NPOV have failed. Information is duplicated in Israel-Palestinian conflict ("occupation" is mentioned twice on that page, in the external links section) as well as Arab-Israeli conflict (the word occupation is included twice, in the "Arab Views" section). Finally, an existing article Occupied_territories already mentions this topic in the "examples" section. --Viriditas 10:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep:

As a Palestinian I know what is right and what is wrong. I also know that as much as the pro-Zionist Wiki posters would like to obscure and confuse the issues, the facts remain. These are:

The Zionist state was created by uprooting the inhabitants of the land at the time. The use of terror by the Zionists was only one method that was used, but in the end the Zionist state was in illegal occupation of more land that was allocated to it by the flawed, biased, and failed partition plan of 1948. From that day (May 8, 1948) until now the Zionist state has never been in compliance with International law nor the Geneva Conventions, of which it is a signatory. I won't even try to list the relevant sites, but just look up any UN documents, even US ones. Try as they might to obscure the fact, the UN is the final arbiter of international law, so there is no way to circumvent this.

While I will admit the article requires work, and I agree with Jayjg, alleged is not a smooth phrase the way it is laid out now, this page should be corrected and kept, both views can be laid out.

I know, and have received many notes over the 3+ years I have posted, about the poor way the Wikipedia has presented information relating to the Palestinian/Zionist issue. It is hard for me to be objective and unbiased, but I do try, and even allow for the Zionist POV. That said, why can others not, at least, try and do the same? Time and again posts are removed or edited to silliness, with pro-Zionist nonsense.

My points and questions are these: Do you the members of this community want to keep the Wikipedia an object of ridicule in this area, and have it seen as an instrument of Zionist propoganda whenever a post is made that explains the Palestinians point of view? Will this issue ever be resolved? If this project is to gain some credibility vis a vis the Palestinian/Zionist issue, some general guidelines need to be implemented, is that not a fair compromise?

As much as the present Zionist and US government would like people to believe, they cannot change what people see with their own eyes. People around the world are not fools, and posters who cannot allow the mainstream to post in an intellectually free environment have no place here.

Finally, I have shown many of these articles, my own edit wars, and numerous other diatribes to scholars, library professionals, educators in general, Arab peoples, and others. All agree that this manner of depicting the Palestinians shows that the Wikipedia, in this respect at least, is not credible. I challenege pro-Zionist posters to read and look up Middle-Eastern history texts, or Encyclopedias of the conflict, or any of the many texts that deal with these issues. One will find that in fact these territories are illegally occupied, and were gained through the illegal use of force and war. We should be brave enbough to at least say that. Keep the page, fix it, and please do not merge it. I notice that a common tactic in this continued frenzy to deny facts is to try and merge articles to hide the truth of the content.

In peace and hope for a better solution.

Joseph 16:19, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

The article isn't a good one - but it's fair (ie NPOV) to refer to the Palestinian territories of West Bank and Gaza as occupied. This is internationally accepted. To argue that an articles has to also reflect the views of a very very small minority of people that these territories are not occupied is to try to force a POV into it. Let's call a spade a spade. Jongarrettuk 17:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The author of the article is not insisting that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied; rather, the author is insisting that all of the historical mandate of Palestine is "occupied", including Israel behind the 1949 armistice lines. That is why the title and the article will always be inherently POV. Jayjg 03:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For exactly this reason it's very important to keep the article: it should explain what different people understand by "Occupation of Palestine", so that everybody knows what they are talking about. Describing PsOV is the very essence of NPOV. A google search for "Occupation of Palestine" gives 43'000 hits. If an Internet user reads any of those 43'000, is unsure about what exactly is meant and comes to Wikipedia for enlightnment, would you really want that person to be kept in the dark about it?? A future "Occupation of Palestine" article should not deal with the history of the alleged occupation, for which readers should be referred to the relevant existing articles, but it should deal with the term, it's usage, it's implications and what kind of people use it. It seems to me that the Zionists in residence try to erase the concepts of their opponents from Wikipedia. - pir 10:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check for example Supreme Soviet or Lebensraum for two NPOV articles that deal with core concepts from the terminlogy of two ideologies universally despised by Wikipedians. - pir 10:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant examples:

Titles are NPOV, not as here.
Recognized terms, while "Occupation of Palestine" is just a phrase.
No obvious other page to add the contents to (correct me if I'm wrong here).

Gadykozma 11:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Please explain why "Occupation of Palestine" is less NPOV than "Supreme Soviet" or "Lebensraum". The whole POV controversy comes from the fact that it is based on and expresses a particular anti-Zionist view ; but "Soviet" is based on and expresses a Communist view, and "Lebensraum" is based on and expresses a Nazi view. Also "Occupation of Palestine" is a recognised term, to the same extent as the other two, and in all cases there are obvious other pages where the content can be added ( Nazi#Ideological_theory and Operation Barbarossa ; Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Stalinism and State capitalism). If you look at the Lebesnraum article, it deals mainly with the concept as used by the Nazis, rather than putting the content in the way the Nazis would have written the article - that is precisely what makes it NPOV, and the same can be done for "Occupation of Palestine". - pir 11:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, let me reword my second point. "Occupation of Palestine" is not more popular than "Occupation of the Palestinian territories" (google: 246,000) or "Occupation of the West Bank" (google: 871,000). Lebensraum or Supreme Soviet have no alternatives.

Also, your "addition" examples are not quite parallel: Lebensraum is not a page which is in danger of becoming an equivalent or parallel of Operation Babarose whereas Occupation of Palestine is posited exactly for this purpose. Gadykozma 12:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First, you did not reply to my question (Please explain why "Occupation of Palestine" is less NPOV than "Supreme Soviet" or "Lebensraum". )

Second, if you do a google search for these terms you need to put them in "", otherwise you get hits for all articles that contain any of these words seperately. If you do that you get:

"Occupation of the Palestinian territories" - 6,150 hits [7]
"Occupation of the West Bank" - 30,200 hits [8]
"Occupation of Palestine" - 44,000 hits [9]

And where are the Occupation of the Palestinian territories Occupation of the West Bank articles? I seem to be unable to find them with my browser.

Finally, your personal worries about what the "Occupation of Palestine" article may or may not become in the future does not pertain to the question of whether it is a legitimate entry to Wikipedia. - pir 13:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First of all, let me apologize for the "" business, I realized this just as I pressed the "Save Page" button. BTW: "Occupation of the Palestinian territories" should be added to "Occupation of Palestinian territories" which gets another 5000 hits. Either way it still shows that "Occupation of Palestine" is not a term but rather a phrase, one of many.
Where are all these other pages? This can be discussed on their VfD pages ;-)
My so-called personal worries about the future of this page are evidently shared by most people here and are highly pertinent to the decision.
Finally to your first question that I did indeed forget to answer. Possibly, the term "Occupation of Palestine" in 2004 is just as POV as was "Lebensraum" in 1939. But we are in 2004, and Lebensraum is a historical term whose context and political significance are well understood and accepted. The very fact that there is no VfD page for Lebensraum demonstrates this well enough. Gadykozma 13:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. It is the task of an encyclopedia to deal with concepts from all political movements and to describe them in a NPOV manner, and to provide information that helps to debunk them if they have no value. If they are currently controversial concepts, it is even more important to write a NPOV article about them. Worries about what the page may or may not become are completely speculative. The only question we should debate on this page is whether "Occupation of Palestine" is a legitimate entry, guided by the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. I can assure you that I will make sure that that any pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist views of this term will be clearly attributed and not stated as facts, and they they would be contrasted to opposing views. That is what NPOV is all about. - pir 13:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete:

Delete. IZAK 05:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article says nothing that is not already thoroughly canvassed in other articles, and doesn't even say it very well ("Israel came out on top" is not very encyclopaedic). Redirect and protect redirection. Adam 06:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Yet another attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state in a small part of ancient Jewish homeland. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge content

I don't see this as a separate option; of course, even if an article is deleted, any valuable content should be merged with other relevant articles. Jayjg 06:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Second choice

I would like to point out that if there is no agreement on deletion, then my second choice would be re-direct and merge. I suspect most people voting for deletion would feel the same way, thought it would be interesting to hear their viewpoints. Jayjg 06:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And vice versa: if there is no agreement on redirecting, my second choice would be deleting. I think the results of the tall should be interpreted as follows:

Add up all those who think contents is unsuitable (delete/redirect). If less than keep, then keep wins.
If "unsuitable" wins, choose whether to delete or redirect according to a majority within this group.

Is this interpretation of the tally acceptable to people? Gadykozma 11:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My first choice: Delete, the 2nd: redirect. Are we going to create Occupation of X articles for all the lands mentioned in Belligerent occupation? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Appeal to the "delete this article" movement

Very honestly, and I'm addressing all the people who voted for deletion, : If we can write NPOV Wikipedia articles about core concepts from the Nazi dictionary here (and there's lots of them: Führerprinzip, Aryan race, Übermensch, Racial hygiene, Master race, Herrenrasse, Euthanasia), surely we can do the same for "Occupation of Palestine" ! - pir 13:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We already have. It's called Israel-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 14:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see. That would be the reason why the word "occupation" figures a total of 0 times in that article. Do you really not get my point? I am not talking about the history of the conflict. I am talking about somthing entirely different. I am talking about concepts of a particular political movement. - pir 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The concept of occupation should be discussed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict article; that is the way to build articles, not to create inherently POV articles as alternatives to reasonably NPOV ones because you're not interested in working towards even better NPOV on the original article. And, contrary to the popular saying, it's impossible to create a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Jayjg 15:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why "Occupation of Palestine" would be an "inherently POV article" when I gave half a dozen of examples above that prove the opposite, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith (I think that might qualify as a personal attack)? I certainly have my own POV, but I do my best to make NPOV edits to these articles. If I make edits on such topics, I am careful to make them NPOV by attributing them and sourcing them. I don't know if I always succeed in this, but I take your accusation that "I'm not interested in working towards even better NPOV" to be an insult, and I'd be happy if you could point me towards any evidence to support your accusation. If you actually look at everything I said on this page, I consistently emphasised that "Occupation of Palestine" should not be an alternative to Israel-Palestinian conflict. And whould you also care to explain why Israel-Palestinian conflict is "reasonably NPOV" when its NPOV is disputed? - pir 16:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer; I was referring to the original author of the article, who created the article for the reason listed above, not to you. You (and others) have made valiant attempts to turn it into something worthwhile and NPOV, which I appreciate, but my point above remains, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Occupation of Palestine will never be NPOV based on the title alone; there is no way to get people to agree on what "Palestine" is, nor on what "Occupation" is. Palestine has had least three hotly contested definitions; the 1917 British Palestine which included Trans-Jordan (now Jordan), the 1923 San Remo/League of Nations mandate, which roughly included everything currently controlled by Israel, and the post 1967 version, which basically comprised the West Bank and Gaza. Supporters of both sides of the debate each have their preferred view, which leads to endless conflict. Add to that the issue of "Occupation" which some insist there currently is, and others insist there is not. Then mix in the deliberate confusion created by the original author, who pretended that the widely held view that Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza was actually a widely held view (and "fact") that Israel was occupying the entire San Remo mandate of Palestine. In the end you have a hopeless mess that can never be sorted out, especially when everything of value on the topic belongs in Israel-Palestinian conflict anyway. As for why that article's POV is disputed, that is because of the intense emotions that the Israeli-Arab conflict generates; there is no middle ground which satisfies all parties as NPOV. Jayjg 16:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, no harm done. The point is : We do not have to agree on anything in order to write an article about it. When there are disagreements on a particular subject we just neutrally desribe the conflicting views. That is what the NPOV policy is all about:

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder "

So, thank you very much for your explanation of the difficulties in defining "Palestine" - I think it could be copy-pasted into that particular article right away, because it would make the article more NPOV.

Also, I was trying to think of what Zionist concept would be the equivalent of "Occupation of Palestine", and I think it would probably be Eretz Israel, or translated into English Land of Israel. Strangely enough that article exists, and it's not a redirect to Israel-Palestinian conflict. And strangely enough, it only describes the Zionist POV. And strangely enough, it is not a problem for that article that the term is difficult to define precisely. I suggest that if we delete "Occupation of Palestine", we need to delete that particular article too, or make it into a redirect to Israel-Palestinian conflict. - pir 16:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We don't have to agree on everything, but if an article just contains information which is already found in other articles (or which should be in other articles), then it just creates needless clutter and confusion. The fundamental problem with the article is this: If you leave it as the original author intends, it is merely POV propaganda. And if you somehow manage to make it NPOV, then it will inevitable overlap and duplicate (or contradict) other articles. That is the horns of the dilemma upon which this article places us.

Regarding the Eretz Israel article, I hadn't seen it before. I think there is a fundamental difference between that article and this one. That article explains the meaning of an ancient term still used today; the term is not a "Zionist concept" in that it long pre-dates political Zionism. As well, it does not describe a conflict, nor does it express any particularly POV position; rather, it describes a geographical area. A parallel article might be one on the term "Palestine", explaining (among other things) its historical origins and usage. And lo and behold, there is a Palestine article which, while itself fairly POV, is better than what is here, and contains just about everything of value which has been entered into this article. Jayjg 17:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I should restate and elaborate my argument: it is impossible to understand a political movement unless you deal with the central concepts of its ideology. It is impossible to understand Nazism unless you understand what is meant by Führerprinzip, Aryan race, Übermensch, Racial hygiene etc. It is impossible to understand Soviet style Communism unless you known what's class war, the dictatorship of the proletariat, counter-revolutionary, enemy of the people, the vanguard of the working class, etc. It's impossible to understand liberalism unless you know what they mean by free market economy, freedom, individualism, human rights, representative democracy etc. It's impossible to understand Zionism unless you know what is meant by Jewish National Homeland, Eretz Israel, Aliyah, etc. etc. etc. These are all terms from the respective political movements dictionaries and we have somehow managed to create NPOV articles on all of them.

In exactly the same way, it is impossible to understand what Palestinian nationalism is about, unless we have equivalent articles on Occupation of Palestine, Nakba, right to return etc. These are concepts that are central to Palestinian nationalism. To just hide them away in a small paragraph somewhere in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article will not do - if we take the NPOV serious, then they deserve their own article that explains in a NPOV manner what is meant, without reporting in detail the whole history dealt with elsewhere. If there is some overlap with other articles, that won't be a problem - there is enough space on Wikipedia left. And you are of course right that Eretz Israel is not an exact equivalent of Occupation of Palestine, but both are central concepts in their respective nationalisms, and they both express a claim for land (more or less the same land, by misfortune). - pir 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep this indentation thing in check!

pir, if you check the Nakba article you will see that I just yesterday left there a detailed opinion why the article should exist. The same holds for right of return. These same arguments do not hold for "occupation of Palestine" for the reasons I detailed above. Gadykozma 18:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm very glad you recognise their right to exist. But why don't you grant the same right to "Occupation of Palestine"? I hope I don't misrepresent you, but your argument seems to reduce to worries that it would be difficult to deal with a currently controversial term (which we do all the time at Wikipedia) and that there are a couple of terms very similar (but less frequently used) to "Occupation of Palestine" (we can make those into redirects). - pir 18:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I vote keep, refering to Israeli as a state, as happens all over Wikipedia, is just as biased. Why Israeli 'settlements' on the westbank aren't Isreali 'fortified encampments' is the same kind of indicative linguistic choice people make. --Jirate 18:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is getting excessive for VfD, but oh well. "Is just as biased" as what? Even the PLO recgnizes Israeli statehood. Is there any UN member that we don't routinely refer to as a "state".?

Several don't recognise it as such. Iran for one.--Jirate 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a part of accepted human knowledge that Israel _is_ a state, and there is no bias in claiming it as such. Further, Wikipedia is not for propaganda like the kind you are advocating. --Viriditas 19:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find Israels statehood is disputed by many both indivduals and states. Obviosly you seem to think that Wikipedia is for propaganda like the you are advocating. Being accepted by Viriditas is not a crtieria for something being "accepted human knowledge". This subject is clearly a matter of hot debate both here and in the area concerned, using the language prefered by one side is bias.--Jirate 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The heliocentric view of the solar system is also disputed by many individuals, but that doesn't that doesn't change the facts. Israel has been an independant country for almost 60 years, a member of the U.N., member of various trading blocs, significant economy, ambassadors in various countries (and vice versa) etc. Wikipedia's claim that Israel exists is no more POV than its claims that the United States exists. Jayjg 21:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Considerably more people dispute the statehood of Israeli, than seriously dispute copernicus. More states dispute the statehood of Israel than any other state. Several UN resoluations, refer to Israels occupation of several parts of Palestine and call for them to end. What Western Governments stick their stamp on doesn't automatically make it accepted by humanity. Does the Humanity as a whole think of Israel as a State or as a illegal occupation?I'd like to see some numbers.--Jirate 22:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what you're arguing; are you saying that Israel does not exist as a state? Has not existed for the past almost 60 years? Is not a member of the U.N., recognized by and having diplomatic and economic relations with most countries in the world, as well as the Palestinian Authority/P.L.O.? Jayjg 22:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When one is talking about states as opposed to people, recognition does not mean knowing or acknowledging that something exists. It means diplomatic recognition. There is a territory there and an organisation that claims to be a State. In some people and country's eye's it is nothing more than an illegitimate breakaway regime, they no more recognise it than the Union recognised the confederates. There is no one article title or one article which can be neutral on this subject or many others. There is no 1 truth to be written down on this subject and if you try you'll just end up writing propoganda. Encylopdia are by there nature reductionist, and this isn't a very suitable subject. --Jirate 00:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe there are approximately 150 or so states in the world which recognize Israel and have diplomatic relations with it; exactly which ones do not recognize this? Israel is not only a fact, but is recognized as such by almost all countries in the world, notwithstanding what rabid rogue theocracies like Iran currently express as foreign policy. Facts are not POV, notwithstanding your POV desire to express them as such. Jayjg 02:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"rabid rogue" some peoples a view of Israel. Whilst you may view the State of Israeli as a done an dusted,others regarded it as an illegal blip in history. As far as I know Egypt is the only one of Israels neighbours to recognize it. Only 3 countries recognize the captital as Jeruselem. No one recognizes the annex of the Golan. It's totally reliant on an external power for it's existance. The major problem is that you don't understand the power and effect of language. You should probabley take a look at State as well.--Jirate 02:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a Zionist, but when I hear Israel described as "an illegal blip in history" I sense murderous antisemitism. The issue of borders is one thing, the issue of whether Israel is somehow uniquely less legitimate than the world's other states is another. I'm not very big on the State in general, and I'm against deleting the article, but this makes me worry about whether there are people who want this article solely as a propaganda platform. -- Jmabel 03:52, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

That has always been its purpose; it was the very reason it was created. Jayjg 04:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then you sense wrong, what you sense, what you sense is a hatred of Nationalism, Self Rightousness etc. all of which the current Israel shows in spades the very things the original Zionist were trying to escape.--Jirate 10:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with most of what pir said. _R_ 19:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing the point!

I think many people here are totally missing the point. We have a very clear case of someone trying to create their own private Wikipedia within the actual Wikipedia. Someone here is angry at some of our articles, but instead of working with others to improve them, thet are creating their own parallel Wikipedia article to push their own POV. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. We do not have two articles on abortion, one from a pro-choice POV and one from a pro-life POV; we do not have two articles on racism, one from a pro-racism POV and one from an anti-racism POV. The same is true for all topics, including the Arab-Israeli topic. Shamefully, several people are willingly trying to violate NPOV in this one case, because they feel that the current articles on the subject are not correct. We cannot allow this and still stay true to Wikipedia policy. RK

Jayjg's analysis of this situation is both correct and friendly: Jayjg is very open to other people adding information (in an NPOV fashion) to the current Arab-Israeli conflict articles; Jayjg is not rejecting any new topics or subjects. I cannot understand the opposition to his simple proposal. As he writes:

"Since the content itself is merely intended as a POV alternative to Israel-Palestinian conflict, and since it will have to eventually be incorporated back into that article, the new article should just be deleted now and the user should bring his concerns and proposed edits to the Talk: page of the original article Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jayjg is correct. This is the way that we all handle all article, especially controversial issues. Keeping a separatrem, parallel article in this case violates Wikipedia policy and creates a divisive precedent. What we end up with is not Wikipedia NPOV, but rather the MPOV policy of the Wikipedia fork, Internet-Encyclopedia (a totally separate project that forked off of Wikipedia a while ago.) RK 20:59, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that trying to create a POV alternative of a controversial article should not be tolerated. However, I think this article has potential if it strives to answer the question "What do people mean when they utter the word "occupation" in reference to territories that were part of (pre 1948) Palestine?". _R_ 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's perfectly appropriate to refer to the occupation of Palestine as such; as far as I see it, the only question is how to neutralize the POV content in the article. -- Ce garcon

Delete JFW | T@lk 12:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously.--Xed 15:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The title is inherently POV, since it specifies a political judgment. It is not sufficient to simply say "well, that's what some people call it." The title then makes the content POV, because Palestine has been "occupied" for centuries--it hasn't been a sovereign nation, so you would need to talk about the Turkish Occupation, and the Jordanian Occupation, and so on. If we were to let this stand, we would need to submerge ourselves in irridentism, and have an article on western Poland titled Occupation of Germany, or of New York State, Occupation of the Iroquois Nation, or even of Syria, Iran and Iraq Occupation of the Ottoman Empire. Of course there are probably some people who would enthusiastically agree with these, but this is not Wikipedia's job. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good points. See Occupied territories. It is important to note that most nations in the world are in some way an occupier of a previous inhabitant's land. Generally, any disputed territory can be seen as occupied by the party that has control over it at the moment. --Viriditas 21:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect and protect redirect. Snowspinner 17:24, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Tribalism, or: Defending the indefensible

For many here the pull of tribal ties apparently outweighs both common sense and human decency. The wagons were promptly circled by the tribal watchdogs (and their lapdogs) and the AgitProp-In-Chief User:Jayjg went rounding up the troops; all but one drones have answered the call and rushed to the barricades (the one unresponsive drone is presumably out of service or in the re-education camp). The hope of tribal Deleters appears to be that fairness and justice can be deleted, or at least beaten into submission for the time being. But, ignorance of logic and history (including their own!) can yield at best a Pyrrhic victory. In the long term: Resistance is futile, the truth will prevail. HistoryBuffEr 18:53, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

What a bizarre view of the sequence of events, and of fairness and justice. However, given your view of the conflict in general, and your view of how to write "NPOV" Wikipedia articles, entirely unsurprising. Jayjg 20:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking at rogue admin Jayjgs history makes things clear.--Xed 20:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, the infamous troll Xed is back from his one week blocking. Perhaps your Request for Comment can now proceed to its logical conclusion. Oh, and please don't e-mail me any more, I don't care to correspond with you. Jayjg 20:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can't have any faith in you anymore, Jayjg. You're a "rogue admin." I've heard about what you rogue admins do. They've been known to uproot trees and trample entire villages. :D -- Cecropia | Talk 20:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This 'infamous troll' has contributed 3 new articles today. Jayjg doesn't seem to have contributed any new articles, and has instead spent all his time pushing his monomaniacal agenda, as his history shows. --Xed 20:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mildly re-wording pages from existing websites to produce "new articles" may protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement action, or it may not. Time will tell. Anyway, I'm done feeding stalker trolls. Jayjg 22:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whats that? You haven't contributed anything apart from promoting your own agenda? Tragic.--Xed 22:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, jayjg drones are at least Wikipedians. Your drones seem to be all newbies :-P Gadykozma 23:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correction: The one missing drone has been fixed (Jewbacca has voted as expected). Also note this hilarious exchange (excerpts from 1 and 2, combined):

"You might be interested in the discussion regarding the deletion of this article: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine Jayjg 05:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see you've already seen it and voted on it. Jayjg 06:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I voted just after seeing your note. Neutrality (talk) 06:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

... Ooops. :-) Jayjg 06:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you drop me a note because of the Israeli flag on my userpage? ;) Neutrality (talk) 06:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

No, I was more looking for names that I recalled had been involved in previous discussions/edits on the topic of Israel etc. I figured they would have an informed opinion. Jayjg 06:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)..."

HistoryBuffEr 22:30, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

What does it mean that I voted as expected? And what does it mean to refer to me as the one missing drone? Thanks for the clarification.

Wikipedia is a community effort and a member of the community asked me to take a look at this discussion. After considering it for a couple of days I returned to place a vote as all members of the Wikipedia community are welcome to do. Because I didn't vote the way you did does not make a drone or a puppet. In fact I don't think I voted the same way as the user who invited me to look at this discussion.

I voted to put a redirect because while I disagree that "Palestine is occupied", I do believe that users may come to Wikipedia looking for information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by typing in "Occupation of Palestine" if they are coming with that POV and they should be provided with the information the community has written regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hence I tried to vote not my agenda, but what I believe to be the most NPOV and all-welcoming approach. Jewbacca 22:58, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

My drone humor aside, you confirm my general point. And your Palestine occupation denial is just the icing on the cake. HistoryBuffEr 23:29, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm failing to see the connection with the actual topic at hand, which is what should be done with the Occupation of Palestine article. If a thorough review of the Ad hominem and Poisoning the well articles don't help, perhaps you and Xed should set up a separate page for the purpose of stalking and criticizing me, and leave this one to the relevant discussion. Just a friendly suggestion. Jayjg 22:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tell us more about "ad hominem", please. Starting with your first post you've repeatedly impugned my integrity and motivation, with no evidence (actually, contrary to the evidence). I've refused to dignify your personal attacks, and will continue to do so. HistoryBuffEr 23:29, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Ostentatiously changing my vote

I had previously said "keep or merge", but I am changing my vote to neutral.

I am distressed by the downright mean and petty tone of some of the arguments on the keep side, and I am simply uncomfortable to be in such company.
Besides the issue of tone, I can see that there are several people who wish to use this article not as a place to discuss the occupation of the Territories -- which I think we should have an article on -- but to question the entire legitimacy of the Israeli state, and to argue that all Jews in the region are "occupiers". This makes me very uncomfortable with keeping an article at this title.

I still believe that we need to have far more coverage in Wikipedia of what I will continue without reservation to call the Occupied Territories, so I cannot bring myself to vote against this, either, but apparently this article is, indeed, intended to set Israel apart as less legitimate than other states in the region, and I can't support that. -- Jmabel 00:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I give up on making Wikipedia aticles appear fair with NPOV

As I have said before, I do not hate people, any people of any race, religion, colour, whatever... I do not even hate the Zionist state for all the damage it has done to my people; the Palestinians. I do hate, though, the way the pro-Zionist supporters overule every post on the other side, not even admitting that there is anything wrong. It is a shame and a crime akin to Holocaust deniers, in all due respect. I am Palestinian by birth and feel now that this project will never be credible in this respect - The Arab/Israeli conflict and especially anything to do with the Palestinians inalienable human rights and their tragic recent history (are all diputed, and our view is now where to be seen on most of these pages). I will continue to monitor and interject (vainly trying to set the record straight) when I can, but feel there is no chance at the present time. Lie and try to cover up the truth as much as you want, it will come out one day in the end, you cannot lie and obscure the truth about it forever. There is a reason so many young Jewish youths cannot stand the Zionist state and what it has become now. The flee from it and the militaristic settlers in droves... With sadness, I give up... Joseph 00:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Joseph: I realize this is not the right place for reconciliation. Speaking for myself only, if I change the word "Palestinian" to "Jew", I can sign practically entire your paragraph. Zionism, the idea of of Jews returning to their homeland (even though they have never completely left), is despised as racism, despite our willingness to share it with others. At the same time most of the world cheers up the "right of return" of Palestinian Arabs to the same land, automatically annihilating the Jewish state and making the land Judenrein. I am sorry that your people were used (and abused) in dirty political games, or chose bad leaders such as Amin al-Husseini or Arafat, or rejected the dozen or so offers to share the land and create two states, or to build and negotiate, instead of blowing people and things up. There are 22 huge and resource-rich Arab states carved out of the Ottoman Empire and only one tiny Jewish. Perhaps it's time to try peace without attempts to destroy "the Zionist state"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question: How many times have the Palestinians been offered a State, and how many times have they turned it down? --Viriditas 02:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My answer: unless you consider a Bantustan a state, then exactly once, in 1947. -- Jmabel 06:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

WP has some good and some not so good articles on this. There is also a bunch of maps around the web, e.g. UN or Palestinefacts. Here are a few partition plans:

1919 Arab-Jewish agreement promoted Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East. Didn't go anywhere, thanks to Mufti.
1937 Peel Commission plan and partition plans by Woodhead Commission.
1939 St. James Conference ended without making any progress: the Arab delegation refused to recognize or meet with its Jewish counterpart. See also White Paper of 1939.
1947 UN Partition Plan.
Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel. If, in the course of negotiations, you are presented with an offer, the correct strategy would be to a) give a counter offer, or b) start the intifada and call for millions of martyrs? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant but I really cannot resist. Humus, Go to http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/index.html (if you can't read Hebrew, you will at least see the maps) and tell me if you would have accepted such a fractal country. Gadykozma 11:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This might be the English version, I didn't check. http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/offers.doc Gadykozma 12:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"their homeland"? race based POV. "instead of blowing people and things up", try St Davids Hotel and 2 British NCO's hung in a lemon grove, plus other activities of the Irgun and Stern gang. Are you perhaps an agent provcateur trying to stir up anti- jewish feeling or are you just a racists idiot?--Jirate 02:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chill out. The Jews condemned terrorism and destroyed Jewish terrorist gangs by the end of 1940s. When is the other side going to do the same? Shall we talk about the popularity of shahids in the Arab society today? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NO they didn't. They just transfered them to the IDF, and one M Begin was a member of the IRGun and sometime latter Israeli PM.--Jirate 11:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Ad hominem remark wasn't addressed at me, but I'll take the liberty to respond with a question: Jirate, which one are you? An agent provocateur or just a racist idiot? I'll withdraw my question the moment you withdraw yours. -- Jmabel 06:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am neither, I just happen to recognize racists of all races going around doing their evil. It's just a pity that some of the most racists people belong to groups that are the victims of racism.--Jirate 11:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, one last time, look there is not another article called Occupation of Palestine is there? No ok, so there could be one, it should be balanced and fair, NPOV, clean this one up, create a new one I do not care which, but let one stand. When I first joined back when, the Wiki wanted all the articles it could get, what is wrong with that? Jayjg says this particular article was created out of a sense of malice, perhaps so, who knows? I don't, but that should not be if that is so. I for one do not want issues relating to the very serious subject of the Palestinian/Zionist conflict being used as some sort of tool to slander another person or group of people or anything. It means too much to me, I still have family that live there, everywhere there and beyond... I would kindly ask (as others have in the past) you people to consider the effects this conflict has on REAL people. Real peoples families are being killed, on both sides, the trauma is very real and sickenning. The least we could do here, in this role, is try to present in an infomative way the facts as best we can find them in an unbiased and objective manner. It is hard, but we should try to be fair and reasonable. Thanks for the space, Joseph 04:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

One last point then I will keep silent, I am a Library Technician by training, I work in the library profession. The very esssence of providing information in this field is to do so in an objective unbiased manner. When one fulfills a reference request in this profession, provide information, one presents all the information available. Not selected portions. Censorship, banning the right to free expression is a big taboo, libraries have a long history of fighting censorship. Freedom to read is an essential right of all human beings. That said, I am opposed to deletions as a rule excpept for the serious rights violations of others. Deletions should occur only when there is no real constructive method of dealing with a problematic or malicious article. I can see if the topic was a double, but in this case it is not. Thanks again Joseph 05:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Joseph, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page on all but our conclusion about what should be done with this article. I think the Occupation is a perfectly valid topic. I think it needs to be taken up seriously somewhere in the Wikipedia. At first I thought it should be in an article of its own under this title, but now I suspect that it had best at least be "incubated" at Israeli-Palestinian conflict and possibly factored out later if there is consensus to do so. The main reason I have changed my mind is that while I use "Occupation of Palestine" as a shorthand for "Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories", it has become very clear that there are people who intend to use the very title as a tool to argue that all Jewish presence (or at least all Zionist presence) in former mandate Palestine constitutes "occupation". I find that view exactly as abhorrent as I find the attitude that continues to deny Palestinians the status of a people.

In any event, there seems to be a near-consensus that this is an under-covered topic. I don't think it is as crucial that it immediately be placed in a separate article as that we start to write about it. And thank you for preserving a constructive attitude on what must obviously and appropriately be an emotional topic for you. Would that a few others would do the same. -- Jmabel 06:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Let there be no doubt about it: many Palestinians and opponents of Zionism do think that all of "Palestine" (i.e. not just the West Bank and Gaza but also Israeli territory) is "occupied". They think that the creation of the "Zionist state" led to the expulsion of Palestinians from "their" land, that this new state, which denies the "right to return" to the Palestinian former inhabitants while granting such a "right to return" to all ethnic Jews even those who have had no connection with this land for 2 millenia, is therefore an "apartheid state", the State of all Jews and Jews only. They regard this "apartheid state" as "occupying" "their" land and they think that this "occupation" must end. That is what they do think, no doubt about it. Zionists find this view "abhorrent" (and wouldn't tolerate it being described at Wikipedia), no doubt about that either.

Some of these strong anti-Zionists also do think that all Israelis/Jews should be "driven into the sea" ; but many of them argue for something entirely different: they argue for a bi-national state, in which Palestinians and Jews have equal national and individual rights. They do not argue for the destruction of Israel together with all Israelis, they argue for the transformation of the Zionist "apartheid state" into a state that accomodates the aspiartions of both Jewish and Palestinian nationalism on an equal footing. Radical Zionists reject and most of the time ignore this possibility ; when they do respond, they typically argue that this is "anti-Semitic" because it would make Jews the only nation in the world to whom their "own" state is denied (nevermind the obvious contradiction that they would be equally racist, because they simultaneously deny that right to Palestinians, also nevermind that dozens of other ethnic and cultural groups come to mind at once that don't have their "own" state, Kurds, Afrikaners, Native Americans, Scots, Asanti, Bavarians, Basques, Maori, Sikhs, etc. etc.)

I am not arguing in favour or against any of these political positions here (personally I detest all forms of nationalism because nationalism is an abomination of the humanity in all of us and of all our cultures, and nationalism always seems to be the root of enormous bloodshed and conflict) ; what I am arguing for is that there are many different political positions in this conflict, and that all of them have a legitimate right to exist in Wikipedia, to be described equally in a NPOV manner from their own POV (as opposed to in a POV manner from their opponents POV), no matter how abhorrent they may appear to anybody - because: if we do not present these views it is simply impossible to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Worries about how a particular article may or may not affect the case made by one or the other side in this bloody conflict (which is 80% of what's written on this page) are totally illegitimate and beside the point - enabling readers to understand this conflict must be our sole aim at Wikipedia. Sadly this is not happening at all. Sadly, the most intolerant, intransigeant, rejectionist and extreme Wikipedians from both sides of the debate effectively collaborate in marginalising, frustrating and eventually eliminating the moderate and open-minded ones - just like in the real world. Sadly, the partisans have little integrity. Palestinian and anti-Zionist views are consistently removed, distorted beyond recognition and hidden away by their opponents. This does Wikipedia a great disservice. The articles about the Israeli-Palestinian issue are absolutely appalling and they diminish and ridicule the whole project we are working on. - pir 12:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia articles appear fair with NPOV

The occupation of Palestine has occurred several times throughout history. Various justifications and criticisms of these occupations have been made.

Articles about this region of the earth's surface should merely recount the facts, as best we can find them (with any significant variations when the facts are in dispute).

We should not try to "get to the bottom of it" and label one nation's "occupation" as justified or not.

Rome occupied Palestine rather famously during New Testament times, a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus.

Didn't the Ottoman Empire control or "occupy" Palestine for centuries leading up to modern times?

Jordan occupied the West Bank, a portion of Palestine; this should at least be mentioned in the article.

The current legal status of Palestine's various residents is obviously hotly disputed. Actually, "violently disputed" would be more precise. Various militia and quasi-govermental organizations control neighborhoods and larger areas in Gaza and the West Bank. Then, there's Israel which controls a patchwork of areas: some militarily and administrativel, others only militarily.

Not to mention that there is unrest in the area, variously described as a "war", an "uprising", a "terrorist campaign", or even "anarchy" (depending on the source).

Oh, and don't forget that many countries don't even recognize Israel as a nation, so the non-Gaza, non-West Bank, non-Jordanian parts of Palestine are seen by some as "occupied territory".

There are so many versions of what happened and whether or not it was justified and what various advocates propose to do about it, that some writers simply want to withdraw or call for a vote (I mean here at Wikipedia).

But my suggestion is for each contributor to take a step back, re-examine the facts and positions, and write from the lofty position of someone trying to explain a family squabble to an outsider:

I wanted the remote, so I grabbed it from Johnny; he grabbed it back because he "had it first" but it was time for "my show" to come on, etc.

Please understand: I am not trivializing the Arab-Israeli conflict; I am not "comparing" the fate of millions of Arabs and other residents of Palestine to an evening of watching TV. I am using this metaphor to suggest a plan for writing about the topic.

Don't assume that our readers know everything that you regard as common knowledge. Don't assume they subscribe to the same legal or moral or ethical system that you take for granted.

Rise to the challenge, and make a new start. Please! --Uncle Ed 13:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, do I misunderstand you or are you arguing in favour of a NPOVed Occupation of Palestine article ? - pir 13:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I moved Occupation of Palestine to Israeli occupation of Palestine and gave it a serious overhaul. I'm also thinking of starting a non-redirecting version of occupation of Palestine which recounts every major instance of migrants taking up residence in the region (from pre-historic or Biblical times, up to the present) as well as all military invasions, partitions and periods of military control. Honestly, some people don't want a neutral article: they want an "objective" article which clearly proves that the "fillintheblankians" are the true and rightful owners of this land.

There are times when I wish all those people would quit editing these articles -- but sometimes I'm one of those people, and then I take a long break until I can do NPOV work again. Some friends of mine just came back from the holy land, and I felt inspired to try again today. --Uncle Ed 15:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work. If the vote was still open I'd change mine to support keeping this version. Andrewa 21:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An example of the occupation today

Hello again, I am not sure on where the votes are now, or the status of the article, but I thought it may help to have an example of the Occupation as it was meant in the original article today. This is not meant to criticize anyone person or anything, but just an example see: Early troubles for Palestinian voter registration a quote:

An Israeli military closure order is posted to the door of an empty office in a community centre that sits astride the dusty streets of the Shufat Palestinian refugee camp in Israeli occupied East Jerusalem.

...'Israeli territory'

...About 1,000 voter registration centres have been set up in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip...

...Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has begun campaigning But still the offices are functioning. So why did Israel shut down only those centres in Palestinian East Jerusalem?

Because Jerusalem is sovereign Israeli territory, says Spokesman Raanan Gissin.

"Jerusalem has a totally different status, the municipal boundaries have been determined by the 1981 law, approved by the Knesset.

"It's not occupied territory and as any other country would not permit political activity of a foreign country, particularly voting, so Israel has the same right to prevent that kind of political activity within Jerusalem itself."

International law is clear about East Jerusalem. It's occupied Palestinian territory, with the same status as the West Bank and Gaza.

"We don't accept that", says Mr Gissin,

I appreciate Ed Poor's approach, and commend the effort. Unfortunately for me, the article does not address, what I see, as the main point of the original article. That point is the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian territory conquered in the original 1948 war, the subsequent 1967 (Six Day War) conflict, and the occupation of territory under the administration of the Palestinian Authority (God how I hate that name) today, perhaps even reference to the Zionist state making a unilateral withdrawal to borders of its own choosing rather than what International Law prescribes. I think that is what the issue really is...

With all due respect, if someone wants an explanation of Ancient Palestine or the Roman Occupation of Palestine/Israel/Holy Land, etc. then there is ample coverage of that in the original Palestine article.

I think this article needs to be written in the time-frame of today, with see alsos and such to other areas of relevance.

I looked over many things about Wikipedia policy, and there is no edict asking to restrict or limit articles. In fact quite the opposite, the idea is to make the Wikipedia grow, albeit with a NPOV view and in the strictures of scholarly debate, I suggest we go that route, with collaboration from everyone.

This post was meant to help explain, assist others and further clarify where this article should lead to. Thanks, and I hope that helps... Joseph 15:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can we talk?

Jayjg is right: Occupation of Palestine will never be NPOV based on the title alone; there is no way to get people to agree on what "Palestine" is, nor on what "Occupation" is.

That is why so many people want there to be a neutral article on the "occupation of Palestine" -- and possibly a distinct, related article on the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" which can address these issues.

And the notion that 2/3 have agreed to the deletion or redirect simply isn't true:

The articles were radically changed, but no new vote was taken
Several people have voiced opinions but didn't 'vote'

Please respond to reason, and don't make me get help from the other sysops. --Uncle Ed 15:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, "and don't make me get help from the other sysops" is not exactly a friendly tone, is it. For the rest of you. Take a break from the page and think about what this page really is about. I would prefer you wrote it in the page talk, or on the mailing list. Christopher Mahan 16:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Christopher, you are right. I was not being friendly. What's worse, I knew this when I made that remark *looks down at shoes briefly*

I'm going to confine my writing to page talk & the mailing list, as directed, for the next day or so... --Uncle Ed 17:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How bout an article on occupied territories of the Middle East? Then we can write about Syria occupying Lebanon... --Uncle Ed 21:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, next you are going to suggest Occupied territories whose name begins with P. I still haven't understood why the contents cannot be added to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Maybe we should start with that? BTW, another good place for that would be Palestinian views of the peace process.

Ed, there is clearly consensus for a redirect. I count 31 votes to delete and/or redirect, and I count 13 votes to keep as is. Just because a VFD vote doesn't go your way does not give you the right to go do your own thing anyway, so I've reverted to the redirect version. Ambi 02:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of the West Bank and the East Jerusalem by Jordan - Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt - Occupation of Lebanon by Syria - Occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco - Occupation of Tibet by China - Occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey - Occupation of Guantanamo Bay by the United States - Occupation of Falkland Islands by the United Kingdom - Occupation of Gibraltar by the United Kingdom - Occupation of Plazas de Soberania by Spain - Occupation of Basque Country by Spain and France - Occupation of Chechnya by Russia - Occupation of Eastern Prissia by Russia - Occupation of Kuril Islands by Russia - Why not create and keep these first? Why such preoccupation with the Jewish state? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Off you go and create them then, no one is stopping you,Why do you put such effort into making sure no one does discuss Israel? Worried they may find the truth?--Jirate 10:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And don't forget: Occupation of Hawaii by the United States - Occupation of Aztlan by the United States - Occupation of First Nations by Canada - Occupation of Aotearoa by New Zealand - Occupation of the Kalahari by Botswana - Occupation of the Isle of Man by the United Kingdom... --Viriditas 09:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The UK occupies the IoM? Strange that the IoM has had it's own independent parliment for 1000 years, is self governing, Isle_of_Man. I'm sure the Palesinians would be happy to be as Occupied.--Jirate 10:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not create these first? Why not such proccupation? I understand your implicit implications, but the answer is very simple: because this is one of the most controversial and most explosive conflicts of our time. This region is where the three major monotheistic religions originated and the associated cultures/countries are involved in this conflict. The world's sole remaining superpower is deeply involved in it. The world's most feared terrorist organisation gets so worked about up this (among a couple of other things) that they crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11. Many Muslims think it's the worst example of how they are oppressed by the West. Millions of Christian fundamentalist (esp. in the US) think that this is where the final showdown of Armageddon will soon occur and Jesus return. This is one of the most important conflicts of our time, and an encyclopaedia which doesn't deal with it in a NPOV, non-partisan way, representing the views of the opposing parties fairly and equally, is, quite frankly, not worth the harddisk space it's written on. That's why, not the reason you are implying. - pir 11:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, you wrote: The world's most feared terrorist organisation gets so worked about up this (among a couple of other things) that they crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11. That's a common misconception. bin Laden and the hijackers did not care about the Palestinians and never did. If anything, our support for the Saudis was to blame; Israel had nothing to do with it. --Viriditas 11:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not bin Laden cares about anybody is something none of us can now, but it is certainly true that the treatment and dispossesion of the PAlestinians at the hand of Israel figures in all their propaganda, for the simple reason that a very large proportion of Muslims are outraged about it. There's only one way to counter-act propaganda: confronting it with factual information and addressing people's views/grievances. That's why it's so important we don't delete this article. - pir 11:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Al Q claims to be pro Palestinians, they are definetly using anger generated on behalf of the Palestinians.--Jirate 11:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Isle of Man see the sovereignty movement of Mec_Vannin. --Viriditas 11:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which has the opportunity to stand for the house of Keys but declines, after it's one and only MP, ever defected to another non independence party. You should perhaps also think about the Cornish Liberation Front, I myself am a member of the Scouse National Party, I'll be creating my own section. Woolyback Occuption of Heaven on Earth. --Jirate 11:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge

Has anyone merged the info I supplied in occupation of Palestine and Israeli occupation of Palestine to any other article. If so, please tell me where to look for this info.

If not, I request that

The REDIRECT be reverted, and
We have a new vote with only two items: (a) keep info, or (b) REDIRECT

A few people said that there was already "a vote" which produced "a consensus". I maintain that my additions and changes to the articles were significant enough to warrant a new vote.

I am an admin, and therefore am honor-bound not to use sysop powers to 'get my way' in this dispute. So I'm just asking everyone: please vote again. --Uncle Ed 12:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, as I explained in Wikipedia Talk:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine/Tally I don't think you have a case for a revote, but just to be on the safe side, I keep my redirect/delete vote. Gadykozma 13:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My prediction starts to come true, the mess is growing

Well, now, it appears we've started down the road of POV forks for everyone, and everyone who ever controlled Palestine becoming an occupier: see Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan . This is getting mighty tiresome; have people come to their senses yet and realized that all this "Occupation" material actually belongs in the relevant articles (e.g. Israel-Palestinian conflict, Palestine, etc.) or are they just going to let Wikipedia devolve into a mess of tiny overlapping articles, each expressing a different POV? Jayjg 15:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia already has extensive articles on Belligerent occupation and a List of military occupations (thus far) about the Occupation of Iraq, by the United States, United Kingdom and others (2003); Occupation of Japan, by the United States (1945-1951); Occupation of Denmark by Germany (1940-1945); Occupation of Czechoslovakia; Occupation of Baltic Republics by the Soviet Union 1940-1990, so what is all the fuss about. This is an encyclopedia after all. IZAK 08:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a complicated subject, and many hundreds of books have been written. I don't mind many articles. Christopher Mahan 16:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind many articles either. I do mind many articles with POV titles illogically organized and overlapping in content. Jayjg 20:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a very broad consensus that the main article on the subject should be Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In that sense Jayjg's argument here is a strawman. - pir 16:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This might deserve many articles, but with a sensible division! Would you accept Occupation of territories beginning with a P by countries beginning with an E? We are not discussing somebody with a project to write a history book for Wikipedia and dividing it into many pages. We are discussing people abusing the fact that deletion of pages is difficult in order to push their POV! Gadykozma 17:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If only my argument were a strawman, pir. In fact, even though the consensus exists, the minority who objected will not accept the majority opinion, so the problem remains. Jayjg 20:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, I am not part of the consensus you claim. Sorry to disagree with you, after all the applause you gave me for my versions of occupation of Palestine, et al. On this one, I agree with Christopher. Moreover, a similar explosion of articles resulted from the dispute over Augusto Pinochet -- if you recall, writing there had stalled over POVs on the American CIA's role in the Chilean coup of 1973. After the logjam was broken, all sorts of previously unknown or laid-back writers stepped in, and now we have a Chile series to be proud of. I'm hoping our Arab-Israeli conflict series well also become praiseworthy. --Uncle Ed 17:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the process by which other encylopedia go through similar arguments. How many revisions of structure etc. I imagine it's not dissimlar to the what happened in the case of Chile. The significant difference being that it is visible here, and that is good as it should allow people to establish their own level of confidence in the info provided.--Jirate 18:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another compromise attempt

What do people here think about the title Occupation (Israeli-Palestinian discourse)? Gadykozma 01:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is "discourse" better than Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Here's a recipe for more mess: creating an article Israeli occupation of Palestine will have a consequence of whole bunch of other "occupation" articles including Arab occupation of Eretz Israel. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This discussion continues at Talk:Occupation of Palestine. Gadykozma 16:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)