Talk:Occupation of the Palestinian territories

Jmabel's thoughts on what the article should be

Per discussion at Talk:Occupation of Palestine, we seem to have some consensus on this as a generally acceptable title for an article on the post-1967 Israeli military occupation of un-annexed Palestinian territories outside the Green Line. This particular article would specifically not have lengthy discussion of:

1. The Sinai, which is universally agreed to have been occupied Egyptian (not Palestinian) territory 1967-1979.
2. The Golan Heights: while their status may be disputed, the dispute is between Israel and Syria. These would only become an other-than-tangential subject of this article if there is evidence of a Palestinian claim to the Golan.
3. The various Israeli incursions into Lebanon.
4. Green-line Israel itself. While there are a few (mostly Muslim) countries that do not recognize Israel at all, Israel is a UN member, and its claim to its pre-1967 territory is generally accepted (de jure or de facto) internationally.

There should undoubtedly be mention of Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and of differing countries' views of the legality or illegality of that annexation, but I would hope that serious discussion of that issue can be placed elsewhere: my hope is to focus this article on Palestinian areas that fall under Israeli military or political control without falling under domestic Israeli law.

The idea is to have an article that will focus on the succession of regimes in the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) since 1967, with particular emphasis on military occupation as such. It is intended as a place to describe both the theory and practice of law and sovereignty in the territories, the successive regimes (military occupation, introduction of the Israeli settlements, the Palestinian Authority, the degree to which power and/or effective sovereignty has and has not been ceded to the PA) and the effects of road-building and the barrier currently under construction by Israel.

I strongly recommend that those working on this article familiarize themselves with the many articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially the article Palestinian territories, most notably the section there on Legal Status of the territories. I'd welcome a list of other articles of high relevance; I hope it doesn't turn into a laundry list of every article on the Middle East.

This is a topic here about which I would like us to create an article, and I've been debating with various people for about a month now trying to come up with a generally acceptable title for that article. In proposing limitations to the scope of this article, I am not opposing the creation of any other article; this (somewhat circumscribed) topic deserves an article, and as far as I can tell we don't have one. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

• It's been half a year. As far as I can tell, people seem more interested in making this a soapbox than an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ed's initial attempt

Sorry to jump the gun here. When I saw that there was no article, I just went ahead and created a first draft. I was a bit stunned to discover that the talk page was rather full!

If anyone wants to delete my draft, on the grounds that it's not going in the right direction - *sigh* - just let me know.

I'm trying to edit this series so that all involved will agree that every article is accurate and unbiased, but I'm hasty, haphazard -- though hopefully not hopped up on heroin. Awful alliteration, agreed (so silly)! --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 19:50, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, it seems to me that what you are writing is more an effort at an evenhanded editorial than an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, on reflection, I gotta agree with you. Anyway, I hope it can remain as a section of a much bigger article. If not, well, no harm done and we can just start fresh. The main thing is that we're starting to work together more as a team. --user:Ed Poor (porous reed) 21:19, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, for now I'm leaving part of what you wrote, but I think the following is nothing but opinionated commentary and I am removing it here to the talk page where I think it belongs. If upon rereading it you think I'm wrong about that, put it back in the article. In any event, I'm trying to develop sort of an outline of an article here, then go back and fill in with more solidly cited material. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

The cut paragraphs

So it is practically impossible to discuss the topic calmly, due to the powerful connotations of the terminology being used. And some advocates believe that the promotion of this terminology is intended to produce exactly this situation.

Attempts to unload the language have generally fallen flat. No one really cares to discuss the issues in terms of:

• Israeli military control of the West Bank and Gaza; or,
• disposition of land sought by Arab nationalists in Palestine

<end of cut material>

Wording

Some reasons why Palestine remains occupied are largely becuase of attacks by a minority Palistinian nationalists on Israeli civilians which include suicide bombings, and attacks on settlers in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. would this be pov?--198 04:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Utterly. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

And thus eminently suited for inclusion in the article, if properly sourced. AFAIK, the two main viewpoints about the "roots" of the Arab-Israeli conflict are (1) that Israel is blocking Arab nationalists from gaining sovereignty over West Bank & Gaza -- i.e., "occupying" the territories sought by Palestinian Arabs -- and (2) that Pan-Arabists are exploiting the principle of land for peace to whittle away Israel's hold on the British Mandate of Palestine, intending to eliminate Israel.

Amazingly, partisans holding each of these opposing views seem unable to concede that any reasonable person could disagree with their view of reality. My aim in editing the Wikipedia series of articles on Palestine has been to highlight the existence of varying points of view (POVs). --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Note: Ed Poor has stated on his Talk page that he agrees with the idea that "all terrorists are Islamic". This should be taken into account when he talks about NPOV. - Xed 14:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I said While I personally side with Israel and tend to agree with the idea that all terrorists are Islamic I try hard NOT to imbue my edits with this perspective. Please do not quote me out of context. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:55, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's right. You agree that "all terrorists are Islamic". The full quote confirms it. - Xed 15:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You may have overlooked the qualifer tend to. What I meant by this is that the generalization is not true in all cases. It's certainly not true in 20th century Middle Eastern politics. And I doubt that the Marxist terrorism in Latin America has much to do with Islam: possibly nothing at all.

Let's not play gotcha, okay? If you're not sure what a Wikipedian means, please ask them for a clarification. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:21, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. You agree that "all terrorists are Islamic". You're absurd attempt to explain and justify this position just makes things worse. - Xed 16:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with that statement. There have been Jewish terrorists, Maoist terrorists, etc. (As a side issue, I'm personally not convinced that indiscriminate bombing of a city during a declared war is not "terrorism"; by this view, Germans and Americans were terrorists in WW2.) I wish you would credit my nuanced view. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

So you can hold these two views simultaneously - a) "I tend to agree with the idea that all terrorists are Islamic" and b) "There are Maoist and Jewish terrorists"? My previous view of you as a bigot has now been revised with an additional qualifier. You are a very confused (or self-deluding) bigot. - Xed 16:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for "qualifying that" :-) --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:04, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I was paraphrasing (and mangling) an Arab editorial that I heard quoted on the Sean Hannity radio show: "not all Muslims are terrorists, however, sadly we say that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims." --Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid [1]

...I think what Uncle Ed is trying to say is, "In modern times, 100% of terrorist activity carried out in Israel proper is carried out by groups professing to be Islamic militant groups", and there he is right, unfortunately. --Node 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I assume in that "modern" must only mean post-independence? And even then, is the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade appropriately described as an "Islamic militant group"? The PLO, with which they are affiliated, is secular. I suppose most of their members are Muslim, but by that standard, Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian terrorist"... -- Jmabel | Talk 03:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Majority" (more than half); "all". Spot the difference. I look forward to casting my vote for "least-biased" editor when asked. Dr Zen 07:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use of the term "martyr"

I'm not sure where this should go, so I'm putting it here.

Why the hell do people have such a problem with calling suicide bombers "martyrs"? "Martyr" in no way implies a just cause or a righteous death. According to my dictionary: 1) Somebody who gives up their life for a cause, esp. religious 2) Somebody who gives up something important to them to further a cause, esp. religious 3) A person who suffers a lot 4) A person who goes through pain and suffering to gain sympathy for a cause. I would say that the usage of "martyr" to refer to a suicide bomber who kills innocent babies and children falls into the first definition, like it or not, possibly the second (suicide bombers rarely do what they do simply because they have no will to live, I believe that in most cases life is important to them but it has over time become less important to them than the cause they hope to further - but that doesn't mean it's not important to them), and maybe the 3rd or 4th (I don't imagine blowing onesself up would be very painful, as death would probably be instantaneous; the "possibly" refers to possible emotional pain and perhaps painful experiences that led to the decision to do what they did).

Saying the people who died while plowing planes into the WTC were martyrs isn't some sort of huge disrespect to the people that died from the event, rather it is a simple truth. These people gave up their lives to further a cause, nevermind what the cause was. Just because you take others with you - even babies and children - doesn't mean you didn't die with the intent of furthering a cause. --Node 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of connotation. It's the obverse of using the word "terrorist". "Martyr" has strong positive connotations. "Terrorist" has strong negative connotations. I think we should be very wary of ever using either, uncited, in the narrative voice of the articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:30, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Need for resolution, integration

Since the end of the VfD vote on the "Israeli occupation..." page, there has been some minor discussion of Ambi's unilateral enforcement of her interpretation of the results. (there was actually no consensus if you count separately, and you can't count votes to redirect and votes to delete together because while together they may form a majority, they're two different solutions - I find it a bit suspicious that Ambi's own favoured redirect solution was the one that she decided had won)

That aside, there is still a need for integration of its former content http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_occupation_of_Palestine&oldid=6101343 into this page, or the complete restoration of that page, and/or for it to redirect to this page despite possible objections from some. --Node 23:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag

In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the POV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable.--A. S. A. 09:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Article history

Is it just me, or is this the same article which I attempted to NPOV-ify with the help of Ambi, until it was turned into a protected redirect? Because either I'm hallucinating, or someone needs to make a note somewhere about article history. --Node 00:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Occupied Territories (Israeli)

Marsden, you appear to have created a POV fork of this article. I think it needs to be re-merged back here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't think I did anything to this article. What do you mean? Marsden 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why was Occupied Territories (Israeli) merged here? Why shouldn't there be an article specifically on the territories outside the Green Line under Israeli military control? If this is to be that article, it needs to be renamed (and much of it rewritten). Brian Tvedt 11:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There are already articles about the territories outside the Green Line under Israeli military control; several of them, in fact, including this article, which covers the same subject as Marsden's new POV fork of this article, Occupied Territories (Israeli). In what way do you think the subject of the new article differs from that of the existing article? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As a demonstration of good faith, Jay, why don't you drop your pretense that my article is a fork of this article? If anything, my article might be considered a fork of the Occupied Territories article, restoring its original subject. It is difficult to imagine a producive discussion with you when you insist that only your personal interpretation of the facts is valid. How about it, Jay? Marsden 03:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be merged, and if Marsden wants to work on the issue, he should work to improve this page instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The article that Marsden created is about "the territories occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967". If your position is that this article is about the same subject, then it needs to be renamed, because the title suggests it is limited to the Palestinian territories. Brian Tvedt 02:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be re-titled as well; that's certainly an option. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden's "synopsis"

For those who have just joined us, here is a synopsis of the history so far:

• In making slow, consensual progress on the Zionism page, it was arrived at -- following an initial suggestion from Goodoldpolonius2 and my and Jayjg's edits -- that the sentence "Since the founding of the State of Israel, 'Zionism' has come generally to mean support for Israel, although it is sometimes used more specifically to refer to efforts to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel and to expand the Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control," would be included in the second paragraph of the introduction.
• In putting links into this sentence, I linked "territories under Israel's control" to Palestinian territories, after failing to find something more accurate.
• Jayjg removed this link, noting that "Palestinian territories" "was too restrictive, as they (territories under Israel's control) include Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and even Sinai Peninsula"
• After looking for and not finding a preferable replacement, I restored the "Palestinian territories" link, noting "while imperfect, better than no link at all. 'Occupied Territories' needs disambiguation and new entry." I also commented at greater length in Talk:Zionism, including commenting, "To just vaguely refer to 'territories under Israel's control' without a link essentially raises an obvious question without answering it."
• Jayjg removed the link again, noting "too restrictive, as in previous comment."
• In the process of looking for a better link, I had found that the Occupied Territories link was, in my opinion, horrible. As a very minimal start, I deleted a section titled, "Most current nations exist in once occupied territory," noting, with the usual charm and tact for which I have become known, "The section on 'Most nations were once occupied territory' was just silly and didn't belong.
• Viriditas reverted this change, with no explanation.
• I added a paragraph in the "Occupied Territories" article about the territories occupied by Israel after the Six Day War, noting "The term Occupied Territories (capitalized) is commonly used to refer to" these territories.
• Roughly simulaneously, I left a message in Viriditas' talk page (again employing my usual charm and tact) asking him to explain why he had restored the "Most current nations exist in once occupied territory" section. The only response I received there was from Jayjg, directing me to the talk page for "Occupied Territories," and (refering to my edits on the Israeli Occupied Territories) asking me not to duplicate content and -- possibly forgetting his objections to the link from the Zionism article -- noting that the disambiguation template gave links to the West Bank and Gaza. Jayjg also reverted my edit to the "Occupied Territories" page with similar comments.
• Also roughly simultaneously, I researched the history of the "Occupied Territories" article and found that it had begun (quite reasonably, in my opinion) as an article on the Israeli Occupied Territories, but that while it had accumulated many of the defenses and rationalizations that are sometimes made regarding the Israeli Occupation, almost all of the direct references to the Israeli Occupied Territories had been removed(!). Again employing my usual charm and tact, I left the message on the "Occupied Territories" talk page, "Some of you seem to be intent on making this entry meaningless. You should be gravely ashamed of yourselves."
• At about this point, Jayjg apparently had an epiphany that one of the purposes of his life was to lecture me on civility and good faith. I also had an epiphany that one of the purposes of my life was to make the "Occupied Territories" article less embarassing to Wikipedia, and not to spare the feelings of those who had made it an embarassment to Wikipedia in doing so. Various pleasantries followed.
• As a second effort at making the article less ridiculous in a manner not objected to, I expanded the disambiguation note to mention that while the current article was about the general meaning of the term "occupied territories," the same phrase capitalized was often used to indicate the Israeli Occupied Territories, and adding links to the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. I also put a link to "Occupied Territories" in the Zionism article, noting that I had added disambiguation to it.
• Viriditas removed my "Occupied Territories" edit with no explanation. Guy Montag redirected the link in the Zionism article to "Palestinian territories," noting "too pov." Humus sapiens then removed the Zionism link entirely, giving an explanation that I could not make sense of ("I disagree with this link and can provide a quote by Abbas that Jewish communities in Gaza took only 2.5% of private Palestinian land.").
• I noted again (this time by way of correcting Jayjg's mischaracterization of my comments) in Zionism:talk that I thought a link to "Palestinian territories" was better than none at all, and put this link in the Zionism article with the note "Temporary fix until Jay or someone else comes up with a better link" (I had recently noted to Jayjg in the "Occupied territories" talk that, while he was arguing there that no new or changed article on the Israeli Occupied Territories was needed, this seemed to contradict his continual assertion regarding the Zionism article that any link offered was inaccurate, and I challenged him to come up with an acceptable link).
• Jayjg removed the link in the Zionism article again, noting "no fix required - the link isn't critical, and an inaccurate link is worse than none at all."
• At about this time in Zionism:talk, Brian Tvedt expressed the view that another article specifically on the Israeli Occupied Territories was needed. I proposed a disambiguation page for "Occupied Territories" and then separate pages for "... (general meaning)" (the existing article) and "... (Israeli)."
• Jayjg objected that this would not include Israel proper, and indicated that this article (Occupation of the Palestinian territories) covered all of his territorial concerns, but that it was "quite poorly written and titled," and that it "somewhat bizarrely, also mentions the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, Israel, and even Lebanon," and noted, "It's not an appropriate link either, for that reason, and because it's just an argument about whether or not the territories are occupied." (By his own words, then, Jay still has not come up with a link for the Zionism article that is acceptable to him; this one is not it.)
• I reminded Jay that the refering sentence included "efforts to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel" in addition to the phrase on the territories, and so Israel proper did not seem germaine to the link. He made the response, "Encouraging Jewish immigration and expanding Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control are different actions; one is not solely dependant on the other;" I'm not entirely sure what the difference is if the territory considered is Israel proper, although I think it must have something to do with sex.
• My first and second efforts at making the Occupied Territories article less ridiculous having been thwarted, and my every effort at making a compromise or temporary solution to the original Zionism link matter having been rejected, I followed through on what I had earlier proposed to Brian Tvedt (I had also put a "split" template as well as a "POV" warning -- which was also argued over -- on the "Occupied Territories" page). Accordingly, I

• wrote the "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" page;
• moved the existing "Occupied Territories" page to "Occupied Territories (general meaning)";
• created a disambiguation page for "Occupied Territories" linking to these two;
• put a link to "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" in the Zionism article; and
• noted all of this on the Zionism:talk page.

• Jay put up a "merge" template to the "Occupation of ..." article on my "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" page and characterized my new article as a "fork" of this one.
• Brian Tvedt described my new article as "a good start," and made some edits to it and suggested that "whatever is sensible" in the "Occupation of ..." article be merged into it.
• Veriditas deleted my new article and made it a redirect to the "Occupation of ..." article.
• I restored the "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" article.
• Veriditas made my disambiguation page a redirect to the original "Occupied Territories" page, which Jay had restored to its original name.
• I put a disambiguation template on the renamed "Occupied Territories" page giving a link to my restored "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" page.
• Jay and I started a revert war; when it became apparent that he was going to come up short in this, SlimVirgin somehow joined his side, reverting me with the comment "an article about this already exists; Marsden is just creating his own personal version of it here." I inquired at her talk page as to whether she had actually looked at my article which she claimed was just my "own personal version" of the "Occupation of ..." page, but I have not received an answer to that question. After realizing he would make a 3RR violation before I did, but before SlimVirgin joined the fun, Jay also gave me an odd comment about how he thought I should revert my last revert, and that "If you prefer I can turn your fork (sic) into a re-direct. Think carefully about that please." He later, indeed, turned my article into a re-direct.
• SlimVirgin (probably much to her regret at this point) asked me on my talk page why I had created the "Occupied Territories (Israeli)" page.
• Here we are.

Marsden 02:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, somewhat to my regret, having just read your synopsis. But thanks for writing it. ;-D If this all started over the need to link "territories under Israel's control," it could perhaps have been linked to Israel, or specifically to the section in there that deals with territories Israel controls, and if there isn't such a section, perhaps you could write one. That would avoid writing another page that will, for the most part, be repetitive. I think the problem stems from use of the title "Palestinian territories," because it means the article content is restricted. Also, the title of your article is arguably POV: "Disputed territories" would be better, or "Territories under Israel's control". Could you discuss people's specific objections here before reverting again? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for the length of the saga. I don't think a link to Israel would really be appropriate; what I understand the phrase "expand the Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control" to refer to is the settlement effort. Some people -- including some who are reverting changes at the Zionism page but refusing to discuss why -- apparently think that support for the settlement effort is contrary to Zionism, and Jay seems to think the phrase means something entirely different, although it is difficult to imagine what that might be. In any case, I think the phrase begs the question, "What territories does Israel control, and what is the difference between expanding the Jewish population in them and having Jews immigrate to Israel?" And while the answer to this might be found buried somewhere in the Israel page, I (along with Brian Tvedt, at least) think it warrants its own page. I think the "Occupation of ..." page is an editorial more than anything else -- I think it is more encyclopedic to describe what exactly is meant by a term, and then mention conflicts related to it, rather than to just write immediately about the conflict.

I disagree with you that the phrase "Occupied Territories" is POV; see "Revert" section at bottom of Talk:Occupied Territories on that. However, I would propose renaming the "Occupied Territories (Israli)" page as "Occupied/Disputed Territories (Israeli)," along with a link from the "Occupied Territories" page that indicates -- as was previously done -- that the term "Occupied Territories" is sometimes used to refer to the territories captured and held by Israel after the Six Day War.

Marsden 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied v disputed

Marsden, what is your argument for saying that the title "Occupied Territories (Israel)" is not inherently POV, given that it clearly represents only one side of the dispute? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

1. "Occupied Territories" is common use. See "From 'Occupied Territories' to 'Disputed Territories'" by Dore Gold (hardly an opponent of Israel): "The politically-loaded term 'occupied territories' or 'occupation' seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties."

2. "Occupied Territories" accurately reflects the facts under international law. Several UN Security Council resolutions bear this out, and the only people who contest this fact are supporters of Israel, who are biased. The US government -- hardly an adversary of Israel -- uses the term "occupied territories." You are mistaken when you say the term represents only one side of the dispute: it represents neutral observors as well.

3. The Wikipedia NPOV page notes:

• Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

It is a minority view that "Occupied Territories" is POV; I am quite certain that a greater number of both people and nations could be found who think that "Israel" (as opposed to "Zionist Entity" or the like) is POV than think "Occupied Territories" is POV. Do you think that the term "Israel" is POV?

4. The supposedly NPOV replacement terms that are offered ("Disputed Territories," e.g.) all have been proposed by only one side of the dispute.

On what basis do you think that it is POV? I don't think there is any reasonable basis for such a position.

Marsden 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you use the Dore Gold paper, because I was about to use it on the other side. I think he makes a strong case for "occupied" being POV. What do you think is wrong with his argument?

I agree that most people appear to use "occupied territories," though it might be interesting to find out exactly who does and doesn't. But that doesn't make "disputed territories" a tiny-minority POV. It's a significant-minority POV, and should be included.

The other argument I want to draw your attention to is the one surrounding the word "terrorism." Most people use this word. Most people would call 9/11 an act of "terrorism," and most people would call many of the leader of Palestinian groups "terrorists." Nevertheless, there's a strong sense in Wikipedia from many of the regular editors that this is a word best avoided when possible, so some people use "militant," or refer to "political violence," or structure the sentence to avoid the need for a substitute term. I see "occupied" as perhaps fitting into the same category. There are two sides in this dispute: the Arab and the Israeli. One uses a term that may or may not be correct, and for which the Israelis argue there is no basis in international law (read the Dore paper for his arguments and let me know what you think of them, if you have time); and the other side uses a word, "disputed," which is indubitably true from both points of view. So it's interesting that you're insisting on using the word that might be false, instead of the word that is definitely true. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I had already offered the compromise of using the title "Occupied/Disputed Territory." You and Jayjg ignored my offer. Also, you apparently missed my suggestion that you see the "Revert" section at bottom of Talk:Occupied territories for more discussion.

No, I read it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The problems with Ambassador Gold's argument are myriad. I will just go over the headings from it.

• "Occupation" as an Accusation: true, but irrelevant. "Murderer" is also an accusation, but some people really are murderers.

There are courts able to rule on whether an act fits the definition of "murder." There's no equivalent for the word "occupation." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

There are at least the Resolutions of the UN Security Council, which Israel, as a member of the UN, has by treaty agreed to abide by. These, by the opinion of every neutral legal authority I've ever heard of, are consistent with Israel being an occupier. Marsden 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Terminology of Other Territorial Disputes: I think he is incorrect about the term "occupation" not being commonly used with regard to some of his examples, Cyprus, for one. And, to my thinking, "occupation" implies military control, particularly when a resident population is there. A lot of "disputed territories" are remote, and the dispute is largely on paper; others are unpopulated, so there is no question of the resident population's prefered affiliations being thwarted, as with Israel's situation.

• No Previously-Recognized Sovereignty in the Territories: possibly because I am American, this seems irrelevant to me. People generally have a right to self-determination; that they did not previously form a government does not mean that it is acceptable forcefully to attach the territory they live in to a neighboring state.

• Aggression vs. Self-Defense: this is germaine to the Sinai and Golan, but not to Gaza and the West bank. With regard to the latter two, I think Israel must keep a consistent position: either the territories were illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and so the resident populations cannot be punished for their illegal occupiers having attacked Israel; or they were legitimately part of and responsible for the actions of Egypt and Jordan, nullifying the "no previously-recognized sovereignty" argument. I tend to think -- and I suspect most people would agree -- that the more reasonable thing is to consider Gazans and West Bankers as not part of Egypt or Jordan.

• Israeli Rights in the Territories: a lot of this is word games and inconsistent: the Mandate gave the Jewish people rights in the whole of Palestine; but Resolution 242 only requires withdrawal from some of the Occupied Territories, all with very similar wording.

• After Oslo, Can the Territories be Classified as "Occupied"?: I'll give him that, although Oslo was suspended, and anyway a lot of the period considered is pre-Oslo. We say the Sinai was part of the Occupied Territories, for example, and Oslo has nothing to do with that.

Marsden 04:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already pointed out the "terrorism" analogy to him; it appeared to make no impression. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, why won't you address the terrorism analogy? It's a majority-use term, and yet lots of good Wikipedia editors try to avoid using it because they feel it's inherently POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, first I should make clear that I would not shy away from using the word "terrorism" when it fits, although I probably would use it more precisely than a lot of people: some people insist that actions by a government body cannot be considered terrorism, but I disagree with that. And some people characterize attacks by irregular military against legitimate military targets to be terrorism, and I generally disagree with that, too.

Marsden, first of all, thank you for setting out such a thoughtful response. I'm going to insert my answers into yours. First, I would say with "terrorism," as with "occupation," we should use recognized international definitions, and not our own, or even the majority use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is no such thing as a private language: we must abide by definitions that are broadly understood. Generally, internationally "defined" definitions will function for this, but I think you'll agree that sometimes these are biased: "Zionism," for example was defined by the UN General Assembly as a form of racism for severatl years.

Right. And right there, you've pointed to a very good reason for not using United Nations definitions of words unless they have a solid legal basis. Using the word "occupation" in terms of Israel doesn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the definitions properly used are whatever people understand the terms to mean, which usually is indicated by their past use.

Well no, we can't use whatever people understand, because people disagree, which is why we're having this discussion. My argument is that, because people disagree, and because "occupation" (in this sense) is a legal term, we should stick closely to the legal use of it and quote legal sources if necessary. That is, we should approach the word "occupation" as we do the word "murder." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been thinking that what make a better analogy with regard to "Occupied Territories" than "terrorism" is the word "nigger." Obviously, this is an extremely offensive term, and I would never expect any responsible editor to use it in an article. And yet, there is an article on the term, and I think this is appropriate: the word has been used historically, and it has meaning. Most of the entry on "nigger" is (I'm guessing) concerned with the fact that it is offensive, and I think at least part of the "Occupied Territories (Israel)" entry should address the fact that it is objected to. But the term has been used historically, and I think it warrants an entry.

See above. I think the word "occupation" has a fixed, non-insulting, non-prescriptive meaning, and we should stick to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

But with those caveats, I take your point: as Gold says of "occupation," "terrorism" is a politically-loaded term, and care should be taken to ensure that it is not used in a way to prejudice debate. I certainly agree with that, but that wouldn't keep me from calling a suicide bomber blowing up a school bus "terrorism."

So what about "occupation?" First, occupation is not inherently bad; the US occupied Japan and part of Germany after WWII, and reasonable people don't question that this was the right thing to do, and the US never questioned the use of the term to describe what was doing there.

Yes, but we think of the allies as having liberated Europe, not occupying it. So we do see occupation as a term with both descriptive and prescriptive meaning, just like terrorism, and we don't want to use it for our "own side." The U.S. says it is not currently occupying Iraq, for example, which it clearly is, in my view. But they have satisfied certain legal criteria, and so they have stopped using the word occupation, and this appears to have been accepted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say that France was liberated, but Germany and Japan, not so much. These were conquered and occupied. I have not carefully considered the matter, but I think that the US does not dispute that it is an occupying power in Iraq. Typically for the Bush regime, they no doubt prefer to represent themselves in their own rhetoric as "liberators," but I doubt extremely much that they are occupiers for the purposes of the Geneva convention. Marsden 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. very much disputes it. They admitted to being an occupying power at first, but then said the situation had changed - I think because they arranged an election - and they did this with reference to the meaning of the term in international law. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What makes "occupation" politically loaded is what it implies. First, it implies that the occupier does not own the territory occupied, and does not have the authority to do things in the occupied territory that it might do in its sovereign territory.

Right. And with much of the area we're discussing here, there is no owner. There is no sovereignty. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. People have a right to self-determination; the resident population is sovereign. That they have not formalized a government is irrelevant. Are you willing, SlimVirgin, to deny that people have a right to self-determination? If not, then I think you must drop your position here. If you are, then I think you are properly subject to being accused of denying people their basic hunan rights. Marsden 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but with respect, we're not talking about what you or I strongly disagree with. We're talking about what words mean, and in this context, what legal meaning they have. No, I don't think e.g. the Welsh have the right to self-determination qua Welsh. They have the right to self-determination qua one small part of the British isles, because the Welsh do not have their own government, and many of them see Wales as "occupied" too, for that very reason — but they're not. How do we know they're not? Because the British presence in Wales does not fit the international legal definition of "occupation." And the Israelis say their sitution does not fit it either. All am I saying here is that we should give the Israeli position due consideration, and perhaps do some research (some legal research) into what they say, rather than dismissing it outright. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

A further implication of this is that the occupier will eventually leave and turn over control of the territory to whomever ultimately does own the territory, much as the US has (mostly) done with regard to Japan and Germany. Gold's article is clear that this is part of his objection: he wants Israel to maintain the right never to leave.

He wants the issue of exactly which parts Israel will leave not to be pre-judged by language. His argument is that no borders have been agreed; that is, it has not yet been decided where Israel ends and where the other territory begins. How therefore can there be an occupation (in the legal sense) of an issue that is as yet completely undecided? (talk) (I think that was you ...)

I think that to almost everyone in the world -- remember that Gold is completely biased -- the borders are perfectly well understood: the 1949 Armistice lines. The matter is not in any sense completely undecided. Marsden 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Gold's argument should stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of any bias. He is either correct in terms of international law, or he isn't. And anyway an armistice line is not a final border, and of course the matter is completely undecided. What do you think all the Israeli/Palestinian meetings with Bush are for, and all the statements in the Rose Garden about whether the barrier will or won't be the final border? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Second, it implies a responsibility to the resident population of the territories, especially as defined in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has resisted this accepting this responsibility. For me, this is sort of nonsensical: people should be treated decently regardless of circumstance, and there is really no good excuse for trying to get out of treating people even with the minimal requirements of the Fourth Geneva Convention (it doesn't guarantee democracy or anything like that). A primary concern of Israel's is that the Convention prohibits the occupying power from moving its people into the occupied territory, which of course Israel does through the settlements.

So a significant difference here, I think, is that concern about the term "terrorism" is pretty much all about attitude: when you call someone "terrorist," it encourages people to believe that he is violent and dangerous, and that he is willing to attack people who are not really involved in whatever conflict he is in.

It's not only about attitude. There are legal consequences in Western countries for people perceive to be involved in terrorism, which often mean they can be incarcerated without trial, and can be banned from certain countries simply in virtue of membership of, or association with, a certain group. Again, it's a term like "occupation." It has descriptive and prescriptive meaning, as well as real and propaganda-related consequences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You need to make this argument at the UN, which even so insists on calling the occupation an "occupation", its own definition regardless, and not here, where it is just so much original research. If the whole world calls it an occupation, then that's what we call it. That the world is wrong to do so is something you need to get published in a reputable newspaper and then quote yourself here. This is the advice you give other editors on other pages, but strangely, when the shoe is on the other foot, you do not wear it. Grace Note 05:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of inconsistency when all I'm try to do is debate the issue. I mostly agree with the majority-usage argument and did until quite recently with the word "occupied." But just as I came to the view that the majority-usage of terrorism was often wrong-headed, POV, and inconsistent, so too I'm coming to the view that "occupation" is badly used, and that it's another word we should use with caution i.e. should use only when it's being used in a legal context by people who are experts in international law and where we cite them (and never in titles, as with terrorism). The UN isn't much of a source on this. Some of its documents refer to the "occupied Palestinian territories" when there is a disputed legal basis for calling it an occupation, but in the case of the United States with its (in my view, unambiguous) occupation of Iraq, the UN agrees that the U.S. and coalition forces are no longer an occupying power, and Wikipedia goes along with that, and changes the title of Occupation of Iraq. (And the British soldiers who today broke down the walls of an Iraqi jail to free two soldiers just happened to be passing with six tanks, and remain nevertheless deeply respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. This is the UN for you.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

But concern about the term "occupation" is more about consequences: the term on its own is pretty much neutral -- the US never denied being an occupier; but being an occupier has the consequence of meaning that you cannot stay indefinitely, and that in many respects you must comport yourself as a temporary authority rather than as a sovereign.

In that respect, I think the analogy of "terrorism" to "occupation" fails. The only reason to want to avoid being called "terrorist" is to avoid having people think badly of you; the reason to want to avoid being called "occupier" is to avoid specific limitations on your authority in the territory in question. Hence, "occupation" is a more real term; it is not primarily used to prejudice debate, but rather to indicate actual circumstances with actual consequences. In that sense, it doesn't follow that it should be avoided in the same way that "terrorism" should be avoided. It makes sense to argue about whether "occupation" is really going on -- much moreso than arguing about "terrorism," really -- but the term adds a lot of meaning, and it makes little sense to avoid using it just because it has some emotional charge to it. The "real meaning" to "emotional charge" ratio of "occupation" is much, much higher than that of "terrorism."

If your argument is that "occupation" is a term with largely descriptive meaning, then you should refrain from using it here, because the Israeli presence in the disputed territories does not fit the definition of occupation under international law. You are allowing yourself to use its prescriptive meaning when you want to (i.e. you use it to signal your personal disapproval), while denying that it has any significant prescriptive meaning; and although there's a perfectly good definition of occupation out there (according to international law), you're not using it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden 17:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The irony is just too rich. Grace Note 09:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, as I've said on the Talk: page, we've reached a fork in the road. You have been revert warring, and actively recruiting people for revert wars.[2] [3] [4] Is this the way you think articles are brought to consensus? I'm *this* close to dismissing all of your comments and edits as being in bad faith. Prove me wrong by veering from this completely un-Wikipedia path and gaining consensus for your edits instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I gave you a specific request for how you might demonstrate good faith, and you not only failed to respond directly to it, but you pointedly did the opposite. And I -- unlike you -- have offered numerous compromises in our disagreements. Now you want me to jump through a hoop of your design. No thanks, Jay. Unveil your threat; if you really think I've acted in bad faith, respond accordingly. Show your true colors, Jay. Marsden 03:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've said many times that I'm willing to discuss things and to compromise. You, on the other hand, have been recruiting people to edit war for you for days now whose only qualification is not that they have any interest in or knowledge about the topic, but rather that they have disagreed with me on other articles/topics. In addition, you've responded to various overtures with personal comments and insults. It's time for you to demonstrate good faith; see SlimVirgin's comments below. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying and doing are two different things, Jay. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Marsden 17:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what, I won't revert your latest reversion of your Occupied Territories (Israeli) article if you don't revert the other articles. How's that for walking the walk? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Zionism article, okay. There is a legitimate argument to be made -- although it is not being legitimately made by people like Humus Sapiens and K...'s Ghost -- that support for the settlements is not something that is meant by "Zionism." I don't, frankly, know the answer. If the phrase on settlements goes, there is no need for a link from it.

The Occupied Territories article, I can't go along with that. The Israeli Occupied Territories are a different and commonly used meaning for the term. The "Occupation of ..." article is not very encyclopedic, and it doesn't directly address the matter that the IOT are another meaning for the term. I will still go for ".../Disputed" in the title, however.

Marsden 19:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, if you have a problem with an article, edit it, don't create a fork. The offer is still open on the Occupied territories article; you've just done another revert on Occupied Territories (Israeli), and you're close to being out of them. I suggest taking it, and working stuff out here. There are other articles that need to be addressed in this whole thing anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We are supposed to get support for our edits, Jay. That's how the wiki is supposed to work. You are taking Marsden to task for doing so upfront instead of backchannelling. The former should actually be applauded. It's how we're meant to do it. How is he supposed to "gain consensus" without asking for support? Grace Note 06:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Not by recruiting anonymous IPs to revert for him[5], who, up until now, have only shown an interest in Zoroastrianism and Iran, and whose only involvement in this article is a tit for tat reversion of me because I reverted him on an entirely unrelated article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I think you have to accept that, regardless how you actually proceed, there is a perception that you work as part of a bloc of editors who frustrate attempts to "unbias" articles about Israel. I think you need to understand that that is frustrating for editors who want to make what they see as neutral articles. I think perhaps that stepping outside your biases and asking whether there is actually substance to others' understanding of the articles as biased would be helpful for you. Personally, I don't particularly want articles that are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or anything like that, but I'm concerned that Wikipedia has a serious and strong pro-Israeli bias. I'm concerned that you are not willing to address those feelings, which I'm not alone in having, but have worked very hard to suppress them by all means available to you, foul as well as fair. Editors quickly learn that you're not actually interested in compromise. They realise that you genuinely feel it is neutral to have an article that does not say that Israel is occupying Palestine and that you do not understand that it is not "neutral" to write articles from the Israeli POV. It is, of course, neutral to include it. I've never argued that your POV should not be included, but it should not be the basis for articles such as this, given that it is the view of a rather small minority. I don't really believe that you are acting in bad faith, although of course you claim that of me because minimising the good faith of your opponents is part of the way you deal with them. They're all trolls who don't require bothering with rather than seriously concerned editors who you need to try to convince. I don't recall you ever bothering to do that with an editor whose views seriously diverged from yours, unless they were willing to accept that you are the guardian of these articles and that they must convince you to yield. I'm prepared to accept that you genuinely believe that it is "neutral" to give an equal or even a greater hearing to the minority view, although this is explicitly forbidden by the policy on NPOV. Returning to my initial sentence, Jay, when editors realise this about you, the temptation is to form a bloc to match yours in any way they can. Personally, I've never fallen foul of that temptation. What would be the point? You are an arbitrator and you're very clever at wielding the policies of WP. Your fellows support one another on other articles at WP, and they have a willingness to police editors they disapprove of WP-wide. I think it wouldn't be wise and I suspect Marsden will soon be restricted. But I understand that he would think that the best way to deal with you is as a stumbling block and would solicit the support of other editors who have found you equally problematic. Still, I agree that it wasn't wise of him, and I'd ask him not to do it, if only because it gives you a means to ignore the content of what he argues and focus ad hominem. Grace Note 05:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Would Marsden and Grace Note please stop the personal attacks, ad hominem remarks, accusung everyone of POV etc, and concentrate only on the discussion about content? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You're openly recruiting editors with no knowledge or interest to help you to revert and nothing else; and the ones you decided to ask won't exactly enhance your reputation around here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, each of the editors I've contacted has shown an interest in the subject. Secondly, I know who I am: the only question for me is, what is Wikipedia? The answer, as represented by Jayjg's behavior, along with the fact that he is somehow on one of the higher arbitration committees, is so far very disappointing. Marsden 03:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, all Jay wants (presumably) is that you engage in a discussion and see whether any compromise can be reached. Instead, you ignore all arguments and objections and proceed as though you're the only editor here, and then you try openly to recruit others to revert who have shown no interest in this subject (and if you claim they have, please provide some diffs), and who almost certainly know nothing about it. The only thing these editors have shown an interest in is disagreeing with Jayjg, which is why you tried to recruit them. You're not exactly acting in good faith, Marsden. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to show good faith by giving both of you an opportunity to respond to my offer from yesterday that the title "Occupied/Disputed Territories (Israeli)" might be used before I comment further. Marsden 04:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry -- one addition: each of the editors I've contacted I only ever knew of because they editted one or more of the topics in question. I can demonstrate that, but I don't think I have any compelling reason to do so. Marsden 04:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen Vizcarra make any edit to articles on these topics. It looks like you approached him because he's mad at me over a 3RR block, and mad at Jayjg because Jay and another editor opposed him over an issue elsewhere.

You wrote somewhere (but now I can't find where) that "it is ridiculous to let one party in a dispute dictate the terms by which it is understood -- would anyone accept that Syria has 2,000+ "military and humanitarian advisors" in Lebanon?" But if you go to Syrian occupation of Lebanon, you'll see it redirects to Syrian presence in Lebanon.

Please address the terrorism analogy, Marsden. I'd like to hear your opinion on that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra made some very level-headed comments, in my opinion, in the Zionism:talk page. That's the only way I ever heard of him. I think the situation vis a vis Syria and Lebanon would more accurately be described as "client state" : Lebanon has its own government; it's just that the government is controlled by Syria, in part through military presence. This is an ugly and nasty thing, but I don't think "occupation" is the most descriptive term for it. Most Lebanese, I think, pretty much go about with their lives as before: there are not direct Syrian controls on many aspects of their lives, as in the West Bank, and the government was not replaced in toto. On terrorism, see above.

Very disappointing that you again ignored my compromise offer. I consider that bad faith, SlimVirgin. Saying that you disagree with it would at least have been responsive, and we might have been able to work on some other compromise. But ignoring it completely is pretty shabby behavior. Needless to say, that goes for Jayjg as well. I can't see that either of you want any kind of compromise; you just want to enforce your own POVs, and if you can bollux other people up in this phony debate where you've "said many times that I'm willing to discuss things and to compromise," but never do anything of the sort, while keeping your prefered version of articles on top, that's good enough for you. I've extended a hand; you've spat on it. Marsden 17:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No one's spitting on your offer; it's just that I can't see what is in your new article that isn't, or couldn't be, on the page it's directing to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been said that the "Occupation of ..." article is poorly titled and poorly written -- I guess other than it's title and its content you really like it? I would not be adverse, as I think I have said before, to seeing that article deleted or merged into "OT (I)." But I think it was originally written with a very different intent than "OT (I)" which, again, is mostly about geography. Would you be willing to see the "Occupation of ..." article renamed, "OT (I)," and then its content replaced with that of the "OT (I)" article? You might have saved us all a lot of time had you just said this upfront. Marsden 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not merge the contents of OT(I) with this article? Why does the older page have to be merged with the one you created? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of spitting on an offer: [6] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Jay, from what I have seen, you are mainly just a bully, as revealed by your frequent use of veiled threats against new and new-ish editors. I'm appalled that you are on any sort of Wikipedia arbitration committee. As far as I'm concerned, that is really a black eye for Wikipedia. If you don't like it, improve your behavior. As you might say, I'm *that* close to actually formalizing a complaint against you -- think carefully about that please. Marsden 00:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That isn't helpful, Marsden. You'll find that if you stick to the content dispute and the arguments, Jay will be very happy to debate the issues with you. The problem is that by contacting certain types of editors, you've given the impression of something less than good faith. Perhaps if we can just stick to working through the issues, we'll make progress. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's only not helpful because it has no hope of succeeding, not because it wouldn't have merit. Grace Note 05:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The irony is just too rich for him. Re Syria, are you suggesting that there is the same widespread agreement that Syria is occupying Lebanon? Syria has a military presence in Lebanon but, after all, the US still has a military presence in Germany. Is the US "occupying" Germany? The point Marsden has strongly made is that the overwhelming majority of world opinion is that Israel is occupying the territories that that same majority, including nearly all mainstream news soruces and just about all commentators describe as the "occupied territories". There is a significant minority view that they are not "occupied" but are, *kof*, "disputed", but we are admonished in the NPOV policy not to unduly weight minority views. We are not required to distort the common usage to accommodate views that are so narrowly held.

The "analogy" with terrorism is poor, actually. If there was widespread agreement about what terrorism is, we would not have any problem defining it in our article. The UN would have adopted a straightforward definition and we would be able to at least refer to that. It has straightforwardly described what is happening in Palestine.

Let me put another "analogy" to you, Slim. The overwhelming majority of opinion states that David Irving is a Holocaust denier. Just as in the instance we are discussing, I share the majority opinion. The article on that fellow does not, though, say that it is claimed that he is a Holocaust denier. It says he is one. We put the majority view. You know that there is a minority view that he is not any such thing. You have not only argued against that view but you have suppressed its expression in Wikipedia. Whether the antisemitic POV should be permitted an expression WP is not an issue I would care to get into. The difficulty is, of course, that a commitment to NPOV and to free expression will sooner or later run into a personal repugnance for some views and their expression. I know that some, maybe most, editors do not believe free speech, or NPOV, should quite extend to certain views, and that there is no problem with not presenting some views neutrally.

Perhaps you would like to address that analogy though? It is considered okay to describe Irving with the majority label, but here you wish the minority label to be recognised. Can you see the disconnect in your thinking? Please don't snow me with stuff about how a court is a credible source, either. I know it is. But a court's judgement is an expression of opinion in the same way that a resolution of the UN's general assembly is. Grace Note 09:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What rank hypocrisy. "Occupied territories" is quite simply what the majority calls the territories in question. Elsewhere, the same editors who dislike this usage refuse to allow minority views to be aired, and yet here they insist on it. As Marsden points out, nearly the entire world calls them that, including impartial observers (impartial from a neutral view; of course, from a certain POV they too are partial).

If the "dispute" is between an overwhelming majority and a small minority, the practice in Wikipedia is to use the terminology of the majority. You insist on it elsewhere. It is right to note the dissent, but the majority use should be in general usage here. That is what we actually do elsewhere. Are pages about Israel somehow exempt from the rules we use for other pages? Should we edit out usages that are seen as pejorative by small minorities on other pages? If you think that, say so. If you do not, only sheer hypocrisy could have you pursue this argument here. Grace Note 06:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is rather typical of the language: "Critics of Israel typically cite all or several of the areas as being occupied:"

No. Everyone except a small minority says that Israel is occupying those areas. The UN says so. Nearly all of the world's governments say so. Almost all commentators say so. Nearly all reputable sources, including academics, newspapers, what have you. For any other statement of this kind, we would say "Israel is occupying:". We certainly would not present the information in a way that unduly weights the minority POV. This POV article should be merged into Occupied territories (Israeli), which far more closely reflects the majority view and should be used as a framework for this article. Grace Note 06:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If it was so simple, there wouldn't be any dispute, would it? ←Humus sapiens←Ñ~ÑÖ? 09:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What? Sorry, I'm not seeing why you think that we should set aside the NPOV policy for this article. Do you think you could explain? You seem to be suggested that if you dispute something, that gives you licence to remove the article it appears in. Can you point me to the policy that suggests that? I will happily show you the part of the NPOV policy that makes it clear that minority views are not to be unduly weighted, which seems to me to be what you're doing. Grace Note 10:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This may shock you, but the UN is not a reputable source. Google for UN reform to learn why. The matters we are discussing are subject to negotiations, so let's not attempts to preempt that. Besides, what makes disputed a non-neutral term? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh Humus, you really do brighten my day! The UN is not "reputable"! Hmm, well, I guess it's only the representative body for the entire world, its membership comprising every recognised state in the world, whose imprimatur makes aggression legal in international law, whose publications are cited far more widely than Wikipedia can ever hope to be, whose policies affect the lives of billions. No reason to consider it more reputable than some screaming right-wing Jerusalem rag, I suppose, or partisan organisations the like of which you guys often "source" your edits to. What makes "disputed" non-neutral? LOL. You're special, Humus. I mean that sincerely. Imagine we described the invasion of Poland by Germany in World War II as a "dispute" over the territory of Poland. What would you say? Germany certainly disputed Poland's right to exist. I'll be laughing all day about that one. -- GN

Majority use v correct use?

I'm copying some comments from above here in case they get lost, because I think this issue of majority use v correct use (for the want of a better term) is quite important. Mostly we do go with the majority description of an event, or the name that most people use. But there are occasions where that seems wrong, and "terrorism" is one of the words where majority usage turns out to be problematic. I see "occupation" as another one of those words, and this is quite an important point in terms of the NPOV and NOR policies.

I think my argument with "occupation" is that it's a legal term, and just as we don't use common understandings of medical terms, we similarly ought not to use the common understanding of legal terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from above) You need to make this argument at the UN, which even so insists on calling the occupation an "occupation", its own definition regardless, and not here, where it is just so much original research. If the whole world calls it an occupation, then that's what we call it. That the world is wrong to do so is something you need to get published in a reputable newspaper and then quote yourself here. This is the advice you give other editors on other pages, but strangely, when the shoe is on the other foot, you do not wear it. Grace Note 05:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of inconsistency when all I'm try to do is debate the issue. I mostly agree with the majority-usage argument and did until quite recently with the word "occupied." But just as I came to the view that the majority-usage of terrorism was often wrong-headed, POV, and inconsistent, so too I'm coming to the view that "occupation" is badly used, and that it's another word we should use with caution i.e. should use only when it's being used in a legal context by people who are experts in international law and where we cite them (and never in titles, as with terrorism). The UN isn't much of a source on this. Some of its documents refer to the "occupied Palestinian territories" when there is a disputed legal basis for calling it an occupation, but in the case of the United States with its (in my view, unambiguous) occupation of Iraq, the UN agrees that the U.S. and coalition forces are no longer an occupying power, and Wikipedia goes along with that, and changes the title of Occupation of Iraq. (And the British soldiers who today broke down the walls of an Iraqi jail to free two soldiers just happened to be passing with six tanks, and remain nevertheless deeply respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. This is the UN for you.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The analogy to "terrorism" isn't very useful. While the word terrorist and terrorism are a non-defined, un-precise and by it's nature POV (a label you put on others), "occupied" has a quite precise meaning defined by international law. This term is used not only by the UNSC, but the vast majority of UN member states, signatories to the Geneva Conventions and enjoys wide support among legal experts (the legal basis for the term can BTW be found in the ICJ-case from 2004, where all 15 judges agreed on this point). In fact, the only ones who actually disagrees with the use of "occupied" are supporters in one way or another of Israel (I might be wrong, but I havent seen a single "neutral" source, i.e. someone who in one way or another isn't an advocate for the Israeli position, who refers to these territories as disputed). When we have a term which in its legal sense enjoys wide support, also among neutral observers, and one which exclusively is used by one side of the conflict, I see no reason to not use the commonly accepted one. The objections to the term can of course be presented, but currently, the articles are written the other way arround, i.e., "disputed" (the term used exclusively by supporters of Israel) is generally used. --Cybbe 14:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I wash my hands of it. How can you have a discussion with someone who says the UN "isn't much of a source"? We are reporting what is said, not forensically examining the UN's statements. It unambiguously describes the occupation of the occupied territories as an "occupation" on several, easy to source occasions, as do the overwhelming majority of sources, including nearly all news sources, many legal sources and many government spokespeople around the world, barring, as Cybbe says, only those who advocate the position of the current Israeli government. What more needs to be said? You agree with the "majority-usage argument" when it suits you and find it problematic when it doesn't. You are arguing, hilariously, that the entire world bar those who share your POV uses the word "occupation" incorrectly. Yes, that is unfortunately the way with words: other people simply won't use them to mean what we want them to! The fact remains that what Israel is doing is described as an "occupation" by just about everyone bar advocates of the Israeli government's policies. It is not even a majority-usage argument as such. It is more closely a "crackpot theory" argument, in that there is a broad agreement that something is the case, and a small minority says something else is the case.

You do not allow the denials of the subjects of articles themselves in other articles either, Slim. Our article on David Irving so far as I know still says he is a Holocaust denier. It doesn't say it's claimed he is one but that he is one. I think that's fair enough, but I also think you cannot have your principle there and eat it here. -- GN

Why do you always have to be so abusive? Cybbe was perfectly able to make the same point in a civil fashion. And when you write "You agree with the "majority-usage argument" when it suits you and find it problematic when it doesn't," what do you mean? Why would the majority-usage argument not "suit me" here? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, okay. Call me abusive and that makes you right. The majority usage argument does not suit you at all here because it would have compel you to accept Marsden's article as the basis of this one. I am done with this, Slim. You are way out on a limb, arguing that the world does not use a word "correctly" when the "correct" use of a word is whatever the world says it is. Any other way of looking at it would constitute original research. Certainly, I think you should include well-sourced discussion of the dispute over "occupied". Certainly, I think you should include the POV that it is not an "occupation" and if you can find a reputable source that makes the argument you do, you should include that (but you need to make at least a token effort to find a source that is not hopelessly biased). But the article should, as all our articles do, reflect the facts. The fact is that the territories are called "occupied" by everyone bar a small minority. That's all I have to say. The argument is compelling enough not to need to rehearse it over and over and over. I am off to see whether David Irving has ever denied being a Holocaust denier in print. If he has, I'll be removing the statement that he is one from his article, and we'll see whether you are in fact as consistent as you claim, because on this page you say that a term need only be disputed to be unusable. I know, please spare me, that Irving is not a "reputable source". I'm aware of your view that people are not good sources for their own convictions! And yet, the Israeli gov't is a good source for its own intentions, while commentators on it are not? Ho hum.203.103.58.61 02:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation where you are involved that doesn't resolve into snide remarks. I was trying to open up a discussion with Marsden about the extent to which majority-usage should determine Wikipedia useage — as I believed it should until quite recently, but then I changed my mind over "terrorism," and I'm starting to change my mind over "occupation" — and there's absolutely no reason people should be attacked for trying to discuss an issue, or for changing their minds which is what intellectual debate is about. What with you attacking whoever you can, and Marsden attacking Jayjg, it's well nigh impossible to get a word about the content in sideways. Both of you should stop assuming people are evil just because you don't agree with them, and also don't assume of someone who is debating a subject that they have a fixed view on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

'Terrorist' and 'terrorism' are just as well defined and precise as the term 'occupied' is. I don't know why you seem to believe these terms are not well defined. There are obviously disputes as to these definitions, just as there are disputes about the definition of occupation, so I don't really see your point there. In this specific case, I would tend to agree that Israel is in fact occupying these territories, but that is merely an opinion. The terrorism analogy however is very apt, in spite of the fact that you seem to believe it is not. Both are about equally well defined terms, and both have disputes as to the validity of those definitions. Both convey a pretty obviously negative POV. Wikipedia's standard policy at this point appears to be to avoid possible POV terms whenever possible, which is why 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are not found on this site nearly as often as common convention would dictate. The standard to me appears to be almost a "beyond a reasonable doubt" usage. While I agree that Israel is an occupying power, that has hardly been shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The same is true to me of people I would regard as terrorists, where I would still prefer that Wikipedia use the term militant, if for no other reason than to avoid even the appearance of POV. It's not about the world opinion, it's about going above and beyond to make Wikipedia as NPOV as possible. The word 'occupied' fails to do that. It's that simple. I'm frankly a little confused why that much is not obvious. Bibigon 00:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, occupation is a very precise legal term under both the Hague and Geneva conventions, while terrorism is not. There exists no universal definition of terrorism, IL in this respect is universal. Remember, occupation is used as a legal term which has legal implications, its not used just for the heck of it to provide a negative bias. Either a territory is occupied or it is not. Terrorism brings nothing but negativity, its not defined and always implies a negative focus. If you are of the opinion that terrorism exist as a precise defined term under either international law or something else universally adopted, feel free to bring your sources to the table. The definiton of occupied territories can be found in the 4th Hague convention of 1907, article 42, this convention existance is not disputed. The application of the Geneva conventions can be found in their common article 2, neither are these documents disputed. A sound legal analysis of these documents application to this specific conflict can be found in ICJs opinion from 2004, which enjoys wide support among UN member states. That occupation might sound negative in some ears has nothing to do with its precise meaning, and I disagree that occupation necessary imply a negative POV; Germany and Japan were occupied after the WWII, I'm quite sure the allied powers were not put in a negative light because of that fact. I disagree with you on the point that using a precise term which everyone except Israel or her supporters use is POV, I personally find the opposite to be true. Cybbe 14:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems to me that UN Security Council Resolution 1566 provided a fairly firm definition of what should be considered terrorism. Additionally, various governments, including the U.S. have all established their own definitions of what constitutes terrorism, and they are largely compatible with the the UN's. It certainly looks like something of a consensus has developed as to what constitutes terrorism. In spite of this, Wikipedia has generally refrained from using the term 'terrorism' to descirbe acts which clearly meet the standards established by the UN, and other world bodies. While there are differences between these various definitions, none of them are particularly significant except in fringe case, which is not what are being discussed here. Actions by various groups which clearly fall into the category of 'terrorism', by any mainstream definition you choose to use, have been referred to as militancy or kidnapping on Wikipedia. The reason for this is to avoid using a charged term, and a POV term, no matter how accurate and fitting that term may be. The same would seem to be true of this case. The disputed territories are in my opinion clearly occupied, but it's not unreasonable to believe that one could have a different read on the situation, and view the term 'occupied' to indicate a POV, regardless of how accurate that term may seem to you and me. There is a politically charged, POV term out there, and there is a slightly less precise, but far less objectionable term out there. Just as the standard for 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' has been to be sacrifice precision for NPOV, so it should be done in this case. Terrorism is not the amorphous idea you seem to believe it to be. There are world standards for this term, and these standards generally agree, even in places where Wikipedia has chosen to be more conservative with its nomenclature. Bibigon 16:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a careful reading of S/RES/1566 reveals it takes great care in not defining terrorism, and a conference with the goal of establishing a convention which would define terrorism failed earlier this year. However, this is not of utmost importance. The term terrorist will always convey a POV; no-one would describe themselves as a terrorist, what might seem to some as a terrorist will to others be a freedom fighter, with the facts on the ground being the same and accepted by all but the term used differ. "Occupied" is not in the same category, either a territory is occupied or it isn't, this should not differ with regards to ones POV. What is "disputed" is the law in question, which is widely accepted by all others than supporters of Israel that these territories are occupied. Using the term used exlusively supporters of Israel as neutral (which more than implies that this term is obviously biased with regard to these persons POV) is not presenting a neutral point of view. Cybbe 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Territories occupied by Israel

Let's try to analyze this section, having in mind the title of the artile:

Critics of Israel typically cite all or several of the areas as being occupied:

*All of present-day Israel

*The Sinai: captured from Egypt in 1967 and returned under the terms of the peace treaty in 1979.

*The Golan Heights: captured from Syria in 1967 and annexed in 1981.

*Eastern parts of Jerusalem: annexed and incorporated into the municipal borders of Jerusalem since 1980.

The Yom Kippur War (1973) ultimately made only small changes in the various cease-fire lines. Israel has also, in varying degrees at various times projected power into southern Lebanon, most notably in the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon.

The international community has not recognized the annexation of eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

None of the above is or ever was a "Palestinian territory". If you wish to argue, please provide names of Palestinian kingdoms, rulers, time periods, etc., anything that makes it a "Palestinian territory". I think the point here was to provide a soapbox to "Critics of Israel". Prove me wrong. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is currently much confusion about what this article about. Jayjg insists that this article is actually about "the territories outside the Green Line under Israeli military control". By his interpretation, it is perfectly valid to discuss the Golan Heights and the Sinai in this article, though any material that implies they are Palestinian should of course be deleted.

Truce

The revert war on these pages has to stop.

1. Marsden, I urge you to accept Jayjg's proposal to leave this page and Occupied Territories (Israeli) alone for a while, in return for not creating a link from the Zionism article "until the discussion is concluded". Yesterday's revert, in which you moved the Discussion section of this page to OT(I) was particularly inappropriate, because it rendered meaningless much of the talk written before the current dispute (such as Jmabel's comments)
2. Jayjg, please stop calling the OT(I) article a "POV fork". Marsden was making a good faith effort to come up with an article that could be linked from the Zionism page and satisfy your objections. When I proposed creating an article "precisely on the territories Israel seized in 1967" and Marsden outlined the specific way he planned to do just that, you did not say "no, don't create a new article". Instead you wrote:

The main issue is not only that it doesn't include the Golan Heights, but that it doesn't include Israel itself. An article that deals with all of these issues, but is quite poorly written and titled, is Occupation of the Palestinian territories. That article talks of Palestinian territories, but, somewhat bizarrely, also mentions the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, Israel, and even Lebanon. It's not an appropriate link either, for that reason, and because it's just an argument about whether or not the territories are occupied.

Reading the above comments and the OOTPT article, it looks like repairing this article sufficiently to make it an "appropriate link" for you would require gutting about 80% of it. It's still not clear to me that that's the right thing to do. Brian Tvedt 11:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-writing History

The one thing that no one can reasonably dispute is that the term "Occupied Territories" has been used to indicate the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. If anyone wants to dispute that simple fact, please say so right here.

Given this simple fact, it is appropriate that a search of "Occupied Territories" on Wikipedia will at least direct the user to a series of links that lead to a precise description of the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War, including an indication that these have commonly been called "the Occupied Territories." The "Occupation of ..." article is, in my opinion, a rambling editorial that doesn't really fit the bill for this. In my opinion, it would be most appropriate to have the "Occupied Territories" article itself be primarily about the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War, with just a section on other areas of the world that are or have been called or considered occupied. But I would not object to instead having a link from the "OT" article to the "OT(I)" article, although I think this would really be inferior, particularly given how meaning-deficient the current "OT" article is.

However, Jayjg and others object even to this. It seems that a sometimes co-ordinated group of editors is trying to keep any link from existing that would direct a search on "Occupied Territories" to the information that the term is commonly used to refer to the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. This is quite simply an effort to re-write history, and no reputable encyclopedia should tolerate it.

Objections have been raised, particularly by SlimVirgin, that "occupied" is not legally accurate. I think she is wrong in this, but in any case this is irrelevant to the history that "Occupied Territories" has commonly been used as a synonym for the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. As I noted earlier regarding the offensive term "nigger," the controversy related to a term is not good cause to eliminate all references to it; SlimVirgin's position, if it is correct, would be good cause to indicate that the historically ubiquitous use of the term "Occupied Territories" as a synonym for the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War is legally inaccurate. It is not good cause to erase the history that the term "Occupied Territories" has broadly been used as a synonym for the territories captured and controlled by Israel after the Six-Day War. To do this is to re-write history. Marsden

(I have discovered quite by accident that Jayjg has already been involved in an arbitration over similar matters: HistoryBuffEr-Jayjg dispute. It is somewhat remarkable, given the types of comments that he has come to make to other editors, that Jayjg accused HistoryBuffEr of "bullying" for, among other things, revert limit warnings. By my reading of the remedies for in that dispute, Jayjg, you are enjoined from removing "any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" until January 16, 2006. Comments?)

You've misread the Committee's decision, which in any event does not apply here. I have no editing restrictions on me. Your focus on making this a personal issue with me makes it very difficult to work together. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, Jay. The Committee miss-wrote its decision. Apparently illiteracy, along with profound bias, is no impediment to getting onto the Arbitration Committee. Here's what the actual decision held:

• 5) For the period of editing restrictions neither HistoryBuffEr nor Jayjg may remove any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doing so may result in a 24-hour block imposed by any administrator. In the case of Jayjg, unblocking himself will be severely dealt with. Passed 7-0.

Actual Decision

And in the actual decision, Jay, as opposed to the proposed decision, the only "period of editing restrictions" mentioned was for one year after the verdict. Were the pronouncements about how you would be "severely dealt with" if you violated this ban put there by stupidity or in order to give the appearance of balance?

Clearly, Wikipedia is at best a crackerjack operation, and at worst a propaganda engine. The shark has been jumped.

Marsden 14:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment above Jayjg's isn't signed, but I'm assuming it was Marsden. If it was you, Marsden, you've linked yourself to another troll. HistoryBuffEr was one of the worst editors WP has ever had. Please stop trying to focus this on Jayjg or any other editor, and stick to the argument. You make some good points above, many of which I agree with. The question now is how to find a compromise position between us all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The focus is always on editors as well as arguments. You have in your comment here dismissed the dispute with HistoryBuffEr. HB's position was certainly flawed but suggesting he was just a troll is quite typical and quite wrong. His argument is disregarded because of the ad hominem. HB was not the only editor at fault in his dispute, by any means, and he certainly wasn't anything like the worst editor we've ever had. -- GN

I think it would be pretty fair to call HB a troll, given that many of his earlier edits involved attempts to destroy entire articles, and replacing them with complete rewrites which could only be described as troll-like. There's a reason that the committee punished HB for this sort of behaviour, while withholding similar punishment from Jayjg. While some of HB's edits were just POV issues, some of them, especially early on, were just HB trolling the site. He was making rather ludicrous rewrites that would obviously be reverted, and not defending those rewrites on the talk page. I don't see how that could be considered anything but trolling. He was a troll, albeit a more sophisticated one than most. Bibigon 01:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing information

Why doesn't the article include Judea, Samaria and some reference to the term "Occupied Territories" and "Disputed Territories"? I've seen all of these in recent articles about the Israeli pullout from Gaza. Here is a previous edit that I think needs to be included:

Supporters of Israel sometimes object to using the term "Occupied Territories" to describe them, prefering "Disputed Territories" or sometimes (with reference to the West Bank) the biblical names "Judea and Samaria."

Is there a reason some of this isn't in the article? - Tεxτurε 17:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to be re-written, and the title is probably bad too. As well, the Occupied territories article has issues, and could possibly even be merged with List of military occupations. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)