Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

More page numbers?

There seem to be too few. I've just done a run-through for trivial formatting, linking, etc, and noticed this. If someone has the refs and a spare hour, that would really improve the authority of the article. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 03:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Great Article

Just wanted to say that I learned a lot from reading this article and I think it deserves another look at as a "Social sciences and society good article" nominee. For such a contentious subject, it's really well done I think. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For those having charged themselves with such monumental a task, I'm certain editing this article must be the most daunting of any beginning with www.wikipedia.org/. The simple fact that this article doesn't start with a POV or Neutrality tag is a testament to the patience and emotional control of those working on it. I would shrug even the suggestion of such appointment as I know it would ultimately coast me my title as wikipedian. Kudos to the editors. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've worked very hard on this article and your praise means much to me. With a couple of minor exceptions, I agree it is a great article and one I am very proud of. --GHcool (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit about statements by Netanyahu

[1] This recent edit has made the sentence grammatically ambiguous and the latter change is unnecessary. While the change to "said" is appropriate, the addition of "he accused..." is not. By introducing the sentence with "Netanyahu said", it is already covering the required NPOV. It is superfluous to add that he accused. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The change makes it clear that the charge of incitement is being leveled. It's not up to us to judge the truth of this charge. Hcobb (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed my point. I am not saying it is up to us to judge the truth of this charge. I'm saying that the "he accused..." addition is superfluous. By introducing the sentence with "Netanyahu said", it makes it clear that the charge of incitement is being leveled. I have basically just repeated exactly what I said above, so if you still don't understand my point, I hope somebody else will. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try something else. Imagine a shorter example with the same syntax: "The teacher said that while Jane aced the test, he accused her of cheating." Superfluous. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought of one more way of explaining it :) By using the new wording, we are suggesting that Netanyahu said "I accuse the PA of incitement". That's the message put across by the awkward wording "He said... he accused". But he did not say "I accuse the PA of incitement". He said "The PA is inciting". So we should just be reporting what he said, and by saying "he said", it is understood that it is an accusation. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

91% vs 92% vs 95%

The exact % is reported differently in different sources. We should not be edit warring between them, rather stating something along the lines of "between 92% and 95%" and providing a source for that. Here's one that mentions up to 95% [2] 99.237.236.218 (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable enough.Ankh.Morpork 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Shlomo Ben Ami says 91% in his book and he was Israel's chief negotiator at the Camp David Summit. From Gcool's edit it seems Karsh is saying 92%. Where is the 95% figure coming from? Unless we have an appropriate RS claiming 95% it should be removed from the article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit is not good [3]is not good as it seems to falsify sources.Source quite clearly says 92% if there are sources that say 91% then we can say range and bring source for each number.--Shrike (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source that says 95%-97% [4]--Shrike (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That source is not discussing the proposals at Camp David. It clearly states that "President Clinton's December proposals constituted much more than was offered to Arafat at Camp David; Israel's withdrawelfrom 95% to 97% of the West Bank...." You can't use that to claim that 95% to 97 % was on the table at Camp David in July. Dlv999 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The source added in this edit says that later "Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank". All the sources refer to these proposals that stemmed from Camp David, and I do not understand why this information was ommitted.Ankh.Morpork 11:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

AK, you earlier accepted 92 to 95 per cent. What are you saying now? Are you asking for 95 per cent again? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

These proposals were not a part of Camp David, they were made the following December 6 months after the failure to reach an agreement at Camp David. To say they were on the table at Camp David and Arafat rejected them is outright falsification of sources. Dlv999 (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, the Camp David summit was a specific event that occurred in one particular space and time (July 2000, Camp David). The proposals that were made at Camp David were the ones made at Camp David in July 2000. The following December further proposals were made, which led to the Taba Summit in January 2001. These further proposals leading to Taba are certainly relevant to the article, but they cannot be presented as if they were made at Camp David in July 2000, that would be a blatant falsification and misuse of sources. Dlv999 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Guys, Myths&Facts is a rubbish source. Zero^talk 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally (this is original research so don't read it), the difference between 91% and 92% might depend on whether one regards East Jerusalem to be included in "West Bank". The metro part of EJ is approximately the right size to make that difference. Zero^talk 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have an issue removing the 95% claim which is cited to a transcript of a PBS debate in which one of the participants mentions 94.5%. This is not suitable for souring facts especially when Gcool has provided us with some excellent sources. Dlv999 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

i agree to this change. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Myths&Facts

hmmm, it's used in a number of articles. Removing all the non-article instances you are left with this. I guess they probably need looking at. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE	URL
Ariel Sharon	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html#a1
Borders of Israel	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/myths2006.pdf
Foreign relations of India	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html#a
Gulf War	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf12.html
History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#g
Israel and the apartheid analogy	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html#i
Israeli casualties of war	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html#a
Israeli casualties of war	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf8.html
Israeli settlement	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html
Israeli settlement	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html
Israeli–Palestinian conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html#w
Israeli–Palestinian conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html#b
Israeli–Palestinian conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
Israeli–Palestinian conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/PalestinianWar.html
Latrun	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html
Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html
Shebaa farms	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/myths2006.pdf
Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html
Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html#c
Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
War of Attrition	http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf8.html

Sigh. I didn't realise it had come back so bad after a purge of a few years ago. M&F is a standard propaganda tract from an unreliable place. Life's work is never done. Zero^talk 16:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

While tagging the myths and facts references I also noticed that a certain Alan Dershowitz is being used as a reference on numerous occasions. Dlv999 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Its written by Doctor in political science i.e expert in his field if you have some doubts go to WP:RSN--Shrike (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In matters relating to Israel Palestine Dershowitz is an activist and he has been proven to be inaccurate on numerous occasions. Also he is a professor of law, not a "doctor of political science". Dlv999 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike is probably talking about Bard. If there are reasonable doubts about reliability, editors can remove the sources and the person who wants to use them needs to go to RSN. I will be removing some of these and I will not be going to RSN. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are consensus for removal of course anyhow I don't see any valid reasons for it.--Shrike (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

But you have removed Pappe as a source from multiple articles (e.g. [5]) despite him being a current Professor of History and Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies, which seems to be at odds with the justification you have used to defend Baird. Dlv999 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Dalai lama ding dong (particularly re: refugees)

The user Dalai lama ding dong has been making unilateral edits to this article without discussing them on the talk page, and I think they are highly inappropriate. Particularly, the recent change from "legalities concerning refugees" to "Palestinian right of return" makes a change that excludes the consideration of Jewish refugees in the solution. The wording in that sentence is something that has been discussed many times before on this talk page (see the archives), and I think that change should be reverted because it changes the meaning completely and has not been discussed here. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

why not just add in a reference to Jewish refugees, as long as you can find an RS that supports the claim that this is an outstanding issue in the conflict. That is better than weasel words would mean nothing to a reader.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you include a source that called the "Palestinian right of return" one of the remaining key issues? No, and you don't have to, because that is the WP:LEDE and doesn't require a source because it is just a summary of the article. However, your edit changed the meaning of the sentence and the long established consensus, so I would request that you undo it. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ROR does not need a source, because no one would challenge that it is a remaining key issue.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I challenge it. It is "legalities concerning refugees" that is a remaining key issue, not ROR. ROR is just one of many solutions to the "legalities concerning refugees" (the worst one, in the opinion of most analysts). --GHcool (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point as well. I agree 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"legalities concerning refugees" is wrong. It is not merely an issue of legalities. It is an issue of resolving the issue of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees still living in refugee camps. That is not a legal question it is a practical question that has certain legal aspects. I would suggest something like "a resolution of the refugee question" - which is inclusive of the practical and the legal aspects to the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

i would accept Div999's proposal. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian incitement

This edit is innaccurate as the incitement has been reported by the media and criticised by a number of figures including the UK minister for the Middle East and many US senators. Ankh.Morpork 11:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

what is your proposed revwording? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My view is that the previous wording was not NPOV and the new wording is a significant improvement. Dlv999 (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the phrasing of "The Palestinians have had their continuing incitement to violence against Jews and Israel..." presented it as an unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's voice. Contrast that with the more carefully worded "Israeli incitement" section above it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Return of bodies

This section is WP:UNDUE. There is far too much material in it, i propose to reduce it, to one or two lines.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it should go altogether. It is a good example of WP:RECENTISM (to name the least of its faults). By this time next year, nobody will even remember it. It also has claims masquerading as facts, such as "to help revive the peace talks and reinstate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians" and reads like an Israeli government press statement. This is an article about a long term issue and should only have historically significant developments. Zero^talk 15:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else have comments on this?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree the significance of this event to the overall Palestinian-Israeli conflict is negligible, it just happens to be in the news at the moment. Should be removed in full in my view. Dlv999 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Judeophobes like Zero0000 and Dlv999 will not want to show anything positive about Israel.

Polling Data

I have cut the second paragraph of polling data from the public opinion section as it is rather misrepresentative of the poll as a whole and cherry-picks results that fit with a certain POV. My initial response was to try to correct the errors and balance things a bit but once I had got as far as the text below it seemed clear the paragraph was spiralling out of control in terms of length. My suggestion would be to refer only to secondary sources that interpret the poll rather than the primary data in the poll itself as this is often contradictory and internally inconsistent (see, for instance, the various different levels of support for a two-state solution depending on which question is asked). Failing that (I'm currently looking for such sources) can we work out a framework as to which bits of data to include and how to include them?

This is how far I got before concluding that the project of drawing directly on the primary sources might be misguided ...

"A poll conducted in July 2011 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and fielded by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion in the West Bank and Gaza indicated a range of opinions on the peace process that varied according to the wording of the questions. When asked if they "accept a two-state solution" 44% of respondents said yes and 52% said no. However, when asked if they favoured or opposed a two-state solution in which "the border between Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually-agreed swaps of land to take account of realities on the ground so both sides can achieve a secure and just peace", 57% said yes and only 40% said no. Between 52% and 66% of respondents indicated that they thought, “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state”. According to the same poll, 65% preferred talks and 20% preferred violence. More than 70% of those polled believed a hadith, or saying, ascribed to Mohammed that is included as a clause of the Hamas Charter and states, “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews". The poll further reported that "72% of Palestinians endorsed the denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.". At the same time, only 29% supported the killing of a settler family in Itamar and 22% supported rocket attacks on Israeli cities and civilians. 64% support seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state outside of the framework of negotiations with Israel and 85% believe that a settlement freeze should be a pre-requisite for continuing negotiations."