Talk:Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority)

Neutrality

I nominated this article for a neutrality check because the tone is heavily biased against Arafat and the Palestinian leadership. The article does more than just report "facts". Whether or not what is stated in the article is true, the tone still needs to be addressed; otherwise, the article looks like silly propaganda. Rintrah 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

some further reading

Some further reading which may help to improve the article

• • Defending the Holy Land: a Critical analysis of Israel's security & foreign policy By Zeev Maoz University of Michigan press pg 471. ISBN978-0472115402 [1] " 'revolving door policy'wherein they captured terrorists only to release them ..."
  • Human Rights Watch Reports-- here: [2] "'revolving door policy' of arresting alleged members..." here, [3], and here [4]
  • The other side of despair: Jews and Arabs in the promised land - Page 37 by Daniel Gavron -Rowan & Littlefield 2003 - ISBN0742517527, ISBN 9780742517523 "Israel justifiably complained about the 'revolving door' policy of arresting terrorists and releasing them after a few weeks or even days. ...
  • Building a successful Palestinian state RAND Palestinian State Study Team Jerrold D. Green & others 2005 - "Are individuals being jailed or is there a revolving-door policy?" [5] pg 59
  • The Oslo Accords: international law and the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements - Page 225 by Geoffrey R. Watson - 2000 -[6] "Israel has charged that the PA has adopted a 'revolving door' policy of detaining and then releasing known terrorists. "
  • Israel's foreign relations: selected documents, 1947-1974 by Meron Medzini, 1976 Pg 262 - "The US has also committed to Israel that there will be special arrangements to prevent a 'revolving door' policy in relation to these prisoners..."
  • [7] pg 7 Testimony for Congress The Roadmap to Middle East Peace: Can it be Restarted?" Boaz Ganor, Ex Dir International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. "Sometimes they would put up a show arrest apprehending the terrorists and let them go free after a short while through the infamous 'revolving door' policy." Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As part of the discussion on the AfD page, I dug up some news pieces that would appear to suggest that the allegations go both ways. Not something I'm very knowledgeable about, but I guess some mention of this would be appropriate. The problem is that it still leaves me a little sceptical about the worth of the article - it leaves us with a page which is really just about when and where a very common phrase happens to have been used in respect of prisoner releases by both Israel and the PA, often simply in passing in news or online sources. Anyhow the AfD looks as if it will tend towards keep, so that's kind of academic. Here are the links, if anyone wants to make use of them -

• Palestinians slam Israel's 'revolving door policy' on prisoners Ynet
• a spokesman for Hamas, Fawzi Barhoum, dismissed the proposed release, saying Israel was following a revolving-door policy "where it arrests whenever it wants and frees whoever it wants." New York Times
• Israel has institutionalized secrecy about the prisoners, their identities, and whereabouts. It's also traceable to the nation's revolving-door arrest policies Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

--Nickhh (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article name

The article should be moved to "Revolving door policy." Firstly, it remains unclear who exactly are "Palestinians". In addition, nothing indicates that Palestinians as a whole agreed with this policy. They might have felt that the terrorists never should have been arrested or felt that they never should have been released. It was the PLO's policy, not the Palestinian's policy. Finally, the name is somewhat derogatory. I'll be bold and move it and if someone disagrees they can revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See here for further discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the AfD, I boldly changed the name again to Revolving door (Israeli politics). This is in line with the naming for Revolving door (politics), but with a narrower scope in line with the subject of this article. Policy should not be in the title since its an alleged policy. If the scope of the article expands to include Palestinian allegations against Israel that it is the one with a revolving door policy, then perhaps another name change would be appropriate. In that case, perhaps (Mid-east politics) or (Israeli-Palestinian conflict) would be better. Tiamut^talk 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the move but 'middle east politics' might be a more accurate and neutral disam. term as there is also sourcing that it's used as a criticism of Isreal too. [8] Which can probably go in the article under the new title. Revolving door policy should probably redirect to Revolving door (politics) as it's more a more likely target. --neon white talk 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with those suggestions. Does anyone have a problem with them? Or should we go ahead and move again? Tiamut^talk 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Woops. I just realized that this discussion picked up. Tiamut's rename to Revolving door (Israeli politics) is not ideal because it's not really a political issue. There wasn't much a right/left divide in the Israeli electorate or Palestinian electorate regarding these accusations. In addition, this was alleged by the American and British governments as well (see article) so it would be slightly misleading to call it "Israeli politics". In regards to NeonWhite's concern, we can't really conflate the Palestinian allegations with other allegations. Each alleged policy is a separate can of worms. If the Palestinian allegations meet the WP:N requirement, we should have a separate article on those allegations. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly object to your most recent change Brewcrewer. It's wordy and artifically delimits the topic scope. This seems to be a mutual allegation and it doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles since they are allegations by two sides in the same conflict. For now, I'm not going to move the pages back, since we have both created redirect havoc with our changes. Plus, I'd like to gain consensus on a new title. Neonwhite likes Revolving door (Mideast politics). I'm okay with that too. You seem to like what you've chosen but I suggest we open an RfC on the matter or get more feedback some other way so as to determine a new consensus before making unilateral changes again. Tiamut^talk 23:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes zero sense to merge the two types of allegations in one article. They are two different and distinct creatures. For one, the Palestinian problem with the alleged Israeli revolving door is not that they are released but that they are arrested to begin with. Contradistinctly, the Israeli problem with the alleged revolving door is not that they are arrested, but that they are released. Initially, I thought that to say that merging the two types allegations makes as much sense as merging World War I and World War II because they're both wars with numbers. At second thought, it's not a good analogy. Unlike the two wars, these two issues have opposite factors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the most recent (unilateral) name change is not a good idea - it's a) incredibly clumsy; and b) sets a precedent for starting 1001 pages about every alleged policy carried out by any state or organisation, which at some point has had a broad and subjective description such as "revolving door" attached to it in passing commentary; and then using that description to define the policy in the title. What next - "Torture policy (alleged Bush administration policy)", "Ill-thought out scheme (alleged UK government policy on ID cards)"? Either each of the respective allegations form a sub-section within more general articles about Israeli and Palestinian prison policies, or there is an article about the use of the term as an accusation in the context of detainees in the I-P conflict. The former seems more sensible to me, but as I said at the AfD, at the moment and with the current title, this page comes across more as a glorified blog post than anything serious. --Nickhh (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick: There are articles on notable governmental policies. You mention torture policies, so I thought I would point out Department of Defense Directive 2310.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that is a specific, documented policy (not merely a passing allegation), written up here under its own, official name rather than by appropriating a general, informal description. Also it's a stub whose content would arguably be better merged with a broader article. --Nickhh (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - addressed to Brewcrewer - Hi Nickhh!)

• World War I and World War II involved different parties and were thirty years apart. The allegations of Israel against the PA and Palestinian allegations against Israel were made in the same time period as part of the same conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its unsurprising that both use the same phrase while assigning it different meanings. That's no reason to have two separate articles.
• I think it's unfortunate that your rename reintroduced "policy" into the title. I think I made it abundantly clear why that was a problem. To me, having policy in the title makes the article OR or at the very least POV.
• I think the best thing to do once the AfD is over is to gain consensus on a new name. If we can't gain it between you me and Neonwhite, I suggest we open an RfC and/or proceed to mediation. Having policy in the title is a redline for me and limiting this article only to Israel accusations when there is source material indicating there are Palestinian allegations against Israel of a revolving door "policy as well is another redline. They are redlines because of my concerns about OR and NPOV.
• Titles should not be as long, wordy and redundant as this one is right now. Revolving door policy (alleged Palestinian Authority policy) uses the weasal word "alleged" and repeats "policy" twice. It's really bad. I would have hoped you would have avoided making such a poorly titled move, but oh well ... once we get consensus for a new title, we can lay that unfortunate baby to rest. Tiamut^talk 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut:

1. They were made around the same time, but they have opposite issues. The American/British/Israeli allegation concerned the Palestinian release of Palestinian prisoners. The Palestinian allegation concerned the arrest of Palestinian prisoners.
2. "Policy" is the word used by reliable sources.
3. There's not one word of OR in the article.
4. I actually put the word "alleged" in order to disclaim any POV arguments. From my part, a better name would be Palestinian Authority revolving door policy. They are allegations, but they're pretty strong allegations. Indeed, in my search through the reliable sources I have been unable to find any denials to the contrary form the PA. Even the reliably anti-Israel Human Rights Watch takes these "allegations" as true.[9]. However, as I strive to be a moderate I put "alleged" into the title in the hopes of removing any claim to POV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer:

1. The Gaza War was to the Palestinians about Israel's siege on Gaza and its continued occupation of Palestinian land while to the Israelis it was about Qassam rocket fire. Palestinians called it a massacre, Israelis called it operation cast lead. At Wikipedia, we have one article to cover this subject, not two or three because they refer to the same event. Here, it is not unusual that Palestinians see a revolving doo policy in Israel's arrests, while Israel thinks the policy is a Palestinian one related to releases. It doesn't matter. They both use the term, they both ascribe it different meanings, but we can describe both in one article, indeed we should, to have an NPOV presentation.
2. Most of the reliable sources all note it is alleged to be a policy. Few claim it is official policy.
3. I'm not saying there is OR in the article content, but that there is a danger of OR with a title that has the word policy in it.
4. Weasal words are to be avoided. Also to be avoided is a misrepresentation of the subject. Putting the word policy in the title misrepresents the subject by uncritically parroting the allegation of it being a policy as fact. Leaving out the word policy from the title altogether solves that problem.
5. Clearly, we are not going to change each other's mind on this. So I suggest again that we wait until the AfD is done and then open an RfC to get maximum feedback. We'll ask which title is better and whether to include the Palestinian allegations against Israel or not. Okay? Tiamut^talk 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut:

1. You're right. We have one article covering one subject, like the Gaza War. But the two alleged policies are two different subjects that are unrelated to each other.
2. You're right. The article and the article name unambiguously states that this policy is alleged.
3. The third bullet point above states:"They are redlines because of my concerns about OR." After this response, User:Tiamut modified her above #3 response. In the previous version of #3 there was no explanation distinguishing article content and article name. Thus, I modify my response accordingly: The word policy is not OR. The reliable sources for the article use the term "revolving door policy". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
4. You're right. Weasel words are to be avoided. I have no problem removing "alleged" from the article name. I only put it in to remove any claims that the article is a pro-Israeli POV. Your numbered responses contradict each other. In some numbered responses you take issue with the word "alleged" because it is a weasel word. Yet, in other numbered responses you insist that the policies are allegations, not in fact.
5. No problem.

Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous and completly misses the point of disambiguation, Read WP:DAB for further info. A disambiguation is solely for the purpose of marking the difference between two indentically named artiles. Revolving door policy has no article so why is there a disambiguation term in the first place? It should never have been moved. --neon white talk 00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean it should have been left at Palestinian revolving door policy, the original name for the article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It was moved from Revolving door policy because User:Nickhh correctly pointed out that there are a number of different "revolving door policies". I, however, don't have a problem moving it back to that name if editors think that this name is too unwieldy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority) to differentiate between other revolving door policies? In articles like Judaization of Jerusalem we do not say "alleged" in the article even though it is an allegation. The "facts" or lack thereof, can be presented in the article itself. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that as well. But once we're removing "alleged" from the name we might as well go with Palestinian Authority revolving door policy. The "alleged" is starting to look a bit silly. And you make a good point, there are plenty of articles based on allegations that do not have the "allegation" in the lead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no longer any other articles titled Revolving door policy it redirects here, so that is the correct title. There is no ambiguity. --neon white talk 10:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be no ambiguity within the world of Wikipedia, but that's because no one else has seen fit to create any other articles about specific policies while basing the name for that article on this incredibly commonly used informal phrase. To imply that "revolving door policy" simply and only applies to this alleged activity is just totally misleading. I mean look at this simple Google search result. It brings up everything from public-private sector job switches, to sports team selection etc. The first page of results doesn't even mention this scenario here - other than of course where it plonks this WP page itself right at the top of the list. Now if that doesn't show what's wrong with "Revolving door policy" as a title here, I don't know what does. It's like having a page called "Controversial politician" which is all about Avigdor Lieberman and no one else. As noted I don't much like the longer title either, but at least it brings some clarity and focus. We seem to be in need of a more global solution here, which brings together the existing articles Revolving door syndrome, Revolving door (politics) etc, and perhaps this one, into a coherent whole, explaining what the phrase means and how it is applied to various different scenarios. --Nickhh (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside your ridiculously false analogy. This is wikipedia, that's what the discussion is about not google or any other site. We don't need to use disambiguation terms if there is no ambiguity over article naming. Simple as that. "Revolving door policy" is the title of this article. Nothing else is needed unless there was another article called exactly the same thing which there isn't. See Wikipedia:NAMING#Use the most easily recognized name and WP:D "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." --neon white talk 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that technically there's no reason at this time to disambiguate. However, other editors above have expressed interest in adding to WP about another revolving door policy, that of allegations concerning the Israeli arrest of terrorism suspects. As the alleged Israeli policy has zero connection to the alleged PA policy, the information would have to be added elsewhere, if a separate article is untenable. Thus, its sort of a disambiguation waiting to happen. But if a consensus is needed for a name, I can sign up for NeonWhite's preference. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If no such article exists at the currect time then we dont dismbig. It can be changed later. No such decision on wikipedia is ever made based on what may happen in the future. It's nothing to do with content it's purely a decision according to wikipedia naming policy. --neon white talk 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Neon white, edit conflict) I'm not sure it's very helpful simply to fire off an assertion that an analogy is "ridiculously false". You could actually take the trouble to explain why it might be either of those things. The rather obvious point I was making is that plenty of politicians are described as being "controversial", for a variety of reasons; just as many policies are described as being "revolving door" policies, for a variety of reasons. In neither case should we use that very general description to title an article about a specific example, as if the term is only ever used in one, limited, context. Anyway, that aside, thanks for pointing me at policy, but of course I rather had in mind the sections of WP:NAME where it says (my italics, both times) "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"; and "Name an article as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope". Practical issues of disambiguation internal to WP are of course a factor to consider when naming articles, but surely they are a secondary consideration: I kind of assumed - per the extracts of WP:NAME that I have cited - that accuracy and clarity were fairly important as well, and were in fact the main starting point. And that to help determine article names, we do indeed look outside the WP bubble, using tools such as Google. If it's going to hang around, this article needs some kind of brief qualifier or further description, such as "Middle East detentions", or as previously suggested "Israeli politics" or whatever. You seem to have held this view a couple of days ago as well, so I'm a little confused as to why you've suddenly come out aggressively in favour of the simple "Revolving door policy". --Nickhh (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Revolving door (politics) is way too broad (and apparently used). Revolving door (middle east politics) ditto. Especially since someone has added accusations of an Israeli revolving door. The accusations in this article concern the PA, and it should be made clear from the beginning, so that the reader does not have to actually go to or read the article to find out precisely whose door is revolving. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're making lots of sense these days, especially your comments regarding the fact that there are lots of articles that are essentially allegations, but whose "allegations" are not forced into the lede. At this time, I think the most reasonable name for the article is Palestinian Authority revolving door policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be incorrect as it isnt the term we can source. --neon white talk 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The analogy has absolutely nothing in common with the current discussion. This is a discussion about wikipedia's policy on disambiguation, in particular when it is necessary for an article name to include a disambiguation term. Politicians being described as controversial is just about as irrelevant to this discussion as it gets. A proper anology is as follows. Take, for example the name 'David Davis', there are a number a persons known by that name, two are in fact politicians David Davis (Australian politician) and David Davis (British politician), the reason they each have a unique disambiguation term is only for the purpose of allowing readers to easily find the correct 'David Davis' they are searching for. If there were only one notable person called 'David Davis' and therefore only one target then there would only be one article, title David Davis needed. No disambiguation terms would be necessary. The reason I changed by mind to the correct view is that i was simply unaware that Revolving door policy did not contain an article. I wrongly assumed that the article was correctly using a term disambiguation term or may have been correctly using one at a previous time which is now unecessary. This really shouldn't need any amount of discussion or cause controvery, it's usually considered a basic 'housekeeping' task. To summarise, disambiguation only exists to provide distinction between article that would have the same title, not to provide extra information or a summary of the article, both go in the lead paragraph. There could be an argument that rolvolving door policy is also used for Revolving door (politics), however there has been no evidence provided so far that this is widely known as a 'policy'. --neon white talk

Articles about policies should not be analogized to articles about people. When describing a policy it's best to use the most descriptive name for the policy. Say for example, 2009 swine flu outbreak. According to your argument there's no reason to call it the 2009 swine flu outbreak since there isn't another article about a swine flu outbreak. But strict disambig rules that apply to names of people do not apply to events or policies. Indeed, if someone was searching for this policy there is a far greater likelihood that the person would include the word "Palestinian" in the search term then just use "revolving door policy."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, this article which uses the term "Palestinian Authority's revolving door policy" when describing the policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Skimming over the discussion and the raised points, I would support "Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority)" as the title of the article and I believe that "Revolving door policy" should be a redirect to the "Revolving door syndrome" article. The Syndrome article should include some type of link to the PA relevant article and that should be the end of this IMHO. I'd be interested in hearing explanations if anyone has serious objections to this. Try to keep it brief and possibly cite a relevant policy and/or long-standing examples from Wikipedia.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC) +clarify 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the term is ever used for that. A Revolving door syndrome can hardly be considered a policy. A government that considers that as a policy would hardly last very long! The idea of a government having a revolving door 'policy' is unique to the subject of this article only. --neon white talk 14:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It looks like User:Tundrabuggy is in-line with the name as well. I've accordingly made the move.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop moving the article without a consensus, leave it until the discussion is complete and a consensus is formed. The title is still incorrect, as i pointed out above, this 'policy' is used in relation to both the palestinian authority and israeli government. --neon white talk 14:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to have been a consensus and the discussion did seem to end (this is your first comment in 4 days). You are right, however, when you say that this type of policy was used in relation to the Israelis as well. However, as pointed out above, conflating the two policies is a mistake. You see, although they had the same type of name, the concerns were in exact opposite. The Israeli concern with the PA revolving door policy what that the PA was releasing the arestees soon after they are apprehended. Contradistincly, the PA concern with the Israeli revolving door policy was not that they are being released but that they are arrested to begin with. So it doesn't make sense to put these two policies in one article. I would support the creation of Revolving door policy (Israel) provided the policy meets WP:N.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't announced a one man consensus. Things should be discussion until the outcome. Even though the allegations differ they should still be ok in the same article, they both relate to the detention of terror suspects and one is likely a counter allegation of the other plus they strengthen notability of both. It's not required that everything have a seperate article, linked subject can be merged. --neon white talk 10:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but if there's one editor that's totally on his own it's you, Neon White. We have three editors who have agreed with the current name, User:Tundrabuggy, User:Brewcrewer, and User:Jaakobou. I'm not entirely sure what Nickhh prefers, but he strongly disagrees with your preference, "Revolving door policy." Your argument for conflating the two articles frankly just doesn't make sense and is unprecedented. We don't just merge the vague "detention of terror suspects" into similar articles. Should we also merge Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp into this article? Just because they both might be used as counter-allegations (which is wp:or, btw) for each other is not a reason to have one article. In the I-P arena, counter-allegations are par for the course. Merging the two articles into one makes almost as much sense as merging two stubs like Ken Takahashi and La Cumbre, Córdoba. Finally, this whole discussion is moot because nobody has even initiated adding content about the Israeli revolving door policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430095055/http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/GanorTestimony031015.pdf to http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/GanorTestimony031015.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)