Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories.22.2C_.22occupied_territories.22_and_related_terminology_in_the_context_of_the_Arab-Israeli_dispute

Members here may care to comment on this request for Arbitration. I'm asking for Arbcom involvment to mandate some sort of central solution for this roving content dispute before it might becoem a major conduct issue. I'm still deciding on who to add as parties. So likely candidates are invited to add themselves and save me the effort of doing so myself.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

State of Palestine

I just restored the last independent version of this article. It was redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Palestine in November 2007, and there has been recent disputation over the redirect target. Talk page discussion, hopefully arriving at a consensus, would be welcomed. I emphatically believe policy and standard practice indicate keeping an independent article on this clearly notable topic.John Z (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Palestine

There are continuing reverts by editors who deny there is a country or State called Palestine located in the geographical area of Palestine - despite dozens of verifiable published sources that say otherwise. That makes the development of the Wikipedia Outline of Knowledge - Outline of Palestine problematic if not impossible. The published sources that support the existence of either a country, nation, or state include many reliable government, parastatial, and international organizations. I've asked for published sources that support the non-existence POV, but none appear to be forthcoming.

I've already mentioned this issue on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines page. Its part and parcel of the discussion that John Z is requesting in the "State of Palestine" section directly above. Can we start a IPCOLL WikiProject on this specific topic?

For details see the section on the Talk:Palestine pageharlan (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Harlan seems to think an article about a region is the same as a country, trying to use, in this case, a country category (arabic-speaking countries) in a geographical region article - Palestine.
And anyways, the legal status of the Palestinian territories is highly controversial, not to be decided by Harlan, myself, or any other wikipedian; yet Harlan is bent is presenting meaningless sources (like someone dissertation, which doesn't even support his claim) and cherry-picks the sources he like, to claim, unequivocally, that "Palestine is a state". okedem (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled time and again that the legal status of the Palestinian territories is one of belligerent occupation: "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation." cited at "B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw, 1. Belligerent Occupation, 14." in 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel. The Knesset could theoretically overrule the court, but it has not done that. Okedem is aware of that fact, because he participated in a thread where that was repeatedly mentioned. Peter Cohen provided a link to that discussion to the Arbcom committee at the link above: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories and etc.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Okedem is treating other editors to argumentum ad hominem and deletion. The Palestine article is linked to the cat Zionism and mentions the country of Israel with wikilinks. Mentioning the country or state of Palestine should not pose a problem. harlan (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't mislead the readers of this page. The problem isn't with saying that there are Palestinians there, that they want a state, or that they currently have some political body, whose nature is unclear (state or not). The problem is with an edit like this, pushing a country category onto a geographical region article. There's also a problem with using bad sources to push an agenda, and I had to weed through them (see my recent edits and summaries for details). okedem (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The Zionism category is linked to this article, and that is an ideological movement dedicated to the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish State in Palestine. Other editors applied the Arab-speaking country category to the article. I restored it after it had been deleted with no sensible explanation. The wikitext of the article contains long historical discussions, of a non-geographical nature, about the history of the ruling dynasties, the British Mandate era, the Arab revolt, World War II, the UN Partition Plan, the 1948 War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and the current status. Arabic is one of the official languages of the countries that are described in the text of the article: Israel, the British Mandate, and Palestine.
I keep hearing about bad sources, but you aren't citing any examples that can be verified. The article Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’, By Marc Perelman, appeared in the March 07, 2008 issue of the Forward. It was one of the examples mentioned in the article. It is self-explanatory, and doesn't say anything about partial recognition. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that Israel is willing to recognize a non-sovereign neutralized "state". You seem to be complaining because other countries (like Costa Rica) have already gone ahead and done something similar. You say an autonomous region is not a state, but autonomous regions have long been recognized under customary international law as a type of State with restricted or limited sovereignty. In the case of Elon Moreh College Association v. The State of Israel, April 3, 2006, the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the Palestinian Authority meets the legal criteria for statehood: see J'lem court: Palestinian Authority meets criteria to be classed as a sovereign state. Israel has made a discretionary political decision not to recognize the State of Palestine. harlan (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't care who added the category in the past. It was removed with good explanation, and then you added it.
A region is not a country. Central America is a region, home to several Spanish speaking countries (and none others), yet it is not categorized under "Spanish-speaking countries". Nor are the British Isles listed under "English-speaking countries", or the Arabian Peninsula under "Arabic-speaking countries". Nor are other regions. What is not a country, cannot be categorized as one. If you have an objection to having the Zionism category, make your case regarding it. I might even agree with you (haven't thought it over yet). But on the current subject you're simply dead-wrong. okedem (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetic Fallacy

"My dissertation source" is a reference that has been in the lede of the article ever since the 4th of April of 2008, when User:Tiamat added it to the Palestine article.Diff I merely wrapped it and some other references into a single ref tag in list form. Tiamat only used the dissertation to illustrate the fact that "Today, Palestine can also be used to refer to the State of Palestine, an entity recognized by over 100 countries in the world, whose boundaries have yet to be determined." The author of the dissertation has an LLM degree. He in turn was only quoting a snippet from a peer-reviewed law journal article written by Professor Francis Boyle, the legal adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Provisional Government of Palestine: "Francis A. Boyle, The Creation of the State of Palestine, Eur J Int Law 1: 301-306". Boyle is a Professor of Law, A.B. University of Chicago; A.M., J.D., Ph.D. Harvard University. He also obtained a J.D. degree magna cum laude and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in political science from Harvard University. A quick check of the Oxford Journals (Google the phrase The Creation of the State of Palestine Francis A. Boyle Over 114 states have already recognized the newly proclaimed state of Palestine) reveals that Tiamat erred on the side of caution. harlan (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A dissertation is not an RS, and you should know that, meaning that anything in it is meaningless. If you just want something quoted in it, you can go and quote the original. That dissertation ([1]) ends by concluding: "Both in law and in fact, Palestine is a nation, but she is not yet a state." (and later says: "At the same time, it is hard to conclude that Palestine is not a state").
Another source you used, the Today's Zaman article ([2]) just quotes a Palestinian official claiming they're recognized by 67 states (so, is he wrong? Or are your claims overstated? Does anyone know?). It's not the ICC saying that, nor even this publication. They're just quoting a claim by an official. Is this your idea of an RS?
Your third source was a US customs directive ([3]), which, contrary to your claim, shows no recognition of "Palestine", but just clarifies that goods coming from the territories will not be marked with "Israel" as "Country of Origin", but with "West Bank" and/or "Gaza Strip". At most, this would show that the Treasury Department doesn't consider those areas as part of Israel, but that's not even the discussion.
Find actual sources, scholarly sources, not these things. okedem (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not able to find any support in the policy pages for the claim that doctoral dissertations (aka PhD theses) are not Reliable Sources. Did I miss something? The issue has been discussed many times in policy talk pages and my impression is that the balance of opinion has been towards accepting them. Zerotalk 04:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Zero0000, it's an online article presented as an expert opinion. It is written by an author who identifies himself as a post-graduate with an LLM degree. I didn't see anything to indicate it had been submitted as a dissertation for the award of a degree. Okedem gave me a link [4] to an about.com article written by a geographer to establish the fact that Palestine is not a legal state. That author says there are 8 criteria for statehood, and that Palestine might fulfill all of them, except that it has no international recognition. He seems to be blissfully unaware of the fact that the State of Palestine has signed bilateral treaty agreements with dozens of other states. harlan (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I was assuming that "dissertation" meant it had passed a PhD examination. If that's not true, it must be assessed more critically. Zerotalk 05:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, you're misrepresenting. I didn't provide the about.com link as proof for anything, except to show that I too can easily find web pages that say whatever I want. To claim "Palestine" fulfills them is also false. It fulfills some of them, partly ("somewhat", as the site says). But that's not the point of this. Remember - as some users have mentioned, the "State of Palestine" is a different entity from the "Palestinian National Authority", which is the entity with at least some partial powers. Whereas the purely political "State" has "missions" in other countries, the PNA doesn't do international relations (that being left up to the PLO). okedem (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okedem if you can easily find web pages that say whatever you want, why don't you look one up that says the Palestinian Authority and the State are different entities? I'd be more interested in seeing that than reading the musings of our fellow Wikipedia editor.
The Forward article said that Costa Rica signed an agreement with the Palestinian Authority's UN Mission Chief recognizing the State of Palestine.[5] It was two Palestinian Authority officials who presented the bilateral treaty agreements to the ICC Prosecutor which showed that Palestine was a legal state.[6] The last sentence of the same article says they represent the Occupied Palestinian territories. When the UN adopted a resolution saying the Palestinian people had permanent sovereignty over the natural resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territories the Israeli representative said that there were already agreements in effect giving the Palestinian Authority (the elected Council of the Palestinian people) jurisdiction over some natural resources and agreements pending for more. The PLO is also a representative of the Palestinian people. The 1988 declaration stressed the UN Charter and resolutions recognized the "Palestinian Arab people's" natural rights including sovereignty over their territory. A State by definition includes the population of the territory and its government.
BTW, when I checked the Central America, Ireland, and China articles the other day I noticed they mention all of the states that are located in those regions harlan (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't me who made that distinction clear. I believe it was Tiamut, in mentioning that Salam Fayyad, PNA prime minister, holds no position in the "State of Palestine". The post of president of that "State" was vacant for several years after Arafat's death in 2005, and only a short while ago the PLO elected Abbas for that position.
And lose the straw-men arguments, will you? No one said anything against mentioning the states in Palestine, as opposed to making the entire article about the supposed Palestinian State. okedem (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The editor's name wasn't strawman, it was Uriber: [7] Here is the edit summary: (Once again, this article is not about the State of Palestine, a Palestinian State, Definitions of Palestine, or various meanings of "Palestine". it's about the historic geographical area.) He even deleted the sourced reference to Dr Francis Boyle's European Journal article that had just been added.
The State of Palestine is a person of international law in its own right. It is no longer synonymous with the PLO. The latter is still a partly extraterritorial entity. A State has to have a government, but the way it comes into existence isn't relevant. Most countries have a declared policy of only recognizing states, not their governments. see Recognition of governments by Stefan Talmon [8] That means they can avoid questions regarding the legitimacy of leaders like Gerald Ford or Salam Fayyad and get on with their diplomatic relations. Reliable sources report that the US requested that Fatah declare a state of emergency so that a new government that accepted the "Quartet principles" could be appointed.
Yehuda Blum was explaining his "Missing Reversioner" theory to the Senate Judiciary Committee during their hearings on The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel. He got to the part where no country recognized Jordan as the legitimate sovereign of the West Bank. The US had suggested incorporating the two areas under King Abdullah's rule, and the Congress had been stuck with the bill. They subsidized the Kingdom for decades. The Chairman of the subcommittee asked how Israel's first election could be considered valid when the bulk of the Arab population had been displaced and were disenfranchised? Dr. Blum replied that elections have nothing to do with the legitimacy of a government. He pointed out the fact that 120 of the 150 member states of the UN at the time either held no elections at all, or ones that were considered dubious at best. harlan (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Due to Harlan making legal threats (or at least very close to legal threats) and claiming other users are paid campaigners (see [9]), I refuse to engage in any further discussion with him, and urge other users to do the same.
It'll make little difference, anyway, as he continues to ignore policy on WP:OR, and provides his personal opinion and analysis of the situation, in lieu of expert sources. okedem (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Long and Short of It

I would strongly suggest that you drop the attitude and try to settle the issue here in this forum, without diverting the discussion away from the topic at hand. Previous guidance from Arbcom indicates that it is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.

Numerous editors, like Tiamat and myself, have repeatedly provided sourced edits, written in a neutral narrative which mentioned the fact that one usage of the term Palestine: "can refer to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River; the Country, or State of Palestine, comprising territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip;[1] or to Proposals for a Palestinian state in line with the pre-1967 borders"[2] Here is one example where the citations were completely ignored in favor of a wikilink to the article for Proposals for a Palestinian state:[10]

[1]

  • "Jerusalem court: Palestinian Authority meets criteria to be classed as a sovereign state, by Yuval Yoaz [11] Ha'aretz, Retrieved 4 June 2009
  • "Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’", By Marc Perelman [12], The Jewish Daily Forward, Retrieved 4 June 2009
  • "DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Customs Service, T.D. 97–16, Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza" [13], US Federal Register, Retrieved 4 June 2009
  • "ICC prosecutor considers ‘Gaza war crimes’ probe" [14], Today's Zaman, Retrieved 4 June 2009

[2]

  • Ehud Olmert’s Parting Words Dared To Offer Painful Truth, [15], The Jewish Daily Forward, Retrieved 4 June 2009

The two articles from the Forward magazine provide enough evidence to substantiate the usage of the term in all of those contexts, and the information is relevant to the topic of the region of Palestine. One example is in the Forward magazine article title: "Costa Rica Opens Official Ties With ‘State of Palestine’". The very first sentence of the article contains another example. It mentions that the Palestinian Authorities are seeking recognition of Palestine as a country: "Seizing upon the Bush administration’s recent push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, the Palestinian Authority has been working to expand the number of countries that recognize Palestine as a country." The other article contains a Proposal for a final settlement in which Prime Minister Olmert proposed that Israel give up control of East Jerusalem and virtually the entire West Bank. That is really all that is needed to establish that Palestine can be used in a sentence to mean either a state or a country in the region. If you would like more discussion you can keep reading.

The State of Palestine article itself was recommended for deletion, and merged into Proposals for a Palestinian State because a group of Wikipedia editors refused to recognize that a country or state might already exist based upon the standard criteria of recognition by other states. Narrative statements like the ones above come under fire and a number of irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial objections are invariably raised by other editors who claim that the narrative can't be included in the article unless their personal objections are addressed. The other articles in the citation provide evidence to satisfy some routine objections:

  • The Ha'aretz article demonstrates that the Palestinian National Authority satisfied the normal legal standards which apply in cases involving the recognition of other states.
  • The Forward article mentions that the Palestinian Authorities are requesting that other countries recognize Palestine as a country. The Federal Register contains an example of that effort. The Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government with Israel stipulated the two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit.[16] The Palestinian National Authority requested that the US reaffirm the territorial unity of its West Bank and Gaza Strip areas. The applicable section of the Federal Code says that: “Country” means the political entity known as a nation.", and that:“Country of origin” means the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States." The President declared the areas a free trade zone with immediate legal effect, and the Treasury Department designated the West Bank and Gaza a country of origin. At the same time it notified the public that the country of origin markings of goods produced there shall not contain the words ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘‘Made in Israel,’’ ‘‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’’ or words of similar meaning. The Department of State advised that it considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes.
  • Some editors believe that Palestine cannot be a state, regardless of recognition by other countries, because the Palestinian Authority has never claimed to be a state according to the "Declarative Theory". The ICC article provides an example where it did. The Prosecutor refused at first to consider an investigation, but changed his mind after the PNA officials announced "Today we came to deliver a set of documents that shows that Palestine as a state ... has the ability to present a case to the court and to ask for an investigation into crimes committed by the Israeli army" Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan and Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki said that they had submitted documents to the International Criminal Court which proved Palestine was a legal state. Okedem ignored the unilateral declarations of statehood and the mention of documentary proof and deleted the whole citation. His edit summary said "(doesn't specify recognition, but just mentions Palestinians claim they have recognition)"[17]

Okedem raised a number of objections. He claimed that quoting the public notice in the Federal Register or the definitions subsection of the Federal Code it mentions is WP:OR. The definitions and explanations are contained in the notices and the federal codes themselves, and do not originate with Wikipedia or me. WP:OR says that "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." He complains that the country is the West Bank and Gaza, and that Palestine isn't mentioned. The Forward article in the same footnote said the PNA was seeking recognition of Palestine as a country. [WP:NOTOR] says simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions.

Governments, agencies, and parastatial organizations call the same country by different names. The US Library of Congress (LOC) lists the "Occupied Territories, West Bank, and Gaza" as a Nation. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has established .ps as the top-level country-code for "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". The ISO Maintenance Agency lists the country name and country elements as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", Alpha-2 code "PS", Alpha-3 code PSE, numeric code 275. The International Olympic Commission and FIFA formulate their own codes and names that differ from the ISO codes in some cases. The IOC has recognized the National Olympic Committee of "Palestine", Country Code "PSE", since 1996. The FIFA Integration Guidelines, Country and Confederation codes, lists "Palestine" and "PLE".

It is clear that the country or nation can be called Palestine, and that it is comprised of territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Okedem deleted the citations to the Federal Register and the so-called dissertation.[18] Without supplying any new sources of his own, he changed the lede to read "partially recognized state", although none of the citations use that description. Israel itself is on the List of states with limited recognition because it is not universally recognized. Dr Boyle said "Over 114 states have already recognized the newly proclaimed state of of Palestine, which is more than the 93 that maintain some form of diplomatic relations with Israel. The number of states that recognize either state on a de jure, de facto, or tacit basis is unknown. If the lede doesn't describe Israel as "partially recognized" then Palestine shouldn't be described that way either. harlan (talk)

"Long and short"? Where's the second one? Hidden in there somewhere?
Harlan, writing a 10k comment doesn't make your case any stronger. Quoting whole passages doesn't help any meaningful discussion.
You can repeat your claims all you want, but you keep committing WP:OR instead of providing expert sources that conclude that the Palestinian Authority is now a state. I really don't care how many links you provide that give little pieces of what you consider is evidence. It's not your place. Find actual sources, not customs directive that imply what you want them to. I say again - there are several criteria for statehood, and you can't just cite "recognition" and be done with it. Even the source you used concludes by saying that it's not a state, but it is a state (the author can't seem to make up his mind). If a source doesn't support a claim, any user can remove it, and certainly doesn't need to provide another one.
Back to the discussion you keep side-stepping - the article Palestine deals specifically with the geographical region, home to Israel, the Palestinians (and possibly Jordan). As the very first line says, "This article is about the geographical area." Region articles are not categorized as countries, and I won't repeat the examples I've shown above. At most, State of Palestine might be categorized under "Arabic-speaking countries", if you bother provide (actual) sources to support the claim that it is a state. okedem (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs explain everything. The Forward article explains that Palestine is used to mean either a state or a country. It's not WP:OR and neither is any of the rest of the material. You haven't provided a source to show that Palestine only has partial recognition, and Israel is in the same boat. harlan (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Does the US, Russia, the EU, or the UN recognize it as a country? Just now Javiar Solana called upon the UN Security Council to proclaim a two-state solution, and recognize a Palestinian State, by the end of the year (to put pressure on Israel to move forward).
With respect to the "Jewish Daily Forward" article, all that article says, is that Costa Rica chose to use the word "State". The article also says: "When the Palestine Liberation Organization proclaimed a Palestinian state in 1988, some 90 countries established diplomatic relations with it, although the exact formulation has varied. Few countries outside the Arab League have recognized a “state,” as Costa Rica has done." Which seems to underscore what I'm saying.
Recognition is great, but it's not the only thing needed. The whole topic is way more complex than you're trying to claim it is. Interested readers can learn more in Sovereign state (an article which is under dispute itself). This is why we don't cite primary evidence (customs documents), or recognition, and decide that makes a state. This is what international relations scholars are for. okedem (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with okedem in this comment. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way - you should really go argue your point with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who said, on 22 June 2009, that "A Palestinian state will be established in two years' time". "I call on all our people to unite around the project of establishing a state and to strengthen its institutions ... so that the Palestinian state becomes, by the end of next year or within two years at most, a reality," he said. "Achieving this goal within two years is possible." (from: here, story also reported here, and here, and in other places). I guess he doesn't know he already has a state... okedem (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There will be a need to establish Palestinian government control over the IDF administered territory once it isn't occupied anymore. That was already mentioned in the lede as Proposals for a Palestinian State. That doesn't effect the juridical status of the current State that was declared in Geneva at the International Criminal Court press conference. I guess I should include that information directly in the current status section, along with the latest proposal for a UN Security Council-imposed final settlement and the British Arms Embargo. harlan (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Fayad clearly said "A Palestinian state will be established in two years' time", not "we'll establish control over IDF administered territory", or any such thing. You see, the 1988 declaration, and subsequent partial recognition are fine symbolic moves, showing the final intent, and support for the Palestinian cause from various states. Certainly in 1988 there was nothing even reminiscent of a Palestinian state, and the declaring leaders weren't even in Palestine at the time. While all those declarations and recognitions are nice, I guess Fayad knows that they don't make a state, and one doesn't exist yet. Don't try to mis-represent him. His words clearly contradict you, and frankly - his words are the ones that matter. If even he says that a state is only in the future, the discussion has been decided.
(And what's with the embargo red-herring? Stay on topic, please). okedem (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be droll, there is no Palestinian state in IDF administered areas today, only in the areas under PNA control. They've adopted an interim constitution, and its just like the period in the US under the articles of confederation. It's a provisional caretaker government like Ben Gurion's provisional government. That operated until the election of the first constituent assembly. That situation doesn't mean there isn't an existing state of Palestine. harlan (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to wiggle your way out of this one. Fayad speaks of the future establishment of the Palestinian State, not the future first elections (like during the short time of the provisional government of Israel - 1948-9), or the different political status of pre-constitution US. There are institutions, there are leaders, there are elections etc, but it's not a state, which is still in the future. Note - he didn't say "replace our current state with a bigger one", or "extend our state to all our land", or any such thing. He just spoke of establishing "a Palestinian state", meaning one doesn't exist right now.
Sorry. You tried, but Fayad disagrees - and he wins. okedem (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't lost anything. I'll add citations for the PLO being designated as the Provisional Government of Palestine, the Interim Agreement on Self-Government for the autonomous zones, the Basic Law serving as an interim constitution, the attempts to draft a permanent constitution in the context of the Road Map and Israeli withdrawal, and the unilateral announcement of statehood with regard to the territory of the autonomous zones like Gaza made by the caretaker PNA government at Geneva. I'd suggest that you stop deleting the references like that one to well-sourced facts, just because they don't fit into your particular view of things. That's a disruptive edit that's been called to your attention twice now. harlan (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that one statement by Salman Fayyad should negate every other POV out there. The situation is much more complicated than that. I recommend reading this which outlines some of the criteria for statehood and evaluates Palestine's position based on that definition and political developments such as the 1988 declaration, the upgrading of the Palestine's status at the UN in the 1990s, etc, etc. While Palestine deviates from the traditional criteria governing statehood, it does enjoy moral and symbolic recognition as a state in many circles.
harlan's complaint is a fair one i think: there is much literature that uses "Palestine" to refer to the "State of Palestine" and this information is relevant to our Wikipedia article on Palestine but it keeps getting removed or sidelined. It is good to see that State of Palestine was recently restored, but I'm rather shocked to see, after being away for a couple of months, that the History of Palestine article is now just a redirect to History of the Southern Levant. Anyway, I'm rambling now ... Tiamuttalk 19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion break

When you place a source that doesn't support your claim, or are inappropriate, I will remove it. In Palestine I removed the "Today's Zaman" article, which provides nothing but a claim made by a Palestinian official regarding recognition (would be appropriate to support a sentence like "Palestinians claim they have recognition from..."); and the US customs directive, which, in this context, is being used as WP:OR (it would be appropriate for a sentence saying: "the US marks goods from Gaza and the West Bank as..."). For the n'th time - find real sources, from experts, that actually support your claims. If you do, we won't have a problem. But you can't go deciding that some diplomatic recognition and a customs directive mean a Palestinian State exists.
If you actually find real sources for the things you listed now, that's great. They belong in the State of Palestine article, which could really use some well-sourced material.
And Tiamut: "every other POV out there"? Are all the other views that a state exists now, and Fayyad is the only one in dissent? His statement is the strongest source provided here yet. As they say, straight from the horse's mouth. Beyond all the symbolic declarations of state, the real state is still in the future. okedem (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
And extra, another one - Abbas Zaki, Fatah representative in Lebanon, said "A Palestinian state should be established..." (July 8, 2009). okedem (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All I'm going to do is keep putting the info in a reference and explain on the talk page that the Roadmap has always called for the establishment of a Constitution leading to the establishment of a Palestinian State with "Provisional" Borders (PSPB) in the 2nd Phase of the Roadmap before a Permanent Status Agreement. The Reut Institute describes the period: "Accordingly, the Third Draft assumes, albeit implicitly, that the borders of the Palestinian state will be "provisional" and that a number of Outstanding Issues will remain unresolved." see Palestinian Constitution – Draft No. 3. It looks like whenever you see a reference to the Nation, Country, or State of Palestine you try to waterdown or deny its existence. Despite the fact that Israel had provision borders and a provisional government it was never called the partially recognized or provisional State of Israel.

Ben Gurion announced that Israel was a state, in May of 1948 long before the IDF controlled or occupied the largest portion of the country in the Negev. That happened much later in March of 1949. When the Security Council suggested obtaining an advisory opinion on the legal status of Palestine in July of 1948, Abba Eban claimed that couldn't be done because some of the members had already recognized Israel, including the as yet unoccupied Negev. He said:

"The act of determining whether a certain political unit is a State or not is known in international law as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or to any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as a State." Mr Eban S/PV.340, the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, 27 July 1948

Under the rules of the OAU regarding the new states of Africa it was sufficient that a given country maintained minimal and symbolic administrative control centered mostly around the capital city. Those states were considered independent after they were able to conduct their foreign relations, internal difficulties notwithstanding. see the article on the states in the former Yugoslavia: International Law under Fire, Enver Hasani. There is nothing new about recognizing autonomous zones as states. harlan (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want your opinion and analysis regarding which stage we're in. Find me expert opinions, not original research.
And you still fail to refute Fayyad's simple statement - a state will be established, he said. okedem (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave you expert opinions from a book on international law as it relates to the question of Palestine's statehood. It directly addresses this issue and contradicts the statement you have presented by Fayyad. For example, it says:
  • "On Novmber 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council proclaimed the establishment of the state of Palestine in a document denominated a Declaration of Independendece."
  • "After the Palestine National Council declared statehood in 1988, over 100 states recognized it. There is no numerical minimum in the law of nations, but since there are fewer than 200 nations in the world, this number of recognitions was substantial."
  • "Beyond unilateral actions by other states, collective action by the United Nations was taken on the issue of Palestinian statehood in the 1990s. In 1998, the U.N. General Assembly voted by resolution to reshape the P.L.O's observer status at the United Nations in a way that made it appear to be something quite close to a state [...] Further, the erm "Palestine" was used instead of "P.L.O." as the official designation. This change suggested the entity in question was not a national liberation organization, but a state."
These quotes indicate that the use of Palestine to refer to a state, albeit a state with limited autonomy an undefined borders, is quite common in international circles. This information is relevant to our article on Palestine and our article on the State of Palestine. There is no strictly defined split between the usage of Palestine to refer to a geographical region or to refer to the nation of the Palestinian people. Some people use it in both senses, some only in one or other, but our article should mention all the different uses, particularly since it is entitled simply "Palestine". The resistance to the inclusion of this information is odd given that WP:NPOV requires us to represent all significant viewpoints on a given subject. I would say that the recoginition of Palestine as a state by more than half of the world's states is significant. If Fayad today wants to pretend that the PLO did not declare statehood in 1988, he is free to do so, but the historical record remains what it is: a State of Palestine has been declared and recognized by a majority of the world. Though tt has yet to exercise full autonomy and yet to negotiate its final borders, it nonetheless exists. Tiamuttalk 11:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
One more thing Okedem ... you keep confusing existence with implementation. This is a common problem, addressed by the book I linked you to. It states: "The issue of Palestinian statehood became beclouded in the miid-1990s when the P.L.O decided to declare statehood anew. That effort had more to do with implementing than declaring anew [...] What was being contested under the guise of an argument about statehood was the implementation of Palestinian statehood, not it existence."
In other words, there is no question that Tte right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the form of a state of Palestine is widely recognized and the State of Palestine has been declared and recognized to exist by a majority of the world community. What is in question is how to implement the statehood that has been declared. To meet the full criteria of statehood, the State of Palestine must be free of occupation, and exercise full sovereignty over defined boundaries. Everyone understands that full statehood will be implemented when these issues are resolved, preferably via negotations. Fayyad's call for statehood is a call for implementation, and not for recognition, which has alreay been largely achieved. Tiamuttalk 11:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I too want to thank Tiamut for her constructive and balanced comments as usual. i would say that calls and recognition for a Palestinian state are calls for its establishment and for the right of Palestinians to have a state. However, i would also say that such calls, while recognizing the rights of Palestinian people to have self-determination and a state, would also say that the Palestinains STILL languish under the heavy hand of Israeli occupation; an occupation which suppresses their rights, impedes their commerce, and deprives of them of their rights, SUCH AS a Palestinian state. you wouldn't disagree with THAT stated formulation, would you? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Steve. Nice to see you again. Just between you and me, my own view on states is that they are something akin to prisons and tend to do more harm than good. I'm not sure the establishment of a State of Palestine has occurred and if it has, than god help us. That irrelevancy aside, I share John Z's thoughts as expressed at Talk:State of Palestine. As they apply to your question, our guide should be scholarly sources, some of which do discuss the issue of occupation and its detrimental impact on the ability of Palestinian institutions to exercise full sovereignty, a criteria for statehood, but some of them also note that occupation does not necessarily negate statehood, citing examples of governments in exile. In any case, my preference is that we steer away from expressing personal opinions (excuse my own tangential indulgence above, I couldn't help it) in favour of seeing what the sources say about these things. Tiamuttalk 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I was talking to harlan, not you, as he continues to argue without providing sources. I commend you for entering this discussion with an actual source, something I've been asking harlan to do for a long time.
If you want to say that the concept of a Palestinian State, or the need for one, or the right of the Palestinians to have one, is recognized - fine, no problem. But does an actual state exist in Palestine? According to Fayyad - no. And he's the PM of that supposed state.
"confusing existence with implementation" - They are mutually exclusive. If something already exists, there's no need to implement it. Again, what you seem to be saying is that the concept (or plan, right, etc) exists and is widely recogized (even, partially, by Netanyahu, and more fully by previous Israeli PMs). Right. But the physical state, on the ground, doesn't exist yet, and it needs to be established. I never claimed Fayyad is calling for recognition. As I said above (my last few comments), the declaration and subsequent recognitions were obviously symbolic (in 1988 there wasn't a trace of a state anywhere, not even the limited autonomy there is now), a show of support, recognition of rights, etc. But an actual state, a country, a sovereign entity in Palestine doesn't exist yet. So the concept exists, but not an actual state. When the concept is implemented, a state will exist.
A similar case was Israel - the concept of a Jewish state gained wide support among Jews in the late 19th, early 20th century. Jewish right for a state in Palestine was recognized first by Britain in 1917, then by the various world powers in San Remo, leading to the internationally sanctioned British Mandate, with the express goal of a Jewish state. The need and right for such a state was widely recognized, but no one will say that there was a state before 1948. The concept existed and got support, but was not implemented. If we were to write an article back in, say, 1946, we wouldn't say "Palestine is home to a Jewish state", because, even though the concept was widely recognized and supported, no such state existed yet. Of course there are differences between the cases, but the similarities are of interest here, to get my point across. okedem (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You are introducing another logical fallacy. This time its the "missing intermediary". One meaning of the word "Establish" is "To cause to be recognized and accepted". The State of Palestine was already declared back in 1988, and the Palestinian Officials at Geneva presented documents to establish that dozens of other states consider Palestine to be a legal state. The Forward magazine article cited in the Palestine article said PA officials are working on getting other countries to recognize Palestine as a country. When Fayyad says he wants to establish the state within two years he doesn't mention any creative act, and nothing he mentions proves that a state doesn't already exist for legal purposes.
Here is an example: The Jerusalem Post said Reuters had reported that: Solana wants UN to establish 'Palestine'. The article said the first thing Solana wanted to do was recognize a Palestinian state even without a final-status agreement regarding borders between Israel and the Palestinians. The Reuters headline had said nothing about creating a state: EU's Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state. harlan (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Now I wonder what tortured interpretation you'll apply to another part of his speech: "...so that the Palestinian state becomes, by the end of next year or within two years at most, a reality". Will you find a new meaning for "reality"? okedem (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of idea

Israel prior to 1948 is not a good comparison, since, although the Yishuv and the Zionist movement sought, demanded and eventually fought for independent statehood, they did not proclaim it. A much closer example would be the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which is described in the article as a "partially-recognised state", and is listed in the categories African Union member states and States, and territories established in 1976. There are also articles on Western Sahara and Legal status of Western Sahara. RolandR 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the comparison with Western Sahara is more apt in this case. Notice how the Western Sahara article does treat the political dispute in depth and does not confine its definition of the territory to a geographical description. I don't understand why some editors of our Palestine article insist on pretending that this word is used primarily/dominantly as a geographic or historic term to refer to a region only, devoid of people. Its used as often to also refer to a nation or state, particularly true given that there is an active dispute over Palestine and peoples who claim to belong to it. Whether Palestine as a nation or state exists only as a concept or enjoys a more fuller reality is rather irrelevant to the present discussion. The fact that a concept of Palestine existing as a nation or state is what makes the subject notable to Wikipedia and worthy of discussion; the extent of that existence in real or material terms should be discussed in the relevant articles or their article talk pages. On a related note, an article on the Legal Status of Palestine for which there is a lot of information would be welcome as well. Tiamuttalk 16:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I know that now some people try to claim the name "Palestine" as belonging to Arabs only, but it refers to a geographical region, and for years a "Palestinian" was any resident of Palestine, regardless of religion. Palestine is the most common name for that whole region, whereas, used to refer to a political entity, is not as common, quite new, and at most refers to a small part of the geographical region. I strongly object to any attempt to mix up the meanings in a single article. There's no editorial reason to mix both meanings into a single article. Region articles are one thing, and state/country/political entities articles are another. For any misunderstanding, we have a link at the top of the article for the political meaning. okedem (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Okedem, but I don't see the relevance of your opening line. No one is claiming exclusive Arab ownership ove Palestine. When people insist that Palestine refers solely to a geographic region, they are ignoring reality and the history of habitation and contestation over Palestine. Palestine means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and its meaning surely extends beyond the geographical. To artifically delimit the meaning of the term, as you are proposing, is rather impossible, as evidenced by the rather eclectic collection of information currently in the Palestine article. The task before us is determining how we describe these different meanings of Palestine and the different POVs in our different articles on the subject. I myself think that the Palestine article needs to be organized differently as a summary article where the Geography of Palestine, History of Palestine, Legal Status of Palestine, etc., etc. are discussed and the evolution of conceptions over what Palestine is to different people and who it belongs to are also discussed. Confining Palestine to a discussion of the Geography of Palestine is inappropriate because it is POV. It gives one definition of Palestine dominance over all others and this dominance is undue given the reality of the many uses of the term Palestine in everyday discourse. Tiamuttalk 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What you are proposing goes against the conventions of naming the delimiting articles. Palestine deals, and should deal, with the entire region now home to Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and perhaps Jordan. It does so just like Central America deals with that region - for geography, history, etc. Separate articles deals with Israel, Jordan and the State of Palestine. The similar/identical names of the region, and the term adopted by the Palestinians for their future state does not mean the articles must be one and the same. At most, the similar name compels us to provide a link at the top of the article "This article is about the geographical area. For the Palestinian territories, see Palestinian territories.", "For other uses, see Palestine (disambiguation)." - which is what we currently have. This is what we do when we have topics with similar or identical names. okedem (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. interesting discussion here. just wanted to say, good to see you guys here, since some of the discussions seemed to have had a hiatus of sorts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Umm, we should not get into an argument over the use of a name as it is currently used by all major media outlets, media organizations governments, etc etc etc. This is where our community could start to have intractable conflict. disputing this does niot add anything to the encyclopedia content. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The idea that Palestine most commonly refers to the geographical region is a Wikipedia invention. There are no sources that state this explicitly. When Palestine is defined in scholarly literature from various disciplines, multiple meanings are ascribed. For example, in the biblical archaeology book Biblica, it says: "Palestine can refer to the entire area of the southern Levant, in keeping with the ancient use of the term. But Palestine also refers to a modern political entity, so confusion in possible."

It is explicit definitions from high quality sources like this that makes it hard for me to understand the rationale behind having Palestine be a page restricted to a discussion of the geographical region. (Nor do I understand the associated refusal to make this explicit by changing the title to Palestine (region) and having Palestine be a disambig page linking to its many associated pages.) Perhaps though, it is Outline of Palestine that should discuss the different definitions and serve as a summary page and default redirect for people looking for information on Palestine. I don't know what the solution is exactly. What I do know is that the status quo is not WP:NPOV. Tiamuttalk 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As User:Sceptre mentioned on that article's talk page, the broader, geographic, meaning takes precedence over a political entity claiming part of it - see, for example, China or Ireland (as opposed to Republic of China, People's Republic of China, and Republic of Ireland).
Sure, some people mean the unclear political entity, but that's not the main meaning. A broad meaning of 2,000 years, easily trumps a narrow meaning of a few years. If this was a case of two names for the same things, like "Land of Israel" vs. "Palestine", we use the more common one - in this case, in English, it's Palestine. But this isn't case, so we must prefer the broader meaning. okedem (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Israel lobby

Template:Israel lobby has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro- and Anti-Israel Lobby articles reported at ANI

I just saw some major changes that have occurred over the last few days and have reported them at the geographical ethnic and religious noticeboard, here. I consider they go to the core of Wikipedia's neutrality and credibility, and have stated such. I hope we can collaborate on this; it ain't black and white, but rather shades of gray with those devilish details. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC) PS If this isin the wrong place please move it to where it should be, thanks. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Even covert and organized pro Israeli campaigns like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia exists in the first place.
It is not unusual that lots of Jewish and Arab supporter editors may contain bias to some degree, however according to my experiences as a 3rd party, there are some organised, categorical deletion attempts of criticism of IDF and Israeli government from wikipedia.
By the way how you intend to change pro or anti lobby article names. Kasaalan (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am neither Arab or Jewish so I am just American and in the middle ground. Actually, I don't know what I will do, but I believe it will depend on whether there is an administrative reply at the ANI page and what it is. I really do not want to be disruptive, but if there is no admin reply, which I have sought honestly, earnestly and very naively, then I suspect my response will be disrupting, but within the five pillar limits and bounds. I had hoped that my reasonably timely response to these recent earth-shaking happenings would be sufficient to delineate the scope of the problem, and alert admins to impending problems, and include my general POV and immediate suggestions. We shall see; at this point, I believe it is in their court. Chances are that they will either return the serve, call a foul, or miss this easy shot. I suspect the latter two will ahppen, but am really hoping for the first one. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look for an advice, first tag the sections you feel biased, and try to talk per discussion page. ANI is a last case resort. Applying ANI before discussing, RFC or Arbitrary process is not a solution. Kasaalan (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
First, the presumption is to keep the title unless a change is discussed which it was not. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names. Note the same guy did this to Jewish Lobby changing to Jewish American lobby which is even less justified since the phrase is used all over the world. And of course without discussion. If someone who's better at reverting moves vs. policy above wants to do that for Jewish Lobby, go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: There is now a discussion on reverted move Talk:Israel lobby in the United States about changing the name through proper processes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As I just added to my own "delete" comment on the Anti-Israel article, *Delete: Basically a WP:attack page and not really encyclopedic. Because this article was created at the same time Israel lobby in the United States was changed (temporarily) to Pro-Israel lobby in the United States this looks like a partisan, POV attempt to use wikipedia to help create a false divide of either you are Pro or Anti Israel, with nothing in between. Wikipedia should not be used in this fashion. This is very much against the resolutions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

Please weigh in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ADL is pro-Israel lobby or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#How_ADL_is_not_pro_Israel

Discussion is 1 v 1 and collaboration might help the case. Question is if ADL is pro-Israel or not.

While ADL has other stated goals against bigotry, however they are pro-Israel by self statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Formal_lobby

US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt define the core of the lobby to include the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Anti-Defamation League and Christians United for Israel.[1][2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#College_campuses

There are a number of organizations that focus on what could be called "pro-Israel activism" on college campuses. With the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2001, these groups have been increasingly visible. In 2002, an umbrella organization, that includes many of these groups, known as the Israel On Campus Coalition was formed as a result of what they felt were "the worrisome rise in anti-Israel activities on college campuses across North America". The mission of the Israel on Campus Coalition is to "foster support for Israel" and "cultivate an Israel friendly university environment"[4]. Members of the Israel on Campus Coalition include the Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, Americans for Peace Now, the Anti-defamation League, Kesher, StandWithUs, the Union of Progressive Zionists, and a number of other organizations. There has been at least one conflict among these groups, when the right wing Zionist Organization of America unsuccessfully attempted to remove the left wing Union of Progressive Zionists from the coalition when the latter group sponsored lectures by a group of former IDF soldiers who criticized the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza[5]. However, there are some who feel that pro-Israel activism on college campuses can cross the line from advocacy to outright intimidation. One highly publicized accusation comes from former President Jimmy Carter, who complained of great difficulty in gaining access to a number of universities to discuss his new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. In October 2007 about 300 academics under the name The Ad Hoc Committee to Defend the University issued a statement calling for academic freedom from political pressure, in particular from groups portraying themselves as defenders of Israel.[6] In December 2007, the New York Sun reported[7] that student leaders who advocate pro-Israel films and groups on college campuses are eligible for being hired as "emissaries of the Jewish state" for their work and will receive up to $1000 a year for their efforts.

One of the 3 core Israel lobby organizations in US per academic sources. ADL is pro-Israel lobby by self stated goals, and academic observation. Kasaalan (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p113
  2. ^ Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  3. ^ Mitchell Bard The Israeli and Arab Lobbies", Jewish Virtual Library, published 2006, accessed August 26 2006.
  4. ^ ICC Home Page - Israel on Campus Coalition
  5. ^ "Coalition Votes Not To Toss Liberal Zionists - Forward.com"
  6. ^ Scott Jaschik (2007-10-23). "A Call to Defend Academic Freedom". Inside Higher Ed. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Pro-Israel Group Puts Emissaries on Campuses, New York Sun, December 10, 2007
ADL is not exclusively pro-Israel and has lobbied on behalf of Muslims, Arabs, gays, etc..etc...Couching in "pro-Israel/pro-Jewish" to every mention of the ADL is silly. Please stop your campaign, the ANI was very explicit that this type of editing is counter-productive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The ADL can be pro-Israel without being exclusively pro-Israel. I agree that labeling all mentions of ADL with a "pro-Israel" epithet is probably not useful, but in certain instances it can be useful to convey a balanced view. In an (imagined) statement like "most jurists consider the passport rules to be discriminatory against Israeli arabs, however the ADL disputes this" using the "pro-Israel" label can be useful to convey what the balance of opinion is. In general another option is to simply not cite the ADL, since it's not a neutral source and using "pro-Israel" in fact concedes this point. --Dailycare (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

I was editing this article today, adding refs for the the list of "States that recognize the State of Palestine" (which constitutes the bulk of this article) when it struck me that this article is a POVFORK. There is already a List of diplomatic missions of Palestine article, where this information could be merged. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority is not authorized to represent the Palestinian people in international fora. That remains the job of the Palestine Liberation Organization. (See here:In accordance with the Declaration of Principles, the Palestinian Authority will not have powers and responsibilities int he sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment of embassies, consulates, or other types of foreign missions or posts [...]) I am thinking of proposing the article for deletion since its existence in light of these facts is rather nonsensical, but want to get some feedback from others in the project before going ahead. I've also posted at WP:PALESTINE. Anyone what to share their thoughts? Tiamuttalk 12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that instead of deletion, we could consider a rename to Foreign Relations of Palestine, but that much of the material could just as easily go into State of Palestine (where some of it is already duplicated) or List of diplomatic missions of Palestine (where I have merged the info with what was already there). Tiamuttalk 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt, fewer articles are better, less confusing, as I will discuss above with category confusion. Of course both names are problematic for various reasons. Sigh. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to write Foreign relations of the State of Palestine. I'm not sure if that alleviates the name problem you are talking about, but I just tought I would be clear. Tiamuttalk 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That was main problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Tiamat as an organizing principle, a State must never be confused with its government. see "Governments" starting at the bottom of page 81 in Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, By Peter Malanczuk.
The same author provides a good explanation on page 82 of the distinction between recognition of a government and recognition of a state - see Recognition of States and Governments in international law at mid-page. The recognition of a state acknowledges that the entity fulfills the criteria for statehood. The recognition of a government implies that the regime in question is in effective control of a state. The basic difference is that the recognition of a government necessarily has the consequence of accepting the statehood of the entity which the regime is governing, while the recognition of a state can be accorded without also accepting that a particular regime is the legal government of that state. The Declaration of Principles tries to establish self-government over the population of a territory without recognizing either a government or a state.
Most countries recognize States, but no longer make formal declarations recognizing other governments. see "Abolition of the recognition of governments?" in Recognition of Governments in international law, By Stefan Talmon. Experts in the field of international law have questioned the validity of the DOP, since it violates so many of the accepted principles of international law. See for example the section on "Special Agreements" and the Geneva Convention in the recent HSRC study.
The PNC declared that the PLO was the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine in 1988. Up until that point, the PLO was merely a national liberation movement. The DOP was a subsequent written undertaking regarding self-government of the population of a territory concluded between Israel and the PLO. Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explains that by definition "treaties" are agreements concluded between "States", and that they are governed by the rules of international law. If the DOP is an enforceable treaty agreement, then then PLO must be governing a "State". In any event, non-contracting state parties are free to recognize the State of Palestine without regard to the DOP. For example, the Forward magazine reported [19] that the government of Costa Rica signed a bilateral treaty agreement with the representative of the Palestinian Authority (not the PLO) recognizing the State of Palestine. In most cases US policy holds that it is bilateral treaties like that one, and not governments, that bind nations together. see Jefferson's remarks regarding the French revolution in "U.S. policy in the recognition of states", in the Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. harlan (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on organization of categories for various activist groups?

The Anti-Israel lobby in the United States deletion discussion brings up again the issue of good organization of the categories of activism and what is needed. Just spent a few hours (!) trying to figure out what categories/subcategories exist and what’s necessary and here’s my results. Feel free to add anything I missed. Then I’ll go through and make sure categories and some articles are properly categorized.

Other Relevant categories currently used:

Need to check if properly categorized

Categories we may need to create

Relevant article: Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Druze

Although this is Israel/Syria and has nothing to do with Palestinian it is still relevant here.

This has been going on for a while. The problem is with user Fipplet deleting "and the Israeli controlled Golan Heights" in the infobox.

The numbers are including Golan, and by fipplet deleting this he makes the reader believe that Golan is Israel, or that the numbers are for Israel proper. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=303773858&oldid=303772085 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Zionist entity

Moved this unsigned note to correct page:
Someone was deleting one half of the balance between Arab entities that use the term "Israel" and those that do not in the Zionist entity article. Extra eyes for neutrality purposes would be appreciated. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avraham (talk • contribs) 11:24, July 20, 2009

Moderator: CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The note was signed by Avi. Look here . --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't move it from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Zionist_entity but from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration where either it was unsigned or somehow the signature was deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Carol is right, I missed the signature when I copy-pasted between the three projects. See here. -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

POV Capitalization redirect on US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation

Although US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is an organization that capitalizes its name, someone created US campaign to end the Israeli occupation and just made the real capitalization this redirect. And it put it in Category:Redirects from other capitalisations and Category:Unprintworthy redirects. I'll figure out how to put it back, unless an expert who can do it quicker wants to deal with it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeking feedback prior to DYK nom

Hi all. Since my last DYK nomination ended in an absolute fiasco that resulted in my leaving the project for two months, I have decided to draft future DYK noms in user space first. I am currently working on User:Tiamut/Architecture. While it is not yet done, I would like to invite you all to participate on the talk page there to raise any concerns you may have with it prior to its being nominated. I ask that you please refrain from editing the text of the article itself. But any observations on changes that should be made prior to its being nominated are very very welcome on the talk page. Even harsh critiques please. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 10:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I should mention that proposed article title is Architecture of Palestine, in line with the Outline of Palestine subject headings that are currently redlinked. A main reason for the creation of the article was to fill in this missing field in the outline. Tiamuttalk 10:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It is good to spell out wiki pages that might not be familiar even to people who have been around a while i.e., Wikipedia:Did you know. (I didn't know what it meant!) Though without reading your article, I probably can opine that it is sad that even that article will end up being "controversial"! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights and WP:NOTTRAVEL

I've just deleted the attractions section from the Golan Heights article. The section appears to have been started back in 2006 by User:Amoruso [20]. I think it's a pity clear violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL but I've been reverted once so far and reinserted it. THe Golan Heights is one of the last places in the world where I would expect a mainstream encyclopedia to be recommending ski resorts.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on settlements

People (different editors) have managed to mention this RfC Talk:Modi'in Illit#Request for Comment at the israel and Palestine projects, but not here. I'll check WP:Syria in the moment. It is on whether the legality of each settlement should be mentioned in its lead. —Peter Cohen (Talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (3rd nomination)

Right now it forwards to the three well known sons. According to the New York Times, Benjamin M. Emanuel passed "secret codes" to Menachem Begin.[1] Obviously if he did anything else noteworthy or more noteworthy info about his surfaced, article could be resurrected. But FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on priority of settlement v city

At a nummber of articles including Modi'in Illit and Ariel, there is an edit war going on about the prioritising of the descriptions "city" and "settlement" in the lead sentence. Please feel free to express your opinions. The most detailed discussion is at Talk:Modi'in Illit.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel_outline_north_haifa.png

File:Israel_outline_north_haifa.png - map incorrect. used in many articles. someone raised at RS/N. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The decision to shade Golan and West Bank in one colour and Gaza and the rest of the worlde in another is interesting. But a more extreme feature of the map is that the land annexed into the Jerusalem District appears to be shown in the same colouring as Israel and not that of the rest of the West Bank.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I love this map. It's shameless. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at Palestinian political violence

RfC discussion is here. You input would be welcome. Tiamuttalk 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ariel_University_Center_of_Samaria

I've just changed this article which referred to the university as in "Samaria" rather than the "West Bank" and said it was located in "Ariel, Israel". Other people may wish to monitor in case of ensuing edit war.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations

Please comment at this deletion discussion concerning an article written mainly by User:Noleander:

There is a related discussion here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the renamed ANI is here now and it seems rational realization that it the ANI was inappropriate was the final conclusion. Also, I have recommended renaming article for the phrase "Antisemitic smear" only because there are a lot more google, books.google and new.google searches for it than other longer phrases that describe the unfortunate phenomena. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Now archived here. Carols' suggestion seems appropriate, and I will add my support. RolandR 07:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is admin's comment dubious/should be brought to WP:ARBPIA?

This less than perfect article was deleted after what looked to me like a fury of tag teaming. Several of us argued that the TOPIC was notable, the article just needed a different name and presentation. But what really bothers me is the admin User:Juliancolton who deleted the article also wrote: The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR Obviously I and the others would disagree.

My questions: a) Is this one admin's opinion or does this stop us from starting a better article on the topic of those who have been falsely accused of antisemtism? (Several alternate names were suggested and b) whether or not it does should we complain to or ask for guidance from WP:ARBPIA?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The decision can be reviewed. I have never done this, so I'm not sure of the best way to do this, what arguments are appropriate, etc. Maybe another editor could offer some help. It's worth noting that there is already a review requested for another article by the same editor. Discussion of the two became entangled, and some editors' hostility to one apparently coloured their opinion of the other. Of particular interest is the comment by the original AfD nominator, who argues that the discussion was "hijacked" by "a very vocal minority", and is therefore calling for the reversal of the deletion despite having originally proposed it. RolandR 18:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The subject is notable, but I felt the article as it was written was inappropriate. Evidently the closing admin felt that way as well. Carol, if you'd like to rewrite the article, one possibility is to ask one of the admins listed here to restore the article to your user space. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can see somewhat different opinions, going in some direction. I don't care too much if THAT article is re-instated. Just wanted to inform those who wanted to cover the topic under some other title whether this was "the law" and thereby encourage Maybe next time someone accuses me and I get ticked off after drinking a bunch of coffee I'll be motivated and spend a day creating the article. :-) Meanwhile if anyone has any other titles besides those previously suggested, i.e. Accusations of antisemitism (possibly with New Antisemitism merged into it as a sub-section, Antisemitism smear (which is ambiguous), False accusation of antisemitism. All of these had more hits on books/news/scholar/web google than the deleted article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
False accusations... has the problem of taking sides in the title or meaning that we have to miss out all the borderline cases. I think that, with the exception of [Livingstone's offensive kapo remarks], almost all the cases discussed in the article were in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute. If we're focussing on that type of accusation then Debates on anti-Zionism and antisemitism might be an appropriately neutral title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I agree false doesn't cover anything. Some are just differences of opinion and sensitivity, like me yelling MALE CHAUVINIST at the slightest offense. :-) One of the problems often pointed out by WP:RS is that many Zionist groups use and promote fear among Jews of antisemtic attacks to build up support for Israel. So they constantly need new people to accuse of antisemitism, no matter how inadvertent or clumbsy the utterance and for even the most innocent academic ethnic/religious analysis done across a variety of religious and ethnic groups, if there is the tiniest bit of negative-sounding info about Jews/Judaism/Israel. So is that false or exaggerated, or what??
Anyway, I don't know if any of this is in any wiki articles and frankly been trying to stay away from the issue cause have other things to do that hopefully will be more effective in addressing my main concern in all this. But I still remain highly sensitive about people being unfairly smeared in biographies - even outrageous former IDF members - so I do get bogged down there... :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>FYI, I left a note to the admin who closed the article about this discussion, since I did note that the other (IMHO more questionable) article by same author that was deleted is up for discussion to overturn. Just covering basis for the future, in case someone gets up energy to create a better article on the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(Quick comment; on wikibreak, but felt it's necessary to issue a brief statement). As the closing admin, I can only judge consensus, based on a given version of an article at a given AfD. It's ultimately not my decision as to whether or not it's appropriate to create a new article; this should be discussed amongst the community, perhaps as part of a WikiProject conversation. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Israeli POV pushing at Israeli wine

Israeli POV pushing at Israeli wine: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_wine&action=historysubmit&diff=321387082&oldid=321349463

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights_Winery&action=historysubmit&diff=321385570&oldid=321349014 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the second diff, the first is a problem though (your edit is not great either). nableezy - 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon again

Discussed on talk page, Sections 10, 11, 12 and Wikipedia:BLPN#Gilad_Atzmon the noticeboard.

The article was protected for six months after Atzmon complained to wikipedia about those who want to use all his most outrageous statements in WP:OR/synth way to smear him who had been edit warring with more NPOV editors for a couple months. It's been open again and one editor is back at it. It's just about the only article he's edited over last 8 months or so. We may be down to whether or to use one or two quotes (since other editor wants them out of context). I put up a 3RR complaint today when he did it again. Anyway, those who want to help keep these bios NPOV, feel free to get involved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A person complaining about their wiki entry has no bearing on the content of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. Secondly, the article was locked to keep the above editor from removing noteworthy segments from it, which she had been doing constantly. It was locked with those segments in the article. She has promptly resumed deleting them again now that an admin has unlocked the article (and then argued with the admin for not agreeing with her). Her current argument is that statements discussed in The Times and The Guardian and not notable sources, or somehow NPOV. With the circular reasoning being that because they criticize the subject, they are therefore "biased" against him, and can not be in the article. So far no one has agreed with this editor, but she is going from noticeboard to noticeboard, until she finds someone who will actually take her side. Drsmoo (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't like to encourage subjects to go around suing editors, because enough such suits might reflect badly on the board members. You can give you absurd interpretation of reality, but as I noted elsewhere, this is the silliness that NPOV editors on the article have to put up with:
A person complaining about their article has no bearing on the content of the article. Not that you've ever backed up your claim that Atzmon filed an OTRS. Drsmoo (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This issue discussed here. Since article was in category: Biography articles of living people who have requested removal at same time as OTRS, it's safe to assume he asked for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not that's actually true "Wikipedia doesn't honor such requests" Drsmoo (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a quitter, but enough is enough. See my comment on Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Wikiquette_Alert_on_Drsmoo and the actual Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Drsmoo. We'll see what havoc is now wreaked. Oi!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The Revised alert focuses on Drsmoo's incivility towards me as advised after the first alert. Let's think positive thoughts Drsmoo will get a good mentor! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>This turned into Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_ban_two_users_from_article_Gilad_Atzmon to ban both me and Drsmoo from article. I think it needs to be a lesson to us all to go to Wikiettiquette alert the first time there is any intimation of accusations of antisemitism, instead of giving the person a break and trying to work it out with them ad nauseum.

Hding proposal til move to more appropriate time/place

Of course, when there are several people pulling these numbers on an article, it can even be worse, especially if it leads to the (relatively) innocent being banned with the guilty.

So maybe we need a sub-section in the "dealing with disputes" section of the main Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration page about this growing issue of bad editors (be they random or organized) aggravating the heck out of other editors. Just to make editors aware so they don't get sucked into stupid battles (as I did). And perhaps as a second project, a way to document this has happened in articles/ANIs/Arbitration Enforcement so that this can be reflected in relevant Wikipedia dispute resolution pages for education of editors and admins. Thus avoiding the "Massive deterioration" of some articles as described below. Anyway, I'll make concrete proposals soon at the main page talk Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration - unless someone wants to beat me to it :-).

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Carol, you just don't get it. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or your other efforts at forum shopping. It has to do with the fact that you and Drsmoo have been edit-warring at Gilad Atzmon for months. Frankly, I'm so fed up with the two of you and your childish behavior that I support banning both of you from that article permanently. The fact that you think it's appropriate to post a message like this while the ANI discussion is going on makes me wonder whether a permanent ban from Wikipedia might be more appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I admit later it occurred to me maybe that wasn't the right time to comment on anything past the first sentence - not to mention to make a proposal that needs a more neutral setting. (So I'll collapse for now til ready to move it.) And my growing annoyance and frustration is certainly why I'm not opposed to being banned from the article for period of time. But there seems to be a growing vacuum of people dealing with any issues at wikipedia, part of my growing frustration the last few weeks, per articles mentioned in Signpost. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion pages to "watch"

Feel free to add any others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_6#Category:Wineries_of_Syria

Could I bring this Cfd to the attention of editors here and note that it is just one example of the widespread categoraisation of places and objects in the Golan as Israeli. This pushing of a POV which clearly violates the internaitonal consensus and international law could probably do with disucssion and action by this project.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I have created a new category http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights_Winery&action=historysubmit&diff=325258113&oldid=324457582 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Creating Category:Wineries of Israeli occupied territories without having it included in any category structure wasn't very helpful. Please refer to WP:CAT before you create a category the next time. Tomas e (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Nsaum added "Wineries by country" so whats the problem?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria Area

Can people please keep an eye on this. A user who has previously tried to move this articleto Judea and Samaria without consensus has started removing the "Area" in the article presumably with the same intent.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Massive deterioration

Hi guys,

Could anybody have a look at the articles on Hamas, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Israeli Settlement, Israeli–Palestinian conflict and others? Most of the editors who kept an eye on these have been blocked recently and the articles are going to hell, as predicted and expected, due to a slew of IP editors, new editors with few edits (e.g. Breein1007 (talk · contribs), who seems to have just read Dershowitz's "The Case for Peace") as well as older, well known accounts (e.g. Shuki (talk · contribs), who apparently hasn't lost his taste for adding Judea and Samaria wherever he can).

Some eyes would be appreciated!

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 13:49 24.11.2009

Doubtless the average admin's fear of being labeled an "antisemite" (and ignorance of the issues) makes them feel they have to be "fair" and ban both sides, even if one side obviously is more in the wrong. I won't bring issues there any more for that reason. Perhaps the Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia project is starting to work, with lots of stealth editors infiltrating admin. We'll know when that section gets struck from the CAMERA article :-( I'm just trying to break free of my delusion that editing wikipedia really does much good, especially in contested areas with rediculously biased editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew or Arabic names for Golan mountains? RfC

See above --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC Second Temple

An RfC regarding which archaeological categories the Second Temple should fall under is currently underway here. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

References for all entries above

  1. ^ Elizabeth Bumiller, The Brothers Emanuel, New York Times, June 15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive_5&oldid=1137378788"