Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RfC: Article size

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see prior discussion at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#size, Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#WP:FORK, Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#WP:SPINOUTs, Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Israeli security concerns, and Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Article trim per TOOLONG and MOS:LEADLENGTH. Please also note that the scope of the article ("the occupation" vs. "the effects of the occupation"), inclusion of additional content (e.g. Israeli motivations and security concerns, diplomatic initiatives), and organization (e.g. proposal at User:Levivich/sandbox1) are also being discussed. What is the appropriate size for this article?

A: The size of revision A - 158kb (25244 words) of readable prose + 132 notes (which are not citations or references) containing some 51kb of additional prose, 6 paragraph lead.

B: The size of revision B - 72kb (11533 words) of readable prose + 45 notes (which are not citations or references) containing some 16kb of additional prose, 3 paragraph lead.

C The size of a further trim of B - 50kb of readable prose, less than 15 notes (of at most 3kb - containing mainly clarifications or notes on source mixups), 3-4 paragraph lead.

Please indicate A, B, C, or other (please specify) and a reason.06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)

Poll

• C. While B is a start, C would comply with WP:SIZERULE and MOS:LEADLENGTH. I'm not sure what policy governs non-citation notes - but 132 notes with 51kb of highly POVish prose (mainly random quotes) probably runs foul of multiple policies and conventions. The article size of A (a newly created article mainly by one author) runs foul of WP:CHOKING and ranks at #204 at Special:LongPages (out of some 5.79 million articles) - the pages above it mainly being very long lists. The content of the present article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTSOAPBOX/WP:NOTPROMO - a particularly egregious example (of many) being the promotion of the WP:FRINGE Israeli far-left activist Jeff Halper in the concluding paragraph of the lede and the concluding 1,551 character section titled "Israeli critical judgements" devoted to the Israeli radical left, while other Israeli viewpoints (mainstream, right, settler) are omitted - oddly this section asserting "Nazification" of Israeli society is ostensibly justified by the article's author as being required so that our readers "avoid them falling into an antisemitic trap"[1] - this in an article using a book widely condemned as anti-Semitic as a source (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). Version A of the article contains several repetitions, POV interjections (mainly various radical left figures quoted throughout the text (often further expanded in one of the 132 long notes), or the occasional Israeli leader quoted out of context to (not/miss-)support an assertion), overly detailed examples and detail, as well as off-topic and highly tangential subject matter - e.g. (one of many) the first section "The language of conflict" (11kb of prose) is essentially a WP:NOTESSAY media critique of the coverage of the conflict (most conflict articles, as well as other topics, do not contain a media section at all (or if they do - very-very briefly) - this is sometimes deemed noteworthy for a separate article).Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• The current version is an unreadable mess because it does not follow the MOS on article size and lead length. Therefore, it should be trimmed to be less that 100K readable prose, preferably around size B or smaller. I express no opinion on the content. buidhe 09:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• I object to the transparent use of article size as a proxy for the real issue that upsets the OP. This is proven by both the OP's massive one-sided cuts and by the OP's one-sided critique given here. If there was a balanced proposal for a reduction in article length, I would support it. Zero^talk 12:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Above Icewhiz says an article at 96 kB of readable prose is fine. Here he wants an "immediate trim" to 50 kB. What does that even mean? Accepting his POV excision of material that he dislikes? There are already efforts underway to reduce the size of this article further. I dont know how an RFC is supposed to result in a reduction of size, this is as Zero says a proxy for Icewhiz disliking that an article is covering the Israeli occupation. Yes, this article needs to be reduced to below 100 kB. And people who are interested in doing so are already doing so. What exactly is supposed to result in an RFC saying should the article be reduced? This literally makes zero sense. nableezy - 14:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  This article was created on 24 Nov with 162kb of readable prose. Version A has 158kb of readable prose. (in addition - we have an irregular use of non-citation footnotes - 50k+ of prose). So no - work on reducing this article has not progressed. Constructive attempts to reduce (or in fact - to perform any change) the article have been reverted. Furthermore, some editors have objected to reduction of the article on the basis that the current size is acceptable - ergo - a RfC on the target article size would at least lead to an agreement for a target size. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  I have yet to see a constructive attempt to reduce the size be reverted. Ive seen a destructive attempt in which an editor excised material not to their personal liking, but no I have not seen any constructive edits reverted. nableezy - 16:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  Please avoid WP:ASPERSIONS. I will note any reduction in prose length in the article (which could be seen as almost entirely "negative to Israel" - a bit hard to find the positive bits there) could lead to a Catch-22 accusation of "not to their personal liking" (if someone is perceived not to like "negative to Israel") - as the entire article is negative.Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That you think an article that relays factual material as documented in reliable sources is "negative" is your own personal problem. This is a topic for which Israel has not garnered a lot of praise, sorry to say. It is still a topic that sources treat as its own topic, and as such should be covered here. Im very sorry that there is nearly uniform condemnation of the occupation, I dont know how to help that though. Simply not covering it however is not one of the available options. nableezy - 17:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• C (preferably) to B (at most) range, if this is mostly done by WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY, not by nuking well-sourced and encyclopedically relevant material out of existence. The better that is done, the more easily we'll get to a reader-manageable size C. I'm not going to address the "it's a secret plot to make the content one-sided" stuff; that's a behavior and content-dispute matter. A practical decision by the community that the article is presently too large doesn't mean one person (or group) gets to decide to delete material they politically disagree with. These are completely severable matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

The whole article is a WP:POVFORK of Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967, why are we discussing just trimming it and not simply merging whatever is worthwhile here into the original article ? “WarKosign” 08:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A deletion (on a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTSOAP, WP:POVFORK) or merger (same rationale really) discussion would have merit in my eyes. As the topic itself is notable (and an article with this title could theoretically be constructed and meet Wikipedia , MOS, NOT and NPOV guidelines/policy), I personally have been attempting to improve and rectify the outstanding issues on the page though I am discouraged by the WP:OWNish blanket-reverts of nearly any attempt to change the article and the rather endless discussions filled with various accusations that go no where good. An RfC possibly could break the impasse here, possibly not. The current article (and 132 non-citation notes!) size makes editing/discussing the present mess difficult - a smaller text might be easier to edit and agree upon.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It is simply not true that this article duplicates Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967. Zero^talk 12:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

of course it is not true. WarKosign said above it is POVFORK, i.e. a version of content which pushes a certain POV. I. e., your remark is meaningless. May be you had in mind something else?- Altenmann >talk 16:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Very obviously not true. nableezy - 14:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK: "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view". Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 deals with the status of the territories, including the West Bank. It shows that there is disagreement whether the territories are occupied - it shows that the prevailing POV is that it is, but some argue otherwise. Several other pre-existing articles cover the subject, including West_Bank#Political status, Judea and Samaria_Area#Status, Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian territories and probably several more. This is yet another article on the same subject. “WarKosign” 13:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

All those articles are inept, primitive, poorly sourced, POV-ridden, unencyclopedic or just plain clumsy. There is no international dispute over the status of the territories: Israel, though not its Supreme Court, politically asserts their status is disputed, and that is, patently, a political judgement based on a political interest. 99% of competent international jurists and the highest international court do not accept Israel's arguments. It is as simple as that. A 'dispute' implies a rough parity in opposed views, which does not exist here. A fishmonger is within their rights to challenge Aristotle on a syllogism; a lawyer can insist that a Supreme Court judgement on constitutional law, repeatedly reaffirmed, is flawed; a flatearther can challenge Einstein, etc. Such challenges are not 'disputes', but fringe dissent (and of course one could never rule out that the fringe view might prove to be correct. Athenian fishmongers, as Socrates knew, could be invaluable in honing one's judgement) Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is not about the status of the territory, it is about the actual occupation. Its methods and its results. There is no article that duplicates this one. This is a child article of West Bank, which is a child article of Palestinian territories. nableezy - 17:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sub-poll

Formally, the article length concern is legitimate, and I would pick a nice random number of 83K (what's with this limit to only 3 options anyway?) However it worries me which approach will be taken and this willl affect my !vote:

• CHOP text mercilessly whenever over byte limit
• SPLIT text in several parts

Obviously the topic has numerous items to cover and all of them are naturally controversial. At this point I have to notice a sloppy usage of the TLA "POV" as a negative sticker for something inherently inadmissible in wikipedia. Please let me remind you that per WP:NPOV, it is POV of wikipedians what is inadmissible in wikipedia. Whereas, on the contrary, it is a duty of wikipedians to faithfully report POVs of both sides of the conflict, as well as criticism. By criticism I mean arguments, not political proclamations. Pardon my ad hitlerum, but even Hitler's POV is very well detailed in wikipedia.- Altenmann >talk 17:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Split (if we don't already have a child article) or merge (if we do) as appropriate, because at bottom, the topic is obviously encyclopedic and obviously a "big" topic. There's no way it can be covered adequately in 50k of prose or 100k or even the current 160k. At the same time, articles that are too long are unreadable, thus unusable, and thus a waste. The only way to balance "big topic that needs coverage" with "readable prose size" is to turn this one article into a collection of articles, with a parent that provides an overview (that an average teenager could read and understand), and a series of child articles that provide further in-depth analysis (perhaps at a higher reading level). For example: Methods of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Effects of Israeli occupation of the West Bank (however titled), though even those probably deserve child articles of their own. Also, we have existing articles (e.g., West Bank, Israeli Military Governorate, and many more) that cover some (but not all) of the material covered here. This article can be reduced in size through the liberal use of {further}, {see also}, etc., tags. I note that in this talk page are several proposals, from me and others, going back two months, for how to split/merge this article. ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I have edited my original !vote to add "or merge" per the below discussion. ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it will be split up over time, but there is no deadline here. I myself am planning on splitting off at least one section in to a full blown article and summarizing it here. But again, whats the rush here? What people objected to above was the wholesale excision of material that one editor disliked. Not the overall effort in reducing the size of this article. nableezy - 18:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you refer to "the rush". I don't see anyone rushing. If you're suggesting everyone else should just stop until you and Nish get a chance to copyedit, well, then let's move this back to draft space. Otherwise, we have one editor who wants to take a temperature check on how long the final article should be (which I think is a good idea), and a second editor who's asked whether reductions will be moved or excised (a good question). I don't see how participating in these discussions constitutes a "rush". I would ask the converse: what are we waiting for? If we're waiting for certain authors to finish their work, then it should be draftified. ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course Im not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that so far the attempts at cutting material have been largely POV-based, and they have not resulted in spin-offs to other articles. I dont particularly like the way you would split the article. But regardless of that, what, and how more importantly, should be split off is something to be discussed. An RFC asking should this article be reduced in size still makes no sense. nableezy - 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• It depends. In some cases there is merit to splitting. In other cases the text in this article is in WP:TNT quality wise on the one hand, and on the other hand we already have a pre-existing spinout article that is more detailed. This very sloppy (do read it all - including the notes - it is sloppy) NOTESSAY article was not created in a virgin field - we have many pre-existing articles on the I/P conflict that cover many of the sub topics here at much greater length and article quality.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

we already have a pre-existing - link, please.- Altenmann >talk 18:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You did not answer the question.- Altenmann >talk 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I gave multiple examples below: Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict amply covers "The language of conflict" in this article. Israeli settlement amply covers "Settlement" in this article. Palestinian prisoners of Israel covers "Arrests and administrative detention" and "Torture" in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Your quoted statement means there is "a preexisting", ie this one is a direct fork. That's why I was asking. I assume it was your sloppy phrasing you fail either to recognize or admit. Never mind. Thread closed, by other context. - Altenmann >talk 20:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

we have many pre-existing - a non-argument . I am not going to read a hundred articles to sift for morsels of wisdom about west bank occupation. Now we have one. Feel free to expand it with vetted info from all this preexistment. By the way, when doing this, be aware of {{copied}}. - Altenmann >talk 18:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There are dozens of relevant articles - so as a limited example - Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict amply covers "The language of conflict". Israeli settlement amply covers "Settlement". Palestinian prisoners of Israel covers "Arrests and administrative detention" and "Torture". And there are lots of other examples that cover subtopics - there are very few sections, if at all, in the article that do not already have a pre-existing article already covering them at great detail - we already have spinouts.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

When such an article already exists, very well developed, and already has the material in this article (as well as much more) - there is no need to create a child topic off of this article - it is just a question of what length of summary this article needs from the other article - if it overlength here - then yes, chop.Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Then do it properly: with "see also" or "further", in smallpieces and detailed explanations in edit summary and talk page. I am baffled how y'all managed to edit in this arab-israel controversial area without this. The same war, I guess. - Altenmann >talk 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Normally articles are either esoteric (and ignored by most) or built up over time, gradually, by many editors (of differing POVs). This particular article is unique in that a 378kb NOTESSAY POV mess was dumped into mainspace in one go - and then linked to from 432 different articles (replacing a parent article usually - e.g. Israeli-occupied territories, West Bank and others). This creation procedure has... created quite a pickle.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You did not address my comment for the third time. You are talking to your own thoughts. such an article already exists - hell no. There is no such article. What is your native language? I know that some languages do not distinguish singular and plural. That would explain. We already established there is no such an article, but material is dispersed over several ones. And my previous advice addresses this. - Altenmann >talk 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

My use of "such an article" was in relation to a hypothetical sub-part of the present article that is on the chopping block (and not to this article as a whole - the particular intersection of occupation+West-Bank did not exist in the article tree). For most such hypothetical portions we already have a pre-existing article on the particular sub-topic.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

And they are already are called out with {{main}} or {{see}} templates. Where they need to be condensed they can be, chopping them out as you did in your edit earlier however is not that. nableezy - 21:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Careful splitting when splitting an article it is imperative that a child article isn't a POVFUNNEL. If text here is substantially duplicated, we should just chop it away and include a see also. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Spin off must be by real-life objective subject with title independent of any opinion. No "Criticism of...", no "Micronesian Authority position on...". Then the chances of povfunnelling will not increase. - Altenmann >talk 20:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Too many references - this article has clearly gone overboard with sources and references. About half the article size is taken up by sourcing. A relatively few sources could suffice for the majority of the article, and then several more can be used to attribute particular details that the main sources haven't covered. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This article has dropped by 70k in the past week, with content being moved to various other articles (thank you Nishidani). I'm sure it will take some time to sort out the prose, and the explanatory notes, and the sources, and catch all the trimmings, as it were. And while there is such a thing as overciting, of all the ways to reduce the length of an article, for me, removing sources ranks dead last...I'd sooner reduce the font size. :-) ^Leviv_ich 03:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

They're also being used too many times, not just too many references. All the methods of reducing this article can happen simultaneously. Let's just not ignore this big one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The size of the references is immaterial. What counts is readable prose size. This is a topic where every sentence is analyzed and re-analyzed, and they all need to be backed up by reliable sources. So we include more citations than what might seem necessary. I dont even understand what A relatively few sources could suffice for the majority of the article means to be honest. nableezy - 05:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The references are certainly relevant to the problems of article size, it's not just readable prose. The size of references impacts on the ability to edit the article, particularly visual editor. The number of references comes with problems to do with WP:OVERCITE, such as cluttering readability and giving undue weight. What I mean by a few sources sufficing for the majority of the article is referring to how certain books written about the entire subject can provide a basis for most of the facts presented in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, but no, the references are not relevant. The only thing WP:SIZE supports splitting for are articles with readable prose over a certain size. nableezy - 15:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree there are too many references - but this is a lesser problem than the quality/pov of the references (almost all sources are from a very particular side of the divide here). In terms of article size - while many references do increase binary size (as issue for WP:CHOKING, they do not increase readable prose). The article's body, as well as the overuse and misuse of non-reference notes, are a greater concern.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no quality issues with the sources, thats just silly. Anybody can look at the reference list and see it is nearly all from academic publishers or peer-reviewed works. There is no misuse of notes, that is likewise not a concern, either for POV or for SIZE. You keep waving at some issue as though it is manifestly true and that it means you dont have to substantiate your claims. Im sorry, but you do. nableezy - 15:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not just prose size that determines when an article is too large. References can also cause that to be true. Onetwothreeip (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to some policy or guideline that backs that up? nableezy - 15:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As already pointed out - WP:CHOKING refers to total binary size of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CHOKING? Because what it actually says is Articles of more than 200 kB (~30 pages) exist for topics that require depth and detail. This is such an article. nableezy - 17:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Little reason to think this article is special, and you failed to quote the continuation of the sentence: Articles of more than 200 kB (~30 pages) exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles. Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This topic already has several sub-articles. Current size of Israel: 343,829 bytes. Current size of Gaza War (2008–09): 322,424 bytes. Current size of this article: 291,031 bytes. nableezy - 17:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: please note that Balfour Declaration, a similarly contested topic, made it to WP:FA status with an equally dense stack of references. Some editors made the same point as you have done here regarding the references, but they were in the clear minority. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, please note that Balfour Declaration is about three-quarters the size as this article and uses much less information for sourcing than this article. The sources section itself (as in not including in-line references) is 30,000 while here it is 100,000. All I'm saying is that the references problem shouldn't be ignored as one of the reasons for this article's problem size. :::@Nableezy: It's harder to edit when the page is larger, particular on the visual editor which is exceedingly useful in an article as large and as proliferated with references as this. The technical difficulty does not disregard characters simply for being templates rather than prose. WP:CHOKING is merely stating that there are articles with more than 200kB, it does not say this is desirable. Similar articles on this topic are often too long as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that in the I/P area, it is the habit of editors to minutely pick and niggle even over the obvious (see below), to challenge indeed anything and everything. With this in mind, everything had to be sourced. The response? Too many sources. Well, it has far fewer notes and sources than Israel or 2014 Gaza conflict,- I can't see a massed challenge to those or say Hilary Clinton - and will come in around 100kB once the revision is completed. By the way, how many people showing a pertinacious interest in the putative meaning of policy in their protests here have actually significant experience of writing more than stubs? Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Split per normal procedure. Do trim out non-encyclopedic or dubious clap-trap, but beware attempts to substantively change the content in a non-neutral direction in the name of making it shorter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

neutrality dispute

With the addition of the material on Israeli security concerns, what are the current disputes regarding NPOV? Please be specific and provide sources. nableezy - 00:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Absent a response I plan on removing the tag. nableezy - 18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

And done. nableezy - 16:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with the removal. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Clearly not NPOV. Selection of biased sources from one side of the dispute, lack of coverage of Palestinian terror from the West Bank (while covering the rather minute settler violence at length), rocket threat from West Bank, and overall essayish tone of the whole thing. Multiple editors have given up trying to improve this mess (the latest was Jonney2000) as reverting and stonewalling on the talk page does not lead to any meaningful progess here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  And the WP:QUOTEFARM in the current massive notes section (longer than many Wokipedia articles) is all selective to one side - a NPOV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please be specific and provide sources. Johney2000 was unable to provide any type of argument for his position, much like yourself. If you cannot specify what is in dispute I will revert your disruptive and tendentious tagging. Youve made the argument about the notes previously, and yet you still have been unable to provide a single quote from a single policy that backs up your position. Arguments that are based on personal opinions are not ones that matter here. Please provide specific examples of NPOV issues and sources that document a NPOV issue. Again, if you are unable to document a NPOV with sources I will be removing the tag. You do not get to just shout I dislike this article so it is non-neutral. You are required to demonstrate and discuss any dispute you claim exists, otherwise the tag will be removed. nableezy - 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The massive quote farm at the bottom of the article has no basis in policy - ONUS on you to justify this. As for sources, I already provided sources on the rocket threat. We could start with these for suicide bombings: "West+Bank"+suicide+bombings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit69e04frgAhUNCewKHdSnCtEQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q="West%20Bank"%20suicide%20bombings&f=false this, and "West+Bank"+suicide+bombings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5zNqW4_rgAhWCKewKHeaECWs4ChDoATAGegQIARAj#v=onepage&q="West%20Bank"%20suicide%20bombings&f=false this, [4a3MBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA222&dq="West+Bank"+suicide+bombings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit69e04frgAhUNCewKHdSnCtEQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q="West%20Bank"%20suicide%20bombi this] for instance. No lack of sources describing the terror threat from the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no "massive quote farm", there are footnotes with quotes from reliable sources. The basis in policy? The basis is that those are the quotes that verify the material they are being cited for. You are complaining about including sources, and doing so in an encyclopedia?

Well, yay, you brought sources finally. Im sad to say however you seem to have neglected to remember WP:SYNTH. This source shows that there have been suicide bombings from the West Bank. Ok, and? Because I searched that book for "occupation". You know what it says about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Nothing. Not one word. It talks about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but nope, not one word connecting that topic to this one. This one does in fact discuss the occupation, but where exactly does it relate suicide bombings to the occupation? Because what you linked to was just a listing of suicide bombings. How exactly does the source relate that topic to this one? The last one is not a workable link. But before you post it would you mind actually reading it? Because it does not seem like you have actually checked if those sources are even discussing the topic of this article. That topic not being "things that Icewhiz thinks makes Israel look justified in continuing to occupy the West Bank". The source has to connect the topics, it cannot just be a connection in your own mind. nableezy - 19:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: the quotes are apparently there because of the on-going content disputes and meaning of what the sources actually say. In this regard, they are helpful. I don't see a basis for the tag and I've removed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Settler violence is minute? See the statistics, 200-400 episodes each year (and the incidents have doubled over 2018-2019 according to the NYTs). Who's denying Palestinian violence or terrorist bombings? Not this page, but one should recall Nathan Thrall's comment:

In the four major wars Israel fought, Palestinian participation was extraordinarily low. In 1948, of a population of 1.3 million, only a few thousand Palestinians joined irregular forces or the Arab Salvation Army; in the 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars, Palestinian contributions were also slight. The violence that Palestinians did lead over the decades was many times less deadly than struggles against foreign occupiers elsewhere in the world. From the first Palestinian riots in 1920 until the end of June 2015, according to Israeli government sources, fewer than four thousand Jews (forty per year) were killed as a result of Palestinian violence, including the Intifadas and wars in Gaza.' Thrall 2017 p.138

Perhaps that should go into a footnote.Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Subsection "Settler Violence"

It is no doubt that, throughout the modern history of this land, there has been a surge of violence -- some of which perpetrated against Arabs by Israelis, and some of which perpetrated against Israelis by Arabs. The section entitled "Settler violence," fails to mention the incidents of violence perpetrated against Israelis. For this reason we have added a tag of "Unbalanced". Are there any suggestions on how we can alleviate the problem, and make this section more balanced?Davidbena (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The references establish that "Settler violence" is a known phenomenon. Is that disputed? Is any information in the section disputed? Is the suggestion that there should be a justification of the violence or an explanation of its origins? Obviously references would be needed, but isn't it obvious that if one group occupies territory claimed by another that the newcomers will have to use more violence than those who formerly occupied the territory? I'm not sure how that can be "balanced". Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No. No one disputes that there has been violence, but what is missing here is that there is often a catalyst for violence, such as the burning and death of an Arab youth near Jerusalem immediately after the murder of three Jewish Yeshiva students in the so-called West Bank. You see, while violence is never justified, we cannot deny that there is almost always a cause - albeit unjustified. The current section makes it seem like violence against Arabs is only one-sided, with no incidents of violence precipitating Israeli attacks on Arabs. We also have many examples of stone-throwing and Israeli deaths resulting thereby. In short, we need more balance in this section that speaks on violence in the territories.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you thought about what balance really means? Sure, the reason incident A occurred is that B happened a week earlier, but the encyclopedic topic concerns the occupation of a territory. Naturally the displaced people will react angrily and violence will result. That can't be balanced. You might like to add a section to another article which justifies the violence but there cannot be balance in a section about the reliably sourced fact of settler violence—they have to use overwhelming violence to prevent eviction. What text in the section is incorrect or unbalanced? I don't see any claims that a particular incidence of violence occurred where the explanation of an earlier incident is omitted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

We all know what "occupation" means, but even so, if you really get down to the "history of occupation," there are those who dispute that there is, in Israel's case, an occupation at all --- such as the idea articulated so well by Avinoam Sharon in his article entitled Why is Israels Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?. One reason is that there was never a sovereign state to begin with for there to be a true occupation; secondly, those who are accused of being the "occupiers" in 1967 (i.e. Israelis) were themselves called "Palestinians" (Palestinian Jews) prior to 1948, and they had lived in the same territories. So, will you say that Palestinians have occupied Palestinians? Of course not. This history has been obfuscated over the years because of the country's modern, yet old, name: i.e. Israel. References to this name go back centuries and to several millennia. Still, even if you should say that there is an occupation, does it justify violence against innocent and unsuspecting Israelis who choose to live in their ancestral homeland? Of course not. No violence is justified. Balance does not mean having to mention all of the separate incidents of violence, but only to make note of the fact that violence is, or has been, common to both sides. This, my friend, is lacking and without which the message conveyed by the section is lopsided.Davidbena (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

So the balance would be to report that the people living in the territory fifty years ago were not true occupiers, and that the new occupiers are really Palestinians, and that certain events occurred centuries ago? The trick would be to find reliable sources explaining that in a WP:DUE manner. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

David, this article is about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Your personal feelings on who the occupiers really are is simply not relevant here. Please focus on what reliable source report about the occupation. Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers may merit some space in here, but it needs to be supported by reliable sources within the context of covering the occupation. nableezy - 04:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"No personal feelings expressed" should be our guideline, but, as it is, you seem to be against portraying balance here. "Occupation of the West Bank", as shown by the cited JSTOR article, is still a matter of intellectual dispute, and it, too, is based on reliable sources. The first question to be asked here is where some people might feel that there is an "illegitimate occupation," does it justify violence? The second question to be asked here is whether or not settler violence was sparked by Palestinian Arab violence? I will leave others to answer these questions, and to provide reliable sources for the same. Would you agree to submitting a RfC on this one sub-section?Davidbena (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Settler violence" is clearly over-weighted in the article in relation to much more widely reported Palestinian terrorism (which is reported in the context of of the occupation). Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your personal feelings do not matter. What balance are you asking for?

The first question to be asked here is where some people might feel that there is an "illegitimate occupation," does it justify violence? The second question to be asked here is whether or not settler violence was sparked by Palestinian Arab violence?

No, no, and no. That is neither the first or the second question to be asked here. You are again misusing an encyclopedia article to put forward your own political positions. What cited JSTOR article? Icewhiz, your personal feelings likewise do not matter. What content and based on what sources are you wishing to add? Or is this just one more in a long line of totally bogus assertions made with the expectation that nobody will see it for what it actually is? That being nonsense based on nothing? nableezy - 15:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

David, what sources show any type of undue weight in the settler violence section? Please provide those sources or remove the tag. Those are the two options here, rambling about your rather out there views on what is or is not an occupation and when violence is or is not justified is not one of the available options. At least not without me asking the recently rescinded topic ban be restored. nableezy - 15:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about the sources as they stand, but rather the sources that are missing: namely, Arab violence towards Israelis which may have sparked counter-violence (not that any vigilante-style violence is justified, per se). I am referring to cases such as:

• Death of Yehuda Shoham • Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran • Itamar attack • Murder of Shalhevet Pass • Murder of Helena Rapp • 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers • Murder of Eliyahu Asheri • Murder of Hatuel family • Murder of Ofir Rahum • Uri Ansbacher • List of Palestinian suicide attacks • 2017 Halamish stabbing attack • Ari Fuld More

And the list can go on and on. Usually, violence begets violence, but the section does not say that, nor does it hint on it. It paints Israeli settlers as the sole culprits, which is wrong. Would you like to submit a RfC about the section?Davidbena (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

David, I see no sources in there that connects any of this to either settler violence or the occupation. Do you have any such sources? Your personal feelings on what causes settlers to attack Palestinians is interesting, but not relevant here. nableezy - 00:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have seen reports to the effect that revenge was the motivating factor for violence perpetrated against Arabs. See INSS. But let's say that we do not fully know all the reasons for this senseless violence, why does the article only mention settler violence against Arabs, but does not mention Arab violence against Jews who reside in the so-called West Bank? The section is completely unbalanced and points the finger only at one side.Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

David, first, thank you for bringing that source. I dont see much in it that is useful for this article however. I dont see what in it attributes any cause of settler violence. There are a couple of sentences on Palestinian motivations for violence being frustration with the Palestinian leadership in ending the occupation, that could be used here. I dont oppose including Palestinian violence that can be attributed to the occupation in this article, but it needs sources that explicitly connect that violence to the occupation. As far as your question as to why we dont include attacks on settlers, well mostly because there havent been any sources brought that connect that topic to this one. Settler violence however is explicitly connected to the occupation by sources. The idea that we need to "balance" settler violence with Palestinian violence is a non-starter, that is not what NPOV means. What we need to do is use what sources discuss in the context of the topic of this article. There are a whole host of articles on Palestinian violence. The article Palestinian political violence does not once discuss violence by Israeli settlers when it discusses violence against Israeli settlers. It does not do that because it does not have sources relating one to the other. We are not here to make settlers, or Palestinians, look good or look bad. We are here to present what the sources say about these topics. This article is specifically about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It needs sources specifically relating to that topic for something to be included. nableezy - 01:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The link that I gave to you lends balance, and it shows that sometimes there is violence perpetrated by Arabs against Israelis (such as stabbings and car-ramming attacks) and that when this happens, it leads in most cases to "the killing of the perpetrator ('neutralizing'). This in turn intensifies feelings of despair and desire for revenge among Palestinians." This is very important if we are to accept the fact that violence is almost always a two-way street, where often the innocent and non-involved individuals are the victims.Davidbena (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The INSS report is extremely thin, a one page policy suggestion by a single author which has

• no mention of settler violence, and therefore that is original research
• It is far too generic to be of use, and is riddled with contradictions or sloppy thinking

the wave of terrorism has also been cyclical: attacks by individuals lead to an Israeli response – in most cases the killing of the perpetrator ("neutralizing").

‘Cyclical’ means when there are two ‘actors’ the behaviour of each feeds into the reactions of the other. In context however the report asserts that Palestinian individuals initiate violence which generates an Israeli response, a very exhausted political meme, which asserts not ‘cyclicity’ but a P→I, P→I P→Ia P→I linear pattern. It then adds not a ‘cycle’ but a spiral resulting from the above. The premise is Palestinians initiate violence, Israel responds, and Israel’s response exacerbates the Palestinians who react, causing a spiral. There is a lot of counterfactual evidence historically against this

From 2009 such settler violence escalated rapidly, an uptick that coincided with a dramatic fall in Palestinian terror attacks (Byman and Sachs)

Not to speak of Nathan Thrall’s more detailed analysis of pattern of violence since the 1920s, which is that Palestinians in the four great periods of opposition to land-grabbing, have first reacted with civic protests, and only resorted to violence when those demonstrations have been suppressed violently.

In short, we are looking for the best detailed studies on the various phenomena connected to the occupation, and this simply does not come anywhere near to a close empirical analysis of the issue. It's useless.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

More NPOV Concerns

Though previous complaints have been shut down due to a lack of evidence, I firmly believe that this article is well-outside the bounds of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, for several reasons.

Firstly, the application of the term "occupation" to the situation is itself controversial. I am not opposed to the article describing it as such, as this is the official, internationally accepted designation, controversial as it may be, however, my issue is that the article gives little acknowledgement to the controversy. While Wikipedia has no obligation to pay heed to obscure or uncommon viewpoints, this viewpoint is more than common enough to justify a section in the article, having been expressed in the mainstream through media such as the Jerusalem Post, international law experts, the Wall Street Journal, the Times of Israel, delegations of global political officials, and and even an Arab talk show. Furthermore, the inclusion of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip on official, state-sanctioned Israeli maps implies that the Israeli government has not fully accepted the "occupation" title, though this opinion is certainly held by various sects of the government. The ICJ has never officially rejected this argument, and given the amount of support it has seen, it makes little sense to fail to afford it a section on this page.

Furthermore, biased, emotionally-loaded language is used throughout the article. To provide a few examples:

• In the "language" section, while lip service is paid to the fact that there is no clear consensus as to whether the media is mostly in favor of Israeli policy throughout the situation, or mostly against Israeli policy throughout the situation, justification is offered only for the former option. From the first paragraph:

  "International usage speaks of the West Bank, whereas Israeli usage prefers Judea and Samaria; the IDF "says" or "confirms" while Palestinians "claim"; Israelis are "kidnapped" whereas Palestinians are "arrested"; for Israel, violence refers to occasional events, for Palestinians it is an everyday feature of the occupation; what Palestinians regard as assassinations are "pinpoint preventive operations" for Israel; what some call "colonies" are called "settlements" or "neighbourhoods" by others; what some call "displacement" is for Palestinians "dispossession"; Israel military actions are self-defensive "retaliations" for Palestinian attacks, while the context before the latter is often omitted, lending credence to the idea Israel never initiates violence."

  This evidence clearly supports the viewpoint that the media has a pro-Israel slant. Moving on, pro-Israel journalistic organizations are listed, and an argument is referenced claiming that Israeli "as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders". While this in itself does not invalidate the evidence, it is unfair for the article to introduce a controversy yet explain only one side on an issue for which there is no consensus; as this paper explains, each side has a valid case.

• The section on population transfer claims that Israel's "centre of life" policy is "a revocation constituting a forced population transfer". The source presented is Human Rights Watch, an organization widely believed to hold an anti-Israel bias in its operations, and which is by no means the authority on what does and does not constitute a forced population transfer. While claiming that "Human Rights Watch views the policy as a forced population transfer", or even replacing "Human Rights Watch" with "several organizations" would be appropriate, taking an opinion that clearly favors one side of a conflict from one human rights organization and treating it as factual is far from neutrality. This language would be appropriate if, and only if, some authority (such as the UN) had described the policy as such and there was no legitimate voice against it. This is not the case here at all.

• The night raids section contains completely unsubstantiated information. Specifically, the following quotation heavily relies on information taken out of context, cited in a biased source and not substantiated by any other source, or not even referenced in the given source

  "Laptops and cellphones are often seized, and, if returned, not infrequently damaged. Vandalism is commonplace, with looted objects given to needy soldiers or those on low pay, as in Operation Defensive Shield.^[298] Reports of stashes of money that go missing after a search are frequent.^[299] Many personal effects – photos of children or families, watches, medals, football trophies, books, Qur'ans, jewelry – are taken and stored away, and, according to one informant, intelligence officer trainees were allowed to take items of such Palestinian "memorabilia", called "booty," from storerooms."

  The only evidence for laptops and such going missing is a Palestinian NGO (which holds an obvious bias in this conflict, just as an Israeli NGO could not be relied on for anything more than providing the Israeli perspective on some of these issues), which claims that people have testified that valuables have gone missing in Israeli search raids. Samy Cohen, an Egyptian author writing in a book literally titled "Israel's Asymmetric Wars", makes the general claim of vandalism, offering no evidence of it beyond the text in his book, a book written with an apparent agenda. The most ridiculous part is in the claim that "Many personal effects – photos of children or families, watches, medals, football trophies, books, Qur'ans, jewelry – are taken and stored away, and, according to one informant, intelligence officer trainees were allowed to take items of such Palestinian "memorabilia", called "booty," from storerooms." This is heavily misleading; the cited article suggests that this was a one-time occurence and that the material was not actually under anyone's ownership, but had been collected from either arrested or killed Fatah/Hamas members (both of which are recognized as terrorist organizations by most Western governments) and stored in a storehouse. They were not, as the article implies, stolen familial property. This is therefore seemingly original research, combining information from multiple sources and taking much of it out of context, in violation of WP:SYNTH. In any case, considering the sparse reporting on this matter, barring any further substantiation, it does not seem notable enough to be in an article.

• The section on torture employs an emotionally loaded title. The substance it cites, that "Israeli border police have been witnessed forcing Arabs to sing the Israeli national anthem, slap each other's faces and crawl and bark like dogs", is not actually a form of torture. While forcing people to bark like dogs is an absurd punishment, and that does seem unnecessarily cruel, it is hardly on the level of physical abuse and waterboarding, the implication from a title like "torture". Furthermore, I could not locate this information in the source, nor any other source, casting serious doubt upon its veracity, frequency, and relevancy.

Earlier, this article was nominated for deletion, a bid which was rejected not because the piece was unbiased, but because bias is a fixable issue. However, it is evident that a heavy anti-Israel slant exists in this article, despite the fact that the "Israeli side" of this issue is of unarguable significance. This article fails to sufficiently address that, and, in both tone and content, reads as a criticism of Israeli policy, rather than a neutral description of Israel. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I will assume that the intent of this article was the latter, not the former. Thus, there are many important issues with the tone, missing information, and unsubstantiated information within this article that must be fixed to reach Wikipedia's high standards.

In the meantime, I propose that this article either be draftified, or that an NPOV header be reinstated, until this article reaches the appropriate standards for neutrality, a core aspect of all Wikipedia articles.

Wikier1010 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, just to deal with the start of this, you write that the application of the term "occupation" to the situation is itself controversial. And you cite an opinion piece by a US congressman, an Israeli ambassador to Canada, a blog, and Arutz Sheva writing about Twenty-six parliamentarians from around the world on Monday. None of those are reliable for disputing whether or not the West Bank is occupied territory, and we include that Israel does not consider it occupied. However, the vast majority of reliable sources do say that the West Bank is occupied by Israel. That is what counts here. And yes, the International Court of Justice has explicitly rejected Israel's position on the West Bank not being occupied territory. See the Wall case where it goes in to some depth into the legal status of the West Bank and says flat out the Israeli position has no basis in international law (example quotes: The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. And later, In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories.) The argument that HRW is "widely believed to hold an anti-Israel bias in its operations" is likewise based on nothing at all. The material on night raids appears to be reliably sourced. You not liking what a source says does not actually mean anything here. The Egyptian author you seem to have a problem with is actually a French citizen who is a research director one of the most prestigious schools in Europe. The book is published by Springer Publishing. It is a reliable source, despite the author having been born in Cairo. We accept what reliable sources report absent any other reliable source disputing it, and we do not mark a source down because some random person on the internet dislikes his personal background or nationality. And Fatah is "recognized as [a] terrorist organization"? Wow, Im learning new things every day. And notability has literally nothing to do with article content, the argument that something is not notable to be included is based on a misreading of what WP:N is about. Notability is about whether or not a given topic should have an article. It does not, as the policy explicitly says, determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. The material on torture is also likewise reliably sourced. That you dislike that the source calls it torture is not relevant to whether or not we should. The article is not being "draftified" lol, there is literally zero chance of that happening. nableezy - 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikier, your grievance is totally unfocused, indicative of a complete unfamiliarity with the topic and with sourcing protocols, and not worth taking seriously. People who actually edit content in here can't spend hours doing tutorials on the obvious for those unfamiliar with the topic and the area's history. If you wish to edit constructively, do some extensive research before making wild claims. As an exception to a rule not to get sucked into silly argufying, I'll just make the following observations.

• There is no controversy about the status of the territories in international law.(a)The article makes clear Israel disagrees. (b) All the popular blah-blah consists in repeating the position of one state, Israel (c) which is covered in several wiki articles. (d) it is a fringe position, internationally and legally, and expansion would violate WP:Due
• As Nableezy noted, your sources for the non-existence of an occupation are hopelessly inadequate (a) an op.ed by Alan D. Clemmons is a real estate lawyer, Mormon missionary and Republican congressman (b) A youtube link to Israeli talking heads, spouting the official POV (c) A Wall Street Journal op.ed by the same Clemmons repeating the same guff in (d) A blog by a certain Josh Socket, an Educational Intern with Hasbara Fellowships Canada, i.e. someone paid to espouse the standard gov.line; (e) 26 unnamed unidentified parliamentarians hosted by Arutz Sheva culled from some of 196 nations all over the world signing a document declaring Israel has sovereignty; (f) A certain Kuwaiti Abdullah al Hadlaq cited by Aish HaTorah.

Meaning. You haven’t the foggiest notion of what constitutes good sourcing for wikipedia.

• On language, the first para you cite documents a conflict in descriptive terms numerous sources cover. They are a list of facts of dissonant usage, like it or not.
• It’s not Human Rights Watch. HaMoked - B’tselem p.15 (This policy, the ministry contends, is based on the High Court's opinion in 'Awad, which holds that residency in Israel no longer exists where a person has moved his or her “center of life” to a place outside of Israel. p.18)
• Night Raids. Obviously you are totally unfamiliar with the topic It has a high frequency of reportage in Israeli newspapers and the practice was observed as far back as 1948,([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], it became routine, [8], Confiscations ofPalestinians’ property by Israeli Forces in the West Bank Euro-Med HRM July 2014 etc) I could have added much more (WiFi routers, toasters, televisions, microwave ovens, protective coverings for olive trees, watches, gold chains, earrings, tablet devices etc.( Gideon Levy, Alex Levac,In Some of the Israeli Army's Raids, Leaving Empty-handed Is Not an Option Haaretz 27 August, 2016. I note too that you dropped conveniently the interview in the Guardian (‘Any Palestinian is exposed to monitoring by the Israeli Big Brother’ The Guardian 12 Sep 2014) which mentions storehouses full of pillaged materials from raided homes as ‘booty’.) AT the same time you falsified it by asserting ‘the cited article suggests that this was a one-time occurrence’. It does no such thing.) Since you didn’t google, you focus on the one source cited and conclude ‘In any case, considering the sparse reporting on this matter, barring any further substantiation, it does not seem notable enough to be in an article.’ I.e. you made a contrafactual declaration.
• What torture is is defined by sources, not by what editors think.

So before complaining, do some elementary background reading on the topic I n reliable sources so that your presentation has the appearance of deserving an answer.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely fail to understand the basis for these criticisms of my sources that support the idea that it is a common viewpoint that there is no occupation. The fact that several high-profile people - pro-Israel as they may be - have written that Israel is not an occupying power implies that this is a position which exists beyond some extremist fringes; it has been espoused by multiple mainstream politicians. The Wall Case you cited, while providing some degree of clarification on the ICJ position, does not specifically dispute the given reasoning, which has legitimate backing based on the relevant international treaties regarding occupation. It in fact concludes that, given that the territory was put under an occupation, the laws of an occupation apply. Israel is disputing the assumptions behind the ruling, not the ruling itself. There has been no ruling to substantiate those assumptions. Because, as you said, the majority consensus does view the situation as an occupation, it is perfectly fair to describe it as such in this article. However, it is not perfectly fair to pretend that the Israeli position does not exist. The Israeli government position on a matter which directly relates to Israeli politics is not an irrelevant or a fringe position, and in the interest of neutrality, simply cannot reasonably be left out of an article like this one.

As for the Human Rights Watch accusations, they are, indeed, a frequent perception, regardless of how you feel about it. However, while that bias subtracts even more from your usage of them as a source, even without that bias, HRW is still not the authority on what constitutes a forced population transfer. If a body such as the ICJ were to make that ruling and faced no relevant mainstream opposition, then, and only then, can that kind of thing be stated as a fact. Until then, the only fact you can validly include in an article like this is that "Some organizations believe that the policy constitutes forced population transfer".

I never stated that the Egyptian author was biased due to his place of birth. But the fact that the intent of his book was to criticize Israel by claiming that its military operations have been asymmetric is a legitimate cause for concern. The book does not mention where these details came from, either. I will concede that it does look like the information is stated in a rather direct manner in the book despite the absence of the source of its content. That does not, however, justify the WP:SYNTH in that section, nor the piece of information taken out of context to help further your point (that from The Guardian). Of your three sources that discuss Israeli theft during night raids, the third one is based purely on testimony. A handful of Palestinians saying that a laptop went missing after a raid is an allegation, not proof as in the way you cited it. And while notability itself is not a reason to remove article content, I would say notability combined with citation and original research concerns does, arguably, justify that. However, if you find this piece of information relevant to keep, it should at the very least be presented as an allegation, since it is, as a matter of fact, no more than an allegation. While the WP:SYNTH appears problematic, it would be far less problematic if it stated that "Israeli soldiers have been accused of seizing laptops and cellphones, which, if returned, are frequently damaged, based on various testimonies. According to Sami Cohen of Sciences Po, valuables have been used to assist needy Israeli soldiers". Written this way, it would be merely an expression of fact, rather than a synthesis of sources - many of which created with a specific agenda - that is not substantiated by a large number of sources (for example, using the testimonies of Palestinians as a source is a clear conflict of interest, since occupation-opposing Palestinians stand to benefit from negative coverage of the Israeli policies toward the West Bank). I have no issue with citing Egyptian sources on issues, but I take issue with citing from research from a source with a clear agenda, and in this case, the author was intent on proving that Israeli wartime practices are asymmetric, evidenced not by the Egyptian nationality of the author, but by the title of the book. Reliable sources are acceptable barring a dispute from another reliable source except in cases of conflicts of interest. All of your sources exhibit that.

Your only current sources to establish that Israeli torturous behavior is ongoing (as your article implies) are two Haaretz journalists and the leader of PCATI (an organization founded to target torture, introducing yet another conflict of interest since they would obviously reject the argument tiat it does not exist) who took the actions of an Israeli officer and derided it as "torture, Israeli-style". Israel, in fact, disputes this, and one opinionated journalist is not an authority. If further sources can be found describing the same behavior as torture, then it can be stated that many sources "have accused Israel of torture, Israel, of course (according to one of your own sources), countering that their methods are not "torture" on the level of a facility like Guantanamo Bay and that it carefully ensures that it will not induce permanent damage on the prisoners. As long as Israel makes this counterclaim, regardless of what some Haaretz journalists think, it's not up to some random person on the internet to decide who is correct.

Laughing off opinions - especially when the same opinion was expressed multiple times when this article was nominated for deletion - is not exactly showing proper ownership of your article. I'm not the first person to cite NPOV concerns with this article. As your profile makes clear, you are opposed to Israeli policy in the West Bank and support the Palestinian resistance. This itself does not disqualify you from writing an article like this, and I will assume that your intention with this article was to provide a neutral explanation of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, not to express your opposition to it on Wikipedia. However, given your personal bias, it's hardly unreasonable to think this bias may show up in an article written with neutrality as the intent - and it does. While the consensus of the deletion discussion was to keep this page because relevant pages with NPOV concerns should be fixed, not deleted, there was absolutely not a consensus that Wikipedia's NPOV guideline was met. Draftifying would be an extreme measure, for which I would advocate only if the NPOV concerns are not being addressed. The best thing, however, would be to modify the article in a way that does not silence the Israeli side of this as if it were an irrelevant, extremist, fringe position, considering it is the position of many Wikipedia readers, nor morphs opinion as fact (for example, it is the opinion of a couple of journalists that Israel uses torture, and it is a fact that Israel has been accused of using torture, but it is not an established fact that Israel uses torture). I'm not really sure why these concerns are being ignored, but it is abundantly clear that this article is worthy of serious attention, as well as an NPOV header in the meantime.

As it appears another user responded while I was writing this response, I will address his points as well. The sources that I cited to claim that the term "occupation" is controversial in its application do prove what I said precisely because they are expressions of the opinions of the Israeli side. Perhaps they are biased towards the Israeli side, but they are therefore good evidence that this opinion is in the mainstream on the Israeli side, and therefore are worthy of a mention on this article. The fact that these have come from parts of the Israeli government itself is even further evidence that this is a relevant position on the matter. The Guardian interview regarding night raids, as I said, does not prove the point you're using it to make. It clearly states that the "booty" was from a storehouse storing items no longer under ownership of any Palestinians (not because they were stolen in search raids, but because they were stored there after their original owner died, meaning there is no evidence that there was really any true owner anymore), and is therefore not confiscation of property, but represents extraneous information meant to further a point by misleading readers. I highly doubt that this is in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your effort to find alternative sources on this matter, which did not appear when I searched the matter on Google (despite your accusation that I made no effort to actually do so). Considering the sources that clearly exist, I am, however, questioning why there were not more citations from media that more definitely established the point. As for the remainder of your response, HRW is the organization that described the policy as forced population transfer. That latter point is what I take issue with, since HRW has no authority to call it such. The policy does exist and that is well-established, and that's not the subject of my dispute. Lastly, torture is not defined by what editors think, but it's also not determined by what random journalists happen to think. Has the UN or some other legitimate international organization accused Israel of torture and not received a dispute from Israel? If not, then the accusation of torture is just that: an accusation. Both users involved in this discussion make clear expressions of a pro-Palestinian slant on their profile pages, and while I am not suggesting that to in any way disqualify you from creating or contributing to pages like these, it does mean that it is quite possible for there to be an unintentional NPOV conflict in articles on a subject like this. That same viewpoint has been expressed before on this talk page, as well as the deletion submission, and, from what I can see, no effort has been put into addressing these. That alone should justify the inclusion of an NPOV header until the issue is addressed.

Wikier1010 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Before making more uninformed assertions about this page, read the main page links on most sections. This is a synthesis of what they contain. E.g. If you state 'torture..is .. not determined by what random journalists happen to think,' it means you haven't read Israel and torture in the occupied territories's 17 sources. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion because some editors do not want the Israeli occupation covered. The article was kept because Wikipedia is not run on peoples personal feelings, if the sources support an article then guess what we have an article. And yes, the ICJ explicitly rejected the Israeli position that because the West Bank was not a sovereign state when captured by Israel that it is not occupied. They explicitly did so, and said, repeatedly, that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, remains occupied territory. I quoted where they did. You can continue to say otherwise, but you are simply making a false statement, one that has been proven false. An op-ed by a US Congressman is not a reliable source. As far as "authority", the authority that HRW has is the same as other reliable sources. They report things and absent other equally or more reliable disputing them we accept it as fact. And on Wikipedia, torture is defined by reliable sources. You disliking what they report is not relevant here. As far as SYNTH, you complained that we used one source. Definitionally that is not SYNTH, SYNTH requires merging multiple sources to support a claim that no one of them supports. If the material appears in one single source it is by definition not SYNTH. And no, it is not clear that this article is in need of "serious attention" or a NPOV dispute header. You need actual reliable sources that dispute what is in the article to make a NPOV claim. Your personal opinions simply do not matter. There is not a single reliable source in any of the 20 or so kB that you have written here, and as such your complaints are of little value. Finally, regarding the line but I take issue with citing from research from a source with a clear agenda, and in this case, the author was intent on proving that Israeli wartime practices are asymmetric, evidenced not by the Egyptian nationality of the author, but by the title of the book. Well I suppose that is nice for you, however for Wikipedia your issues are irrelevant. Samy Cohen writing in a book published by Springer is a reliable source, full stop. You thinking that the source has a clear agenda is totally and completely irrelevant here. Our policy on reliable sources and NPOV are what count here, your personal opinions do not. Absent any reliable sources disputing what Cohen wrote then we on Wikipedia are obliged to accept that as fact. You may not dispute a reliable source just because you feel a certain way. If you have any reliable sources that dispute Cohen then bring them. Another 10kB talk page post without a single source however will be just as pointless as the first two. nableezy - 16:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA - that was not the rationale of the nomination. Wikier1010 - while you raise many good points, I suggest you cut down on the WP:WALLOFTEXT and introduce reliable sources. For instance, the Israeli position (or to be accurate - the possible Israeli position as Israel has been quite ambiguous here over the years) of terra nullius is discussed in reliable sources - e.g. Hauswaldt, Christian. "Problems under the EC–Israel Association Agreement: The Export of Goods Produced in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under the EC–Israel Association Agreement." European Journal of International Law 14.3 (2003): 591-611., book by Schölch, Sabel, Robbie. "The International Court of Justice decision on the separation barrier and the green line." Israel Law Review 38.1-2 (2005): 316-330., and a whole bunch of other sources. While this is definitely a minority view, it merits some mention as well as a discussion on the particularities of what the occupied entity is (while terra nullius is generally not accepted, the termination of the British mandate with the territory in Jordanian hands (subsequently annexed, subsequently annexation revoked in 1988, coupled with a PLO/PA claim along the way) - agreement of "what entity was occupied", particularly prior to 1988, is complex and less well decided).Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And where pray tell is the personal attack? Regardless, the AFD ended with a Keep if I am not mistaken. Not a "no consensus", but a flat out keep, and obviously so. We already include that Israel disputes that the territory is occupied. You are saying something that we already mention merits mention. Ok? We already mention it. nableezy - 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That was not the deletion rationale. AFAICT - at present we do not mention terra nullius in the article. Nor do we mention the Jordanian renunciation of claims to the territory in 1988. Nor do we discuss the legal particularities (which are debated in the literature) of "what is/was the occupied entity". So no - this is not quite present in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It was not the stated rationale. The stated rationale was so absurd that the participants largely rejected it. As far as what we do not mention, add it if you feel it important. But make sure when adding it that you include that it has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of sources and by the ICJ and the ICRC and the UNSC and the UNGA. nableezy - 17:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

while terra nullius is generally not accepted, the termination of the British mandate with the territory in Jordanian hands (subsequently annexed, subsequently annexation revoked in 1988, coupled with a PLO/PA claim along the way) - agreement of "what entity was occupied", particularly prior to 1988, is complex and less well decided

For 'generally not accepted' read the remark in the ICJ opinion that 'no one can seriously argue that those territories were terra nullius, for that is a discredited concept that does not have relevance in the contemporary world.' Israel's High Court of Justice has applied the principles that follow from international law that Israel is a belligerent occupant, since the 1970s. The Jordanian 'renunciation of claims' consisted in 'surrendering those claims to the P.L.O (not as you 'astutely' rephrase it 'coupled with' as if there were no formal transfer). The Israeli government line is not that of the Israeli High Court. These issues have extensive coverage in numerous Wikipedia articles e.g. Israeli-occupied territories,Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967. So wikier, in citing those inept sources, only showed that he was utterly unfamiliar with the fact that the Supreme Court of Israel has established consistently the contrary, that Gaza and the West Bank are subject to the law governing belligerent occupation.(Yoram Dinstein,The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, p.27. n.75). Finally, large volumes of important information have been, at your request, removed from this article. Including WP:Undue trivial equivocations about their status contradicts the very principle you insisted on.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I've put in a link to refer the reader to a page where info on the status is readily available.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I am totally fine with having a full section on the status of the West Bank and who says what. It would of course reflect the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources and states and supranational organizations that the West Bank is occupied territory and that Israel's arguments have been rejected wholesale by nearly all competent parties. But Im fine including that if thats what yall really want. Nishidani is right though, we cant both continue adding things while also demanding that the size be reduced. nableezy - 02:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly one has to keep size in mind. I would trim/replace the "language of the conflict" section.Icewhiz (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Bargaining to gut sections that have already seen significant compromise and replace them with tedious matter that is amply covered is out of the question.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nishidani, I see no cause to replace that section at all, and it has already been trimmed. nableezy - 16:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Factual Error on International Court of Justice

The following sentence is factually inaccurate: "The International Court of Justice, established by the Rome Statute of 1998 which classified resettlement as a war crime,[192] seconding the reiterated views of other international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council, determined in 2004 that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were established in breach of international law."

Beyond being a terribly constructed sentence -- written perhaps by someone whose first language something other than English, it is incorrect: The author has clearly confused the International Court of Justice with the International Criminal Court. The latter was established by the Rome Statute of 1998, the former is much older, successor to a court first established almost a hundred years ago. The case in question was also "advisory" and did not really "determine" anything if one means by that term that it had substantive legal effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Youre correct on the founding of the ICJ, Ill fix that. The rest of the comment is a bit off. The court did "determine" that the settlement program violates international law and advised the UN General Assembly of that. nableezy - 07:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)