Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

discussion about israeli settlements article

I am ready to engage in a discussion with the group in charge of this article. I still wait for your responses regarding to your group revert policy, especially I want your justification to have a constructive and balanced appreciation of what is going on --Vanlister (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean, with just 700 edits (your familiarity with wiki), by stating a'group (is) in charge of this article, and that they conduct a 'group revert policy'. Normally, if an edit is challenged, one goes to the talk page top justify it. You, with a minimum of experience of wikipedia, made your changes, then threw down a gauntlet to an imagined collective, asking 'them' to justify themselves. This is somewhat eerie practice. For example the page was written in British English and you prefer Amnerican spelling. For example, you rewrote:

Israeli settlers and civilians living or traveling through the West Bank are subject to Israeli law, and are represented in the Knesset; in contrast, Palestinian civilians, mostly confined to scattered enclaves, are subject to martial law and are not permitted to vote in Israeli national elections. This two tiered system has inspired comparisons to apartheid, with many likening the dense disconnected pockets Palestinians are relegated to with the segregated Bantustans that previously existed in South Africa when the country was still under all-white rule. The occupation has numerous critics in Israel itself, with some Israel Defense Forces draftees refusing to serve due to their objections to the occupation.

so that we now have:

Israeli settlers and civilians living or traveling through the West Bank are subjects on a personal basis to portions of Israeli law, including Israeli criminal law, and are represented in the Israeli Parliament; in contrast, Palestinian civilians are represented by a Palestinian National Authority limited to scattered enclaves and are subject to martial law or to the Israeli Civil Administration in areas subjected to its administration, and are therefore not permitted to participate in Israeli legislative elections. This differentiated system has inspired comparisons to apartheid. The occupation has numerous critics, as well as in Israel itself, with some Israel Defense Forces draftees refusing to serve due to their political objections to it.

Why is that an improvement, especially with empty wadding like on a personal basis (a) 'subjects' is absurd. People are 'subject to' the law, not 'subjects' (with its nuance of royalty) of the law; (c) Writing:' Palestinian National Authority limited to scattered enclaves and are subject to martial law'. Do you realize that this implies that the Palestinian National Authority is the agency imposinbg martial law? etc.etc.etc. you

For the moment, I will revert your changes, because they are erratic. Since you have little experience with wikipedia, I suggest you make your proposals here first, to get a handle on some of the pointless confusions several of your additions created.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally the material changed is just factually wrong. Palestinians in Area A and B are still subject to martial law whenever the IDF declares so. All of the West Bank remains under the Israeli Ministry of Defense's control, the "administrational control" notwithstanding. nableezy - 15:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

British grammar can be used, that's not the subject of your revert policy. Second part: "and are subject to martial law" ( obviously the Palestinians"), "on a personal basis" per referencing (because we talk about the law, and not a simplification of it). --Vanlister (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your changes have been disputed, simply reverting them back in is not an acceptable tactic. I have no idea what you are responding to in your comment. nableezy - 03:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I choose the wrong talk page, I indicated it, my mistake --Vanlister (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, are your communication services down?--Vanlister (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The edits by Vanlister seem clearly biased to me. One of the edits is changing "Israel's use of collective punishment" to "Israel is accused of using of collective punishment". I can't believe this is seriously contested; presenting it as a dispute when it isn't is a violation of WP:NPOV. I call on Vanlister to self-revert unless they can get consensus for the changes. (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a solid consensus here against the changes, and as such Ive reverted. nableezy - 15:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Clause missing from a sentence

Under the "land seizure mechanisms" section, the article says, "Thirdly, land temporally abandoned during the 1967 was deemed absentee property came under trusteeship, but since Israel rarely allows refugees to return." The sentence is missing a part, "Thirdly, land temporally abandoned during the 1967 was deemed absentee property came under trusteeship, but since Israel rarely allows refugees to return the land is rarely returned." would be correct. This reflects the source.

StolenStatue (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Well spotted. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

References

" then occupied by Jordan"

I would like to offer a better term as Jordan did not just occupied the west bank, they annexed it, making it a part of their country. (line 2) sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite_custodianship_of_Jerusalem_holy_sites "Jordan controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1948, and annexed the territories in 1951 until they were lost to Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War"

https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/134

Its a big different when we talk about land disputes. 2A00:A041:3763:1200:B9FC:C117:A25B:CE24 (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed occupied and put ruled instead. The link is also in the main article at the section 'The West Bank in 1967'. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review. As a disclaimer, it'll be used for points in both the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive—please consider signing up to the latter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As a start, two issues I'd like to discuss:

1. GA criterion 3b) prescribes that the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). As it stands, the article contains over 18,000 words of prose, not counting 6,000 words in notes, and assorted image captions and quotes. I appreciate that the article topic is of course heavily-discussed, complicated, and extremely controversial; nevertheless, 18+6k words does in my opinion violate criterion 3b). The good news, and the reason that I'm not immediately failing this nomination per quickfail criterion 1, is that cutting extraneous information or transferring it to subarticles shouldn't be that hard—at first glance, there are huge amounts of digressions or redundacies that could easily be removed. Still quite a lot of work, however.
2. Something more immediately fixable: criterion 1b) requires compliance with MOS:LEAD—the lead section should be a summary of [the article's] most important contents. As it stands, I don't believe the lead section adequately summarises the article's contents: various issues of etymology and legality are discussed (a summary of apartheid comparisons, mentioned only thrice in the body, takes up half a paragraph), but most of the meat of the article is ignored in the lead. I would like to see this addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting this review, but I'm not sure the 6k in notes counts towards the word limits here, but I can see what can be reduced from there. Ive knocked out a bit of the lead, but Im not really sure where youre seeing much extraneous material in the body. Most of the sections have already been reduced considerably and expanded in child articles. Can you clarify where youre seeing huge amounts of digressions or redundacies please? nableezy - 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The notes shouldn't be given as much value as the body, but they should still be a reasonable size (otherwise you could have 6,000 words of prose augmented by 30,000 words of notes). Incidentally, WP:TOOBIG recommends that any article over 15,000 words be split or otherwise decreased in size. Let's have a look in-depth at the first section, since the lead is a work in progress.

• "The language of conflict and coverage in academia and the media" is a bit of a long-winded title—perhaps "Nomenclature and coverage in academia and the media", or "Academic and media nomenclature and coverage" or something. Essentially, the "of conflict" is implied with the subject matter.
• There is a general problem in this section with MOS:WEASEL-like words. "Concerns over language manipulation in coverage of the conflict are often expressed" etc. Although you have two citations for the sentence, there is no way of knowing that these citations contain "often expressed" views, or just those of four writers.

• Personally, I would write the first sentence as Academics have explored the manipulation of language in coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, with conclusions ranging from "sanitized terminology" to Peter Beinart's suggestion of Orwellian "linguistic fraud". (assuming that those are in fact the extremes of non-fringe opinions).

• The sentence "Each party has its preferred set of descriptive words." implies that a discussion of each party's descriptive words will follow. This happens, but only after a digression into (1) what term American mainstream coverage doesn't use, and (2) how many Britons knew about the occupation 22 years ago. Not entirely sure why this digression is located here, or whether either of the sentences needs to be in the article.
• Following this, we have a long discussion of differing viewpoints ("International usage ... for Palestinians "dispossession"".) Firstly, and most importantly, this potentially controversial/challengeable sentence is not supported by an inline citation. Then, there are MOS:WEASEL and a general lack of clarity—who is the "some" using "colonies" or "settlements"? Why is "pinpoint preventative operations" in scare quotes but "target assassinations" not (MOS:SCAREQUOTES)? "Violence by Palestinians is regularly labeled terrorism" by who? Obviously Israel, but say that, and back it up with sources!
• Why not simply write something (obviously much better sourced) such as:

Terms preferred by Israelis include "the Judea and Samaria Area", "pinpoint preventative operations", "settlements", and "displacement", while Palestinians term the same things the "West Bank", "targeted assassinations", "colonies", and "dispossession". Israel terms violence (the status quo for Palestinians but the opposite for Israelis) "terrorism" when Palestine-initiated but "retaliation" when Israel-initiated to support the idea that Israel does not instigate fighting.

• This is less than half the length of what previously ended the paragraph, and also eradicates numerous MOS:WTW-related issues.
• "The quality of both media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict and research and debates on university campuses have been the object of extensive monitoring and research." The first half of the sentence has already been expressed, so is redundant. The second half is about as wordy as it is possible to get.
• "In the latter regard", "on the other hand" both redundant expressions when it takes around three readings to understand what is being referred to.
• Grammar issues: can you "closely report"? Why is "Campus Watch" both a third-person singular and a third-person plural?
• "Academics like Sara Roy have argued on the other hand that [quote]" I think you mean that Sara Roy has argued that precise quote, and that other (hand-waved in) academics have agreed with her.
• Why are there so many passive verbs in these sentences? They reduce clarity, obfuscate detail, and remove attribution—none of which you want in a highly controversial article. "Attempts have been made" by who? "Such difficulties have given rise to anxieties"—by "such difficulties" is it just the unspecified attempts, or something else? Who's becoming anxious?
• You can see similar issues to the above in the final paragraph, in addition to tense issues ("who maintain fraudulence was natural for Palestinians and that images of their dead and wounded were generally faked").

• On that note, I have no clue what this sentence means: "with digital forensics on social networks occasionally revealing problems with a few widely circulating images of dead Palestinians" what problems? I assume it means that some are faked?

• Just in case, this is how I might trim the section.

Academics have explored the manipulation of language in coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, with conclusions ranging from "sanitized terminology" to Peter Beinart's suggestion of Orwellian "linguistic fraud". Both sides have their own preferred nomenclature: terms preferred by Israelis include "the Judea and Samaria Area", "pinpoint preventative operations", "settlements", and "displacement", while Palestinians term these the "West Bank", "targeted assassinations", "colonies", and "dispossession". To support the idea that they do not instigate fighting (considered the status quo by Palestinians but the opposite by Israelis), Israel terms violence "terrorism" when Palestine-initiated and "retaliation" when Israel-initiated.

Organizations and academics have researched and monitored attitudes to the conflict in North American universities. Campus Watch reports and denounces what it consider "anti-Israeli" attitudes, while Sara Roy has argued that "the climate of intimidation and censorship surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [inside and outside U.S. education] is real and longstanding". [Entity X] has attempted to silence critics of Israeli policies in the territories, giving rise to anxieties that the political pressures undermine academic freedom.

Both Israeli and Palestinian local press coverage, reflecting the views of the political and military establishment, has traditionally been conservative. Tamar Liebes has argued that Israeli "journalists and publishers see themselves as actors within the Zionist movement, not as critical outsiders". The growth of the Internet has introduced controversy regarding images of dead or wounded Palestinians, with some proven to be fake and many more alleged to be fraudulent manipulations.

• Hope that proves helpful as to what I'm looking at, Nableezy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  That indeed gives me a lot to work with, thank you. Ill keep plugging away. nableezy - 14:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Nableezy would you like me to give similar in-depth recommendations for other parts of the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I very much would thank you, sorry I been sick with round 2 of Covid and then traveling for a bit, but I’m not giving up on this and would definitely appreciate all the pointers you can give. nableezy - 14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the (il)legality of the occupation itself is important to at least mention in the lead; since this is an international conflict, international law matters. Just as the international law status is mentioned for other international conflicts and practices that are considered to violate international law. And the ICJ is going to rule on it soon, which makes it even more salient. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding a bit to lead and body, thanks for the suggestion. nableezy - 14:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Added, unfortunately that only made the article longer though. nableezy - 14:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

nableezy, apologies for forgetting about this review. Truth is, I attempted to come back a few times, but the size of the task just put me off. The facts of the matter are simply that 1) I don't think this article meets GA criterion 3b), and 2) it would take an absolutely massive GA review to fix those issues, and I don't think I have that in me.

So with that in mind, we have two options. Either I fail this review, and you take this article to peer review or other places to try and improve it, or I can follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I#N4a and increment the review counter so this review ends but you retain your original place in the GA queue. What do you think? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Just increment the counter I think, doubt anybody will come to review it before I get a month or two to work on tightening it up. nableezy - 09:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

nableezy, AirshipJungleman29, just be aware that, as the oldest unreviewed nomination waiting for a review now that the counter has been incremented, there's a good chance that someone is going to take this nomination for review before you get that month or two to work on it. They probably won't see this page before they do take it on. Something you should include in your calculus. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Settlements are Israeli not Jewish

Please change the phrase “Jewish settlements” to “Israeli Settlements” The Jews are not occupying palestine, the Israelis are. 2600:1011:B178:336C:C0DD:A7E1:40AD:4520 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources use the two interchangeably, and the settlements are nearly exclusively Israeli-Jewish. nableezy - 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Spinoff article "Impact of Israeli occupation of the West Bank"

Currently this article is more than 30kb, while WP:SIZERULE recommends a size of 100kb. Additionally its not as easy to follow. Much has been said in news sources about the impact of the Israeli occupation, but we don't have an article that covers that in a straightforward way. My proposal is to take some of the material in this article, along with newly created material, and create a spinoff article called Impact of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I would leave several summaries behind of the material that is spun out.VR _talk 18:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: who is quite active in this article's development.VR _talk 18:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Worth a look at Palestinian enclaves for sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently 115kB of readable prose, so it is a little beyond ideal length. However, it is also a substantial topic and currently meticulously cited. It would definitely be worth waiting for the input on the authors on what, if any, material could be reasonably be thematically split out without unduly fragmenting the whole. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Think this still needs tightening and some chopping but no not splitting. Child articles always welcome, but this as a top level article on the occupation is going to be large, just as a function of how much time, which equates to how much material, it has to cover. nableezy - 20:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Under Impact on Education the following needs to be entered

Yumna Patel, Palestinian universities fight back against Israel forcing international academics out of the country Mondoweiss 11 July 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

“Media coverage and bias”

This section needs to include two parts: one on the viewpoint that the media is biased against the Palestinian side & one on the viewpoint that the media is biased against Israel. Currently it only includes bias against Palestine, which does not accurately represent the complexity of the media bias on both sides of the situation. 76.180.97.228 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What sources do you have related to the topic of this article? nableezy - 01:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Radical Sunni Islamist"

KlayCax added "radical Sunni Islamist" in place of "Sunni Islamist" in the first sentence.

First of all what exactly is the meaning of "radical" in this context and what is the difference between "radical Sunni Islamist" and just regular "Sunni Islamist"?

Second do a majority of sources agree that Hamas meets that definition?

VR _talk 17:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This isnt the article on Hamas, somebody wants more information on them they can click the link. nableezy - 01:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Caused who to be accused of committing apartheid?

Israel has been accused of major violations of international human rights law, including collective punishment, in its administration of the occupied Palestinian territories. Israeli settlers and civilians living or traveling through the West Bank are subject to Israeli law, and are represented in the Knesset; in contrast, Palestinian civilians, mostly confined to scattered enclaves, are subject to martial law and are not permitted to vote in Israel's national elections. This two-tiered system has caused to be accused of committing apartheid, a charge that Israel rejects entirely. Smokerton (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. Thanks. Not sure how that worked it's way in. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrongly sourced quote from Ben-Burion

The sentence "In 1956, the Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion stated that: "Jordan has no right to exist. The territory to the West of the Jordan should be made an autonomous region of Israel".", which is supposedly based on · Slater, Jerome (1994). "The Significance of Israeli Historical Revisionism". In Stone, Russell; Zenner, Walter P. (eds.). Essays on Israeli Social Issues and Scholarship. Vol. 3. SUNY Press. pp. 179–199. ISBN 978-1-438-42140-7 seems to be wrong. This essay can be found here (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41804673), accessed for free, and contains no such quote. Skeptischer Beobachter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Youre looking at the wrong source, that is Slater 1991, Slater 1994 is available here, and it contains the quote on page 185 at the top of the page. nableezy - 22:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A455bcd9 (talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

مرحبا! I'm a newbie at GAN review, but I thought I could give it a try, no matter how complex and controversial the topic is, as this article has been waiting for months in the backlog... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some "cn" tags. I could not verify some statements that are sourced, for instance International usage speaks of the West Bank, whereas Israeli usage prefers "Judea and Samaria",. The citation formats are not consistent. Sometimes {{sfn}} is used (going to the "References" section), while when there's a quote, {{efn}} is used (going to "Notes"). Instead, sfn could be used everywhere, with the quote in "loc=p. PAGENUMBER: "QUOTE"." (if the quote is really needed). If possible, it would be ideal to cite secondary academic sources that mention B'Tselem's reports instead of citing B'Tselem reports directly, even if attributed. Same for journalistic sources. [It would also be easier for the reviewer to have one ref per sentence and one sentence per ref.]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Per WP:TOOBIG, with 113 kB and 18,306 words ("readable prose size", this does not even include the dozens of long citations in the notes), this article is way too long and has to be trimmed. For instance, there's one section "Legal status" and one subsection "Legal status"

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't know for this one. While, the article is well-sourced using mostly high-quality RS, the overall layout gives me a feeling of lack of neutrality favoring the Palestinian side. For instance the titles of the sections. Also I don't get why the article starts with "Media coverage and bias" followed by "The West Bank in 1967" (describing us the wonderful situation of Palestinians in the West Bank back then, I don't get what the sentence "Education was (and remains[j]) a high priority," has to do with the topic for instance). A more neutral structure of the article could be: "Historical background", "Six-Day War and conquest", "Legal status" (both under domestic Israeli law + international law and recognition by foreign countries), "Socio-economic impact", and "Human rights and humanitarian issues".

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   First step: trim this article, ideally to 6,000 words (40 kB), meaning cutting two thirds of the article.

   [Update after one week on hold: No answer from the nominator and no improvement in the meantime. In any case, the required work to bring this article to GA standard is probably way too high to be done while on hold. To sum up, beside the sheer long size, the article lacks the required focus. For instance, there's one section "Legal status", one subsection "Legal status" (under "Settlement") and one subsection "Legal system" under "Territorial fragmentation and domination over the Palestinians" that cover inter-related (if not identical) topics that could be merged and summarized into one "Legal status" section. There were also issues with verifiability + some primary sources that should be replaced by secondary RS. (I also mentioned in the above rating template that the overall tone also gave me a feeling of a lack of neutrality but I'm not an expert in this domain so another reviewer may have another opinion on this.) I thank the nominator for their work on this topic of extreme importance. I hope the article will soon be nominated again and succeed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   Added an NPOV tag following Section review: Fair representation without bias. Talk section is further down. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

ref format

NSH001, I have no idea how to format this, help plz if you have the time. nableezy - 19:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done --NSH001 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH

Homerethegreat, material needs to have sources connecting the topics. You cant just decide such and such is related and put whatever you want in the article. What do the restrictions on Israelis entering Areas A and B have to do with the Israeli occupation? What source connects the topics? The source you use, the US State Department travel advisories, does not do so. nableezy - 19:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But Israelis are restricted in their movements as well. It violates NPOV not to mention it. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, NPOV is determined by sources, not a Wikipedia editor's feelings. nableezy - 19:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the US State Department: Individuals with Israeli citizenship, regardless of other nationality, including U.S. citizenship, must enter and depart Israel using their Israeli passports in accordance with Israeli law. Due to a passport backlog, Israeli citizens are temporarily allowed to enter and depart Israel on non-Israeli passports until December 31, 2023. Israeli citizens are prohibited from using the Allenby/King Hussein Bridge crossing. They are also prohibited from entering Gaza and are generally prohibited from traveling to parts of the West Bank under PA control (Area A), to include Bethlehem and Jericho. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What source connects that to the topic of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? nableezy - 19:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If Israeli is considered the occupying force and restricts the movement of certain populations, then it should be mentioned. Do you not agree? Homerethegreat (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, what should be mentioned are the things that sources about this topic talk about. What source connects restrictions on Israeli civilians traveling in territory outside of Israel to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? nableezy - 19:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

[1] Is this not a good source? It details restrictions, it's titled: Israel and The Occupied Territories: Israel and The Occupied Territories – The Occupied Territories and talks of how Israel restricts the movements of different populations. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Should I add the above to the text to make it clearer? Homerethegreat (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, because those restrictions are not about the occupation. What that source says is

The Israeli government continued to prohibit Israeli citizens in unofficial capacities from traveling to the parts of the West Bank under the civil and security control of the PA (Area A). While these restrictions in general prevented Jewish Israelis from visiting several Jewish religious sites, the IDF provided special security escorts for Jews to visit religious sites in Area A of the West Bank, particularly Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus – a site of religious significance to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Some Jewish religious leaders said this policy prevented Jewish Israelis from freely visiting several Jewish religious sites in the West Bank, such as Joseph’s Tomb, because they were denied the opportunity to visit the site on unscheduled occasions or in larger numbers than may be permitted through IDF coordination. IDF officials said that requirements to coordinate Jewish visits to Joseph’s Tomb were needed to ensure Jewish Israelis’ safety. For example, the IDF escorted buses carrying hundreds of Jewish Israelis for overnight visits to Joseph’s Tomb on October 9 and 19. The IDF clashed with Palestinian protesters from the nearby Balata refugee camp during these and other visits. On November 8, PA police briefly detained four Jewish Israelis for attempting to visit Joseph’s Tomb without coordinating with Israeli or Palestinian authorities. The PA police transferred the four Israelis to IDF custody.

That does not relate the restrictions to the occupation at all. nableezy - 20:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Added NPOV disputed tag following review as seen above in Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#GA Review Homerethegreat (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That is completely baseless, what specific NPOV issues are there. nableezy - 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the review given. I've added a link to the talk section of the review. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The given review does not say there are any NPOV issues. You are required to substantiate the reason you have defaced this article with a NPOV dispute tag. If you are unable to do so it will be removed. nableezy - 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Homerethegreat was referring to this section of the review:

Fair representation without bias:

I don't know for this one. While, the article is well-sourced using mostly high-quality RS, the overall layout gives me a feeling of lack of neutrality favoring the Palestinian side. For instance the titles of the sections. Also I don't get why the article starts with "Media coverage and bias" followed by "The West Bank in 1967" (describing us the wonderful situation of Palestinians in the West Bank back then, I don't get what the sentence "Education was (and remains[j]) a high priority," has to do with the topic for instance). A more neutral structure of the article could be: "Historical background", "Six-Day War and conquest", "Legal status" (both under domestic Israeli law + international law and recognition by foreign countries), "Socio-economic impact", and "Human rights and humanitarian issues".

Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, nowhere does that say there is a NPOV issue. And proposing a different organization is fine to do, but that does not at all justify a NPOV tag. What, specifically, is the NPOV dispute? Absent an answer Ill be removing that tag as unfounded. nableezy - 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t object to keeping or removing the tag. Just wanted to point out that the reviewer did mention a neutrality issue. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but they said they did not actually know if there is one. nableezy - 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, anyways this article needs a lot of work to get to good article standards. It would probably best to follow all of the recommendations the reviewer brought up. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Dont actually think thats entirely true, it does need to be trimmed but the idea it needs lose 2/3 of the material is silly, we have plenty of GAs of comparable length, eg World War II is 80 kb in readable prose. This is currently at 113kb, so it needs to be trimmed, but certainly not to 40 kB. nableezy - 21:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as the reviewer, I'm not sure the NPOV tag is needed, as I said in the review. Besides, @Wh15tL3D09N, this review has no special value, it's just the assessment of one contributor, me, among others. It cannot be used to justify adding the tag. You need to provide arguments yourself.

Regarding the size, I wrote "trim this article, ideally to 6,000 words (40 kB)". I gave the "ideal" from WP:SIZERULE but the ideal may not be possible nor desirable depending on the topic. Still, it needs to be trimmed, focused, and re-organized.

By the way, World War II (80 kb) is not be a good example. It was promoted in 2010 with 59 kB in readable prose back then, 60 kB being the upper limit per WP:SIZERULE (again, it's a rule of thumb). The article would probably not be promoted today with its current length (and overall shape). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in and clarifying, @A455bcd9! I wasn’t advocating for tag inclusion or removal, and generally I prefer to try not to get into protracted “arguments” with people online. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Some sections are overly "technical"

On a first reading of this article, it seems overly technical to me compared to other wikipedia articles. For example:

1. The quotes "This characterization has been further refined by classifying the conflict as structurally asymmetric,…" and the quote “A continuity has often been observed between t e Realpolitik[aa] processes governing the creation of Israel..." sound too technical to me.
2. The analysis isnt very explicitly presented in the first paragraph of “conquest” section.

Do you agree? I can propose some simplifications of some of the text if so. DMH43 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes to shorten length

Part of the feedback from the GA review was that the article was too long. I agree it is long, although I'm not sure its "too" long. In any case, I think it's worth it to at least discuss how to incorporate this feedback. Here is my high level list of proposed changes:

1. Moving the discussion of the "four schools of thought" on israeli security concerns to a new article
2. Merging of "Early Economic impact of the occupation" with "Economic and social benefits..."
3. The section on "settlement" has a lot of details. I propose moving these details to the main article on settlements and keeping the most important points related to maintaining the occupation. I would leave the "settler violence" and "legal status" section unchanged, although a reviewer suggested that having a "legal status" subsection for settlements and one for the occupation is confusing (which I actually disagreewith).
4. Move some details on the second intifada to that article.
5. Details from the subsections in "Territorial fragmentation and domination over the Palestinians" can be moved to the main articles. We can just present the main points in these subsections. I think we can cut this section down by half while still preserving the main points.
6. Perhaps the "collective punishment" section should be its own article? This section reads more like a human rights report than a subsection about the occupation.
7. The "resources" section can be limited to points relating directly to the occupation, such as destruction of agricultural goods.

There was also a comment on an overreliance on primary sources. I think if we shift the sources to more secondary sources it would also reduce the length of the article. DMH43 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani tagging you for feedback here if you have a chance. DMH43 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming the new HR article stays up, then that should produce some further reduction here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting a revert of a deletion

@Longhornsg please explain your edit summary: "this has nothing to do with the post-1967 occupation" for this edit which deletes a paragraph explaining the historical background on the connection with apartheid south africa. Specifically, in what sense does this have "nothing to do with the post1967 occupation"? DMH43 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

How are cherry-picked quotations from the Yishuv period, before Israel was even in existence, related to actions by the state of Israel after it gained territories during a war? Are there RS that link these quotations to the occupation? Otherwise this is pure WP:SYNTH. Explain how RS say it's related. Longhornsg (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

1. the deleted discussion provides background on the current occupation

2. The sources cited in the deleted text. see for example Peteet, Julie (Winter 2016). "The Work of Comparison: Israel/Palestine and Apartheid". Anthropological Quarterly. 89 (1): 247–281. DMH43 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH is connecting it to the occupation, the subject of this article. This implies that from the onset Zangwill and others were looking at apartheid South Africa as inspiration. Which, of course, is flatly not true, given that apartheid South Africa wouldn't exist for decades. Peteet's article (which does not read like a work of high-quality scholarship) states that Zangwill "suggestion that to fashion a state free of non-

Jews would involve "race redistribution". It's Peteet who claims that this is redolent of South Africa, which is a ridiculous comparison given that South Africa was the governing power and the Zionists were not. So first, the paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of Zangwill's words and intent. Second, this not provide background to the current occupation, which began in 1967, because it is a POV and inaccurate read of history. Longhornsg (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is SYNTH since are you pointed out peteet makes this connection. Based on your response it sounds like your issue is with the choice of citing peteet's work, not that the deleted section has nothing to do with the occupation. In that case I suggest we revert the change and add a flag such as Better source needed DMH43 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Peteet's opinion is used for one line, not the entire paragraph. In no way does this bless the entire paragraph as relevant. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Toynbee's description is historical background on the occupation and associated territorial fragmentation. See for example Quigley, the question of palestine p. 21 DMH43 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, how is Toynbee giving context to the post-1967 occupation? Longhornsg (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

To editor Lonhhornsg: it is not true that targeted assassinations are "almost exclusively in Gaza". Quite a lot since 1967 have been in the West Bank, especially during the intifadas, and there have been many even in the past few months. The topic obviously belongs. Zero^talk 01:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not in this edit? Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, shouldn't have added that clause, was moving too fast. The question is how that section can be presented in a more NPOV way and included in a way that makes it relevant to the occupation, the latter of which I'm not seeing. Israel would make robust use of targeted killings regardless of whether there was an occupation (see Lebanon, Iran, etc). Longhornsg (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is erratically uninformed to assert any material referring to incidents prior to 1967 are to be excised on sight when articles like this naturally outline the background. (b) you took out a paragraph referenced to Peteet claiming the source did not make the connection there, which, as DMH43 noted, is contrafactual. (c) With that wake-up call you came back saying Peteet, a competent academic, got the history wrong, i.e. you know better than she does about the topic.(d) You come up with that old hare, the 'cherrypicked' quotation. All quotations are 'cherrypicked' when their content is disliked it is the weakest and most common battuta in the editwarrior's armoury. (e) The weird idea you have that Zangwill is anachronistic because apartheid didn't formally exist in institutional terms reflects a failure to read (i) Zangwill and (ii) what secondary sources, including Peteet, say about him, Israel and apartheid. Zangwill likened what was envisioned for the Palestinians under Zionism, i.e., their dispersion from the future territory, to the Boers' trek from Cape Colony. One could further burden the text by adding scholars who draw that precedent and analogy of course. I still need a further cup of tea.Nishidani (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Media coverage as first section?

Does it make sense to have "media coverage" be the first section in this article? It seems awkward. I'd propose to move this section to the bottom, unless someone has a better suggestion. DMH43 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the section seems to be about media coverage of the conflict, rather than specifically about the occupation. The only part that seems directly related to the occupation is:

Bias in coverage of the conflict has been debated from multiple sides, with Peter Beinart criticizing an "Orwellian" usage of euphemisms, and others have decried the use of "sanitized terminology".

Each party has its preferred set of descriptive words. International usage speaks of the West Bank, whereas Israeli usage prefers "Judea and Samaria", evoking the Biblical names for much of the territory, and governs it, excepting East Jerusalem, under the Israeli district name of Judea and Samaria Area; Israeli settlements are called "colonies" or "neighbourhoods" depending on the viewpoint. Violence by Palestinians is regularly labeled terrorism by Israel, whereas Israeli military actions are reported as "retaliation" for Palestinian attacks, and the context for those attacks is often disregarded, lending credence to the idea Israel never initiates violence.

I propose we remove the rest of the text in this section. DMH43 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This is also now done DMH43 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is now done DMH43 (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal status: What's contested by Yoram Dinstein

The "Legal status" section claims that Yoram Dinstein contests two claims:

1. The Geneva Conventions do not apply;
2. The transfer of people into the West Bank is voluntary.

However, the source cited (Galchinsky, 2004) only supports his contesting of the first claim. I've added a Failed verification template. Dotyoyo (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)