Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupied Palestinian Territories: Difference between revisions

An attempt to get around various disputes on Occupation of Palestine , Palestinian Territories pages. As it stands its just a POV dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Any additional information belongs in the aforementioned articles. It should be Deleted or Re-directed. Jayjg 00:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also see Definitions of Palestinian occupation BACbKA 14:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a nice Orwellian title, "Palestinian occupation". What is that supposed to mean? Doctor, lawyer, farmer, fisherman? The issue that is so sensitive that we dare not discuss it in Wikipedia is the "Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory", not "Palestinian occupation". It is an example of the concerted efforts to maintain Zionist political bias in Wikipedia that NPOV discussion of Israel's illegal military occupation of land that is not theirs, in contravention of international law and numerous UN resolutions, can be found nowhere under "Israeli Occupied Territory", "Occupied Territories", "Occupied Palestinian Territories" or "Occupation of Palestine", where it is even written, "Note that the term Palestinian as applied to those people entitled to the Palestinian territories is itself in dispute."! The grossly Zionist POV editors are still disputing the very existence of the Palestinian people let alone the illegal Israeli occupation. Yet, Wikipedia hosts long diatribes about Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. You guys need to wake up!! Wikipedia has become an Israeli textbook on issues of the Mideast because Zionists are systematically pushing their extremist POV down Wikipedians' throats and no one has the balls to stand up to them. Alberuni 17:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Relax (this is only the 1st day of the VfD! if you feel upset about the discussion here, just calm down and return in a couple of days with arguments and with direct answers to directly posed questions, instead of what you insert between your exclamation marks to prove your point). I wasn't trying anything but pointing to yet another small article that Jayjg missed in his list in the original nomination. As for your point w.r.t. the "Palestinian occupation" semantics, I agree; moreover, IMHO that term barely passes the Google test. "Occupation of Palestine" is much more commonly used. (However, I don't see a conspiracy behind the former term. I am afraid that it might be some ugly English translation of a Hebrew or Arabic article that gave birth to this ugly wording, and I would bet the author of such a hypothetical newspaper article would have had much less linguistic sense of English than you to perceive the possibility to interpret it as "occupation by Palestinians"). Yet, you should go to that article and try to rename or merge it, rather than bring yet another discussion here. If you do, drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll be sure to support anything NPOV that you do there. BACbKA 19:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all your notes. I recognize that there are good Wiki editing reasons for deleting or redirecting this page and I'm quite willing to go along with the clear consensus. I do believe very strongly, based on a history of many edits to other articles, that the nominator's position is driven by pro-Israeli bias and not by Wiki editing standards. Alberuni 20:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I've said to you many times before, your actions on Wikipedia should be taken based solely on article content, and not based on your beliefs about the motives or political beliefs or moral failings of other editors. Jayjg 20:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronizing advice. You should follow it too, OK? Alberuni 20:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I recognize that there are good Wiki editing reasons for deleting or redirecting this page and I'm quite willing to go along with the clear consensus. – this proves to me that you are able to see the light of NPOV cooperative editing even on the hot topics that are obviously very close to your heart. As for the nominator's position, you should really consider it irrelevant once you recognize these reasons exist. This way you'll be less stressed and will have more time and energy for productive NPOV editing of contents. BACbKA 20:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, Delete; the existing articles are surprisingly good, this adds nothing. — Bill 01:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zionism, because I'm in a pithy mood. Snowspinner 02:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and build an NPOV page; The term "Occupied Territories" is used generically in the media and by the UN and can be found in textbooks to refer to the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967. When Wikipedia users search for the term Occupied territories, they find it has been neutered and redirected. There is a concerted effort to eliminate reference to the Occupied Territories because the Israeli position is that the phrase "disputed territories" should be used instead of Occupied. [1]. The reasons are political. Israelis want to deny that there is an occupation so that they can deny that resistance to the occupation is legitimate [2] Alberuni 03:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Having read the above, I don't find a reason why you need a separate article given the Occupied territories. I agree that in the modern day world when someone reads "Occupied territories" as a media term, there's an overwhelming chance that it's Israel whose occupation is implied. If I understand correctly your statement on that article being "neutered", you feel that a disambiguation type entry stating that should be placed near the top of the Occupied territories. That's actually a pretty good idea (as long as it is done in an NPOV way, i.e. referring to it in the present-day politics and media context, minimizing the disambiguation entry and pointing down into that article, where a more elaborate description, along with the "Occupied territories"/"disputed territories" term dispute is already given). Once you do it, you'll find yourself that a delete or a redirect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the most logical thing to do, and also will gain satisfaction from improving the quality of the Occupied territories. As it is, your statement can be understood as "having given up on the Occupied territories, why don't we keep this article instead", which is precisely what the nominator was trying to prevent. BACbKA 11:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The nominator has a political agenda that goes far beyond keeping clutter out of Wikipedia. Alberuni 17:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As Improv has noted already, your beef with him and his agenda has nothing to do with the VfD per se. Don't be insulted by the VfD vote being posed by someone you don't like – try to read the others' reasons supporting the nominator. If you feel insulted by the nominator's language, address the epithets you find insulting, maybe you'll even get someone's excuses (if you do it, you might try to edit your own emotional remarks to more calm language and towards being more to the point). Please *answer* the questions above when you can, because, I'm afraid, that your current wording serves your "Keep" point not the very best, frightening people that would otherwise want to support your 'Keep' ideas. BACbKA 19:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to Occupation of Palestine. — Gwalla | Talk 03:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect Delete or redirect. --Viriditas 00:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicate article. "Occupied" is POV. Please don't let VfD turn into a battle over Israel-Palestine history/politics. This goes out to you, Alberuni. --Improv 03:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, let's all just surrender to the implacable Israeli propaganda. What's the harm, after all? Why not just call it "Ziopedia"? Alberuni 04:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's propoganda to say "contested". That word seems quite accurate -- there are parties in both governments that claim control over the territories.. well, actually, we might also say that some of said territories also may be claimed by adjacent nations that lost them during the war. Contested is clearly truthful from all points of view. As for occupied, that's clearly contentious -- it indicates that one party is indeed the rightful owner, and someone else is stomping on them. A position on rightful ownership DOES NOT BELONG in an encyclopedia. We might, for example, imagine Zionist propoganda calling same territories "Foreign-Infested areas of Israel", or something similar. That would be POV too, and unacceptable. As far as I know, I'm not part of Israeli propoganda, and would not take part in such things. Please don't see conspiracies that aren't there. --Improv 04:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please follow Jayjg's antics (and others) inserting a pro-Israeli POV across the Mideast-related pages and tell me there is no concerted effort to bias the presentation of this history. Also, read the links I provided for in-depth explanation of the significance of the semantics to this issue and why it is so important to Zionists that references to the Israeli occupation be censored. They are propagandizing for Israel, not promoting Wikipedia NPOV. Alberuni 04:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You know, Alberuni, you're right, but you're also wrong. I dug through Jayjg's edit history, and I do think that he's been protecting a bit of a pro-Israel bias. It's not as strong as it might be, but it's unfortunate. However, you've been doing some of the same thing, so I can't call either of your hands clean here. Neither bias should be welcome here, and I feel, regardless of your beef with Jayjg, that this article should be deleted. It would be great if we could find a way to help you two agree on this contentious topic. Hopefully that can be done more easily than dealing with the unfortunately also contentious topic of the history/doings in that part of the world itself. --Improv 05:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Pontius Pilate.Alberuni 05:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to occupation of Palestine. -Sean Curtin 04:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT Palestinian territories. Discuss the occupation there. —No-One Jones ^(m) 04:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the VfD nomination annotation completely, and I doubt the sincerity in creating an NPOV encyclopaedia of anyone trying to work on this article while the other two exist. To Alberuni: before going and labeling others (Jayjg and those who vote delete) and their actions and trying to make the VfD nominator guilty by association, if you really want to make a point try explaining why this article should exist in addition to both Occupation of Palestine and Palestinian Territories existing. If this were the 1st article on the topic, you would have enjoyed much stronger support, although even then the title is POV (just hold your breath and imagine somebody else starting a new article now, "Disputed Territories under Israeli control" – wouldn't you try to VfD it ASAP? Mind you, I'd support that VfD as well.) BACbKA 06:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • To prevent the vote-counting dispute that happened on the Occupation of Palestine VfD tally, I explicitly state that one can count my vote as either Delete or Redirect. BACbKA 07:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflictPalestinian territories. Of course there will be another POV fork next week. Gazpacho 04:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This information is stated many times over in other articles and in the media. Evolver of Borg 18:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect anywhere, or delete. The more redirects we make to that, the fewer parallel/pov articles can be made. —siroχo 08:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect. How long is this POV forking phenomenon going to continue for?!? Ambi 08:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • I am very dissatisfied as well. I believe that the fray of those younger articles written by those who proved unable to reach a consensus using the regular Wikipedia means – either because of a lack of patience or because of a lack of arguments to work towards an NPOV – should really belong in one's sandbox and then suggested for inclusion into the corresponding main articles, maybe as a standalone more-POV-ish sections, counterbalanced by the other side's POV-ish sections.

It's not for lack of patience. It's because every effort to add balance to Misdeast articles is thwarted by a gang of stubborn propagandists who revert anything that doesn't fit their pro-Israeli perspective. Alberuni 17:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then what makes you think your new article would be any different? I am disturbed too, when I see User:Uriyan people on Wikipedia who admit that the entire reason they're there is to "present the Israeli perspective", or "present the Arab perspective", or similar, because when they take that tack, they almost never understand NPOV. People care so deeply about these issues (and I should know -- I have lots of Jewish friends, and was dating one for a few years) that it is very difficult for even very bright people to *see* the other side. I can see that you and Jayjg both seem, to varying degrees, to be unable to see the other side, nor accept POV. Please try harder, and listen to what people are telling you -- there are people on here who put effort into being very fair, and they can help you both in battling people who arn't, and in helping you learn to be so. --Improv 19:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are right. I know that my efforts won't make any difference on Wikipedia's pro-Israeli bias because the pro-Israeli perspective is well-entrenched and dominates this media outlet, just like most others in the US. I am only one person trying to bring a few NPOV edits to a contentious area controlled by a large group of heavily biased partisans. I have no chance of making a dent in the worldview they are promoting full time. I believe that this one-sided domination of the issue and lack of access to objective information about the Mideast in almost all US media contributes to Americans remaining largely uninformed and misinformed about Mideast issues - and this is why people bewilderingly asked, "Why do they hate us?" when the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated. Thanks to the open source records here on Wikipedia, we can actually trace the edits and watch this insidious process of censorship and information manipulation as it occurs. I enjoy writing Wiki articles in general and I am quite capable of making NPOV edits to Mideast articles despite my strong convictions. Even Jayjg has admitted this (although he automatically reverts them anyway about 90% of the time). I understand Mideast history and the current controversies from all sides. I am not trying to push a simplistic one-sided POV but I also dislike seeing injustice and unfairness and I think Wikipedia's pages about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very biased and unfair. Alberuni 20:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni is capable of making NPOV edits, but (on articles related to Israel) more often than not chooses not to do so. And I see both sides of the conflict; however, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for presenting just one side. Jayjg 20:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You should probably be giving concrete examples, given the heated state of the matters here. And for both of you, given the fact that you two can't (yet) work together without fighting, I doubt that you really see all the sides of the conflict :-) OTOH, I doubt that a lot of people do (I'm sure a lot of people think they do...) BACbKA 22:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your disagreement with the neutrality of my edits is in the vast majority of cases due to your extreme pro-Zionist POV, not due to any lack of objectivity in my edits. It's your POV that makes you think neutral edits are unacceptable. Just look at the history of Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights for example. You base your edits on your own opinions while mocking the facts. It's reprehensible. Alberuni 20:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest to you two to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution when I noticed it mentioned on the talk page of the Al-Mezan article already. Alberuni, you still seem to be a bit nervous when talking to Jayjg, and you keep using much more unnecessary (IMHO) labeling epithets and other rhetoric instead of proving your case. To have you two working together, you both have to keep it down. Don't feel insulted by Jayjg's tracing your other edits – while I haven't yet read your full edit history, judging by just what you've said around this article and the ones immediately linked in from here, it seems you are frustrated with what you perceive as a pro-Israeli WP bias, but this seems to result in extremely POV and sometimes insulting remarks (to my personal perception, and I don't feel any animousity towards anybody who keeps contributing and doesn't just troll). It is no surprise that, having seen such remarks, other editors that want to achieve NPOV, will re-trace your history of edits (and Jayjg's as well, and mine, and whoever else's). Try not to take it as if it were in the real world, where a detective is spying on every part of your private life – WP is inherently fully open, there is no private life here, and you don't own anything but the "deltas" on the history lists, as you certainly understand. Instead of taking somebody tracing your edits personally, try to reform – for a good start, how about going over this page and replacing your own POV remarks with NPOV ones, and maybe even crossing out or removing some of the things you said here? You have just addressed the open source nature of the Wiki, having others tracing your edits is part of the game you have to accept to play. And if you reformulate stronger expressions, remove them, or even ask someone's pardon. Don't start right with the ones you had addressed to Jayjg, try working on a couple of others. This is just a suggestion – if I were you, I'd feel much better repairing the damage done by the strong emotions and unjust (in many editors' eyes) labels stuck; the reason is that in real life I have gotten into similar situations that you seem to have gotten yourself into here, and repairing the damage was always the key to the cure. If right now you feel you can't do it w/o getting angry or stressed, just relax and get to a completely different topic (my original "Relax" advice at the top of the talk still applies – you've got several more days to think things over...) If you feel the topic is too hot for you, well, you've said what you've said here and you are ready to accept the vote outcome, so maybe just ignore the article until the vote is over, and work on the other issues meanwhile... Good luck – I'm off to get some sleep... BACbKA 22:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • As for your question proper (How long...), it seems to me that one limiting factor would be to have the ones who oppose it to vote consistently with each other. Remember when you were bashed for interpreting the VfD outcome on Occupation of Palestine as a redirect (BTW, even that my vote was "Redirect and protect" there, I believe that you making a good admin decision there, and, at least in interpreting my vote, you were 100% correct)? Unless the voters with the anti-POV-fork feelings unite and cast an accomodating vote each (such as "redirect to whatever other article on the topic or delete"), in the end we'll have trouble reaching formal consensus again, and the fork will remain (to the delight of the forking minority! (because technically they might not be in a significant minority if you consider all the various options to redirect as a separate vote) May I thus suggest to expand your vote to "Delete or Redirect"? BACbKA 16:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect Delete or Redirect — For the sake of Wikipedia as a whole, NPOV needs to be maintained even for difficult issues, if necessary with a drastic reduction in size. Susvolans 12:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV needs to be maintained? Where can I find it? Alberuni 17:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • What are you proposing to merge? and what to reduce in size? the article right now is looking like a stub... May I suggest changing your vote to "Delete or Redirect"? BACbKA 13:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Accepted. Susvolans 15:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the understanding! BACbKA 16:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect JFW | T@lk 17:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Palestinian Territories, which precisely contains the phrase occupied Palestinian territories written in boldface in its second paragraph. --French Tourist 20:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to either Palestinian territories or Occupation of Palestine as this "article" is just a repetitious paragraph created by User:Alberuni seeking to score ideological points (see his diatribe/s above) without adding anything new. IZAK 04:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about losing the Wikipedia ideological battle Yitzhak. Your hasbara campaign is going well. No one is the wiser.Alberuni 05:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, the 2nd choice is Redirect. Side notes: please keep personal attacks and hate-speech out of WP. BTW, "Hasbara" and "Zionism" are not cusswords and there is nothing wrong with being pro-Israel and at the same time wishing peace and prosperity to the Palestinians. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At least you are honest about your pro-Israel Wikipedia editing. That's refreshing. And our communication on the Jewish refugees Talk page was civil, wasn't it? You accepted my minor NPOV edits in an open-minded manner despite the very deep-seated pro-Israel POV throughout your subject matter. So if there is nothing wrong with being a Zionist propagandist, then why is pointing out pro-Isreali bias considered hate speech? Regarding your kind thoughts for the surviving Palestinians in diaspora and, I'm sure also those who have been killed (some today!) to make living space for the more important refugees, the circle closes as I'm reminded of similar cheery advice from a bygone era; "werk macht frei". Alberuni 06:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)