Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank

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)

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)

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)

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 renaming of sections

Rename “state of assymmetric war” to “methods of enforcing and resisting the occupation”

Rename “wider implications” to “exporting methods of enforcing the occupation” and possibly adding a discussion on the occupation setting a precedant in international law. DMH43 (talk) 19:43, 7 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)