I think it is pretty lame to see multiple discussions opened on the same premise on separate articles. This leads to edit warring and uneven consensus (some are changed and some are not). It also appears underhanded since it looks like pushing a POV and it looks like editors are trying to sneak things in whenever possible. I hope that isn't the scenario but I am surprised that this has not come up at AE. Please stop ignoring reasoning on one talk page to insert a particular edit on another when it is the exact same thing.
So on to the problem that is fixable: The use of the Israel map vs the Palestinian Territories map in the infoboxes of certain sites (and who knows where else since it has happened on multiple articles) is a problem. Two examples: Temple Mount and Western Wall. I do not think there is any dispute that it is in "Jerusalem" but who the city (or a section) of the city belongs to is in dispute. There are legal issues, reality issues, control issues, and so on. Everyone here knows it is complex and has caused all sorts of headaches. The infobox cannot address these issues since it is supposed to be a quick and easy summary. I propose one of the following solutions since using either map is not acceptable for various reasons by different parites (both of which have merits).
No map at all.
We do not need a map in the infobox. It is not essential to the readers understanding of the subject. Keep in mind that the subject is not the politics but the the site. Politics are part of the subject but not the only aspect.
Explaining why one map is used over the other would not be appropriate and that is too much for an infobox.
The principle of WP:MOSICON applies here. This is not surprising since flags have also been bickered over in the infobox. "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." The soapbox part of the policy linked is directly related. We do not need to emphasize the purported nationality of a site.
This is a map of Jerusalem. If a map is needed this fulfills that purpose.
Note that neither of these suggestions supports or even alludes to supporting any claim. The body can discuss the issues but either map is too POV and confusing.Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A map is essential as it shows the reader where it is located. You keep on ignoring the arguments that the IC view that EJ is in the PT. This is not "politics" or a "dispute", its the reality that the IC views it as part of the PT. You have not provided a reason to not use the map it is internationally recognized as part of.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe this debate has even got this far. This is getting ridiculous. May I remind everyone, Cptnono appears to be the only one who is not interested in the discussion process at all. Which is evident by this edit he made, well aware of the discussion and the lack concensus that had yet to been reached. He proposed his idea quite a while back (IE - no maps at all). I believe I was the only one who flat out rejected it, along with SD, the other editors taking place in the discussion (most of them in favor of keeping Israel on the map) tacitly rejected it.
What is so abbreviating about this entire debate is the fact that Cptnono seems to want to have it "his way or the highway" per say. These maps have been attached to this article for a while now, why wasn't he championing to have the Israel map taken down when it was up? Why was it only when opposition was raised -- opposition with hard, factual, sources -- was he suggesting that we do no map at all. It is completely disingenuous and quite honestly fake concern for the whole masquerade of wanting to compromise.
The fact is, whether you like it or not, there is an abundance of overwhelming world view sources that myself, ans Supreme Deliciousness have provided explicitly slapping us in the face with the obvious fact, that the Old City of Jerusalem is in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Cptnono doesn't care about that, he cares about pushing his ideas fourth and will rarely even try to debate the hard facts.
I guess there is little chance to constructive discussion, when there is an atmosphere of distrust and lack of assuming other editors good faith. However when there is no clear consensus on the article talk page, broader audience is required to get a community feedback and balanced decision. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is based on the arguments, I have provided worldview source saying its part of the PT, neither Cptnono or any one else has provided a worldview source saying its not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to express any opinion on the dispute in hand, I just wanted to note that discussion is needed, despite the fact that we're talking about relatively minor issues as mentioned articles go. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
@AU, we did it for the settlements. It was some bad times but it stopped the edit warring and created an even consensus.
@SD, you repeated the same argument from previous discussions so I will again repeat that "worldview" is disputed enough that it isn't FRINGE so there is some concern. Furthermore, a map is not "essential". It would be nice but if it over emphisizes a political debate than it is more problematic than benefitial. How good is that map? Nothing else is labeled so it is lines with certain parts highlighted. There is no compass. The reader cannot tell what it really is. It does not expand out to a world view so it is nothing but lines. The reader does not benefit from the map as much as it detracts from the sole purpose of an infobox. But if you really want a map then create one based on Jerusalem without political emphasis. Maybe the districts with the site having a marker. And keep in mind that many tertiary sources do not distinguish fully between Israel and the occupied territories making it even more confusing. Wikipedia is not here to push knowledge of a POV but explain the knowledge. We are supposed to reflect the World Almanac and others to a certain extent and adding these maps is unheard of.
@asad. Really? At least SD tried to offer a reason. Your purely ad hominem argument is even countered since the time I removed a map it was a map of Israel. Pay closer attention.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by ""worldview" is disputed enough that it isn't FRINGE" ? A map is beneficial and it doesn't over emphasize a political debate. It shows the accurate location of where it is located in accordance with the IC view, so the reader will see that its in the PT, that's exactly what an infobox map is supposed to do. Why would we have a map of only Jerusalem without showing that its located in the PT? That doesn't show the reader that its located in the PT, so that doesn't make any sense. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I reverted it back to the map of ISRAEL, not Palestine. Please don't make accusations about being ad hominem. You seem to want ignore my point, that you ignored the discussions and took it upon yourself to edit the article. -asad (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The only source we have been presented with supporting the argument that EJ is part of the Palestinian Territories is from the following line “OPT, including EJ”. That is insufficient. All it provides is an insinuation, not a real statement on the status of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the following sources point clearly to the fact that the whole of the city is deemed by the IC to have the status of a CS. Neither Israel or Palestinians are recognised as sovereign in the city:
”The Corpus Separatum solution still applies to both east and west Jerusalem” (UN 1979)p. 74. A UN committee issued a paper in 1979 which mentioned that the legal status of Jerusalem was that of the Corpus Separatum.[1]
”In March 1999, … saying that “The EU reaffirms its known position concerning the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum”. 76.p. 33
In 2000, Saeb Erekat stated “The American position has always been corpus separatum.” [2]
This is all documented in Positions on Jerusalem. Any attempt to show the PT map for sites in EJ is wrong. A map of Israel, whose de-facto administration of the whole city is a fact, and whose control is partly recognised in WJ, is much more appropriate. The US is also of the view that ”united Jerusalem” is the capital of Israel. [3]. Chesdovi (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How is that all your sources are from books with poor citations that I can't even find? Instead of providing books that state something and source it, please provide the SOURCE. You mentioned the EU though, how about something a bit more recent than 1979? -asad (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
After much thought on the matter, I agree with the Captain. Jerusalem is a Wikipedia nightmare: even it's borders are difficult to define with in policy (which is moderately insane but you have the Israeli municipal borders, the CS borders, the 48-67 borders, all legitimate or illegitimate, depending). I've put this off because it's a huge headache but it's not getting any better as every possible venue and angle for the dispute is or has been explored. We need to reach some kind of consensus on how describe Jerusalem and it's locales per policy. I'm not even sure if that's possible, but it's something worth attempting as these fires spread. Sol (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Infoboxes are serious business, especially maps. Same kind of argument is being conducted also at Mount Hermon. The issue there is I/S and not strictly I/P, though I guess the root cause is the same. The edit warring there by partisan parties which try to force their "correct" map, while waiting for 24 hour and 1 min to revert to be "inline" with 1RR/24hours limitation, appears silly to me personally. It would be nice to stop the edit warring there and to create an even consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Not same kind of argument, two different disputes. Some claim worldview is that Jerusalem does not belong to anyone, while no one claims that is the case with the GH. Problems over there are an IP that repeatedly ads a map of a country it is not located in without explaining his edits, and another user who removes a map of a country it is located in claiming "compromise", while not explaining what that is supposed to be a "compromise" for. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Far too much wiki-blood is shed over these issues. The alternative is to have arb-com take on the issue, a la "Judea and Samaria". Either works for me, as long as something gets worked out. Sol (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
So does anyone want to actually get involved or should we just start edit warring? Consensus is not consistent across the topic so no one will be happy but a little bit of screwing around won't hurt my feelings. This isn't "Judea and Samaria", some bickering over legality, or anything else. How should we handle these maps. We can ignore it for a month until SD editors and IPS starts edit warring and fights over it or we can get it done now with a simple conversation. Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
How about a reference article called Maps of Jerusalem that explains what the most popular maps mean (esp. ones used on wikipedia) and centralizes debate on the talkl page. Then at least people will have an idea which map is more appropriate for which article and then if someone wants to change someone elses map they'll have a body of opinion to back up what they say, one way or the other. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
@Cptnono, How do you intend to create an environment conducive to forming consensus when you attempt out SD for "edit-warring" in what is suppose to be a neutral venue? Presenting that here, without the context of the situation (SD editing against a sock/troll IP who does not participate in discussion), is very slanderous. I, for one, have no interest in working with you on your proposal so long as you have adopted such an attitude. -asad (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not attempt to out anything. There was edit warring and there will be more from IPs and others probably if we do not fix it. It is an easy fix. I did strike out SD and clarify to be a little more polite though. Care to address the map issue? Cptnono (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
@User:Carolmooredc that could be something to look into but this should work fine as a centralized discussion. I would prefer not to go to individula talk pages and make separate arguments but if this conversation does not work out I will go that route. THought this would be more efficient and open.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see [4] for the discussion on whether categories concerning Islamic antisemitism et al. are appropriate. I notice that there have been some calls to rally the troops in selected Wikpedia space, so some neutralish eyes might be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The Advocacy/Noticeboard was deleted. Some interesting comments on the deletion page, including mine and others' about need to deal with gangs of organized editors on behavioral grounds. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Like a lot of people I was confused and thought it was a wikileak. Hmmm. It seems to me someone reported Julian Assange said he had a bunch of stuff that other publications wouldn't look at. (Should have saved that article; not sure if did.) Maybe he released it as a non-wikileak to avoid retaliation on other leaks, or whatever. Or maybe he just hasn't gotten it together to leak yet. Too much info, too little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Roughly 2 and ½ months ago, a supposed “consensus” was reached concerning language to be employed in the lede and body texts of articles dealing with Israeli communities or settlements in disputed lands captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The closing admin, LessHeard VanU stated that the sentence, "The international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this," has consensus for inclusion in the body text with a more concise variant in the lede. The inclusion of this contentious edit was made over the objections or guarded reservations of at least 9 editors including myself, Accipio Mitis Frux, Cptnono, Shuki, Mbz1, Brewcrewer, Jaakobou, No More Mr Nice Guy, Wikifan12345. But my concern is not with numbers but rather accuracy.
The current version makes it seem as though the entire international community views settlements as illegal and that Israel is the lone holdout. In fact, the world’s only true superpower, the United States, has adopted a position that is more in line with Israel’s. On Feb 2, 1981 President Ronald Reagan made the following statement regarding Israel’s settlements, “As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there—I disagreed when, the previous Administration refereed to them as illegal, they’re not illegal. Not under the U.N. resolution that leaves the West Bank open to all people—Arab and Israeli alike, Christian alike." Ronald Reagan, 2 Feb 1981[10]
Reagan’s position was reinforced by W. Bush who stated, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.” W. Bush, 14 Apr 2004[11]
Moreover, the current version is misleading because it does not take into account the views of notable Western scholars who have voiced legal opinions asserting that settlements are not illegal under international law. Among these are Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice[12]Eugene V. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School and former US Assistant Secretary of State[13] David M. Phillips, professor at Northeastern University School of Law and Fulbright Scholar[14] Nicholas Rostow,
university counsel and vice chancellor for legal affairs of the State University of New York[15] Professor Julius Stone, international lawyer and author of 27 books on the subject[16] and Ambassador Morris Berthold Abram, US staff member at the Nuremberg Trials and drafter of the Fourth Geneva Convention[17]
No one seriously doubts the ability of the Arab and Muslim bloc as well as their Third World allies to command a majority in the UN. That is precisely why a brief mention of scholarly views is necessary as their views focus exclusively on the legal merits and not petro dollars.
Accordingly and for the reasons noted above, I wish to revisit this issue with the goal of substituting the current “consensus” version with the following sentence, “Many within the international community regard Israeli settlements illegal under international law but the United States and Israel dispute this and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.” This version is more accurate and does not deviate substantially from the current version. I look forward to hearing from all concerned.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You have misunderstood what consensus means. Consensus is not the number of votes. This was also mentioned by the reviewing admin. It doesn't matter if 9 editors "object" to a sentence without bringing any valid dialogue against it. The sentence that has consensus is factually correct following the sources, while the sentence you suggest is factually incorrect. For example, you claim that Reagan's believe was the believe of the United States, and you also claim that the position was reinforced by GWB. Your claims are inaccurate as can be seen here: [18] "Despite the passage of time, the legal opinion, issued during the Carter administration, has never been revoked or revised. President Ronald Reagan said he disagreed with it -- he called the settlements "not illegal" -- but his State Department did not seek to issue a new opinion.", it was Reagans personal opinion, not the United States, and the official US policy has "never been revoked or revised". Even if the US believe was that they aren't illegal (which it isn't) but even if it was, the US is one country, its opinion does not deserve separate mentioning in all settlement articles regarding their illegality.
Furthermore, you also claim that "it does not take into account the views of notable Western scholars who have voiced legal opinions asserting that settlements are not illegal under international law.", then you have found a handful of people claiming they are legal, and you want to change the sentence to say that: "legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.", based on six people, when there are probably hundreds of thousands of legal scholars. You have not provided any source that supports your claim that: "legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.". And btw, although this doesn't really matter, Julius Stone has been criticized: "Many of Stone’s positions on critical international legal issues in the Israel/Palestine conflict stepped outside even generous zones of plausible or reasonable interpretations of the law, even on the law as it then often ambiguously stood, and certainly in hindsight. His casting the Jewish people as the only victims who mattered in that dispute fatally undermines the prospects for a just and equitable application, or creative adaptation, of international law to the Israel/Palestine dispute." [19].--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I also thought that the previous discussion was sort of haphazardly without proper input from the regular editors. The closure was somewhat confusing and not necessarily entirely consistent with the real consensus. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the US position: Why are you quoting a 30 year old soundbite from Reagan when you have 2009 - 2011 policy statements from the US?
Secretary Clinton: "Thank you, and thank you for asking. First, I want to start by saying our policy on settlements has not changed. And I want to say it again, our policy on settlement activity has not changed. We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity."
US State Dept.: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements, and we will continue to express that position,"
2011 US speech to the UNSC:"Mr. President, U.S. policy on settlements has not changed and will not change. We believe that continued settlement expansion is corrosive—not only to peace efforts and the two-state solution—but to Israel’s future itself. The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties, along with the other permanent-status issues—but, like every U.S. administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."
Obviously the US is choosing its words with diplomatic care, but I find it a bit of a stretch to say that it "has adopted a position that is more in line with Israel’s". You also seem to be ignoring the EU Court of Justice and the ICJ in your analysis. I am not seeing evidence of this "sharp divide" - the notion that the settlements in the Israeli Occupied Territories are not illegal appears to continue constituting a fringe view. un☯mi14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the scholars you mention:
Stephen M. Schwebel seems to have written exactly one piece about this that I could find, and it was in 1970.
Julius Stone has had his judgement with regard to Israeli matters questioned in several published analysis:
"Given the below explored discrepancy in factual analysis reflected in Stone’s work, the only other conclusion one may reach points to the intentional misrepresentation of the underlying factual realties of the Middle East upon which Stone applied the relevant legal principles of international law. Such a conclusion must, however, be rejected for it accords not with the integrity Julius Stone personified. The conclusion offered herein is that Julius Stone, like the judges he himself studied, perhaps unknowingly imbued his analysis with personal predilections when the process of reasoning presented a ‘leeway of choice’."
"Many of Stone’s positions on critical international legal issues in the Israel/Palestine conflict stepped outside even generous zones of plausible or reasonable interpretations of the law, even on the law as it then often ambiguously stood, and certainly in hindsight."
Honestly I don't think there is more of a case for stating that than there is for stating that scientists are "sharply divided" over anthropogenic global warming. From the body of legal opinion as embodied by the ICJ and ECJ it seems clear that there is a consensus regarding the relative legality, and there are scholars with fringe views, it would be counter to WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE and of course WP:NPOV to state otherwise. I have not found a single contemporary article published in a peer reviewed legal journal that suggests otherwise, perhaps you could restate your sources? un☯mi02:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Sean, I know what the BBC says and I am showing you that the Reagan Administration stated unequivocally that “settlements are not illegal” and no US administration since has reversed the Reagan Administration’s position. On the Contrary, it was reinforced by W. Bush as noted above. [20] Now the US may object to expansion of settlements on policy grounds calling them “unhelpful,” but that’s a far stretch from “illegal under international law.” Aside from the Carter Administartion, (whose policy was reversed) not one US administration, not Reagan, not H.W. Bush, not Clinton, not W. Bush and not Obama has referred to them as “illegal under international law,” and I challenge any editor to provide a reliable source that expresses the contrary. You won’t be able to because it does not exist. Therefore, I reiterate that the version that I propose is more accurate and does not deviate substantially from the current format and it should accordingly be used in lieu of the inaccurate and misleading current format.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The U.S.'s position doesn't presently "dispute" the illegality, it sidesteps the issue. Reagan's position is interesting as an historical aside but representing it as U.S. foreign policy 30 years later would be bizarre, like using his quote "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." as current U.S. environmental policy, or that the insurgent forces of Afghanistan are still “the moral equivalents of America's Founding Fathers”. No one has refuted these statements but developments make it pretty clear where things stand.
Israel's position is also more complicated. I'm fine with relying on the various quotes from the FM/etc. that they think the settlements are legal under international law, but the actual situation in Israeli courts is vague. The Supreme Court has never (as I recall) ruled the settlements legal under the Geneva Conventions, they've simply declared that the Geneva Conventions cannot be applied in the occupied territories, the covenant (along with the UN charter and various UNSC resolutions) that the international community bases their determination of the settlements' illegality upon. The settlements are legal under the Hague Conventions, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, but only if they meet very specific requirements, the most unusual that the settlements are not permanent. Sol (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sol you have deliberately misrepresented my position which only confirms that yours is weak so you have to resort to distortion. Reagan's position was more forcefully set forth by W. Bush as noted above (for the umpteenth time) and remains current US policy. Moreover, you still haven't provided any source that states that the US regards the settlements as "illegal under international law," whereas I provided reliable sources that say the opposite. You also still haven't offered any explanation why the phrase, "and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," should not be included as it is verifiably sourced and does not prejudice any other statement within the subject sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Easy there, tiger. I'm pointing out the problem with relying on a ~30 year old statement that doesn't reflect current US policy as stated by Clinton above. The US currently doesn't weigh in on legality. Bush's statement neither mentions legality nor is it limited to the population centers outside of the '67 armistice lines, the places commonly referred to as the settlements. As Bush correctly noted, no one thinks returning to the '49 borders is on the table. He's right.
As to the mentioned phrase, we also have sources that say things like " [the settlements] have been considered illegal by the international community and the majority of legal scholars" which may be more accurate but has the definite advantage of a source. Sol (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," is fine by me. I would remove "United States" since it is systematic bias. "Most countries consider" would be cool instead of making it appear as a blanket condemnation as opposed to a majority condemnation.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed on International law and Israeli settlements As I've mentioned and documented there, secondary sources discussing the issue affirm that the Carter era opinion "'has neither been revoked or revised,'[note 50] and remains the policy of the United States according to Hansel [the State Department legal expert who authored the opinion], The Washington Post, and the Rand Corporation's Palestinian State Study Project.[51]" Obama and his administration officials' statements about "legitimacy" tend to confirm this position.
The GWBush administration quotes do not seem to address the legality of the settlements directly, and seem consistent with the Washington Post-reported policy of not addressing the issue publicly.
Unless and until overwhelming secondary sources support a pro-legality US position, I think the highly placed RS cited on the page have to carry the day.--Carwil (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The meta-statement "and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue," is not verifiably sourced so it can't possibly be fine with anyone. Sean.hoyland - talk05:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The issue of boundaries (or borders) being an important part of the question of "what is a settlement?" I'd like to add the scholar Yehuda Blum, an Israeli scholar of international law, to the list of legal scholars 'divided on the issue', in consideration of his 1971 work "Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace," (with an intro by Julius Stone). While not all scholars are divided on it, it is evident that they are. (btw, the article Blum has a note attacked to be reviewed so please to look at it and review as appropriate.)
What is illegal and what is not depends on the final status of negotiations between the parties. This is a legal question, but also a political question. The Palestine Papers demonstrate that there were talks going on over borders. If it eventually happens that it could be possible to swap land here and there, as was apparently in discussion at talks in the (very recent) past, and borders have been known to change, how can we prejudge what the borders will eventually be and what will later be defined as Israel and Palestine? The Palestine papers demonstrate that the border settlements' status (legal or not) is still very much in flux.
In the spirit of true Israel-Palestine collaboration, I concur with Cptnono's comment "Most countries consider" would be cool instead of making it appear as a blanket condemnation as opposed to a majority condemnation." There is more to a country than its presidental statements, as Egypt is making abundantly clear these days. Legality and illegality can change in 5 minutes, depending on who's in charge. What is legal in one situation may not be legal in another. There has been no Nuremberg and no guilty judgment as yet. I think "most" covers it nicely, and in the interest of collegiality I urge this newer version be adoted. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the more inclusive reflection of opinions is better than one that could be seen as POV censoring -- I found this to be a fascinating read, and the divergence of opinion reflected here should clearly be reflected in the wording. Accurately reflected, but reflected ne'ertheless. The "its' illegal" approach is a non-starter over-simplification; the issue is important enough that we should be accurate here, even if it requires a few more words.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe that comprise wording suggested by Jiujitsuguy represent the real situation with the issue, and should be used in the articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The current consensus text is a good summary of what the sources say. The proposed text from Jiujitsuguy which includes the phrase "but the United States [disputes that the settlements are illegal] ..." is not an accurate reflection of what sources say. --Noleander (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, "current consensus text" has questionable consensus. Personally, I do not hate it but do believe it can be improved. There was some filibustering in the last conversation and we should not just assume it had widespread consensus since it is clear that it did not. In the spirit of keeping things smooth, I would rather have a discussion on how to build on that wording instead of removing it completely based on the closing being struck down as improper (even though that is an option). Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What are you basing your claim on that it has "questionable consensus" ? As the reviewing admin said: "consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The current consensus emerged from administrator intervention in a several-month-long conversation. I and others worked to provide space for improving the text. And Jiujitsuguy has offered something he consideres an improvement. Leaving aside some problematic statements about presumed bribery, and the implication that only Western scholars understand international law correctly, we have this text to consider:
Many within the international community regard Israeli settlements illegal under international law but the United States and Israel dispute this and legal scholars are sharply divided on the issue.
Problems: (1) we have specific sources stating that the international community (countries plus relevant international institutions) regard settlements as illegal. Many does not improve understanding or better describe the situation. (2) As Sean has stated, the US does not dispute this; even disallowing the sources we've provided that say the contrary, the US is "sidestepping" rather than disputing since at least the GHWBush administration. (3) I suspect including dissenting legal scholars here is undue weight for them (indeed, including scholars at all may be undue weight compared to the institutions involved, which presumably asked their own lawyers), best addressed (as it is) on the settlement legality page. If we want to address scholars, we should find reliable descriptions of the relative weight of their split. (3a) 'Sharply divided' is a statement about the depth of disagreement, when what would be relevant is the relative weight of opinion.--Carwil (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
We also have Israeli sources which say that the settlements breach international law. eg: Ynetnews.com - Alon Liel - Goldstone won’t help us, 4 April 2011: Israel’s record includes blatant, ongoing violations of international law since 1967, especially in respect to the transfer of population to occupation land in Judea and Samaria. On this matter, there is no argument among the international community. We also cannot expect any article by a leading international jurist who will speak out in our defense. Should Israel fail to secure an agreement with the Palestinians by September 2011, these violations will be haunting us as early as this year. (Alon Liel served as the Israeli Foreign Ministry Director General in the years 2000-2001) ← ZScarpia03:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
One more source for good measure: The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, A Political, Social, and Military History; edited by Spencer C Tucker; 2008 -- United Nations, Role of; pp.1026ff: On March 22, 1979, the Security Council and General Assembly determined in Resolution 446 that Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas captured since 1967 were against the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, had no legal basis, and created a great obstacle to a comprehensive peace in the area. The resolution also created a commission composed of Bolivia, Portugal, and Zambia tasked with investigating these settlements. The commission submitted reports in July 1979, December 1979, and November 1980 affirming that the settlement policy constituted a serious impediment to the establishment of a comprehensive peace agreement. It was after the first two reports that Israel began the process of making Jerusalem its capital. Security Council Resolution 476 (June 1980) called on Israel to follow all previous UN resolutions on the status of Jerusalem and was followed by Resolution 478 (August 1980) urging all UN member states not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem. The assertion of Resolution 446 that Israeli settlements in these areas contravened the Geneva Convention was reaffirmed in December 1980 and in subsequent years. ← ZScarpia04:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Bias Categories and BLPs
FYI, per Recent Categories for discussion, individuals and organizations should no longer be added to the various "bias" categories (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), including most relevantly, here, Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Arabism. I don't know if anybody will be running a bot through such lists to remove BLPs and organizations or if it will happen haphazardly as people feel motivated. But if there's any person/group you feel particularly should not be in such a category, especially as related to I-P issue, feel free to delete them from that category. (Or any other bias categories.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, I have opened a SPI here.
I noticed 2 accounts started adding a number of links to the JCPA think tank / advocacy group today, should someone notice more accounts acting in this manner please add them to the SPI investigation.
More broadly, what should be done with the external links added? un☯mi13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In the maps that was created by User:Ynhockey there are very obvious fallacies that I think need to be corrected. The issue is coming to a consensus on how to go about it.
East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, territories that are internationally recognized to be occupied by Israel, bear no difference from that of Israel Proper.
The Gaza Strip is a shade of color that is different from that of the West Bank, which may draw a reader to a conclusion that there might perhaps being a different legal interpretation to its sovereignty than that of the West Bank.
The red line is interpreted to be a Border of Israel; therefore it should not be drawn around the Gaza Strip (the Gaza Strip should bear the same sort of border as the West Bank and Golan Heights) and the Golan Heights.
(Note: These are general comments that do not necessarily apply to all the maps)
Some of the Relevant Maps
Not all of the files have widespread usage, but some of them do. Therefore I think it is an issue that should be discussed and I am interested to see what others have to say. -asad (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the maps. The maps showing outlines of administrative districts contain no text, so there is no simple way to note nuances here, but it's not important because the maps show which territory is under which administrative district, without bias to that territory's political status. It is important for NPOV to note that not all territories in these maps are internationally recognized as part of Israel, and this is duly noted in every article they are used.
The other set of maps, that include text, do clearly label the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as separate entities, with boundaries that are specific to them. With regards to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, their status is indeed different; the entire Gaza Strip is recognized by Israel as a separate entity, while the West Bank is subject to final status negotiations. The internationally-recognized boundaries of the Oslo Accords (areas A, B and C) would be counter-productive to show on these maps, although one of my maps (the one of the separation barrier) does show them.
The maps shows the international border in the wrong place, so that West bank and Golan Heights are shown as part of Israel. In several of the maps, this is not only to show Israeli administrative divisions (which even then the OTs should be striped and the international border in the right place), but location maps for places in Israel and the OTs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The location maps clearly show the Golan Heights and West Bank as distinct entities. Please have another look. —Ynhockey(Talk)23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The location maps show the same color for the border with Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt as it does with the ceasefire line with Syria, the same color is also not around the Westbank, this means that your maps are presenting them as part of Israel. At the same time the lines around the WB and western GH are very weak and the color difference between the OTs and Israel is very little also. This is not clear "distinct entities". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be willing to take that up as a long-term project. However, other than being non-standard, I don't see an immediate problem with the maps. Everything SD mentioned as perceived problems are present in the standard version as well, and I doubt that most Wikipedia readers (as opposed to editors) are aware of the standard version's legend. —Ynhockey(Talk)07:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hard to work collaboratively when you say "better map" (it introduce ambiguity that the other map did not have and the only really better map that does not show POV would be one with the Golan in highlight and grey stripes). SDs versions of maps are poor since they only show one POV (what people want and even what the intl community gets behind) but disregards reality (how it is, how it has been, and how it will continue to be administrative wise). SD can propose new maps but until he is willing to acknowledge that the other POV needs to be addressed the it is a waste of time. So lets do it. Show me a map that does not spit in the face of every other tertiary source and I will be on board with making it happen here. Find me an atlas or 5 that do not show it as Israel or as disputed with dashed lines. SDs proposals and edits go against reality. It hurts but it is the way it is. Wikipedia is not here to take sides.Cptnono (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion shows the international view (according to wiki policy npov, thats what we should follow) unlike now when it shows the view of one country, and disregards the IC view. My suggestion does not disregard reality, the purpose of the maps are to show where locations are in Israel, not to present lands outside of Israel as if they were part of Israel. You also say: "how it is, how it has been, and how it will continue to be administrative wise". But the OTs are not part of Israel, they have never been part of Israel, and you do not know the future if they will continue to be occupied by Israel, but this is still not a reason to present them as part of Israel. See for example this UN map:[21] and CIA map: [22] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where this idea that we are supposed to base things on reality comes from as it's explicitly contradicted by policy. As for other maps/tertiary sources, unless they use the same kind of policies as us, their maps are bound to look different from maps we make ourselves based on our policies and someone is bound to challenge them for not complying with our policies. What SD wants is for these maps to comply with mandatory policies. Seems reasonable to me. It's not clear how to do that but at the very least it will certainly involve making a clear distinction, using the mapping standards at our disposal, between Israel, the Israeli occupied territories and the rest because those are the distinctions that reliable sources make. Sean.hoyland - talk11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Generally relevant policies are to ensure WP:V by using WP:RS produced maps. We need to keep in mind though that Wikipedia is not an evil organization, it is a collaborative project which in addition to being Bibli
![[22]](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/maps/large/is-map.gif){kind=link}