Talk:Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict/temp/discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Structure 2 Placement 3 Moving sections 4 Do we even need this section? 5 The role of the superpowers - NPOV?

[edit] Structure

As I said elsewhere, I think it is wrong to separate views on the same topic in different corners, so the reader is left with a dangling assertion without a response from the other side. Also, I am against turning the AIC article into a clone of IPC, so a bigger picure please. IMHO, it would be good to bring outside views by historians, scholars, strategists. First let's come up with a basic structure. Here's something for the start.

• Why is this conflict so polarizing
• Reasons for the conflict
  • Historical views
  • Causes for modern conflict
  • Reasons for keeping the conflict ongoing
• Issues of democracy and fairness
• Non-recognition of the opponent
• Security concerns
• Refugees and demography
• Settlements
• Peace proposals

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted (commented out) WATERMARK. Everything below it is untouched. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I no longer trust that you are operating in an objective manner. For this reason, and, further, because there has been no agreement on doing this, and because the new attempt at editing included a swath of anti-Arab POV that is new and prominent, I disagree with this entirely. If you must do it, do it in a temp page. Lokiloki 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Loki, do you expect me to ask you for permission every time? LOL. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placement

Instead of placing all of the pro-Israel views first, might I suggest that you seek some balance by, for example, presenting the arguments in an alternating fashion. I certainly won't agree to presentation of views that is top-heavy with Israeli POV. Lokiloki 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome collaboration and civilized discussion but WP doesn't have to align with your or mine POV. It would be just as wrong to start with anti-Israeli POV at the top, that is why we start with a neutral (I guess) poll. Barnett is not affiliated with Israel. It would be good to add opinions from neutral & reputable scholars/historians/analysts/strategists. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if he is or isn't affiliated with Israel, it matters in that the position he is advocating is generally anti-Arab. Please do not try to include a multitude of historian/analyst/strategists at the start which are purportedly "neutral" but which advance a particular POV. Once again, this is WHY the current article presents arab views and israeli views separately. As such, and given your edits, I do not support this type of combination of viewpoints, and the addition of "neutral" views.

I am not saying that this should lead with Arab views, just that your current construction of this page presents all the Israeli views first. Please alternate the viewpoints.

I suggest that you FIRST work with the existing content and re-organize it. THEN we can work on adding new content. But you are doing both at once, and it is difficult to follow what changes are being made to the existing content as you are both combining content, moving content, and adding new content in the same edits.

As well, analyses of the conflict should be secondary to the primary views of the conflict. Some historian's analysis of Arab states should come after the primary issues and views.

Lokiloki 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that "pro-Arab" means strictly "the opinion of Arab autocrats & theocrats". That's a valid POV, but I don't see why WP should follow that and not cite e.g. the UN Arab Human Development Report that criticized those leaders. The multitude of scholarly mainstream views is what we want, not only Saudi shaykhs, Iranian ayatollahs and Syrian Baathists. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this approach of yours to present "neutral" sources is quickly going to devolve. For this reason, I believe that the continued maintenance of separate Israeli views and Arab views is most appropriate. It is for this reason that this split was developed originally for this article. Thanks, Lokiloki 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And I do not deny that other sources shouldn't be included -- there are a multitude of UN articles and documents which we can quote from. I am simply saying that for a contentious issue such as this, it makes sense to preserve the split of Arab/Israeli views. Attempting to agree on "neutral" sources won't work. You have already indicated in the past that you do not view the BBC as neutral, nor the UN -- that to me suggests we will have great difficulty finding common ground. Lokiloki 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you. Neither the UN is not neutral, nor the BBC and even (ah!) NAD-PLO. Please let me develop the structure I proposed. If your "collaboration" will be in the form of reverts and destruction, I suggest you start an alternative /temp2 and then we'll do a vote. Meanwhile, the {{rewrite}} tag may be removed from the main article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the opinions of a Bush administration analyst are neutral? And these should be presented primarily? Wikipedia is a collaborative area, and it is inappropriate for you to go off by yourself, in effect, and rewrite the entire section without inputs from others. Lokiloki 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving sections

Trying to improve this "article" (a jumble really), I notice that most of opinions are unattributed weaseling "some think" and opinions repeat throughout the text. After we come up with some framework, it will still require a lot of work. Some chunks clearly belong someplace else: e.g. Arab 2002 peace offer - to History of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved that section there.

In addition to interleaving the views, I think we should try to stick with chronological/cause-effect narrative. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we even need this section?

Humus, please don't take this as a slight towards the work you've been doing here, but are we really sure we need a "Views" section to begin with? Are there any other articles on wars or conflicts on Wikipedia that do this?

I suggest that we limit the article to the History section. If there are varying views on the importance, motives, cause or effect of certain events in the conflict, we can mention them as we describe that particular event.

A separate views section could be very hard to manage; in essence, "Views" section could become "Views of anyone of some importance on anything that has to do with the conflict over the last century and a half, including references to Saladin and Solomon".

Thoughts? -CommonGround 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In its current shape, the article is pretty bad and still needs major work. I don't feel strongly either way, and I am not sure this is a good candidate for WP:AFD because some parts of it need to fit somewhere. Somewhat similar articles: International figures' positions on invasion of Iraq, Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq, Christian views of slavery, Judaism's view of Jesus, Views of Palestinian statehood, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the content of this article should fit somewhere. My preference would be that they fit in the realted parts of the history sections: that way we can localize them and tie them to a particular point of history, similarly to the articles you've mentioned. I just dont want a huge "dump all your opinions on a variety of controvercial subjects here" page. That's just asking for an edit war, with occupation/terrorism/discrimination/"Arabs vs. West"/Sabra and Shatila/Balfour declaration/Nuclear weapons/etc. arguments mixed all together. It's easier and more productive to deal with them one by one. --CommonGround 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CG, if I understood correctly, you propose to break apart this unmanageable blob and cut/paste relevant and sourced views into specific topical articles, such as 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Proposals for a Palestinian state, International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict, Arab League and the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel and the United Nations, Palestinian refugee, Jewish exodus from Arab lands, Right to exist, Right of return, Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs, etc. I like your idea, in hope that it would diminish WP:WEASEL. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. How do we accomplish that? Do we just start moving content out to appropriate articles section by section, and remove the page once we are done? --CommonGround 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to have a broad consensus, because we are dealing here with one of the most explosive material in WP. Maybe that's why it is in such a bad shape. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my 2¢, I think the Arab-Israeli conflict is significantly lacking in depth. I'm not sure if having the separate articles on Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict, History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict are necessary and don't feel strongly enough to advocate their deletion. However, I would recommend at least merging most of the ideas in each of these articles into the original article which seems to be lacking in substance. The Arab-Israeli conflict seems to be set up like a portal, giving very little information while linking to other articles on the same topic with a great deal of information. I would set out the American Civil War article as an exemplary model on how to design an article with so many complex issues. So, at the very minimum I think the 'views' section of the main article needs substantial development mirrored to what this page has been given. --CRobey 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you on most points, I found that AIC is very polarizing and people tend to get very emotional about it, unlike about American Civil War today. I agree that both the main article and its subarticles could be improved. Are we talking about the substance or the format? What do you think is missing? I think it's a good idea to keep this explosive stuff compartmentalized (but NPOV) - in order to deal with one issue at a time. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about dealing with controvery one issue at a time. I see the substance of the linked articles on history, views and law in the context of AIC is excellent. I think that both the substance and the format of the AIC page could be improved by incorporating much of what is in this article into the main page. I don't think the one line in the views section does the substance any justice. I guess my point would be better placed on the talk page of the Arab-Israeli conflict page, but considering they are dealing with the same issue and it is likely the same people doing the editing, I guess I am writing to the right audience anyway. More towards the point of the main topic, I think having a separate view section can be justified but the main page needs more of the material that is on this page. I guess it just takes time to come to a consensus on what is appropriate for that page. CRobey 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at previous talks. We still need to decide what to do with the content of this substandard subarticle. Please note that it was very recently separated from the main AIC article, where it caused repeated edit conflicts. I am afraid that merging it back won't help its quality. At this point (after a few attempts to make it into an encyclopedic article) I tend to agree with User:CommonGround: I just dont want a huge "dump all your opinions on a variety of controversial subjects here" page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Humus sapiens - keep this out of the main article (at least for the time being) Nloth 03:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind: Israeli views of the peace process currently is a redir to International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict (IMHO, improper). There is also Palestinian views of the peace process, I think it is a candidate for consideration with whatever is going to be done here. I think it was spawned out of Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The role of the superpowers - NPOV?

"Palestinians cite many reasons for the perceived lack of support of their cause in the United States ... One such reason is postulated to be ethnic bigotry in the U.S.; while stereotyping of many other groups is no longer rampant, many people believe that Muslims and Arabs, in particular, continue to be vilified and victimized by crude attacks."

Particularly lacking any citation to any sociological study or the like, this seems to violate NPOV. Who are these "many people?" From when has this vilification "continued?" Who are these "many" groups previously rampantly "stereotyped," and how many more generations after desegregation must pass before "no longer rampant" expires? All this seems woefully lacking in neutrality and, at the very least, is totally unqualified. CleffedUp 05:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)