Talk:House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] missing in this article

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/3/Passover%20suicide%20bombing%20at%20Park%20Hotel%20in%20Netanya

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/855852.html

various structures have been destroyed as a result of Palestinian bombings in israel - these are not yet covered in the article. Zeq 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the relevence of the first link. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Part of a structure was demolished. but in any case there are many others examples of homes that are attcked by militants and are demolished or partly demolished. BTW. the article fail to mention that israel have stopped the pratice of demolishing homes against families of suicide bomebers. Zeq 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Criticism and responses" section does say that the practice was discontinued in 2005. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, do you not see the difference between the destruction of a house as a punitive measure and the destruction of a house by suicide bomb? Tarc 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is not just about demolitions as a punitive measure. Isarig 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions by Isarig

Isarig removed a sourced addition[1] with the false claim that it had been discussed on the talk page. Well, it haven't but it's never to late to start so I bring it here. It is relevant to this article as it deals with house demolitions as a way to deal with the ethnic challenge. // Liftarn

You may want this article to describe "house demolitions as a way to deal with the ethnic challenge" - but it clearly does not. As it says in the lead: "House demolition ... is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes". The Margalit quote is not about any of this, and this has been discussed, with your participation, in the TAlk page of this article's predecessor - House demolition. Here is a link to the relevant discussion - with your input. Your accusation that my claim that this has been discussed is false and dishonest - don't do it again. Please stop adding this irrelevant, POV-pushing quote to the article. Isarig 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with what you describe as "ethnic challenge" (i.e. the fact that Arabs exist) does come under "other security purposed". ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is Liftarn who described it as an '"ethnic challenge" (perhap he'll be next on your shitlist as an "Evil Zionist"(TM)). But regardles, no, it's not. Isarig 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct, as it say "a Palestinian home without a permit is a strategic threat" thus demolishing a house because those living there has the "wrong" ethnicity is covered by "security purposes". // Liftarn
First of all , this is ICAHD's POV and phrasing, and a NPOV article shoudl not accept a partisan's claim as fact. More importantly, a "strategic threat" is not the same as "security purposes". The US faces a "strategic threat" of the Euro replacing the Dollar as the main currency for international commerce but steps that the Federal Reserve may take to remedy this would not be "security measures", would not be considered an act of the US armed forces, etc... Isarig 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting interpretation, but I've never heard it before, so unless there is a wider discussion framing it in these terms, Margalit is talking about something else which doesn't belong. TewfikTalk 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How can you possibly interpret it that way? The quote is from a report on house demolitions so if it somehow "doesn't belong" then the framing is wrong rather than the quote. Btw, the article is about "the use of house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" so it clearly belongs as it's about house demolitions as a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. // Liftarn
No, the article is about a "controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces" . It is not at all about civil demolitions of houses constructed w/o permit, no matter how desperately you or ICAHD want to conflate the two. Isarig 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even if you want to narrow the scope to exclude the majority of the house demolitions. // Liftarn
No, it's not. You might want it to be, and it migh be in the future, but right now, it is not, and won't be, until consensus for such an expansion is reached here. For the thrid time, the article's lede expalins what it is about: "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes in the Israeli-occupied territories. Although it is justified by the IDF as a deterrent against terrorism, its effectiveness and legality has repeatedly been questioned by human rights groups." Isarig 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Notice what it says in large letters above, "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". // Liftarn
The scope of this article is military and security actions. Jayjg (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) The editorial decision to include so much material about the permit demolitions in an article that purports to be about military/counter-insurgency/security purposes is POV. As I say below, I think the easy solution is merely to expressly expand the scope of the article. nadav (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
See below. And demolitions based on security purposes (like that the building was built y someone with the "wrong" ethnicity) is valid. // Liftarn
Zoning and planning issues, or allegations of discrimination, belong in other articles. Jayjg (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
In 'which' other articles? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The Arab citizens of Israel is one such article, delaing with allegations of discrimination. Isarig 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Outdent:

Isarig removed a large section of the article with the comment "this article is not about demolition of houses built w/o permit by civil authorities". But Isarig does not WP:OWN this article so his opinion on what should be excluded from this article is not necessarily the last word on the matter. And his opinion here is unreasonable, as Israel routinely denies building permits to Arabs as a result the majority of buildings built in the Arab sector are built without permits. The subsequent wholesale demolition of Arab buildings by the Israeli authorities on the grounds that they have no permits is part of Israel's conflict with the Arabs living under its rule and merits inclusion in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I obviously don't own the article - WP works by consensus. Get consensus for the inclusion of this material, and it stays. Fail to get consensus, and it's out. So far in addition to me, editors Jayjg, Humus sapiens and Tewfik have expressed similar objections, and nadav has called the repeated attempts to include this material "POV", so it appears that you not only don't have consensus for including this material, but a majority of editors oppose it. Isarig 22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know that there are a group of Zionist editors who can always be relied on to attempt to censor anything which they feel does not paint Israel in a favourable light. This is not new. And it is not convincing. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Your repeated allegations that your edits are being reverted by group of Zionist editors censoring information, alongside blatant POV pushing edits such as this reflect badly on you. Please stop it and start contributing porductively to the project. Isarig 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename and refocus article

I suggest we rename this article "House demolition in Israel and the Palestinian territories" to get away from the POV problem. That way we can be free to discuss any demolitions we want without implicitly making the POV claim that Israel demolishes Arab homes for being threats to its national character. We would be able to include explicit discussion of this POV as well as the contrary opinions. nadav (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think such a name would make it unfocused. It is intended to be about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not generally about any house demolition in a specific geographic area, i.e. it's about context, not geography. // Liftarn
Demolishing a house built without a permit is not part of the "conflict". Perhaps we should include the Israeli demolition of houses in various settlements as well? A few thousand were demolished as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, and wildcat settlements are regularly destroyed as well. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Perhaps scorched earth destruction of houses also should be included. First denying building permits and then demolishing the house as part of the conflict may be included. // Liftarn
Also, Israel regularly destroys Israeli homes in every Israeli city and town, under various laughable excuses, such as "being demolished to make way for new residences" etc. We need to get the records of the various municipal offices in charge of this, to start documenting these pathetic covers for conflict demolitions. Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If Israeli homes would have been demolished by the Palestinian authorities on flimsy excuses then it would have made a good addition to the article. Just find sources before you add it. Good luck. // Liftarn
Why should we limit ourselves? why should we look only at hypothetical demolitions by Palestinian authorities, when there are plentiful demolitions of Israeli homes by Israeli authorities? Isarig 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It'd be an excellent idea to rename this article, since a lot that has happened (eg demolitions in Jerusalem and the Negev) have virtually nothing to do with "conflict".
However, there is one small problem. Israel has carried out House demolitions outside it's own territory, and outside territory it occupied - is it possible to somehow include these examples too?. Here are a couple of edits I had intended to make:
===1966 Samu===
Samu was a small village (population 4,000) in Jordan (now the West Bank) which was attacked by 4,000 Israeli soldiers in jeeps, personnel carriers and five Patton tanks. They demolished 46 houses and the mosque, apparently in retaliation for the placing within Israel of a mine which had killed 3 Israeli soldiers.[1] The Israelis waited for Jordanian troops to arrive and killed 16, including the pilot of an elderly jet. Three civilians were killed and 96 wounded. The Israeli battalion commander was killed, and ten Israeli soldiers wounded.
Special Assistant Komer wrote to President Johnson after this incident that he had told (Israeli) Ambassador Harman "fully understood Israel's problems, but that use of force was dubious at best and use of such disproportionate force--against Jordan to boot--was folly indeed. It undermined the whole US effort to maintain Jordanian stability, which was so much in Israel's own interest that Israel's action was almost incomprehensible."[2]
For the 40th anniversary of the Six Days War, a UN observer came forward to describe what he'd experienced. Dutchman Colonel (ret.) Jan Mühren told the Dutch current affairs program Nova that Israel provoked most border incidents as part of a strategy to annex more land.[2] He tells how Samu (indeed, the entire West Bank) had nothing to do with attacks on Israel "only western officers operated here and we did patrols". Moshe Dayan confirmed that Israel had provoked 80% of incidents preceding the 1967 Israeli attack, and the Dutch television program includes a clip of Israeli journalist Rami Tal describing the interview (the contents of which were not made public until after Dayan's death).
===1956 Qibya===
Qibya was a village in Jordan (now the West Bank). Arial Sharon, then commander of Unit 101, equipped his men with 600kgs of explosives and they blew up 45 houses with the death of 69 civilians, mostly women and children crushed in the rubble[3] This incident was in retaliation for the killing of 3 Israelis within Israel, but no evidence the intruders had used the village was ever presented.
  1. ^ Incident at Samu Time Magazine, 25th Nov 1966. Accessed 23rd June 2007
  2. ^ Six-Day War deliberately provoked by Israel: former Dutch UN observer - text and video link to Dutch current affairs program Nova on 4th June 1967. Accessed 20 Jun 2007
  3. ^ From butcher to 'Lion' to Prime Minister of Israel. Accessed 22nd June 2007
PalestineRemembered 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Both incidents (Qibya, Samu) have their own WP articles (written in a much more NPOV and better refernced than your suggestion above, BTW). If the article's scope is expanded, we may include a pointer to these articles, or a "See Also" list. Isarig 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
They're famous mass house demolitions by the Israeli military and a quick recount of the major details is necessary in this article. Qibya, at any rate, was and is universally recognised as an atrocity. I'm not aware we give the perpetrator any "right to reply" in these cases - or can you show us examples in any other region where we do so? PalestineRemembered 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the renaming of the article. The vast majority of sources addressing the topic a) treat it as part of the I/P conflict, b) describe the demolitions citing security and the demolitions citing lack of permit as part of the same phenomenon, and c) do not address odd instances of demolition of homes of Israeli Jews or Bedouin. The reliable sources have defined the parameters and the purview of the subject. Gerrymandering by Wikipedians violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.--G-Dett 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This article covers house demolitions for military purposes; I don't see the sources used here discussing it in other contexts. How did you decide that a "majority" of sources did so? Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
By actually reading them instead of indulging in I-feel-lucky bluffs and guesses about their contents. The only sources of ours who do not fit my description are those that are either a) reports focusing on a specific instance (such as the Human Rights Watch report "IDF House Demolition Injures Refugees" about a demolition in Gaza), b) general sources addressing the legal context of the Israeli occupation rather than demolitions per se, or c) partisan/propaganda tracts such as Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars, which don't belong here anyway because they're written by non-experts and touch only glancingly and rhetorically on the topic at hand. I'm hoping you'll self-revert; it will be a more pleasant means to an inevitable end.--G-Dett 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you've just listed a whole bunch of sources that don't actually refer to "demographic demolitions". Which ones specifically deal that that topic, then? Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you wrote: "This article covers house demolitions for military purposes; I don't see the sources used here discussing it in other contexts." Have you changed your mind about that?--G-Dett 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You call my idea gerrymandering, POV, and OR?! The intent of my suggestion was to make extended coverage of civil Palestinian home demolitions uncontroversially relevant to the article. And I believe you are misinformed about the Negev Bedouin land issue. nadav (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that G-Dett may be misinformed about the Negev house demolitions. 100s have been carried out recently eg [3], and I think the Israeli minister responsible said he wants to demolish 42,000, leaving the inhabitants with nothing. PalestineRemembered 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
User:PalestineRemembered, wikipedia is not a soapbox, please refrain from spreading libeleous claims. Jaakobou 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Some demolitions were this week: [4], [5]. nadav (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant that most RS's have not addressed the demolition of Bedouin homes as part of the same phenomenon as that of Palestinian homes. I can see now that at least in the case of Amnesty International, I was wrong, and I may well be misinformed on that subject more generally. It may be a moot point, but the OR and NPOV issues I had in mind were WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, not pov-pushing.--G-Dett 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It could be undue weight etc. if we kept the article's title/purpose as is; that's why I proposed explicitly broadening the scope of the article. nadav (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More info

There is more info on house demolitions here:

I am not vouching for the quality of the info. I did not do the compilation of the info on either page. The second page does not focus on house demolitions. I recently finished converting the embedded links there to reference links. --Timeshifter 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007 AfD

I've closed the June AfD as keep. This isn't a comment on the quality of the article. The redirect form is perfectly compatible with the keep. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The recent AfD on this article has now concluded with a substantial majority in favour of keeping this article (for the record, the outcome was 62.5% in favour of keeping it, 30% redirecting, 7.5% deleting). Consequently I've unprotected it, but I've restored only a stub. I'll explain why.

I still don't particularly want to get involved in editing this article - it's not my area of expertise or interest. However, in the interests of providing a constructive way forward, I'd like to suggest an outline. When writing an article from scratch (as in the case of House demolition), I usually find it helpful to sit down and work out a rough structure for it in advance. That way I don't end up with a baggy, undifferentiated mass of content and a rambling narrative. The article should be organised into clearly focused sections which aren't excessively long.

The version of this article that existed immediately before it was blanked suffered from a lack of focus and direction, quite apart from any issues with the specific content that it incorporated. I don't know much about the issue but from the content that's been posted already (and extrapolating from the existing House demolition article) I would suggest something like the following:

  • Lead
- Summarise issue and controversy
  • Israeli policy
- Establishment of house demolition tactic (British Mandate), previous policy, current policy, statements by ministers & military
  • Usage
- Numbers, locations (West Bank? Gaza? both?), time periods (e.g. just during the intifadas or before then as well?)
  • Reasons
- Targeted killings, punishment, administrative issues (e.g. alleged illegal construction), counter-insurgency - give examples of each
  • Legal status
- Legality under Israeli and international law, legal opinions, position of Israeli courts
  • Political issues
- Opposition and support (who opposes? who supports?), campaign groups (e.g. Israeli committee against house demolition), international opinion (what has been said by UN & foreign governments?), activism (e.g. Corrie case, other demonstrations)

This should of course be written neutrally from the outset, relying on reliable and verifiable sources. Please try to remember that you're not here to condemn or defend either Israel or the Palestinians, but to summarise accurately and fairly what other people say about the issue.

Good luck! -- ChrisO 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Obviously good coverage of the issue would be preferable to folding all coverage into the main House demolition article. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. It's obviously impractical to fold all coverage into the main House demolition article for the simple reasons that (a) it's an overview article in the first place; detailed coverage of a particular conflict would overwhelm it and defeat its purpose, and (b) a complex topic like this needs to be dealt with systematically, not shoehorned into the corner of another article. The best way forward here would be for editors to agree in advance on an outline and topics to be tackled, and then systematically work through each heading and fill out the content. -- ChrisO 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the outline is a good suggestion, with one exception: I don't think it should include civil demolition of houses built without permit, as that is a civil matter.we may include a brief mention that some partisans who are opposed to the military policy view such civil demolitions as being part of some grander conspiracy. Isarig 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

I guess we'll need to go down the usual route – RfC, revert wars, locked page, mediation, mutual recrimination, etc. – to establish the inevitable: that this article will include so-called "administrative demolitions." For the simple reason that the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources treat these as part of the subject. You'll succeed in exasperating editors, draining their energy, resources, and faith in the project, and so on – but in the end the article will follow its source material, rather than manipulate or gerrymander it.--G-Dett 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) --G-Dett 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

stating, at this stage, that the result of the RfC is "inevitable" is puzzling, to say the least, and the attitude reflected by your edit above does not seem to be in the spirit of this project. You are, yet again, strongly advised to reevaluate your approach to editing this encyclopedia, which is just that, an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for Israel-bashing. Isarig 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've not examined much of the evidence yet, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that "administrative demolitions" belong in this category according to the sources. Why don't we produce and write-up the evidence first and let the community decide whether it belongs? Do we need to have an argument before we've seen what people produce? PalestineRemembered 06:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yet another puzzling statement - an editor that admits he has not looked at the evidence, yet boldly states that it is "overwhelmingly likely" that something belongs. Why don;t you just go out and say you wnatthis included, whether or not it belongs? The article's lead saysy "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. " - this clearly excludes civil demolitions of houses w/o permits. Isarig 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The lead used to read, "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency, other security purposes, and civil planning in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," which had the advantage of presenting the topic as the reliable sources present it, rather than as ideologues on Wikipedia prefer to carve it up. Jayjg performed his gerrymander here, with a characteristically helpful edit summary, "Nope." You are now tautologically citing Jay's gerrymander as authority for itself. Go figure.--G-Dett 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when this article was created, by Abu Ali, the lead read "House demolition (also known as house razing) is a tactic for combating an insurgency. ". It contained this formulation (or others similar to it, all of which excluded civil demolitions) up until the AfD, redirect and subsequent stubbing by ChrisO, who intorduced the "civil planning" aspect. Perhaps you should use your usual uncivil style and chastise ChirsO here, or on his talk page, for gerrymandering or carving up the article to suit an ideological position. Isarig 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not following. The version of the lead written by ChrisO and gerrymandered by Jayjg is authoritative not because it "came first," but because it followed the sources rather than undermining/second-guessing them.--G-Dett 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but no cigar. The version by ChrisO had no sources whatsoever, it was a minimalist stub. So, are you going to claim he was gerrymandering, by clearly changing the scope of the article, which had remained constant since its inception? Isarig 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The statement "The IDF justifies it as a deterrent against terrorism.", clearly does not belong.

In the interests of consensus and feeling our way forwards, I've left in place the statement "The IDF justifies it as a deterrent against terrorism.", but it clearly does not belong. It's not acceptable to International Law, not acceptable to world opinion, and the most notable element (demolition of the houses for the purpose of punishing the families of suicide bombers) has been stopped by the controller of the IDF (Defense Ministry) with the comment "An army committee earlier reported that the policy had little deterrent effect and inflamed Palestinian hatred." As of this moment, the IDF clearly does NOT think it a deterrent, they've found that that is not the case, they've said so, and the recommendation has been acted on. PalestineRemembered 06:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

CHange it to past tense? "The IDF justified it..." // Liftarn
Or "Until 2005, the IDF acted in the belief that demolishing the family house of a suicide bomber acted as a deterrent to terrorism and justified it thereby. This particular practise was abandoned in Feb 2005 by order of Israel's defence ministry after an army committee reported that the policy had little deterrent effect and inflamed Palestinian hatred." PalestineRemembered 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We must be clear, though, that this was never the only reason for house demolitions, and demolitions for other reasons continue. Sanguinalis 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'm not sure how anyone got a different impression. PalestineRemembered 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise suggestion

The article, as it is currently described in the lead, and as it was initially conceived by its creator, is about house demolition as a military tactic. Some editors want to expand the scope to include ANY kind of house demolition in the I-P conflict, including civil demolition of houses built without permit, demolition for public purposes under eminent domain etc...I think this is inappropirate, but as a compromise, I'm willing to entertain the following:

  • The article's lead will make clear that it is about demolitions of 3 kinds (military action, including punishment for terrorism; civil demololition of houses build without permit; demolition for public purposes of houses taken under eminent domain)
  • The 3 will be treated seperately, as they are different things, and not conflated together as if they are part and parcel of some grand scheme.
  • In the seperate section about civil demolitions of houses w/o permit:
  • It will be made clear that such demolitions are carried out against Arab as well as Jewish illegal construction.
  • There will be mention of the POV allegation by partisan groups (such as ICAHD) that the civil demolitions are part of a grand startegy against the Arabs, and that it is applied in a discriminatory fashion to Arab vs. Jewish construction; This will be balanced by claimes (quoting Palestinian leaders) that Palestinian illegal construction is part of a land-grab strategy that has nothing to do with availability of building permits.
  • There will be mention of the allegations by Partisan groups (such as Btselem) that building permits are impossible to get, and this will be juxaposed against counter-claims using offical statistics that show actual availability of permits to Palestinains, in percentages similar to (and sometimes exceeding) those granted to Jews in Jerusalem. It will also be made clear that since the Oslo accords, 95%+ of the Palestinian population gets its permits from the PNA, not Israel.
  • There will be a detailed subsection about the demolition of Israeli "outposts" and other settlements built w/o permit
  • In the seperate section about civil demolitions of houses taken by eminent domain:
  • It will be made clear that in such case the owners of property are compensated for the taken property
  • There will be mention of the allegations that eminent domain is used to take houses from Palestinains for the purpose of building Jewish settlements or roads, and this will be balanced by counter allegations that this is unproven.
  • There will be a detailed subsection about the demolition of Israeli settlements built in Gaza and the West Bank which were evacuated and demolished as part of Israel's unilateral withdrawal plans. Isarig 15:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Initially this article was to be about house demolitions as a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some highly vocal (and disruptive) editors have constantly been trying to exlcude the majority of the demolitions on spurious grounds. // Liftarn

No it was not. When it was created, it stated in the lead "House demolition (also known as house razing) is a tactic for combating an insurgency". Isarig 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Whack open this trojan horse piñata of compromise, and out come a whole lotta little CAMERA-candies. The suggestion to treat punitive, administrative, and security demolitions in separate sections is good, since that's what the RS's by and large do. The rest of this consists mostly of preposterous violations of WP:UNDUE ("This will be balanced by claimes (sic) (quoting Palestinian leaders) that Palestinian illegal construction is part of a land-grab strategy that has nothing to do with availability of building permits" is especially precious), and a ridiculous proposal to present the highest-quality reliable sources (scholars and human-rights organizations) as "partisan groups," whose immense research data will be "balanced" by what Isarig deems to be The Truth – a synthesis of CAMERA-clippings, "official statistics" of the Israeli government, and his own original research. Sorry, no. Let's just structure the article according to what the RS's say, and present other minority opinions each according to its prominence, and with a watchful eye on WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and other relevant policies. --G-Dett 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Your idea of 'highest-quality reliable sources' is ICAHD - a self-professed partisan group, whose leaders have been caught, more than once, simply fabricating "facts" out of thin air, to promote a political agenda. If we cannot describe these POV allegations as what they are, and provide counter claims, per WP:NPOV, then we'll have to stick with the article's current and original scope - dealing with house demolitions as a military tactic. Isarig 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course we'll attribute statements, and provide counter-claims. And no, ICAHD will not have the final word. No one gets the final word – not even the scholars and human-rights organizations you routinely denigrate, and whom I refer to as our "highest-quality" RSs. But our presentation will not be guided by nonsense like the following:

There will be mention of the allegations by Partisan groups (such as Btselem) that building permits are impossible to get, and this will be juxaposed against counter-claims using offical statistics that show actual availability of permits to Palestinains, in percentages similar to (and sometimes exceeding) those granted to Jews in Jerusalem. It will also be made clear that since the Oslo accords, 95%+ of the Palestinian population gets its permits from the PNA, not Israel.

You're not going to turn this article into another talking-points state propaganda flier, Isarig, sorry.--G-Dett 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean by that. If we are going to provide counter claims (attributed, of course), are we supposed to avoid providing counter claims like this that say Palestinains are building illegaly as part of a land-grab startegy, or keep official government statistics like this out of the article, just because they present facts and points of view you don't like? Isarig 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, Justus Reid Weiner, the sage who staked his reputation on the Edward-Said-summer-home thesis: showing that Said's family was rich and tended to spend only summers at their home in pre-48 Palestine, Weiner concluded that Said had only a tenuous connection to his homeland; Weiner then asked readers to "now substitute the Palestinian people" for Said and voilá!, the hoary old myth of a land without people for a people without land acquires a fresh coat of cheap paint. In the book Isarig is now hocking, Weiner turns his analytical powers to the issue of house demolitions in East Jerusalem, and "based on scores of interviews from across the political spectrum," concludes that Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and every other major human rights organization and previous scholar of the subject are lying through their teeth. I haven't got my hands on Weiner's magnum opus yet – Harvard's only copy is in offsite storage – nor can I find any proper scholarly review of it (only extended blurbs from CAMERA and FrontPageMagazine), but I have thoroughly enjoyed the promotional link Isarig provided. It includes a blurry aerial photo of some buildings and a parking lot, which apparently shows how an "illegal building built on basketball court prevents the expansion of a school" (demolish it! let 'em have it!), a scanned photo of a "brochure in Arabic advising residents how to obtain a building permit, published by the Jerusalem Municipality" (easy as one-two-three), and a few pie charts demonstrating how "new Arab construction has outpaced Jewish construction" (to Palestinian families rebuilding their house for the fifth time this last may actually make some sense). Great stuff, Isarig.
In answer to your questions: yes, you can include Weiner. No, NPOV does not mean equal air time for Weiner's cheerful little book, on the one hand, and the conclusions of every major international human-rights organization and the vast majority of scholars and experts, on the other.--G-Dett 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Your ad hominem attacks aside, the academic publication, by a well known researcher, cited by several other academic papers should be given MORE air time, not equal or less air-time, than the shrill hyperbole of a self-professed partisan group like ICAHD. Isarig 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
(1) we're not talking about ICAHD, we're talking about the consensus of "every major international human-rights organization and the vast majority of scholars and experts"; (2) Weiner is well-known as a "researcher" who levelled a petty charge against Said and extrapolated preposterously from it; (3) Weiner's book is not an "academic" publication, and was not peer-reviewed; (4) Until I find or you produce some concrete evidence that the Weiner thesis has been taken seriously by anyone beyond the CAMERA/FrontPageMagazine fringe, I'm not sure his argument belongs in the article at all – and you can forget about it getting equal air time with consensus knowledge. See WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don;t intend to debate your personal opinions of Weiner. He is a well known jurist, an expert on human rights, and published in numerous peer reviewed publications, from The Journal Of Human Rights to The Virginia Journal of International Law. That you know of him only through his expose of Said's fraud is testemant to your ignorance, not his lack of credibility. If there is any 'highest-quality reliable sources', comprised of academic research vs. partisan POV-pushing, it is his work on the topic. WP policy REQUIRES that he be given prominenc over the likes of ICAHD, or the polemics of B'Tselem. Isarig 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
B'Tselem is a major human-rights organization. They are "polemical" only in the sense that Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc. are polemical, that is, insofar as they take human rights seriously and report on violations accordingly. They do not comment ideologically on media coverage, the peace process, American foreign policy vis-á-vis Israel, and so on in the manner of MEMRI, CAMERA, the ADL,et al. If you have objective evidence (e.g. peer-review journal reviews or statistics from scholarly citation indices) demonstrating that Weiner's argument regarding "illegal construction" in East Journalism is taken seriously beyond the CAMERA-MEMRI- FrontPageMagazine-MEQ circuit, I welcome it, and promise to revise my editorial stance accordingly. I've even looked for reviews in The New Republic, which can usually be counted on to give a thoughtless veneer of legitimacy to charlatan scholarship of the Joan Peters/Alan Dershowitz variety. I've not yet checked Commentary, so that might be a place for you to start. So far I can't find anything, but despite my skepticism my mind remains open. In the meantime, I'm still chuckling over the stupid picture of the basketball court.--G-Dett 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I don't intend to debate this. Just to get this silly line of POV argumentation out of the way, Wiener's research is accepted and cited by H. V. Savitch and Yaakov Garb in "Terror, Barriers, and the Changing Topography of Jerusalem" (2006; 26; 152 Journal of Planning Education and Research), as well as by Gerald M. Steinberg, the head of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University (see 'Learning the Lessons of the European Union's Failed Middle East Policies' - paper presented at the conference on “Troubled Waters: Europe And Its Relations With The United States And Israel”, The Helmut Kohl Institute for European Studies, Hebrew University, May 2003). Enough with the ad hominems, it's time for you to move on. Isarig 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Isarig, that's a start.--G-Dett 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Bit of a false start, it seems. the Steinberg conference paper is about Europe's Middle East policies, and makes passing reference to demolitions and to Weiner's book in exactly one sentence. That one mention is positive, I'll grant you. But I was (and am) asking for a scholarly review, not a passing mention in an unpublished conference paper on a different topic. But it's better than nothing, which is what I've found in the Savitch and Garb piece. The Weiner book is in the bibliography, but is not once mentioned in the lengthy text. I do not see how you concluded that the authors have "accepted" his thesis; technically speaking, they haven't even cited it. I remain skeptical but open-minded. Perhaps there's a review or something in USA Today? My guess is they'd like his pie-charts.--G-Dett 13:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like a potentially fraudulent use of citations. I believe the response is "This looks very bad, I hope you have an explanation". PalestineRemembered 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. He hasn't used these citations anywhere in an article, and there's no evidence he's used them "fraudulently" either. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that neither G-Dett nor PR can read well enough to find the clear cite of Weiner's book in the Savitch paper does not make anything here fraudulent. Isarig 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, I never was a very good girl of the book – the written word just ain't my medium. Pie-charts, satellite-photos of parking lots, scanned brochures and suchlike pretty things are more how I learn, and with them I learn good.
Mr. Weiner is listed in the bibliography, misspelled "Wiener," p.173. I do not find his work "cited" anywhere in the text, much less endorsed and "accepted." I am ready, even hopeful, as always, to be proven wrong, while growing accustomed to having such hopes dashed.--G-Dett 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Page 154 : "�Palestinians have built quite extensively and mostly informally in neighborhoods such as Beit Hanina, Al Azariya, Shua’fat, Hizma, and other others. Aerial photography confirms this pattern of explosive growth in Arab areas (Kimhi 1997; Wiener 2003)." Perhaps you should spend a little less time mocking pie-charts, and a little more time actually reading. Isarig 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and again on pages 155 and 171. My humble apologies. But you didn't expect me to actually read the thing, did you? That's a tall order, Isarig. Life is short, Proust is long, and sometimes when you send me these links I rely on a little ctrl-F – and these damn authors of your misspelled the name of this other damn author of yours every damn time. OK now, so these two agree with the other that "Palestinians have built extensively and mostly informally in East Jerusalem," which they suggest is part of an informal territorial struggle. Very well. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether this finding is generally accepted (it seems plausible enough to me), can you explain how it contradicts the findings of human-rights organizations and scholars that permits are near-impossible to obtain for Palestinians, and that this near-impossibility reflects the state's own demographic/territorial goals? Savitch and Garb do quote a city official (p.171) "who claims that equivalent proportions of permits have been issued for Jews and Arabs." Now that claim would contradict the findings in question. But Savitch and Garb conspicuously back away from endorsing it, clarifying that their goal is only to "demonstrate that regardless of formal prescriptions, land use is contested highly by both sides." In other words, they more or less concede the consensus wisdom about the discriminatory issuance of permits, but claim that this is only one tactic within a larger demographic struggle, another tactic being rampant illegal construction by Palestinians. Are we agreed that that is their claim? My hummingbird-like dartings around the rest of their text confirm this is more or less the flavor of its nectar. I'm not going to read the whole damn article, unless you force me to.--G-Dett 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You've asked for evidence that Weiner's book is an acceptable academic source- and I've presented you with such. The question is not how S&G will be used in the article, but rather how Wiener's research will, and I've already given you an overview of how. Once the article is unprotected and, if we agree on this compromise as a framework, I'll provide quotes from Wiener that describe the availability of building permits to Arabs (to counter the claim that they are impossible to get), as well as information that Arab non-permit building is done as part of a national strategy, financed by the PNA, and often on land not owned by the builders at all, rather than as a last-resort measure by poor land owners who can't get a permit. Isarig 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Lordy, give him an inch etc. You've presented me with one source that cites and endorses Weiner's claim that rampant illegal building on the part of Palestinians is part of a territorial struggle. Weiner and S&G thus make this claim; very well. Your "compromise" suggestion added a rather breathtaking extrapolation to that claim. You wrote: "Palestinian illegal construction is part of a land-grab strategy that has nothing to do with availability of building permits." The latter clause (with emphasis added) may reflect Weiner's conclusions or your extrapolations or both, but it is decidedly not endorsed by S&G, who – notwithstanding their strong and manifestly pro-Israel POV – also give a wide berth to the "offical statistics" that you embrace, to wit, those that you claim "show actual availability of permits to Palestinians, in percentages similar to (and sometimes exceeding) those granted to Jews in Jerusalem." The fact that that position is put forth by Mr. Weiner in a rather obscure book, by a Jerusalem city official in private correspondence, by you on a Wikipedia talk page, and by CAMERA in one of their innumerable online fliers (this one a screed against the Washington Post), does not make it worthy of equal editorial weight with the consensus conclusions of human-rights organizations, NGOs, scholars and other experts on house demolitions.--G-Dett 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing two things. If we were to use only those Weiner claims that are explicitly mentioned by S&G , we could just quote S&G. But we were debating a different issue - is Weiner a reliable source, and can his book be used. You questioned this, falsely alleging that his research is only used by what you termed the "MEMRI/CAMERA" crowd. I've proven this false, and will use Wiener's scholarly research (which is of high quality enough to be used as support for material in peer-reviewed academic publications and in papers presented at international academic conferences) to advance whatever points he makes there, not just the points that happened to be explicitly referenced by S&G or by Steinberg. Isarig 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing not two things but many things. Read my posts again, esp. the concluding sentence of the last. We are not debating whether Weiner can be included (did you not notice my edit summary?) but rather how much editorial space and weight to give his arguments. Based on what you've provided here (one citation in a peer-review article on a related topic, and one passing mention in a conference paper on an unrelated topic), it seems his influence in this area is very slender outside of the propaganda circuit; and the one relevant scholarly work you've provided that cites him endorses only the most general and least controversial part of his argument (i.e. that Palestinians have their own demographic agenda).--G-Dett 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) On wikipedia, we give more prominence to scholarly research, such as the one by Weiner, than to partisan POV allegations by political groups such as ICAHD. We're done here. Isarig 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By "ICAHD," of course, you mean B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, et al – the world's major human-rights organizations. Such groups are constantly compiling evidence and writing reports on human-rights violations all over the world; they are by charter and by definition non-partisan. Of course, apologists for whatever state or entity falls under their scrutiny – be it Serbia, the United States, Hezbollah, or any number of tinpot dictatorships – react by accusing the human-rights groups of having a "partisan" agenda, but this is as trivial as it is mechanically predictable, and has no bearing whatsoever on the groups' status within Wikipedia as reliable sources of the highest quality. As for "scholarly research," the preponderance of it appears to be unimpressed by or unaware of Mr. Weiner's odd claims, and to privilege the latter in this article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett 18:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
By ICAHD, I mean ICAHD - a partisan, extreme-left group whose members have repeatedly fabricated "facts" out of thin air to forward their political agenda. To give them as much air time as to scholarly research by an academic would be not only a travesty, but a clear violation of WP editing principles. HRW, B'Tselem and AI are in the same boat,, but they are nonetheless still biased organizations, with a strong anti-government bias. I am not opposed to having their allegations presented in the article, so long as those allegations are balanced with counter claims. Isarig 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the "background" section of the Hezbollah article, "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians." Should this be "balanced" by a counter claim from a Lebanese intellectual citing Hezbollah officals and the party's own "official statistics"?
Should the extensive material in Srebrenica massacre sourced to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights, et al, be "balanced" by the counter claims of a relatively obscure Serb writer citing official Serb statistics?
If so, then you have your work all laid out for you. If not, then stop shilling and give the special pleading a rest.--G-Dett 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing up these examples, which make my case perfectly. The "background" section of the Hezbollah article is 573 words long. Of these, there is one 18-word sentence (which you quoted above) dedicated to the accusations of war crimes against Israelis, and another 18-word sentence mentioning that it is considered a terorist organization by some countries. The rest of the section, more than 500 words (more than 93%), is dedicated to descriptions of Hezbollah's social services and to justifications of its actions against Israel, sourced to such high quality academic references as the website of the Socialist Workers Party of Ireland, or directly to Hezbollah through it's Al-Manar TV station. I am more than happy to have a similar balance of 90% Weiner's views and 10% accusations by HRW and AI in this article as well, or in the specific sub-sections dealing with building w/o permit. Isarig 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm always pleased to help you articulate your thoughts and more cogently "make your case" (as it were), though when your posts verge on pure gibberish any role I play becomes something of a dubious distinction. Hezbollah is a general article about a party/movement/organization; the information about its social services, political history and so on do not "balance" the information about war crimes against Israel; they talk about a different issue within a broad topic. The point, a simple one, which you nevertheless appear not to have understood, is that on the topic of human rights and human-rights violations, Wikipedia tends to quote renowned human-rights organizations as authoritative. 'Authoritative' does not mean they get the last word, much less the only one. It does mean, however, that we generally don't throw them into six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other kinds of formulations alongside radically unequal sources, as if they were mere pundits to be "balanced" by "opposing views" or "counter claims." It means, that is, that Wikipedia articles don't say, "Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International allege war crimes committed by government X, but Joe Blow from the such-and-such institute in the capital of X disputes these claims, citing official statistics of government X." If you're tempted to think I've made another point for you, read this again, more slowly, mouthing the words if necessary.--G-Dett 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You are now hand waving and clutching at straws. I repeat: I am more than happy to have the same balance in our article, or in the subsection on building without permits, as the Hezbollah background section has: 18 words for AI & HRW together (10 of which comprising the lead "Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused..."), and then 500+ words dedicated to either the official Israeli government position explaining why the demolitions are necessary and a part of city planning, or to Wiener's research showing how easy it is to get permits. Isarig 00:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I know you'd be "more than happy" to have 500 out of 518 words devoted to "the official Israeli government position"; this is what I meant by "shilling." If you have a dictionary to hand, look it up. Then look up "balance." Information about Hezbollah's political history within Lebanon does not "balance" information about its war crimes against Israeli civilians. The fact that the Hezbollah article contains other, unrelated information about Hezbollah is a good and normal thing for an encylopedia, Isarig, and it has nothing to do with "balance." "Balance" would consist of a counter-claim from a Lebanese writer or intellectual, or Hezbollah official, disputing the claims of human-rights organizations. The article on Hezbollah doesn't have that. The article on Srebrenica doesn't have that. And it's a good thing too, for the reasons I've described. Enough of your sophistries, Isarig. As much fun as it is to whack these stupid softballs out of the park, one does begin to yearn for a worthy opponent.--G-Dett 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
When 18 words are devoted to an allegation of war crimes, and 500 words are devoted to describing social work and providing rationalizations for the attacks (the same attacks that were described as war crimes by HRW), that is indeed "balance". (or rather, imbalance, in favor of thepro-Hezbollah position). Feel free to continue to delude yourself that you are whacking softballs out of the park. From my vantage point, it looks more like you're whiffing on slow pitches. The Hezbollah example didn't pan out quite like you hoped, I'm sure you'll be more thoughtful next time. Isarig 01:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The Hezbollah and Srebrenica examples quite exactly summed up my point: Wikipedia generally presents the findings of major international human-rights organizations as authoritative, with no "balancing" perspective derived from "official statistics" or obscure nationalist writers. That you see coverage of diverse subtopics within a general subject as an issue of ideological "balance" reflects your conception of Wikipedia, as a kind of epic op-ed page, a place for punditry and pamphleteering, claim and counterclaim, justification and accusation, ultimately, that is, a forum for your tireless shilling.--G-Dett 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The Hezbollah example indeed exactly summed up the point: where grave allegations of war crimes exist, we devote 18 words to them, in the most generic and vague terms possible, and balance them out by 500+ words directly from those accused of war crimes, sourced to their banned-for-incitement-of-racism propaganda TV station, that explain that these are legitimate acts of resistance. I was going for a more balanced presentation in this article, but your example has convinced me to devote much less space to these allegations of HRW's, along the lines of the Hezbollah article. Isarig 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I gather you do not have a dictionary to hand.--G-Dett 03:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Isarig -> there is one part of the Hezbollah article that indeed does what you claim. I've been over there to protest at this dramatic departure from NPOV, see here. It would be a shame if critics of Israel copied the frequently outrageous behaviour of supporters of Israel. PalestineRemembered 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent, ec) -> Human rights organisations, far less advanced than what we have now, helped rescue 1 million Jews from Russia to Israel (and many more elsewhere?) in the 1980s. I can't rememeber whether the Soviets were given a right of reply or not, or whether anyone in the West dared challenge the claims being made. I can guarantee that western sources treated any and all such deniers with disdain. It seems strange to do a 180deg turn and claim that the modern day equivalents (with both local and international observers and proper recording of what is happening) are not reliable now - and that those who dispute these reports must be given a respectful hearing. PalestineRemembered 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarig has in interesting thought there. Perhaps something we can expand on. Amnesty is clearly biased as they are against human right violations so statistics on human right violations can not be used. The police is biased against crime so their statistics on crime can not be used. Doctors are biased against sickness so their statistics on sickness can not be used. // Liftarn
Yes, indeed. Gives a whole new meaning to neutrality. --Marvin Diode 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I was afraid this would happen. I've protected the page for a week to stop this edit war - I was hoping that you guys would agree on the scope of the article and your sourcing before jumping in and editing it. Maybe now this can happen. I don't have time right now, but later on today I'll post some suggestions on how to proceed. -- ChrisO 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful material from Israeli Haaretz Newspaper

Ministries seek AG okay for hiatus in demolition of Bedouin homes ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also here is some stuff on House demolitions in Jaffa. A personal blog of a Jew living in Jaffa so can not be used as an external link. But interresting and informative nevertheless No! to demolitions in Ajami and Jabaliyah. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant to the subject of this article, which is 'a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.' Isarig 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a zionist approach to exclude Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes inside the green line, which is not accepted by the non-Zionist editors here.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Abu Ali, I understand your frustration, but stick to editorial arguments based on policy. The article will include so-called "permit" demolitions because the reliable sources do. If we have to go through the whole RfC, mediation, etc. routine to effect it, we will, but obviously the article will be based on the topic as it's defined by reliable sources. Let the other side flail around in anger.--G-Dett 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This article might include permit demolitions - if and when consensus for such inclusion is reached. Categorically stating that it "will" do so is no better from a WP policy perspective than the rabid rantings about "zionists" that you (rightly) object to. Isarig
If you can reach a consensus that the article should exclude some house demolitions, then (and only then) the content may be removed. // Liftarn
You are under the mistaken belief that both positions are equally valid. They are not. Read WP policy - the onus is on th editor wishing to add content to prove that it is relevant and verifiable. Isarig 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Then when you're done reading policy, read the reliable sources, who to a one treat "permit" demolitions as part of the topic.--G-Dett 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The consensus is that it is reliaablie, verifiable and should be included in the article. That some politicly motivated editors constantly try to remove it is another matter. // Liftarn

[edit] House demolitions. Let's create 2 separate articles

Simple solution. I suggest 2 articles along the lines of:

House demolitions in Israeli-controlled territories

House demolitions in Israel.

I think it is more important to get the info out there from all reliable sources. Rather than waste time arguing about the scope of a single article. I think that in many cases this argumentation is a standard delaying tactic seen many times in other articles.

Creating separate articles solves the problem by changing the scope of the articles.

Permit demolitions in the occupied territories are obviously considered part of the conflict since those occupied didn't vote in their occupiers.

All viewpoints about permit demolitions in Israel can be discussed in that article. --Timeshifter 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how that split would solve anything. // Liftarn
I agree with Liftarn that this is not a viable suggestion. Please read the citations in this article - in fact both types of demolitions are occurring in occupied territories (e.g. East Jerusalem, and also the West Bank to expand settlements). So splitting the topic would not be an honest approach.
I'm moving this topic up since it is in the way of an ongoing discussion; please feel free to move it back once that discussion is completed. Thank you, Jgui 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Why try to include house demolitions in Israel along with house demolitions in the Palestinian territories? One could argue that house demolitions of the various groups in Israel have many motivations. Let those motivations be spelled out in the article on House demolitions in Israel
We solved the problem of too much content in the House demolition article by spinning out this article. Why not further spinout material to House demolitions in Israel? Please see WP:SPINOUT. --Timeshifter 15:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Our friends will (a) try to get the new article deleted, and (b) remove all content related to houses demolished because they were denied permits etc. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion attempts will not work against House demolitions in Israeli-controlled territories, because that article would contain the bulk of the material that survived the last deletion attempt. House demolitions in Israel will survive if there is enough sourced material. Even if there is not much material at first it would probably survive as a stub. But I gather there is plenty of material. Attempts to delete it as a spinout article would fail due to the attempts by people to remove the material from the current article. So, actually, a deletion attempt would clarify things greatly. --Timeshifter 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is that people can't have it both ways. One can't remove reliable sourced material from an article by claiming it is offtopic, and then try to delete the ensuing spinout article that contains the same reliable sourced material. Assuming of course that the material is ontopic for the spinout article. I actually prefer more articles, since then there is room for a more in-depth, encyclopedic breakdown of all the related topics. Wikipedia is not paper. We have plenty of room for encyclopedic info concerning notable topics. Please see WP:NOTPAPER.--Timeshifter 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganized to address concerns of Liftarn and Jayjg

Jayjg and Liftarn seem to disagree on the scope of this article. It is clear from the title of this page that this page is about "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Please read that a second time in case it is not clear that this is unrestricted in any way. I have reorganized this article to make it clear that this includes any reason for house demolition. This fully conforms with "policy", since the policy is that the article should match its title.

I have kept almost all of the text that was here before, reorganizing it to improve its organization, and removing only text that was very repetitive. If I have removed a sentence that someone thinks I should not have removed, then PLEASE ADD IT BACK. I have also added a few cited quotes from reliable source, in all cases using sources that were already in use.

And I have clarified the statement to be "House demolition in occupied territory is illegal under international law" because it is - please read the law if you question that. Israel does not dispute the truth of this statement; they dispute whether this law applies to their country and the Palestinian territory. So I have left that discussion as it was.

Thank you, Jgui 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks nice and I hope it will be accepted by the deletionists as well. // Liftarn
Obviously not very well... // Liftarn
The cited text I added is being deleted without any discussion here. This is flagrantly against WP rules. Could one of those who has deleted this text (Beit Or, Isarig, Shrike and Tewfik) please explain why they are deleting cited text without discussion? The edit histories indicate "irrelevant", "off topic", NOTHING, and "off topic", respectively. But I stated very clearly above how this is ON-TOPIC and RELEVANT - namely that the title of this entry is "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", and indeed everything I added is about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tewfix further claims in his edit history that "much of that isn't even sourced", although I believe it is all sourced, so could Twefik please note specifically which material is not sourced so I can improve it? I will restore it so you can make your comments. Thank you, Jgui 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summaries, the assertions are not only off-topic and not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but are not even sourced, and make ridiculous allegations like theft that are entirely unrelated. While I'm sure you meant well, it is your responsibility to ascertain that every statement you add is actually supported by RS, and isn't a personal synthesis. TewfikTalk 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik, you deleted huge swaths of direct quotes from human rights groups, with proper citations. Furthermore, while some assertions you deleted ("house demolition is illegal") were unsupported, you replaced them with statements which were also unsupported ("the legality of house demolition is disputed"), but more flattering towards Israel. Simply because an allegation strikes you personally as "ridiculous" has no bearing on anything. Indeed, someone who believes that Israeli theft of Palestinian land is a "ridiculous" accusation would have to know very little about the relevant history.
I suggest that the properly sourced material be restored, and not touched without a proper discussion on talk. I suggest that unsourced statements be tagged {{cn}} and discussed on talk for at least a week or two, only then deleted if no citations can be found. Currently, it would seem the criteria for deletion of material are related to personal opinions of Israel, and not to citation policy. Eleland 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I removed off-topic information and original research. I also would like to point out the policies on sock puppetry. TewfikTalk 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually you removed relevant sourced material. [6] AGF & CIV violation removed. TewfikTalk 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Tewfik voted to make this article a redirect, not delete it. I don't think what Abu Ali said was all that uncivil, but I will attempt to rephrase his point in a way that is not in any way an attack: Tewfik, your comments in the AfD discussion indicate that you did not want an article devoted to this subject in the first place. That suggests that you may not be the right editor to decide what is "on topic" for it. Sanguinalis 11:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I could say the same about you for commenting in the opposite direction. What is far more worrisome are the blatant violations of civility and assumption of good faith above and below my comments which seem to be attempting to disqualify any differing opinions, and the efforts of other editors to preserve them. TewfikTalk 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik and Jayjg have a long history of deleting reliably-sourced info that criticizes Israel. I have documented it in detail here:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict
Here is the current revision of that project page. Check the "notice board" section with the monthly requests for NPOV help.
I am bringing this up because it is really tiring to see it happening yet again, and I want to help others to see the various methods used for deletion. The easy way to stop this deletion is to create more spinout articles. See WP:SPINOUT.
I want plenty of reliably-sourced criticism of all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict to be included in all relevant wikipedia articles. --Timeshifter 12:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Well said!ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. You are totally out of order. DO NOT KEEP EDITING THIS TALK PAGE. I am well aware of what WP:Talk says and here is the relevant excerpt -

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed. There are exceptions, however. Some are:

If you have their permission Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything.

I have also posted a message on your talk page about this --Nickhh 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOR proxies

Whoever is using TOR proxies to revert this article, I remind you that one is not allowed to edit Wikipedia using proxies, and particularly not in order to edit-war. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay has cross posted to ANI. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring reminder

Regarding the ongoing edit war on this article, I'd like to remind everyone of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Please bear this in mind and use this discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI discussion concerning removal of comments from this talk page

Please see this discussion. --Timeshifter 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not delete cited material without stating why

I have taken the time to re-insert an improved version of the material that I added previously. I have addressed some of the concerns stated above, namely I have carefully cited EVERY sentence that I have added, and I have replaced the discussion under "Legal Status" with text taken verbatim from the parent "House Demolition" page, since that text has apparently met with approval as being NPOV.

The text that I added earlier was deleted by a number of editors including Jayjg before Jayjg semi-protected the page. I appreciate his semi-protection, and I hope that editors will this time abide by WP guidelines, and leave the cited text that I have added and discuss it HERE in these Talk pages without removing it.

I found particularly problematic the fact that a long term editor and Administrator, Jayjg, was one of the editors who deleted without discussion the material that I added previously. Instead he wrote an edit summary that stated "Please get consensus for widening the scope before inserting off-topic material; much of that isn't even sourced - this has been explained many times, please avoid false edits summaries)".

Jayjg, please write your comments here in this Talk page. It is impossible to have a discussion with an editor who simply deletes text. To address some of the concerns that you stated in your edit summary:

Jayjg, I am not "widening the scope" with "off-topic material" - the scope and topic of this page is plainly stated as "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Could you please point out anything that I have added to this page that is not related to "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"?

Jayjg, I am not inserting "unsourced" material. I have very carefully cited every sentence that I have added with a Reliable Source that meets WP standards, using sources that were being used in this page before I made any edits. Could you please point out anything I have added to this page that is not properly sourced?

Jayjg, I have not made "false edit summaries". That is simply an unfair accusation. Could you please point out any edit summary that I have made that is "false"?

Jayjg, I hope that you will accept that I have made edits in good-faith in an effort to improve this page. I would also, of course, appreciate your and other editors' improvements to my edits.

Thank you, Jgui 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, could you substitute commas for the colons in your above comment? I could not tell at first what was happening. I thought you had copied and pasted a conversation from elsewhere. But then I finally figured out that you were addressing Jayjg, and not quoting him. In particular, you are addressing his edit summaries.
I have looked at your last edit (please see this diff). It is good that you have sourced your additions. But you deleted other info and references. I suggest you incorporate all reliably-sourced viewpoints, info, and references. This allows the reader to make up their own mind, and I believe it better fulfills WP:NPOV. I suggest in the future that you not change much what has already been written. Instead, I suggest adding more sourced info. --Timeshifter 11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, thank you for your suggestion; I changed to commas. I think the diff you are using is a bit misleading, since I moved a lot of text to improve its organization and to clarify the objections to demolition that have been made. In addition, I replaced the Legal Status section with one that should be non-controvertial, since it is taken verbatim from the WP page on House Demolition. If you look carefully you will find that aside from thae Legal Status section, I moved every other cited sentence that shows up in the diff without any modification, except for the following relating statistics about demolition as a punitive measure:
House demolition has been used in an on-again-off-again fashion by the Israeli government during the al-Aqsa Intifada. More than 3,000 homes have been destroyed in this way.[1]
and:
According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem:
  • From October 2001 to December 2005, Israel has demolished 668 homes as punishment, leaving 4,182 people homeless; [7]
  • Israel has demolished 1,746 homes for alleged military purposes since B'Teselem started keeping statistics in this category in 2004; [8]
Which I rewrote as:
In October 2001, Israel renewed its policy of punitive house demolitions against the al-Aqsa Intifada[2]. More than 3,000 homes have been destroyed in this way.[3]
You forgot WP:NPOV; opinions must be cited to the groups expressing them, in this case B'Tselem. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I hope you are joking. Please note that I left the second sentence (the one from Btselem) EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE. So are you claiming that you removed all of my four hundred lines of changes because I left this one sentence the same as it was, and that this was somehow introducing POV??? Very amusing indeed. Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I left out the original versions since I thought my version was more to the point, and I did not want to overwhelm the reader with too many statistics. But if you think these sentences are important to the article and are not adequately covered with the senteces that I replaced them with, then PLEASE add them back.
As a summary of what I changed in the Legal Status section, this is the previous version (not including sentences that I retained but moved elsewhere in the article):
The legality of house demolition under International law is disputed. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 says: "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons … is prohibited."[4]
Israel, which is a party to the Convention, denies that it is applicable to the Palestinian territories,[5] on the grounds that acceptance of this convention would imply recognition that they are sovereign territories of other states,[6] but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are.[7][8]
And this is the new version (please note that it is taken verbatim from the House demolition WP page.
The use of house demolition under international law is today governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, enacted in 1949, which protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 provides that "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons ... is prohibited."[9] A number of war crimes prosecutions have included charges relating to the illegal destruction of property.[10]
Israeli use of house demolitions has been particularly controversial. However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that it does not exercise sovereignty in the territories and is thus under no obligation to apply the treaty in those areas. This position is rejected by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, which notes that "it is a basic principle of human rights law that international human rights treaties are applicable in all areas in which states parties exercise effective control, regardless of whether or not they exercise sovereignty in that area."[5]
Again, you forgot WP:NPOV; we don't state one side as "fact", instead we list the positions of both sides, and we don't take sides. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, again you seem to have lost sight of the fact that I have not written this text and I have emphatically not taken sides; I have copied text from the House demolition article of which you are one of the editors, that you have personally contributed to eleven times in the last two months. Since you have not changed or deleted it from that article, and since it is the same text, then your accusation of me "taking side" is plain ridiculous, and you have no justification in deleting it from this article. Thank you, Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who wrote the text, other articles are irrelevant, and you have taken sides in every single edit you've ever made regarding Israel. Deal with this article. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Jgui 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I removed Jayjg's name from the title of this subsection. See WP:TALK to see why. So the new subsection title is now: "Please do not delete cited material without stating why". And it applies to anybody. If questioned, then all deletions of reliably-sourced material have to be defended.

I am not interested in editing this article. I was just looking in a little bit to see if there were any obvious problems I could help with. The obvious one I see is that people from various viewpoints are deleting reliably-sourced info. In the end it will all stay in the article in one form or another. So everyone needs to stop trying to spin the article, in my opinion. It just wastes time.

Instead of weighting the article with this or that info, just put it all in, and let people think on their own. It does not matter to me that some of your info came from some version of the old article before it was spun out to this article. That does not make it better or worse info. That does not give it priority over other info. All the ontopic sourced info needs to go in the article in some form or another. And feel free to rename the article, or to spinout more articles if necessary. --Timeshifter 15:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, thanks for your change to the title and reference to WP:TALK since I had not noticed that suggestion previously. I gave a detailed response to your post because I want it to be very clear that I am NOT deleting material, I am reorganizing it but leaving it unmodified. I have therefore noted all the deletions that I made above, in case you or any other editor feels it is important to re-add it. Thanks, Jgui 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, please stop deleting text wholesale. Simply add your own points, or add notations that the issues or information are disputed. --Steve, Sm8900 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve, please stop telling people not to delete material they think is inappropriate for an article. If material doesn't belong in an article, then "adding your own points" or "adding notations" won't help. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve, to be fair Jayjg has not deleted any text since I added this new version, and I hope that he and other editors will not this time. I certainly agree with you that all editors should abide by those rules. Thanks, Jgui 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok, sorry. I was not trying to pick on any individual, merely to move the entire discussion along. sorry again. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Your detailed replies should be very helpful to those doing serious editing on this article. I looked at your last article edit enough to notice that you did spin a few points, and you replaced some references with others. There is no need to remove reliable references in order to use other references. More reliable references are almost always helpful in my opinion. Wikipedia is not paper. We have the room. We can always spinout more articles. See: WP:PAPER. --Timeshifter 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I hope you will comment on anything in my latest version that you think is "spin", so that I can fix it. The only specific complaint against my previous version was that the statement "house demolition is illegal" was unsupported (although this editor also noted that the existing version was similarly unsupported), which is why I changed my version and replaced the Legal Status section with WP text that has already been accepted in the House demolition page. I also addressed the general complaint that I had added uncited text, by citing each and every sentence that I added in this version. I already answered your question about reliable references, by noting all cited text that I removed above and explaining why (and suggesting that you reinsert the text if you disagree with its removal). And please specify any other complaints you have with the current version and I will be glad to address them. Thank you, Jgui 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A quick note, Jgui. I see that you have referenced the info you inserted. That is great! But in the diff I previously linked you removed several reliable reference links. Please return them. Until you do that, then you are playing the same spin game of Tewfik and Jayjg. Blanking is blanking is blanking, no matter who does it. Please see: WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Blanking can be called vandalism after a person is notified and doesn't fix it, or doesn't stop doing it. I just pointed this out to Tewfik on another page. Please see this diff for Al-Aqsa Intifada. --Timeshifter 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop widening the scope of this article, and please don't continually revert in version that assert opinion (e.g. about international law) as fact. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to be bold and change the name of the article in order to make the scope more clear. This is not an endorsement of your position, Jayjg. Because it is obvious that you are blanking and removing sourced info and reference links. Info that meets even your bogus arbitrary setting of the scope of this article. Please see this diff of your last blanking edit and mass reversion. Others seem to be helping you in this tag-team blanking. At least Jgui seems to be making an effort to have a dialog, and to rewrite the article. Why don't you set an example (as an admin) and engage in the dialog fully, and try fully integrating all the info and all the reference links? Instead of taking the easy way of mass reversions. And you are an admin??? --Timeshifter 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I restored the material deleted by Tewfik and Jayjg, since they don't seem to taking the request from multiple editors to discuss very seriously and deletion of sourced info with one-sentence explanations isn't really sufficient. I would add my voice to those asking for a detailed explanation of the problem. Thanks. Tiamat 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been explained before. The scope of this article is houses demolished as part of the conflict, for counter-insurgency purposes. Some people insist on trying to expand the article to include all sorts of things not particularly related. Also, jgui wants to rewrite existing sections in a way that obviously violates WP:NPOV. Please avoid blind reverts based on personal animus, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not about personal animus Jayjg. I have this page on my watchlist and when I see -4,000+ bytes there for any article I go to check out what's going on. After reading through the talk page, I can see that there are editors here trying to engage in a discussion so that they can contribute to this encyclopedia. On the other hand, I see you and Tewfik continue to persist in deleting additions wholesale, rather than taking people up on their request to discuss. I've noticed it's quite a pattern, based on my experience with you both at Palestinian people. Perhaps a little self-reflection would serve you better than making accusations that fail to assume good faith. Tiamat 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, thank you for stating your concerns here. I think that upon reading my text more carefully you will find that your stated concerns are not supported by the truth. To address your specific comments:
  • "stop widening the scope of this article": I am not "widening the scope" - the scope and topic of this article is plainly stated as "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Could you please point out anything that I have added to this page that is not related to "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"?
  • "don't continually revert in version that assert opinion (e.g. about international law) as fact": You clearly have not read the version that you just deleted, since the statement about international law is not in the text that you deleted. As I carefully explained above, I replaced the Legal Status section with WP text that has already been accepted in the House demolition page that makes no assertions about international law other than those made in the WP House demolition page which has been widely reviewed and accepted (and which was not written by me).
Clearly your reasons for deleting this properly cited text are not valid. I hope you will revert to my version; and if not I hope you will repond here as to why. Thank you, Jgui 18:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you didn't respond to all of my points. Second, you did indeed revert to your version regarding internatinal, which misrepresents Israel's position, which is actually that the territories were never part of any sovereign state; it it makes no difference what another articles says. That article could also be wrong, but regardless, we are talking about this article. Finally, there has been a lengthy debate on these pages regarding the scope of this article; for example, it hasn't been opened up to the demolition of Jewish homes in various settlements. The current scope is that of homes demolished for counter-insurgency purposes; there is no agreement to widen it. And finally, please don't assert that my reasons are "clearly not valid"; your personal opinions don't really add anything, and it is inevitable that I will think they are wrong. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, First, I think I answered all of your points, except for your vague and unsubstantiated claim of POV. Since I kept the text that was already in this article, and added only cited text from WP:RS, it is hard for me to see how I was so flagrantly POV that you feel justified in removing everything I added. But I would appreciate it if you would either fix these POV sections, or point out to me where they are so that I could fix them myself. (I have just found your well-hidden notes above regarding POV; and have addressed your concerns above and summarized my changes below Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
Jayjg, Second, the text that I used regarding international all came verbatim from the page House demolition that you have been an active editor in, with 11 edits in the last two months. Could I ask why you have neither deleted, corrected, nor complained about this text from that article in those two months? Could I further ask why you are using this same text to justify your wholesale deletions of a great deal of other cited text on this page??
Jayjg, Finally, I think the discussion below is addressing your final question. Thank you, Jgui 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained why other pages are irrelevant; why do you keep repeating yourself, and failing to respond to my points? Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg. Your latest edit summary highlights a major problem here [9] The article title is "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", and not House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for counter-insurgency purposes. The "counter-insurgency purposes" part is your extremely restricted explanation of the purpose of house demolition, but not the title of the article. Please stop misleading other editors as to what this edit war is about. The material being added is directly relevant to the article title. Your attempt to artifically demarcate the borders of content here effectively prevents any POV that disagreed with your rationale from being presented in the article. Please cease and desist you unwarranted deletions. Tiamat 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, claims that I am "misleading other editors as to what this edit war is about" are uncivil and inaccurate. Please try again, this time addressing the issues, not the individuals. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think people can decide for themselves what's uncivil and inaccurate. I repeat: The article title is House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for counter-insurgency purposes. Artifically demarcating the borders of content here by insisting that all sources address home demolition as a counter-insurgency tactic only effectively prevents the inclusion of any POV that views house demolitions as a punitive action that flies in the face of international law. These views deserve inclusion. So stop taking them out.Tiamat 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
People can decide whatever they like, but I'm telling you what kinds of comments I won't respond to. Let me ask a question; do you think this article should cover demolition of settler homes? Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles follow the lead of reliable sources in circumscribing their topic. Most reliable sources treat permit demolitions and counter-insurgency demolitions collectively, and none that I know of address demolition of settler homes.--G-Dett 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And the sources are..? Beit Or 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
They're listed in the mainspace, under "References" and "External Links."--G-Dett 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think G-Dett is absolutely correct on this. It would be fine if Jayjg wants to write a separate article on demolition of settler homes, e.g. "Demolition by Israel of Abandoned Settlements" when Israel unilaterally left land that they had been occupying since 1967 in Gaza. It would be interesting to see a discussion of why Israel finally left after forty years and why Israel demolished those structures rather than leaving them standing. And I personally think it would be fine for this article to include a link to that article. Thanks, Jgui 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The sources are almost exclusively partisan, and their claims cannot be cited as facts rather than opinions. Beit Or 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The first 4 sources are B'Tselem, Amnesty International, International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court. Is it the testimony of Israeli or International observers you have a problem with? PalestineRemembered 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of POV

Jayjg had sprinkled two accusations of "POV" in the above, which I did not see until now. I have answered him above, and modified my text to try to address his stated concerns. Here is a summary of the changes I made: Jayjg stated that I needed to refer to B'Tselem in a paragraph I slightly modified from the earlier version that Jay has restored several times, even though B'Tselem is not referred to in the paragraph he prefers. Apparently he thinks that this paragraph is NPOV when he adds it, but it is POV when I add it. Nevertheless, I have rewritten making this change to refer to B'Tselem to satisfy his concern.

Jayjg also stated in referring to the Legal Status section that: "Again, you forgot WP:NPOV; we don't state one side as fact, instead we list the positions of both sides, and we don't take sides.

Jayjg, again you seem to have lost sight of the fact that I have not written this text and I have emphatically not taken sides; I have copied text from the House demolition article of which you are one of the editors, that you have personally contributed to eleven times in the last two months. Since you have not changed or deleted it from that article, and since it is the same text, then your accusation of me "taking side" is plain ridiculous, and you have no justification in deleting it from this article. Since you claim that the article that you have been editing (and that I copied) "misrepresents Israel's position, which is actually that the territories were never part of any sovereign state", then I strongly hope that you will not delete this text from this article again, but that you will modify it to correctly represent Israel's position both here and in the House demolition article, since you are apparently the only one who knows what that position is. Thank you, Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, I see that you have also chosen to delete all of these changes, without making any comment here in the Talk pages, but with an edit history claiming simply "rv POV". Since I have addressed all of Jayjg's concerns regarding POV, I hope you will abide by WP rules and not revert my modified changes, instead contributing here with any concerns you have. Thank you, Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Armon, you too have performed a mass reversion claiming "POV" in your edit summary, but without posting anything here in Talk to substantiate your claim. What text do you now consider to be POV - the only text that has been claimed to be POV by Jayjg has been rewritten to address those concerns. Please abide by WP rules and do not perform any more mass reversions. If you see POV text, then please modify it or discuss it here.
I will restore my text with the above changes to address Jayjg's stated concerns about POV. If there are other concerns about POV, then please state them clearly here in this Talk page. Thank you, Jgui 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You haven't taken my concerns into account at all; please stop falsely claiming you have. Leave the original text as it was, or get consensus first for a new text. And stop trying to expand the scope of this article. Jayjg (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, could you please AGF and stop accusing me of making false claims? You have made exactly two accusations of POV: 1. You stated that it was POV to not include a reference to which group had made a statement, so I added it, and the statement now includes that reference; 2. You claimed that I had written text that had "taken sides", but I proved to you that I had not written the text but had lifted it verbatim from a WP page that you have been a contributing editor of. So I have rewritten text that you have expressed concerns about to make it NPOV - it is obvious that I have taken your concerns into account. And as has been exaustively discussed above, I am not expanding the scope of the article - I am addressing a topic that is clearly covered by the title "Demolition in the Israli-Palestinian conflict". I even agreed with your suggestion that the demolition of Settler homes is a worthwhile topic for a separate page as suggested by G-Dett. In contrast you have simply deleted all of my edits, sometimes with discussion in the Talk page, sometimes without. I have to ask whether you think your behavior is befitting of a WP editor and highly placed Administrator? Thank you, Jgui 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
But you haven't re-written the material to satisfy my concerns, and it doesn't matter where the material came from - you inserted it. Your claim to have taken my concerns into account is simply false; please stop making it. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, you can add your concerns to all the well-written text which Jgui has worked hard on. I would suggest that as a better option. please do not make war over whether his text meets some mythical standard just because another editor thinks so. I feel this process will get us nowhere fast. there is much potential here to reach clarity and informativeness, to a high degree, as Wikipedia frequently does. Please try to pursue such a process. your edits can play a valuable role in achieving balance, like other editors can as well. --Steve, Sm8900 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, there's no need, because the previous text was better. And, as I've explained several times to you, there's no point in adding to material that doesn't belong in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this process. I disagree with the whole atmosphere which is starting to emerge. I do not believe that editors should need to "seek consensus," as Jayjg has put it. What they need to do is provide well-written, well-sourced text. What any dissenters need to do is to provide their own counter-balancing facts, concerns, viewpoints or data. Some might call that too colloquial. however it has almost alwayts resulted in an orderly, well-intentioned and well-mannered process. In contrast, the approach of each sides accusing the other side of POV or not achieving consensus has almost always led to counter-accuasations and recriminations.
I am disturbed by the tone which is creeping into this and other articles on this conflict. There is absolutely no reason for contention or adversarial tones to exist. yes, i mean that. By allowing one good-faith editor to supply well-sourced text, and then simply providing valid sources showing the other side, we can gradually bring the valid concerns of boths sides to the fore, without any intrusion whatsoever or any denigration of anyone's beliefs, viewpoints or ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve, as I've explained to you before, when material is not suitable for inclusion in an article, then there is no point in trying to find "counter-balancing facts" etc. And "well-sourced" is meaningless - information must be relevant, for one thing. Please stop inserting red herrings into these discussions; there is no presumption that all material must be included in an article - on the contrary. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally! Some sanity in this non-discussion. I agree with Steve. And Jayjg has probably stated more clearly than ever his bias for including only POVs he approves of. And only within the scope that he delineates for an article. Jayjg and Jgui are some of the most uncooperative editors I have ever seen. They deserve each other. Frankly, I think they both should be banned for a few months. --Timeshifter 18:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well gosh, timeshifter, I don't know. I mean, thanks for your support. But now I'm thinking maybe they're both right. Because maybe Palestinian sources and viewpoints should be omitted because after all they are all dangerous subversive radicals who should be stopped from undermining things. And maybe everything Israeli should be omitted because they are colonialist burdensome interlopers. And maybe the whole darn conflict should be dragged into the pages of Wikipedia because after all, it's not like Wikipedia is a haven of intellectual discourse; it's a place where everyone should be free to work out their basest instincts. So I guess we should just keep on stoking the fires of conflict. thanks for your support anyway. :-) See you. --Steve, Sm8900 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well at least we have peacekeepers here. The admins. Just like the UN! And UN resolutions! The Wikipedia guidelines. ;-) Wait a second. Jayjg is an admin. Oh well... Another thousand years of holy war. --Timeshifter 19:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House demolition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

I was bold and changed the name from House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to House demolition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

This way we can discuss ALL house demolitions. No matter the reason. Including the ones in settler areas. Let us stop the mass reversions and the deletions of reference links.

Both Jgui and Jayjg need to stop deleting reference links. Instead, someone needs to integrate all the reference links and info. Blanking is blanking is blanking. No matter who does it. Please see the section on blanking in WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism.

We can spinout more articles if any subtopic becomes too long. We have the room. Wikipedia is not paper. Please see WP:SPINOUT and WP:NOTPAPER.

I think this name is better than "House demolition in the Palestinian territories". That is because some people say that those territories do not include settler areas or any areas not under direct control of the Palestinian National Authority. Since demolitions are sometimes done to expand settler areas, then that name may end up causing more unnecessary arguments about the scope of the article. --Timeshifter 03:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You realize that this change implies that demolition of Israeli settler homes now warrants mention and that demolitions within Israel won't be covered? nadav (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I have no problem with discussing the demolition of settler homes also. I think it is too confusing to cover demolitions within Israel too. Anybody can create another article called "House demolition in Israel." --Timeshifter 04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's discuss the virtues of the move a bit more first. Personally, I don't think it's it's too confusing to discuss demolitions within Israel, and there probably should be something about the demolition of settler houses as well -regardless of what we title it. In both cases there would seem to be tactical considerations at work. <<-armon->> 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you just tag-teamed another mass reversion. See this diff of your last edit. And you haven't stated whether you support the page renaming or not. So how are you helping? You did not try to integrate any of the material of Jgui and Jayjg. You just deleted stuff. Demolitions in the part of Jerusalem within the West Bank as defined by the Green Line would be covered by my new article name. --Timeshifter 05:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed for a bit previously [here] and none of the editors who commented (except Timeshifter) seemed to think it was workable, viable, or a good idea. It seems to me that someone will have to do a lot of very convincing arguing. As I said above, I think it would be fine to create a separate article about settler houses, but doing that would not require changing the current article name; and it certainly doesn't require using the names that Timeshifter has suggested which seem to me particularly bad. Jgui 05:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No one disagreed with me there. And that discussion was about a different name. Why is this new name a bad name? And this latest name makes it clear that discussion about settler demolition is OK. The current name obviously does not make that clear. And your last edit was another tag-team mass reversion. See this diff. So you and Armon are opposing each other with tag-team mass reversions of each other. How are either of you helping with these last edits?--Timeshifter 05:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I think you are trying to be helpful, but I admit I am rather offended by your equating my reorganizing and adding material to this page, with Jayjg et al's mass deletions. Because of your previous accusations I took the time to go through every change that I had made, and noted every bit of cited text that I had actually removed from the page as part of my edits (see above). If you question that I am being truthful, then please print out the diff that you have provided a link for - notice that the diff does not note when text is moved - and take the time to see where I moved identical sentences or paragraphs without changing them. If you do this you will find that I indeed removed only the sentences that I noted above. So do you think that the things I changed are equivalent to removing nine full paragraphs of cited text - because that is what Jayjg et al are doing?
Furthermore, Jayjg accused me of making specific NPOV edit, even though I was reinserting essentially the same text that he was inserting. Nevertheless I addressed his concern by rewriting the paragraph he complained about in the way that he requested, and that is the version that I restored last night. It is unfair of you to call this a "tag-team mass reversion" - I am looking for input on ways to improve my edits, and I am then making those changes. Since you have called my changes "spin", I challenge you again to point out to me where I have added "spin". My goal is to improve this page by writing NPOV text; if you think it is POV, then PLEASE TELL ME WHERE. I cannot change it if no one tells me where the problems are. Of course it would be even better if the Jayjg et al editors were to follow WP guidelines and make these changes themselves, instead of deleting them.
Timeshifter, if you want to insert yourself in this conversation as an intermediary, then I hope you will do a more thorough job of fairly analyzing the data. Thank you, Jgui 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I moved this section back down to where it was. Jgui, editing others' comments is a serious breach of WP:TALK. Do it again and I will report you to WP:ANI. And please stop the uncivil condescending tone. See WP:CIVIL. I am not "inserting" myself. I am an editor at wikipedia with many edits in this topic area.

You completely ignored my main point. A point I repeated. I did a side-by-side comparison of the references in your diff. I compared it to the references in the page before your edit. See the previous diff I left for your edits. You removed some references and substituted others. I believe you should have left all those references in. Feel free to add more. But don't delete references. Deleting references means you are deleting other viewpoints at least partially. Because that is a form of weighting viewpoints. By adding or subtracting references for those viewpoints. Wikipedia is all about the references.

Jgui, Is it OK if I move the offtopic part of your last comment (and my reply to it) to the relevant section?

Now back to the topic of THIS section. Please stay ontopic with this section. I would like to hear the opinions of anybody concerning the title and scope of this article. I think most of the time wasting going on the last couple months has been due to avoiding addressing this issue head on. --Timeshifter 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be expanded (I have said this before) and the title changed to House demolition in Israel and Palestinian territories to reflect it. There should be coverage of Israel's policy of not recognizing Bedouin settlements. nadav (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any objection to changing the name to House demolition in Israel and Palestinian territories? --Timeshifter 06:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I started a new section, #House demolition in Israel and Palestinian territories, farther down since that new section also suggests creating a new page rather than renaming this article.
Also, I want to thank Jgui for putting back the reference links he deleted. --Timeshifter 15:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic lessons in NPOV

Let's be clear. We must not definitively attribute motives to an action, unless those motives are widely presented as factual in verifiable published sources, and not significantly disputed, even by a minority. It doesn't matter one iota whether an editor personally disagrees with the claimed motives. As long as a claim has been advanced in reliable, published sources which make up more than a "tiny minority" of opinion, we must never contradict it outright.

Israel describes its house demolitions as "for counter-insurgency and other security purposes". Numerous groups dispute this explanation, including human rights groups and the Palestinians themselves. These groups say it's really part of a policy of dispossession, theft, and collective punishment. These groups do not constitute a tiny minority of opinion.

Thus: the article must accommodate both viewpoints. It must not state or imply that one explanation is correct. This is neither negotiable nor open to interpretation. Eleland 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the edits in question, but I, at least, agree with this approach. We must give both sides' interpretations. nadav (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Eleland and nadav. Well said, Eleland.--Timeshifter 06:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Eleland. There is policy on these things, and you've spelled it out. PalestineRemembered 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break. Change of topic

Armon, you have again and more than once reverted vast amount of cited text without any explanation here in Talk. OK, lets review the discussion that Armon is unwilling to have here in Talk, instead forcing us to view them in Edit history. Since he refuses to abide by WP rules by stating his objections here, I will copy his edit history:
Armon says: "I just consider stuff like "punished for being Palestinian." "theft" and "Apartheid wall" just a tad POV"
Armon says: "you attribute POV, you don't use WP's "voice" for it. There's your basic lesson in NPOV"
Now lets look at the phrases he is complaining about, and the context they are used in:
Opponents of house demolition cite other motives:
* Collective punishment, the indiscriminate use of force against Palestinian civilians as a punishment for being Palestinian.[1]
* Theft, of Palestinian homes and farmland for development by Israel or to expand Israeli settlements.[2]
* Annexation, of land to build the Security fence or Apartheid wall meant to separate Israel from the West Bank.[2]
Clearly Armon's claim that this is being stated in WP's "voice" is not true - these are all being attributed to and stated in the voice of the "Opponents of house demolition". And in fact they are all cited, please read the citations. Are these claims accurate - maybe, maybe not. But the opponents do make these claims.
And to achieve NPOV, this article presents the IDF's justifications for demolition (this text was left unmodified). It proports to paraphrase the IDF (although only one of the claims is cited), claiming that the houses they are destroying are those of "attackers", or "militant facilities such as bombs labs", or "a house which may be rigged with explosives", or a "hideout". It would be nice if these were cited, but I can believe they have made these claims. Are these claims accurate - maybe, maybe not. But once again the opponents do (we assume) make these claims.
I think the conclusion of these basic lessons in NPOV has to be that this is an invalid basis for reverting out these changes. I will therefore restore the previous version, awaiting some valid objections to them. Thank you, Jgui 06:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the introduction to the report has extremely dramatic language. I challenge someone to produce from the body that houses are demolished to make way for settlements or roads, as they instead only make the "settlement" argument in relation to demolishing homes near settlements or Israeli-travelled roads for "security benefits" - i.e., when said homes are a security threat, the same as is discussed beforehand. TewfikTalk 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK check this out:
Collective punishment. This refers to the indiscriminate use of force against Palestinian civilians as a punishment for "harbouring" or "tolerating" militant activity.[2]
Annexation of land to build the Israeli West Bank barrier or to expand Israeli settlements.[3]
I managed to say the exact same thing without resorting to POV language. <<-armon->> 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) Basing my opinion just on the quotes you offer, I actually think Armon has a somewhat valid point here. Just because we are describing the sources' reasons for the demolitions doesn't mean we have to use their tone: It makes it sound as if wikipedia is sympathetic to the claims. Writing "or Apartheid wall" doesn't improve the reader's understanding. Just saying, e.g., "annexation of land" is enough. nadav (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I like the phrasing Armon proposes. nadav (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree, because I do not think Armon's version is accurate. By definition the charge of "collective punishment" means that you are hurting people who have nothing to do with an act being "punished" - but Armon writes that collective punishment is used only against those who are "harboring" a militant. What Armon stated isn't "collective punishment" - it is arguably punishment for a crime. We have to at least use an accurate dictionary definition. Collective punishment is the indiscriminate punishment of innocents - and that is what the Human Rights groups are alledging.
As far as "Apartheid wall", the actual statement is "Security fence or Apartheid wall". And indeed it is called both: the Israeli's call it a Security Fence, the Palestinians call it an Apartheid Wall (and WP also has both). I included both to avoid the accusation of being inflammatory - and indeed they call it a fence / wall in the cited document. Thanks, Jgui 07:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Jgui 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I assumed the quote marks in Armon's version reflect the definition of collective punishment used by th source. I guess I was wrong; I'll refrain from critiquing until I get a chance to delve into these sources for myself... nadav (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik, you just deleted masses of cited text with no discussion here and with an extremely misleading edit history. Please follow WP rules - OK?
Tewfik, as far as your "challenge", um - all you have to do is read the citation. It clearly talks about demolition for the purpose of appropriating land. Where is the confusion?
I'll restore my text again, awaiting someone to state here about why it was deleted (again). Cheers, Jgui 09:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to show me where AI says a house is demolished (as opposed to land expropriation) for expansion of a settlement or the West Bank barrier. All I could find is discussion, as I said above, of "security benefits". TewfikTalk 07:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to show me that AI defines 'house demolition for settlement expansion' as something other than "security benefits". TewfikTalk 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik, you're joking, right? How about the following from http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde150332004 :
26. … Furthermore, the Committee is gravely concerned about the continuing practice of expropriation of Palestinian properties and resources for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (ibid, para. 24).
or this:
Recommendations to the Israeli Authorities:
The creation and expansion of Israeli civilian settlements in the Occupied Territories and infrastructure to support them, including roads, violates international law. Israel must cease and prohibit the destruction of houses, land or other properties for these purposes.
Clear enough for you? Cheers, Jgui 23:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm neither joking nor satisfied. The first part refers to land appropriation, which they tend to mix in with settlements in several introductory type passages. The "expansion" mentioned in the second, as I said above, is defined in the rest of the entry as various reasons related to security:
  • "With the spread of Israeli settlements and related infrastructure throughout the Occupied Territories, in order to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israeli army has committed...widespread destruction of Palestinian homes"
  • "Houses...claim it is necessary to destroy for "security needs", for the benefit or protection of Israeli settlers or soldiers."
  • "used or could be used by Palestinian armed groups to shoot or launch attacks against Israelis...may include any house or property near Israeli settlements, army positions and roads used by Israeli settlers and soldiers"
Etc. - their use of "expansion" is consistently defined as for security needs of Israelis, and they do not argue that an Israeli settlement was constructed on land where a Palestinian house was destroyed. All I am asking is that their claim be defined so as not to make it say something that they do not. TewfikTalk 07:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik, first of all, your statement that "properties and resources" is limited to land is not correct. Elsewhere in the article they explicitely refer to "homes and other properties" - i.e. they include "homes" in their definition of "properties".
Furthermore, your claim that these are all for "security purposes" and therefore somehow distinct from other development is valid ONLY if you accept all the Israeli claims that have been made. Israel may CLAIM that it is for security purposes, and you may personally take that claim at face value, but Amnesty International clearly disagrees - for example: "Amnesty International concluded that the extensive destruction of homes and properties by the Israeli army was not justified by military necessity and as such constituted a war crime."
Finally, AI argue that land and buildings have been seized for what Israel CLAIMS are security purposes when their real intentions are described as follows:
"The destruction also serves the purpose of removing Palestinians from areas where Israel has a particular interest in seizing control of the land, notably near Israeli settlements and army positions, along the Green Line between Israel and the Occupied Territories and along the border with Egypt, with a view to subsequently expanding Israeli settlements or building new roads or other infrastructure intended to consolidate and/or benefit Israeli settlements and/or strengthen Israel’s hold on the land."
I hope this is clear now. If not, please re-read the quotes I have left you above, or better yet please read the whole AI paper, as it has a lot of very worthwhile (and disturbing) information that should be read by everyone. Thank you, Jgui 01:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have read through this and other reports many times, and while as I said above, they mix the topics of land and houses together, and do allege that settlements were built on expropriated land, not once do they make the allegation that a Palestinian home was demolished to make way for an Israeli home. I didn't say one had to accept the IDF's reasons, just that barring any claim of a settlement being built where Palestinian homes once stood, the Amnesty claims are limited to cases of where the Palestinian homes are said by the Israelis to be a threat, or to have been used for violence, which is why excepting the one quote you provided above, they consistently use terminology claiming the houses were destroyed for "security benefit". We have an obligation to represent what they actually say, and not to present vague implications. TewfikTalk 07:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punitive vs. Military and other reasons.

I think the distinction needs to be made more clear in the article, especially when quoting numbers. They're getting conflated. Also, it's probably worth noting that Israel isn't currently doing punitive demolitions see here: On 17 February 2005, the Minister of Defense announced a cessation of punitive house demolitions. From October 2001 (when house demolitions as punishment began again after a break of almost four years) to January 2005, Israel demolished 668 homes in the Occupied Territories as punishment. <<-armon->> 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Armon, Interesting that you think this "should be added", because you have repeatedly deleted a version of this document that does clarify and separate out these reasons, and also removes some of the extraneous citations of numbers.
As to your second point, a sentence describing the cessation of punitive house demolitions is already there in the version you are deleting. (See the last sentence in the "House demolition as punitive deterrence" section in the version of the article you have deleted several times).
Armon, I hope you will more carefully read the version of the document that I will restore, since it seems that it satisfies many of your stated goals. Who knows - maybe you'll see how much you like it now?
Also, I added references that were deleted when I copied the 'Legal status' section from the 'House Demolition' page. They are appropriate references to the discussion of why Israel feels justified in demolitions. Maybe this will satify Jayjg's desire to rewrite this paragraph. If not, then I call on Jayjg to rewrite it in any way he chooses because I do not understand what Jayjg's objections are.
Thank you, Jgui 06:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House demolition in Israel and Palestinian territories

nadav suggested changing the name to "House demolition in Israel and Palestinian territories"

nadav wrote higher up: "I think the article should be expanded (I have said this before) and the title changed to House demolition in Israel and Palestinian territories to reflect it. There should be coverage of Israel's policy of not recognizing Bedouin settlements."

What do others think? I still see mass reversions and deletions based on the scope of the article. An Isarig edit summary from August 3, 2007: "the new version expands the scope - and there's no consensus for this." Here is the diff [10].

There is nothing preventing someone from creating an article with this title. No one needs permission to do that. Just don't use the "move" link to do it.

If people are going to use scope arguments to block whole areas of info on house demolitions, then just create an article with a wider scope, or a different scope. No one article (or even a couple articles) may be enough to cover what seems to be such a broad topic (as witnessed by all the scope arguments here and at House demolition). --Timeshifter 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"House demolitions" + Israel currently produces 51,100 hits, and it is clear that "security considerations" only cover a (small?) proportion of the cases. Many/most of the other cases are alleged to be for the purpose of "ethnic balancing" or euphemisms for the same thing. There is no particular need for a name change, all we have to do is make sure this article actually covers the issue under consideration. That cannot be so difficult. PalestineRemembered 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Nadav's suggestion is a good one. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not opposed, in principle, to widening the scope of the article - if there is consensus for this. See above for my suggestion on how we could go about widening the scope. Isarig 23:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK I've had a go at attempting the merge the two versions of the article

The last thing I've done is restore the House demolition as "annexation" section. I haven't done anything to it except put "annexation" in quotes, since that claim is obviously a POV. I think this needs work, but I'd like to get some feedback on the section first. <<-armon->> 03:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a commendable job. WRT the "annexation" section - the allegations by AI need to be balanced by counter claims. e.g, with regards to the allegation that "[Israel has] discriminated in the application of the law, strictly enforcing planning prohibitions where Palestinian houses are built and freely allowing amendments to the plans to promote development where Israelis are setting up settlements." -we need to provide counter claims that enforcement has been equal in both demographics, relying on official Israeli data an research, such as this:

"a majority of permits requested were granted in eastern Jerusalem, and nearly one–fourth of those requested in western Jerusalem were rejected. Denial of permits, to Arabs and Jews, and relatively infrequent demolition of unauthorized buildings by both Jews and Arabs throughout Israel ("Getting tough on illegal construction," Ha'aretz, February 20) generally are meant to uphold master plans and building codes...A CAMERA monograph, Arab Building in Jerusalem, 1967 – 1997, by Israel Kimhi, Jerusalem city planner from 1963 to 1986, noted that "Arabs in Jerusalem receive building permits at the same rate as ultra–Orthodox Jews, a demographically similar community" and "overall Arabs in Jerusalem have built new houses at a faster rate than Jews."

[11] —The preceding comment is by Isarig (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 August 2007: Please sign your posts!
Something like that makes sense to me. BTW, I've just removed a repetitive bit about the court case which was off-topic and had already been mentioned in "Legal status". <<-armon->> 03:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
A further suggestion: I suggest we dispense with the lenghty quote and summarize the "AI" and "CAMERA" positions. Keep it short, keep it clear, keep out any soapboxing. <<-armon->> 03:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some content[12] seems to have been lost in the merge (and then blanked by the usual suspects after I reinserted it). // Liftarn

It is not lost content- it is material which is either repetitive (2 links to the website of the same org), or material for which there is no consensus. Please seek consensus on the talk page before adding it again. And if you accuse me of vandalism again, I will report you. This is your absolute final warning. Isarig 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Blanking is sometimes considered to be vandalism. Please see
WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism
I still think the problem is the scope of the article. If people disagree on the scope of the article, then each group might consider the mass reversions and deletions of the other group to be blanking. --Timeshifter 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If you take the trouble to actually read what you linked to, you will see that it very clearly says 'significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.. Such non-frivolous explanations have been given here on the talk page, time and again, over a period of several weeks, in direct response to Liftarn's repeated re-insertions of this non-consensus material. His labeling of its removal as "vandalism" at this point is not only a serious breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, but is disruptive editing. I will not tolerate it. Isarig 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no valid reason had been given for the blankings (the quote is valid and the two organisations are not the same (did you even bother to check?)). POV pushing by blanking material you dislike may be considered vandalism. // Liftarn

A non-frivolous explantion was given to you. You many not agree with it, but it was given, and it is not frivolous. Calling its removal vandalism is inappropriate, uncivil, and a violation of numerous WP policies. Do it agian and I will report you. End of story. Isarig 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It was basicly a "I don't like it" so I don't consider that "non-frivolous". // Liftarn
No it was not. It was explained to you what the current focus is - as defined by the article's lead. You may not agree with the scope, and if you want it expanded - get conensus for such expansion. Until then, deletions to make the content conform with current scope are clearly not vandalism. If you label it that way agin - you will be reported. Don't do it. Isarig 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you need to get consensur for the limitation you want to have. // Liftarn 07:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think some of your blanking here could qualify as vandalism. There is no agreement on the scope of the article. It does not matter what is temporarily in the article lead as concerns scope, because there is no consensus on it. To delete material based on YOUR choice about the scope of the article could be looked at as frivolous since it is not based on consensus. If an obvious vandal blanked parts of any article while claiming some vague dislike of the scope of an article, then that could be looked at as a frivolous "don't like it" blanking. --Timeshifter 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the scope of this article has been artificially limited and plainly isn't covering the same area as the topic in public debate. (Didn't G-Dett elegantly demonstrate this by reference to published sources before she was driven off in frustration?). We've now reached the ridiculous position where we cannot have a simple statement from the "Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions" - it'll be edit-war'ed out of the article on "House Demolitions in Israel-Palestine"! PalestineRemembered 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no conceivable reason under Wikipedia policy why this quote should not be included. --Marvin Diode 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree - of course this clearly belongs. Jgui 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "merge"

Armon, it would have been WP policy (not to mention common courtesy) of you to start with the version that I spent a great deal of time writing, rather than throwing it all away so that you could reconstruct some of the changes that I had already made. I hope that you will someday be able to treat other editors in the same courteous manner in which they treat you. Nevertheless, I am willing to overlook the previous vandalism that has taken place on this page by a large number of editors, and will AGF and start from your "merge" as you call it.

[edit] Intro section

The previous version of the first paragraph was as follows:

House demolition is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for counter-insurgency and other security purposes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The IDF justifies it as a deterrent against terrorism. The effectiveness and legality of this practice has repeatedly been questioned by human rights groups.

Clearly this is not NPOV, since it states in the first sentence a disputed POV from the IDF point of view: namely that they are performing House Demolition purely for "counter-insurgency" and "other security purposes" - in fact this is hotly disputed as the next two sentences show. I therefore moved these words to the next sentence, which includes the IDF's POV justification for WHY they are performing the demolitions. I then re-wrote the next sentence with Human Rights Groups concerns since they have questioned not only the effectiveness and legality, but the whole basis for why the demolitions are being performed.

I changed it to:

House demolition is a controversial tactic used by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The IDF justifies it for counter-insurgency and other security purposes as a deterrent against terrorism.. Human rights groups who oppose the practice question the motivation, the legality and the effectiveness of this practice.

The next paragraph was as follows:

In February 2005, the Israeli Defense Ministry ordered an end to the demolition of houses for the purpose of punishing the families of suicide bombers. Israel limits house demolitions [11]

Clearly this paragraph does not belong in the intro. This paragraph is about one aspect of demolition (for punitive means) and implies that no more demolitions are being done. In fact, only one type of demolition has been stopped, and other demolitions are continuing. This paragraph is therefore clearly misleading in this location, so I moved it to the section on "House demolition as as punitive measure"

Thank you, Jgui 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purposes and means section

Armon removed the definition of Collective Punishment that I had used, and left no definition. Since this is explicitely defined in the [geneva convention] (from the WP page):

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed,"
Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike." Jgui 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I therefore changed from:

Opponents of house demolition cite other motives:

to:

Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International who oppose IDF house demolition cite other motives:

I referenced Amnesty International since they are cited for both, and I added the definition of Collective Punishment as noted above, and also added to the description of Annexation of land, based on the following from the cited Amnesty International text: "The creation and expansion of Israeli civilian settlements in the Occupied Territories and infrastructure to support them, including roads, violates international law. Israel must cease and prohibit the destruction of houses, land or other properties for these purposes." Thank you, Jgui 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I added back the sentence on the "means" by which demolition is performed. How did this get deleted - it certainly belongs in this section ("Purposes and means") since otherwise there is no description of the "means". Jgui 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I added back the "means" again which had been deleted claiming no reference. I found a reference to the israeli army using tanks and us-made caterpillar bulldozers; its in the cited reference. If anyone can find other means, feel free to add them. Thanks, Jgui 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Except that the sentence was misleading. The US (properly, a US company) doesn't make the armored bulldozers they make bulldozers, and the IDF modifies them. I've also toned down the language again. <<-armon->>
Armon, OK I kept most of your bulldozer changes. But the bulldozers are made in the US (so I left that) and your "often" was poorly worded to imply that the IDF "often" bulldozed houses - not your intention I think.
And don't "tone down" (i.e. change) language that is directly from a cited source - it is against WP policy of Original Research to re-interpret to meet your preferences of what the source "should" say. It is being attributed to Amnesty International since they are the ones who are being cited - just as the IDF is cited in the first part of this section. Please do not take that out either.
Thank you, Jgui 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
And since you changed the word "cite" to "accuse" for Amnesty International, I changed the equivalent IDF word from "grounds" to "claims" to make this equivalent NPOV. Jgui 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Armon, you haven't written any response, although you have changed this section somewhat. I have changed the "Collective punishment" sentence to properly quote the 4th geneva convention (you were not doing so). Furthermore your quote was incorrect since by definition "collective punishment" is punishing those innocent, not those guilty. I also found a description of another means of demolition, so I added a cited reference to it. Finally, see my response to Tewfik above, where I showed a very clear statement from the Amnesty citation of their allegation of house demolition for settlement expansion. Cheers, Jgui 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig claimed (in an edit history) that I was leaving out a "crucial part" of the definition of collective punishment. His claim is inaccurate; here is the full text of the article from the 4th Geneva Convention here:
Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section I : Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
ARTICLE 33Database - Treaties & Comments
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
The portion I used and cited - punishment "for an offence he or she has not personally committed"; is clearly an accurate citation of the definition. Please do not delete this again; if you disagree then please state your reasons here in Talk. Thank you, Jgui 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The version you restored misleadingly quotes article 53 of the convention, leaving out the part that llaows for demolitions if there is military neccesity. I was not talking at all about article 33. Isarig 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, I plainly stated what I was doing, which was to take the "Legal status" section from the House demolition article, which has been edited by you, Jayjg and many other editors that are here. My goal was to take text that you had all approved in that article, since it should be non-controversial here as well.
FYI, here is article 53 in its entirety here:
Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories
ARTICLE 53Database - Treaties & Comments
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Isarig, I have added the statement about "absolute necessary by military operation" since that seems to be what you are interested in seeing. Could I ask that you add this text yourself next time, as per WP guidelines, instead of deleting all changes? Please note that this is introducing yet another difference between this text and the text that the "Legal status" section was derived from - the House demolition article. Can I ask you the same thing I asked Jayjg above - why are you complaining about this text here when you did not and are not complaining about it in the House demolition article which you have also edited? Thank you, Jgui 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status section

I added a POV tag to this section, since it is badly written, inaccurate (there is no dispute about the illegality of house demolition) and an attempt at a compromise was torpedoed by Jayjg. As I wrote to Jayjg previously:

Jayjg, again you seem to have lost sight of the fact that I have not written this text and I have emphatically not taken sides; I have copied text from the House demolition article of which you are one of the editors, that you have personally contributed to eleven times in the last two months. Since you have not changed or deleted it from that article, and since it is the same text, then your accusation of me "taking side" is plain ridiculous, and you have no justification in deleting it from this article. Since you claim that the article that you have been editing (and that I copied) "misrepresents Israel's position, which is actually that the territories were never part of any sovereign state", then I strongly hope that you will not delete this text from this article again, but that you will modify it to correctly represent Israel's position both here and in the House demolition article, since you are apparently the only one who knows what that position is. Thank you, Jgui 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, I will copy the much better-written text that came from the House demolition page below, and anyone that thinks they understand what on earth Jayjg is talking about and can "fix" the text should take a go at it. I will note that Jayjg has still made no modifications to this text in the original House demolition page that this came from, so it would seem that either Jayjg must not feel strongly that this text is bad, or he must not be interested in making WP better - surely it is the former. Ideally Jayjg will reappear and fix the text both here and on the House demolition page himself:

==Legal status==
The use of house demolition under international law is today governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, enacted in 1949, which protects non-combatants in occupied territories. Article 53 provides that "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons ... is prohibited."[13] A number of war crimes prosecutions have included charges relating to the illegal destruction of property.[14]
Israeli use of house demolitions has been particularly controversial. However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that it does not exercise sovereignty in the territories and is thus under no obligation to apply the treaty in those areas.[15][16][17] This position is rejected by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, which notes that "it is a basic principle of human rights law that international human rights treaties are applicable in all areas in which states parties exercise effective control, regardless of whether or not they exercise sovereignty in that area."[5]

Thanks, Jgui 01:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course there is a dispute as to the legality. Those who claim such demolitions are illegal rely on the 4th Geneva convention, and its prohibitions on collective punishment. Those who claim they are legal contend (among other arguments) that the 4GC does not apply to the WB, as it is not a territory of any High Contracting Power which is party to the 4GC, and that the demolitions are not collective punishment in any case. Simply sweeping this under the rug with the assertion that "there is no dispute about the illegality of house demolition" will not get you very far. Isarig 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, there is obviously a divergence of opinion on the legal issues. We're not here to take sides. The reader should simply be given the positions and left to decide for themselves which is more compelling. <<-armon->> 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


OK, so would this be accurate:

However, Israel, which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, asserts that the terms of the Convention are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that the territories do not constitute a state which is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Furthermore, Israel asserts that it does not exercise sovereignty in the territories and is thus under no obligation to apply the treaty in those areas.[18][19][20]

Thanks, Jgui 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the references [18], [19] [20]? I believe the 2nd part (starting with "Furthermore...) is incorrect. Israel's position is that other international treaties to which it is party (and which require sovereignty) are inapplicable in the WB for that reason, but not that the 4GC is. I've addressed this in the House demolition article Talk page, where this claim used to appear. I believe this is an incorrect description of what a cited AI document claims, which is that Israel asserts that "UN human rights treaties to which it is a State Party", such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (but not the Fourth Geneva Convention), are not applicable to the Palestinian territories on the grounds that it does not exercise sovereignty. The claim with regards to the non-applicability of the 4GC rests on differnt grounds - the claim that the West Bank and Gaza are not the territories of any "High Contracting Party" to the 4GC, and are thus excluded by the convention's own language in article 2. Isarig 01:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The references are the same ones that are there now (Dowty, Gerson, Roberts). The 2nd part (starting with "Furthermore...) is tex taken verbatim from the current version of the House demolition article. So if you complained about it there, it wasn't changed. So can you fix it in the text I cited above, or can you fix it in the House demolition article, or alternatively can you state it correctly here in an encyclopedic way that could be used? Thanks, Jgui 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The fix is simple - just remove the 2nd part, because it's not about the 4gc Isarig`

I added back the POV notation at the top of this section, for the same reasons as I stated at the beginning of this section. I have a suggested replacement, however, which is to use the text from the House demolition page as above, but with the change that Isarig suggested to better state Israel's objections (which will hopefully also satisfy Jayjg). Please let me know your opinion on this. Thank you, Jgui 04:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the current version with the one described in this section that was taken verbatim from the House demolition page, except that I took out the sentence that Isarig (and aparently Jayjg) were opposed to and replaced it with one approved by Isarig as more accurately stating Israel's stance. Jgui 01:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Scope

Could we just separate out the issues regarding this article's scope here? I just want to untangle them to see what they are exactly. <<-armon->> 07:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather simple. The article is about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. House demolitions that aren't part of the conflict doesn't belong. House demolitions that are a part of the conflict should be included (even if their stated purpose is not strictly military). // Liftarn
So you're happy with the current scope? &lot;<-armon->> 09:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not happy with the attempts to artificially limit the scope. // Liftarn
Just so that we're clear: I'm about to add a paragraph describing the demolition of Israeli houses in settlements in Gaza and the Wet Bank. You are happy with this, and will not revert it? Isarig 14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice try. But it is off topic unless the demolitions were done by Palestinians. Perhaps you should create an article House demolition in the Israeli-Israeli conflict for your material. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read what Liftarn wrote above: "The article is about house demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. House demolitions that aren't part of the conflict doesn't belong. House demolitions that are a part of the conflict should be included". Nowhere is there an attempt to limit it to demolitions done by a particular side. And needless to say, such an attempt would be a flagrant violations of NPOV. I take it then, that you are not in favor of widening the scope of the article to include any demolition in the I-P conflict? Isarig 14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no cigar for you. If you find sources saying israeli houses have been destroyed as part of the conflict then you may add it. The demolition of Israeli settlements is as far as I can tell only indirectly a part of the conflict. Let me rephrase my statement: House demolitions that aren't directly part of the conflict doesn't belong. // Liftarn
Do you expect us to take this comment seriously? When Palestinian houses built w/o permit are demolished by civil authorities, and some partisan group claims this is done to benefit Israeli settlements, then settlmenets are part of the I-P conflict, but when the same settlements are destroyed by Israel, as part of concessions to the PNA, then its not part of the conflict? Isarig 14:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. PalestineRemembered 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why? Isarig 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Because those settlements *are* the conflict - the demolition of them does away with the problem, it doesn't increase it. That's in diametric opposition to threatening the demolition of more than 1/3rd of all Arab houses in East Jerusalem (claimed by ICAHD?). Now I've answered your question, there's a huge backlog of questions I have for you that you've never answered, you could start with the one I posted just a few minutes ago (15:22). PalestineRemembered 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the last two responses by Liftarn and ابو علي (Abu Ali) clearly illustrate what is going on here: they are not interested in a neutral article that describes house demolitions in the I-P conflict - they areinterested in Israel-bashing, in house demolition that harms the Palestinains. Thank you for making that (rather obvious) POV-pushing crystal clear. Isarig`

excuse me, but you want to add in stuff about Israeli houses deleted by Israeli authorities. What this has to do with the IP conflict is beyond me. Please also review WP:NPA. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to add in stuff about Israeli settlements being demolished by Israeli authorities, using military forces to evacuate their residents beforehand. These settle,ment, in case you are unaware, are constantly being described by your fellow POV-pushers as the 'main obstacle' preventing a peaceful resolution of the I-P conflict. It is for their alleged benefit that the illegal Palestinian homes are supposedly being demolished. If it is beyond you what this has to do with the IP conflict, then I respectfully submit you have no business editing I-P related articles. Isarig 15:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the comments about whether house demolitions are directly or indirectly a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎ illustrate the lack of agreement on the scope. Which is why I think the title of the article is the main problem. If the title of the article made it clear that ALL house demolitions in the Palestinian territories were covered, then we would be spending time creating a detailed, referenced article covering all angles; direct, indirect, mundane demolitions, questionable demolitions, etc.. What is wrong with that, everybody? --Timeshifter 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that since the conflict is between Israelis and Palestinians the demolitions that are part os the conflict is Palestinians houses demolished by Israel and Israeli houses demolished by the PA. Internal demolitions (Palestinian houses demolished by the PA and Israeli houses demolished by Israel) are outside the scope of the article. // Liftarn
yes, we get that. You want to artificially limit the scope so that only one side gets represented. No, thanks. Isarig 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a lie and you know it. I just dubt there are that many reported cases of the PA demolishing Israeli houses, but if you find some RS for it then go ahead and add it to the article. // Liftarn
It is exactly what you said - you want to limit the scope of the article so as to exclude demolitions of Israeli settlements by Israel. If that's not an artificial limitation to the scope, what is? Isarig 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a perfectly natural limitation. If it's not a part of the conflict, the demolition doesn't belong. That's not a very difficult concept. // Liftarn
So, when Palestinian houses built w/o permit are demolished by civil authorities, and some partisan group claims this is done to benefit Israeli settlements, then settlements are part of the I-P conflict, but when the same settlements are destroyed by Israel, using military force, as part of concessions to the PNA, then its not part of the conflict? How does this magic transformation happen? Isarig 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly magic, but simpe logic. If you paint something on your own house it's not vandalism, if somebody else paints something on your house against your will it's vandalism. See the difference? // Liftarn
But, to use this analogy, the topic of this article is not "vandalism", but "house painting". Some house painting may be vandalism, others may not, but they are both house painting. what you are suggesting is that an article on "house painting" be limited to instances of house painting which are vandalism - very clearly an artificial limitation. Isarig 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, my position is that it has always been "vandalism". You position has on the other hand suddenly changed from "vandalism by military" to "house painting". // Liftarn
Yes, I know this is your position, becuase you want to artificially limit the scope so that only one side is represented - vandalism in the analogy, "demolitions of Palestinian homes by Israel in the I-P conflict " in the article. That's a clear violation of NPOV, and as I said, no, thanks. Isarig 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I wan't to neither artificially limit it (like you used to do) nor artificially expand it (like you seems to want now). As I have stated so many times before. If you find any info on Israeli houses being demolished by the PA feel free to add it to the article. // Liftarn
Isarig, you're being a bit silly. --Steve, Sm8900 19:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have some argument to make, or are you content with ad hominems? Isarig 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If there are people who really, really, really want (us) to include settler homes demolished by Israel then I'm sure we could reach some compromise with them. But I'm not really not very convinced it's so important to anyone. PalestineRemembered 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It is obviously important to some, such as me. Isarig 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's extremely difficult to understand how it can possibly be important to you, since anyone interested in the demolition of settler homes would Google "demolition + settler + Gaza" or some other combination, and would be most unlikely to reach this page. If they did get here, they'd be disappointed, because it's bound to contain lots that is (apparently) of no concern to them. Furthermore, if that's what you're interested in, why are you not writing up a passage to go in and showing it off to us? Why is it so important to you to add "claim" to sentences like this: "The statistics claim to show that while there are a significantly higher number of building violations in the western (Jewish) parts of Jerusalem the vast majority of the actual demolitions are done in the eastern (Palestinian) parts." Or is this another question we don't get an answer to? PalestineRemembered 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
actually, what exactly is your question? none of the behavior which you cited seems to raise any questions. The topic is interesting to him because it is. he added the phrase "statistics claim" in order to maintain netrality. All of that seems perfectly acceptable. I'm not sure what your question is, in all this. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
this topic clearly belongs in its own separate section, at the very least. --Steve, Sm8900 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it belongs on its own page, as was discussed above at the end of the section here in answer to a question by Jayjg. All editors who expressed their opinions there agreed that it deserves its own page: G-dett, PalestineRemembered and Jgui. As I stated there, I have no problem with including a link on this page to that one, to explain other reasons for house demolition by Israel. Jgui 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] further scope discussion

OK well I see what the issue is now. I tend to agree with Isarig and Timeshifter (though not about having a renaming debate). It's quite obvious that Israeli settlements have also been destroyed due to the conflict. For example, it's not hard to find the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza described as "tactical" [13] <<-armon->> 01:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But should scorched earth tactics really be included? // Liftarn
even assuming that's what they are, why on earth shouldn't they? They are a tactic, part of the conflict, and as you wrote before, we should not artificially limit the scope - if it's a demolition that's part of the conflict , it should be in. Isarig 14:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Isarig on this. "Scorched earth tactics" are part of many conflicts and wars. I am not sure how other demolitions within Israeli settlements could be considered part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict though. I still think there should be an overall article called "House demolition in the West Bank and Gaza." We can put all the demolitions in context, and link to this article here, and to another article (if there is enough material) called "House demolition in Israeli settlements."
OK, now I see an example. Isarig wrote: "when the same settlements are destroyed by Israel, using military force, as part of concessions to the PNA [Palestinian National Authority]". I see now how some Israeli settlements destroyed by Israel could be part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If they are destroyed as part of negotiations or concessions or bargaining or in response to national or international pressure, etc..
I think an article "House demolition in Israeli settlements" would be very interesting and useful. The internal and external politics could easily fill an article. --Timeshifter 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Scorched earth tactics may be a part of the conflict, but only indirectly. But OK, let's have a section on that as well, but it's really a separate subject. // Liftarn
It's exactly the same subject, but I see you have the sense to stop digging. Isarig 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As long as it's kept separate it would be OK just to get things moving. I guess that means we can also use statistics showing that the highest number of building violations are done in the Jewish parts of Jerusalem, but the highest number of house demolishions are done in the Palestianians parts. // Liftarn
We can certainly add statistics about the number of building violations in both the Jewish and Arab parts of Jerusalem,and the number of demolitions in each sector. The real numbers may surprise you. Isarig 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have actually already looked at the numbers (from 2005)
2005 West Jerusalem East Jerusalem
Infractions 5653 1272
Charges filed 1529 857
Administrative demolishing orders aprox 40 aprox 80
Demolishions 26 72

Quite interesting. // Liftarn


This is crazy. one kind of demolition is a punitive measure, the other is a dilpomatic measure. this will take the whole article into unhelpful areas. But go ahead, go down the rabbit hole...--Steve, Sm8900 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed crazy, but it seems to be the only way to get stubborn POV-pushers to back downs so we can get some work done on the article. // Liftarn
"one kind of demolition is a punitive measure, the other is a diplomatic measure." How is either one not part of the conflict? The article is called "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."--Timeshifter 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The information provided by Israel is thought to be deceptive: "When action is taken against a West Jerusalem development this means that a small part of the structure (e.g., the porch, or access arrangements, or the use to which it is put) must be altered. Amnesty International knows of no case where a Jewish home has been demolished in Jerusalem."[14] Amnesty further claims that over 1/3rd of all Palestinians in East Jerusalem live in properties under demolition orders. PalestineRemembered 10:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is crazier and crazier. go ahead, start the conflict here. --Steve, Sm8900 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify, i am not trying to indicate any disagreement. go ahead and add your text and material on the topic which you suggest. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting messy. My position (and I think the mejority agrees with me here) is that the article covers (or should cover) the intentional demolitions of civilian houses (not military targets or hoses damaged during fighings) by the opposing part in the conflict (i.e. not include demolishing your own house). Does this sound reasonable? // Liftarn

I agree with Isarig. I suggest that everyone go ahead and add whatever text they want to add. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources who treat the demolition of Israeli settlements as a phenomenon related to the demolition of Palestinian homes? If there are, then it's fine to include that. If not, it should be a separate article. We follow the lead of our reliable sources in setting the parameters of a subject.--G-Dett 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The relationship is self-evident based on the simple reality itself. they are referring to destruction of settler homes in order to implement various diplomatic arranbgements between Israelis and palestinians. Sources are not relevant here, any more than they would be if you were discussing the relationships we might choose to draw between American railroad policy and American highway policy. there might a thousand sources for which ever aspect of the relationship we chose to look at; however, defining the nature of the relationship itself exists mainly in the mind of the observer. Once they draw that connection, they can then go to sources to see whether the connection they grew is illuminated further by other sources. --Steve, Sm8900 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
But has the relationship been self-evident to any reliable sources? Don't get me wrong – I think the demolition of settlements by the very state that sponsored their growth is a fascinating, extraordinary, and indisputably encyclopedic phenomenon, and it's clearly related to the I-P conflict, so I don't question that it literally fits the title. I'm just wondering if these two topics should be treated together, if there's any sourceable rationale for treating them together. I don't follow your railroad/highway policy analogy, but perhaps it would be clearer if you specified the topic of the hypothetical article you're discussing.--G-Dett 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate your reply. you have exactly understood my point. re my analogy, i was simply saying that such a hypothetical article could be based on any of a dozen possible areas of overlap and connection; for example, technology, political decision processes, environmental impacts. My whole point is that two related subjects can have a dozen possible connections, and any observer is free to draw any valid connections he wishes, and then find the sources which fit his thesis.
So the lack or presence of sources here would not necessarily answer your question. However, your response makes clear that you already understand the point i was making. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being stupid, but I'm not sure I know what you mean when you say "any observer is free to draw any valid connections he wishes, and then find the sources which fit his thesis"; if "observer" here means WP editor then I think we have a problem. Suffice to say I'm having trouble following your hypotheticals; can we put them aside for a moment? Assuming no sources have treated the Gaza withdrawal or the demolition of illegal "outpost" settlements as a phenomenon closely related to demolition of Palestinian homes for security or demographic purposes, what is the advantage of our doing so? And what would be the disadvantage to having detailed, robustly written and sourced individual articles?--G-Dett 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I just know that both topics do involve house demolitions. So some editors here feel it might be worthwhile to cover the two topics together.
(at this point, i do not want to be the only editor commenting on this topic.) --Steve, Sm8900 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
by the way, just to answer your question a little further, the point I was trying to make before is that we don't need to cite any sources to uphold connections; we do need to cite sources only to uphold facts. that's one of the perks of writing an encylcopedia yourself. you are free to make many new and innovative connenctions, as long as they are logical and are supported by the facts. You may disagree, but many of Wikipedia's articles are more interesting than most encyclopedias, precisely because we are free to make some new connections between various topics which most conventional encyclopedias might not make. --Steve, Sm8900 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that WP:SYN? // Liftarn
No. Not if there is agreement on the article scope. Then we put in all sourced info that fits the scope, and let the reader make any connections. I might not make the same connections, or draw the same conclusions, as the next reader. That is the beauty of WP:NPOV. By putting in all significant, sourced viewpoints and info that lies within the scope of the article.
I believe this scope issue is the root of the problem here, too. People are trying to spin the article by spinning the scope. --Timeshifter 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't mean that anyone can make any connections just because they feel like doing so. The connections still have to make sense, and they still have to pass review from other editors. So things are always open for discussions. I just meant to point out a general fact about how we do things around here, which is that Wikipedia as a whole is creating connections between certain toppics, which other works do not always have the ability to do. --Steve, Sm8900 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demolition of Palestinian houses built without permission of occupation authorities

B'Tselem - Statistics on demolition of houses built without permits in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem).

This article is called "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Therefore Israeli demolitions of Palestinian houses built without permits is part of the conflict. That is because in many occupations the original residents are in conflict with the occupiers.

The fact that the occupiers do not provide a "permit" does not mean the demolition is not part of the conflict. Get real. --Timeshifter 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The intro

I have modified the intro to indicate that the list of reasons for demolition is actually the list of official explanations for demolition, since the real motives have been disputed. Also, it presently says, "as a punitive measure against anyone convicted of aiding terrorism." As I recall, there have been allegations that it is used far more broadly then that, as a punitive measure. Is there a source that says only those convicted get their homes demolished? I was under the impression that the policy was applied more liberally to include those suspected. --Marvin Diode 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have all the intro's statements sourced and cited from the getgo. For an article this controversial, I find it troubling that the first source citation doesn't appear until the "purpose and means" section. wikipediatrix 01:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the policy is to have the intro summarize material which is sourced later in the article. However, I see that there is now a dispute as to whether it should say "convicted" or "suspected" of aiding terrorism -- we need sources on this. It is an issue of central importance to the article. --Marvin Diode 21:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Palestinian territories" categories

Another deletion attempt concerning various "Palestinian territories" categories. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7 and Category:Palestinian territories.

I also posted this at Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics and Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics. Please watchlist these notice boards if you want a heads up on deletion attempts, etc..

This POV-pushing campaign looks very bad to many wikipedia readers. Few readers want to try to correct this obvious systemic bias. Because there is an incredible amount of deletion and reversion that goes on in this topic area.

More people need to step up and fight for WP:NPOV. If you don't vote to "keep" a category or article, it is gone. Please spend one minute to vote for categories and articles you would miss. Or don't expect much help defending articles and categories you create or edit. --Timeshifter 04:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need the section on demolition for annexation

What happened to the entire section on house-demolition for annexation? Why is there still no section on ethnic balancing?

Here is what used to be in the article:

House demolition as annexation

According to Amnesty International, "The destruction of Palestinian homes, agricultural land and other property in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, is inextricably linked with Israel’s long-standing policy of appropriating as much as possible of the land it occupies, notably by establishing Israeli settlements."[2] In Oct 1999, during the "Peace Process" and before the start of the Al Aqsa Intefada, Amnesty International wrote that: "well over one third of the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem live under threat of having their house demolished. ... Threatened houses exist in almost every street and it is probable that the great majority of Palestinians live in or next to a house due for demolition."[13]

During the period 2006-2007, Israel has demolished 165 homes in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) claiming that they lacked building permits, leaving 724 people homeless. In addition, Israel destroyed 1,049 houses and other structures claiming permit violations in the West Bank in the period 1999-2003, and demolished 2,276 houses in the West Bank and East Jerusalem combined in the period 1987-1998. [2]

"House demolitions ostensibly occur because the homes are built 'illegally' - i.e. without a permit. Officials and spokespersons of the Israeli government have consistently maintained that the demolition of Palestinian houses is based on planning considerations and is carried out according to the law. ... But the Israeli policy has been based on discrimination. Palestinians are targeted for no other reasons than that they are Palestinians. ... [Israel has] discriminated in the application of the law, strictly enforcing planning prohibitions where Palestinian houses are built and freely allowing amendments to the plans to promote development where Israelis are setting up settlements."[13]

In 2002, a group of Palestinians appealed a demolition case to the Israeli Supreme Court[2] which temporarily ruled in their favor that there must be a right to appeal unless doing so would "endanger the lives of Israelis or if there are combat activities in the vicinity." But in a later ruling the Supreme Court ruled that demolitions can be carried out if advance notice would hinder the success of the demolition. Amnesty International describes this as "a virtual green light" to demolition with no warning and noted in 2004 that "this is what happens in most cases".[2]

PalestineRemembered 07:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that until the scope of the article is agreed to, then those who are trying to limit the amount or types of material in the article will use scope arguments to delete stuff. This is occurring from all sides.
I suggest starting a new article called House Demolition in the Palestinian territories. Then all sides and all POVs can put all info in it concerning house demolitions. Just go ahead and start the article and paste in the above info and much more. --Timeshifter 14:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Another option. Why are people insisting on the words "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" being in the title of the article? It will likely forever be used by some editors now and in the future to limit the scope of the article. Since there will be continuing argument about which demolitions are part of the conflict or not.
Instead of starting a completely new article why not agree to move/rename this article to one of these names:
House demolition in the Palestinian territories
House demolition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Why let a few words in the title of the article be used to waste everybody's time for months or years? I believe that is what some editors want. Judging from their past history. See examples of months and years of delays by looking at the notice board entries for the last few months near the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict. See all the entries from February 2007 on:
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arab-Israeli_conflict#February_2007 --Timeshifter 16:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict includes those supposedly carried out for ethnic balancing purposes. I believe the literature on the subject overwhelmingly treats it in this context. I'm only puzzled why this is not currently in the article. PalestineRemembered 18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Some editors are arguing that permit demolitions are not part of the conflict, and that permit demolitions could be looked upon as simple enforcement of the law. Renaming the article would instantly solve that dispute about what demolitions to cover in the article. One person's "ethnic balancing" is another person's "permit demolition". These games could go on forever...--Timeshifter 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
We currently do have a section on permit demolitions. So if you want, you can add your material there.
Saying that the reason for the Israeli demolitions is annextation is POV, since you are imposing a reason/motive which is based on political allegations. If you want to say that some Palestinian or human rights groups claim it is due to annexation, that is different, and that is acceptable. --Steve, Sm8900 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat shocked that this discussion is happening. There was the big fight at House demolition, because, as it happens, the most controversial house demolition policy has been the one in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but some people argued that there was too much emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian issue as opposed to, say, house demolitions in Liechtenstein. So now there is this article, and it seems completely bizarre to me to try to limit the scope of what can be included here. All the proposed new forks, including House demolition in the Palestinian territories or House demolition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, fall completely within the purview of this article. Before you know it, we will be discussing a separate article for each house that is demolished. --Marvin Diode 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I just said that there is NO problem with adding that information. My only point is that the actual underlying motivation of the Israeli government is a subject of debate, so you cannot use the "annexation" claim as the heading for the section. However you can feel free to mention the "annexation" claim as one alleged motivation. I feel that this approach which I am suggesting is a reasonable one. --Steve, Sm8900 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think annexation is altogether a bad word to use. annexation literally means: to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state. Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are technically "within the domain" of Israel, since Israel has sovereignty over those settlements. To go on a personal note, (meaning i have no intention of changing the content of the article with the following statement), my friend recently traveled to the West Bank and there was a huge billboard an a hill overlooking a valley. The valley is right now a Palestinian village. The billboard was an advertisement for a new settlement in detail along with a picture that is scheduled to be built where the Palestinian village currently is. (Dont ask for a source, i dont have one.) My point is, from reading the comments of some pro-Israel editors it seems like anything sympathetic towards Palestinians is out of place in this article when it clearly belongs here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.212 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Corrie

Isarig removed the reference to Rachel Corrie, with the edit memo "rm corrie - no home dmeoliotn was ongoing atthe time." This makes no sense to me. The Rachel Corrie case played a major role in bringing the issue of house demolition to public awareness, and it is clear to me that it belongs in this article. --Marvin Diode 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) This is unsourced. (2) There was no house demolition going on at the time she was killed. (3) WP is not a soapbox for the ISM's rhetoric. Isarig 02:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the Rachel Corrie article:

She was killed when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 armoured bulldozer operating in Hai as-Salam, a Palestinian area of Rafah, close to the border with Egypt, an area the IDF had designated a security zone.

The article goes on to discuss various disputes. There is no dispute though that the ISM was trying to block house demolitions. The IDF denies that the bulldozer was doing house demolitions at that particular moment. But the fact remains that the Rachel Corrie death brought huge attention worldwide concerning house demolitions. As did many of the other ISM activities. This is an article about Israeli house demolitions. Therefore the Rachel Corrie and other ISM info needs to be included in the article in typical summary form. See WP:SPINOUT for how to do it correctly. --Timeshifter 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There actually is a serious dispute as to what was going on that day. As you yourself note, The ISM claims that the IDF was trying to demolish a house, but the IDF claims that the D9 was clearing away brush and rubble, and that no house demolition was going on at the time. This is clearly described in the article. If there is a reliable source (rather than an opinionated WP editor) that says that Corrie's action brought huge attention worldwide- we may quote it, but as it is, this is unsourced commentary. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be hard to find many reliable sources concerning Rachel Corrie, ISM, and house demolitions. In the wikipedia article, and I see reliable sources right away in the first page of Google results here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=rachel+corrie+house+demolition --Timeshifter 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to find a source that explicitly says "Corrie's death created awareness for house demolitions" , or something similar (which is the cliam being made), not merely sources that mention both Corrie and demolitions in the same article. Isarig 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that is your box. I am only pointing out that there was worldwide media coverage of Rachel Corrie's death and the associated claims of her group ISM concerning house demolitions. Many of the mainstream media articles discussed the activities of ISM and Rachel Corrie concerning house demolitions. Whether or not the particular bulldozer that killed Rachel Corrie intended to bulldoze a house that day is irrelevant. It is a straw man issue. --Timeshifter 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the ball is squarely in your court. If you wnat to claim that Corrie's death created or increased the awareness for house demolitions in Israel, you need to find a source that says that. If all you can find are sources that discuss Corrie and house demolitions, the conclusion that the death caused the awareness would be WP:OR Isarig 15:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Even if Isarig had convincing proof that the D9 that killed Corrie was only clearing "brush and rubble," the controversy would still be about House Demolition and would still be notable with respect to this article. --Marvin Diode 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to bring conclusive evidence for that - all I need to show is that it is disputed. Isarig 15:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig is correct. Without a source, this is pure WP:SYNTH. To wit: Rachel Corrie + brush-clearing bulldozer + later house demolition + later outcry = Rachel Corrie caused the outcry. It's not implausible, but far from demonstrated. A reliable source which explicitly makes this connection would be necessary. IronDuke 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no dubt that she was there to stop a house demolishion so the article can say that. // Liftarn
She was there to stop what she imagined to be a house demolition. WP does not need to indulge every fanciful hallucination that an extermist might believe. Isarig 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of yourself? She was de facto there with the intent of stopping a house demolishion. // Liftarn
Please review WP:NPA. Another crack like that will land you at ANI. She was there with the intent of stopping what she imagined was a house demolition. WP does not need to indulge every fanciful hallucination that an extermist might believe. Isarig 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>guys, lets cool it please, thanks. The reason I removed the material was because it said something to the effect that Corrie brought world wide attention to house demolition, and without specific referrences, this seems the essence or original research. Am I saying that didn't happen? NO, just that sources need to be provided when making statements of fact like that. Anyways, have back at it :) Cheers! --Tom 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you not just put a "citation needed" tag on it rather than delete it? Only someone living in a cave would not know that Rachel Corrie's death brought world attention to the house demolition issue. No matter how much some gullible extremist people hate Rachel Corrie and peace activists in general. So it should not be difficult to add references. I already provided a Google search shortcut that may help find such references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=rachel+corrie+house+demolition --Timeshifter 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
While some gullable suckers may beleive it wasn't a case of stopping a house demolishion that doesn't really matter since she went there with the intent of stopping a house demolishion so the issue of there was a planned house demolishion or not is irrelevant. // Liftarn
This is an article about actual demolitions, not fantasies about demolitions. Whether or not there was actually a demolition going on is central to this issue. Isarig 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it's an article about the general subject of house demolitions, and the controversy that surrounds them. The Rachel Corrie case is indisputably part of that controversy. --Marvin Diode 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
then find a source that says that. Isarig 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This an article about the whole issue of house demolitions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) were known worldwide after the Rachel Corrie killing. One of their main issues was house demolitions. ALL of this can and should be thoroughly documented by reliable sources. Besides my previous link to many sources, there are plenty of reference links in the relevant wikipedia articles. Other unsourced ideas about Rachel Corrie and the ISM are nothing but WP:OR fantasies. --Timeshifter 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Get over here right away. I think they're heading for Dr. Samir's house." and "Certain that the pharmacist's house was about to be razed, Corrie caught a taxi to the Hai as-Salam neighborhood."[15] // Liftarn

This is a textbook example of when to slap down a "citation needed" tag, and Timeshifter's comment regarding cave dwellers was spot on. When the troglodytes' pupils have adjusted, let them squint, gape, and move thick lips to the following:

Israel has, however, received much international criticism over its house demolitions. It came under particularly intense scrutiny after an Israeli bulldozer killed American peace activist Rachel Corrie on March 16, 2003. According to witnesses, Corrie was trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian family’s home in the Gaza strip. After this incident, the U.S. Department of State outlined its views on this incident and on the policy as a whole.

Our policy on demolitions has been stated repeatedly and is well known. We have been very clear that we view demolitions as particularly troubling. They deprive a large number of Palestinians of their ability to peacefully earn a livelihood. They exacerbate the humanitarian situation inside Palestinian areas, undermine trust and confidence and make more difficult the critical challenge of bringing about an end to violence and restoring calm.

While Israel initially alleged that Corrie was killed by falling debris, the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine performed an autopsy and found that her “death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus.” The death of Rachel Corrie brought near immediate international attention to Israel's policy of demolition.

The reference is Cordesman, Anthony H., Arab-Israeli Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars. Greenwood Press: 2006, page 72. Emphasis mine.
Incidentally, something has gone seriously bananas when the same editors who insist that this article can join together subjects that apparently no reliable source has ever joined (demolition of Palestinian homes citing security and/or lack of permit, on the one hand, and demolition of settlers' homes in the service of "unilateral withdrawal" on the other), also insist that discussing Rachel Corrie in connection with house demolitions – drawing on the thousands of reliable sources that have done just this – is somehow an original research synthesis.
Always a pleasure, guys.--G-Dett 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added a cite from CNN. But I am somewhat dumbfounded that anyone would claim that the Corrie case is unrelated to House Demolitions. I am making a request for comment. --Marvin Diode 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: is it appropriate to mention the case of Rachel Corrie in this article?

  • Yes - I am satisfied with the neutrality after minor tweaks. ←BenB4 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Comment - This is not a vote. Asking people a yes/no question is not appropriate for RfC, nor in any Wikipedia process really. It is about the strength of your argument, not the amount of people one can get to !vote. Relating to the topic, I suggest to take a close look at WP:BIAS - is the death of this woman really notable to the topic, or is it just notable because she happened to be a citizen of the US, where most Wikipedia editors live? I see no mention of any kind of casualties in the article, so why mention this? The proper way of including the information, without any bias, would be to write a section on the effects of house demolition (economic, and also casualties) and then see if this event has a place there. User:Krator (t c) 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for RFCs to discuss the choice between including and excluding a passage. Corrie appeared in articles about the house demolition issue in major news outlets. ←BenB4 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The death of Rachel Corrie is indeed notable because she was a US citizen (if she would have been a Palestinian it would hardly have been mentioned in the news), but that's the way media works. Given the media coverage and the attention her death brought to house demolishion a single sentence can hadly be WP:UNDUE. // Liftarn
  • 'Yes and yes. What Liftarn says is true: Corrie's death is notable largely because she is an American who was killed protesting house demolitions and that is rather unusual. While this may seem like unfair highlighting considering how many Palestinians have been killed doing the same, there has been much more media coverage on the Corrie case. Indeed, her death highlighted the issue of house demolitions to an audience not so familiar with it and its human consequences. It is relevant to this article to include mention of this.Tiamat 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include Rachel Corrie - I can confirm that Rachel Corrie's name is well known outside of the US, and it is in the context of armoured bulldozers carrying out house demolitions. PalestineRemembered 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include Rachel Corrie. Her protesting of house demolition was extremely notable. Why am I not surprised to see that User:Isarig is the one stonewalling her inclusion? Italiavivi 15:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include as per WP:SUMMARY there is already a Rachel Corrie article. A brief summary and a {{main}} should be enough. Lengthy discussion on her belongs in her article. However that article should also have a summary on house demolitions.--Cerejota 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include: Seems a pretty obvious one to me. -- Rei 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include: of course. It's a sad commentary that the question has even been asked. Dlabtot 00:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

The recent edits by Ben4B state a contested, POV position (that the bulldozer Corrie was protesting against was demolishing a house) as if it was fact. WP can't do that - we need to present claims by attributing them to those alleging them. It would be acceptable to state She was killed while protesting or attempting to prevent what ISM members said was a house demolition, followed by the IDF claim that this is false, and thatno house demolition was going on. After presenting the ISM side, and the IDF side, it is inappropriate to let the ISM side have another bite at the apple by responding or repeating their claim that, yes, it was a house demolition. Isarig 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal source makes it clear that the IDF and the protesters with Corrie disagree on what happened, and my edits accurately represent that dispute. Isarig's edit cited the source without any mention of the disagreement with the IDF reported therein. Therefore, I believe my version is less biased. ←BenB4 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No,your edits do not make it clear. Specifically, the sentence that reads "Rachel Corrie was killed by a bulldozer in a combat zone while protesting its use to destroy Palestinian houses." states as fact that it was being used to destroy houses. As I wrote, the only way to properly present this on WP is along the lines of 'Rachel Corrie was killed by a bulldozer in a combat zone while protesting what ISM members described as its use to destroy Palestinian houses.' My version states clearly that this is a POV. Yours does not. And, on top of this, your version then gives one side (the ISM) a second rebuttal, after the IDF position. This is unacceptable per WP:NPOV03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Isarig
Are you suggesting that the bulldozer in question was not used to destroy houses, or that use wasn't what Corrie was protesting, or both, or something else? The sources indicate that it was and she was. In any case the next sentence in both our versions plainly states that the IDF denied they were demolishing at that time. ←BenB4 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly what I am suggesting. The bulldozer was there, and she was protesting it. But it is not fact (and the sources do not say it was fact) that it was destroying houses. That's an ISM claim (and that's how it is presented by the CNN source: "This morning, when she was killed, she was attempting to prevent the Israeli military from destroying Palestinian civilian homes," Arraf said." - Arraf being the ISM co-founder). We can state as fact that she was killed by a bulldozer in a combat zone while protesting its use - and then we can follow that with a claim, attributed to the ISM, that it was being used to destroy a house , and follow that with the IDf denial - and that's it. No 2nd chance for the ISM to again pipe up and say, "no, it really was bearing down on a house. "Isarig 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence says she was protesting the fact that the bulldozer was used to destroy houses, not that the bulldozer was destroying houses between the time she arrived on the scene and was killed. It's past tense rather than present tense. I think I see the problem now and will reword it in a way (e.g. "had previously been used") which I hope will satisfy you. ←BenB4 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of {{main}} template

That template is to be used at the head of an article's subsection, when that subsection has grown too large, and forked off into a separate article, and the section is rewritten to provide a summary of the now-forked off article. See Wikipedia:Summary style). This section was not forked off into the Corrie article, nor is it even about Corrie, but rather about "Criticism and responses" to house demolitions. The appropriate format to provide readers with more info about Corrie is to wikilink her article - which is already done. Isarig 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Settler demolitions

I strongly suspect that the inclusion of demolition of settler homes is pure original research, and I would very much like to see even a single halfway credible source which treats them as the same issue, or a closely related issue, to the Palestinian demolitions. This being said, if including the information is shown to be warranted, I strongly call for some hafrada between settler demolitions and punitive / military / allegedly-regulatory Palestinian demolitions. There is such a wide qualitative gulf between these two actions that treating them in the same breath inevitably has the effect of misrepresenting the facts and pushing a POV. Eleland 17:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research? How so? The tittle of this article is "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", not "House demolition of Palestinians homes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (the latter being a clear violation of NPOC). I hope you are not disputing the fact that the demolition of settlements as part of withdrawals is in fact, a part of the I-P conflict. The separation you call for is already in the article, as these demolitions are discussed in their own subsection. Isarig 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No, he's disputing whether any reliable sources connect these two issues, or whether that's your synthesis. His question is a good one.--G-Dett 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that's what he's doing, following the your footsteps. What I'm pointing out is that this is a nonsensical objection - the sources don't have to connect settlement demolitions to Palestinian demolitions - they have to connect settlement demolitions to the I-P conflict, which is the topic of this article - just like the Bill Clinton article, for example, discussed both his Arkansas disbarment and his impeachment over his perjury in the Lewinsky case, in the same section (which discusses controversies related to Clinton), without requiring that any sources connect the two or discuss them together. Isarig 18:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to the ridiculous Clinton comparison below.--G-Dett 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's the same reason that tearing down a cottage to make room for flats is not covered at House demolition; we're referring to a military strategy, to the use of demolition as a weapon in war. The demolition of those homes was ancillary to the disengagement plan. Israel evacuates and resettles the residents; that's how the territorial concessions are implemented. According to Israel's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
Israel expressed its willingness to leave the homes intact, should the Palestinians so desire. However, the Palestinians themselves preferred that the homes, mostly spacious single family rural dwellings, be demolished, in order to allow for the construction of multi-family apartment buildings, which would be more appropriate for the local population.[16]
I have no doubt that various far-right-niks, settler- or Haredi- oriented media outlets, etc, have labeled the demolitions as some kind of jackbooted military campaign against them, but that's an extreme-minority view that doesn't belong in the article. Eleland 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source that discusses this point of view then it belongs in the article. Everybody needs to stop spinning the article. WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints be explained. In the form of who says what. Using reliable sources. The settlers did not want to leave. The evacuation and destruction of their homes was perceived as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by them and some of their supporters. WP:NPOV does not choose sides, or decide which viewpoints are valid. WP:NPOV just lays them all out. Without any hint of approval or disapproval in the narrative voice of wikipedia. --Timeshifter 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." (em. mine) Eleland 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The viewpoint that these demolitions are part of the conflict is not a minority viewpoint.Isarig 14:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, we're back to that discussion? I'm perfectly happy to go back to the original intent of this article, and to have it cover only military related demolitions (and remove all the ICAHD crap about houses that are demolished becuase they're built without permits.) But I thought there was a consensus to include both military and non-military demolitions here. Isarig 18:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This is silly, Isarig. You're presenting a classic false choice, saying we either have to gerrymander the article's subject (carving away permit demolitions) or synthesize it with another topic (forced evacuation of the settlements). All we need to do (indeed all we're allowed to do, per policy) is present the topic as it's been covered by reliable sources.--G-Dett 18:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not another topic. the topic is "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" - these are house demolitions, and numerous sources clearly describe them as part of the conflict.
Oh, I see. It's Allegations of apartheid all over again. Eleland 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because obviously people want to keep having one-sidedness. I think the suggestion is clear: if G-Dett position is correct,and this should cover only military related demolitions, then the whole permit crap must go.

If not, there is no need to blow things out of proportion on this ancillary topic covered elsewhere: a single paragraph mention of the demolitions of the settler's homes with the quote from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should suffice, with a {{main}} to Israeli settlement#Dismantlement of settlements.

For example:

Main article: Israeli settlement#Dismantlement of settlements
In recent years, the Israeli government has demolished some houses or other residences, and other property belonging to Israeli settlers, when conceding some land and territory to the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that this is due to a request from the Palestinian authorities to replace single-family dwellings with apartment buildings, better suited to the needs of the local population.[17]

I cannot understand how my proposal could be opposed, unless the "building permit" data is removed. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, the difference between "civilian" Jewish settler demolitions and "civilian" Arab permit demolitions is that the sources say that the Arab demolitions are really part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that their "civilian" nature is really a smokescreen to obscure their role in the ethnic conflict. Sources don't say that the settler demolitions are part of the conflict, or treat them in the same category. Israel is free to say that X is a security demolition and Y is a permit demolition, but we are not obligated to follow official Israeli POV on such matters - indeed, we are obligated to follow the judgements of reliable sources, all of which treat permit demolitions as part and parcel with "security" demolitions and do not treat settler-disengagement demolitions the same way. Just skim the cited Amnesty and HRW reports. It's all there. Eleland 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if some editors would drop the debating-society approach and write an article for the benefit of the public that presumably wants to make use of Wikipedia. There is a controversy about house demolitions, and there are credible accusations being made that Israeli faction that promotes the policy violates human rights in the course of pursuing it. There are also the arguments made to justify the policy. These together comprise the central topic of the article. Trying to conflate the demolitions of Palestinian homes with the demolitions of settlers' homes is a debater's tactic to minimalize the controversy, and I think that point is clear to all concerned. Such tactics should be avoided. Likewise, the tactic of trying to make a big distinction between "military" and "punitive" demolitions, which is also a diversion. Those editors which are writing from the standpoint of defending the practice should concentrate on producing well-sourced arguments that house demolition is enhancing the security of Israel, rather than trying all of this too-clever technical argumentation. --Marvin Diode 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To say that if reference to settlers' homes must go, then reference to permit-demolitions must go, is to argue with the reliable sources. The reliable sources treat permit-demolitions and "security" demolitions as part of the same thing, and they don't treat the demolition of settlers' homes as related to either. It is quite absurd to privilege our categories over those of the RS's. Marvin summarizes the matter aptly and succinctly. I would only add that as far as debate-society tactics go, this is an absurd one. It's a bit like insisting that references to plankton, seals, and the full line of Whiskas products be included in the article on Seafood, on the basis that each comes from the sea and is "food," and if the reliable sources use the term only to refer to fish and shellfish prepared by humans for humans, well then the reliable sources be damned.--G-Dett 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
if a reliable source said seals are seafood, it would of course belong in the Seafood article, regardless of what that same RS said about other kinds of Seafood. There are numerous reliable sources that treat the demolition of settlements as part of the I-P conflict - so they clearly belong in a WP article about house demolitions in the I-P conflict. The only gerrymandering going on here is your attempts to include each and every instance of a Palestinian home demolished, for whatever reason, while at the same time excluding Israeli homes demolished, using sophistry. Isarig 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? There are hundreds if not thousands of reliable sources describing seals as sea food for other sea creatures, namely sharks. But they don't treat this as the same subject as the harvesting and preparing of fish and shellfish by humans for humans. Whale meat is red, Isarig, and the Norwegians love it. Tuna is red. Neither of these is mentioned in the article Red meat. There are no reliable sources treating raw tuna and grilled beef together as constituting "red meat." Whereas there are thousands of reliable sources treating beef and lamb together as red meat, and discussing ways of preparing and serving it, its dietary benefits and risks, and so on. Those sources set the parameters of our WP article, red meat. There are no reliable sources treating the forced evacuation of Gaza settlers and the demolition of Palestinian homes together as constituting "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." But there are hundreds of reliable sources treating the permit-demolitions and security-demolitions of Palestinian homes together as constituting Israel's policy of "house demolition," and discussing it from the point of view of its strategic efficacy, its ethical defensibility, and its status under international law. We follow the lead of our reliable sources when setting the parameters of a topic, Isarig. What don't you get about that? It isn't sophistry, it's policy, and it's common sense.--G-Dett 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, if there are RS that describe seals as Seafood (vs. as 'food of sharks') - it belongs in the article. Tuna is a fish, so regardless of the color of its fillets, it would not be Red meat, because Red meat, 'in nutritional terminology, ... refers to meat from mammals.' This article is about house demolitions in the I-P conflict, not about demolitions of Palestinian homes in the I-P conflict. Any such demolitions belong in the article, per very clear WP policy, and you will not gerrymander those demolitions you don't like from the article based on your sophistry. Isarig 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussion on why "seal-food" doesn't belong in an article on "sea-food" demonstrates rather neatly why the settlers homes don't really belong in the article. In both cases, the RS's don't treat them like that. (Although the Settler Homes actually *are* in the article - I'm baffled by what you're complaining about?). I think it's high time that the article House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contained the kind of material prepared by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and other serious commentators. Not the Original Research that's being endlessly pushed at us. PalestineRemembered 11:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. RS's most certainly treat the demolition of settlements as part of the conflict. And the article already includes material from ICAHD. Try reading it. Isarig 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, there is no recognized subject anywhere in the real world of reliable sources that is understood to comprise Israel's policy of house demolitions (for security, demography, urban planning, etc.) and its forced evacuations of the Gaza settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank. That hybrid-topic doesn't exist in the world; you invented it. And the only authority you've offered for this invention is a semantic parsing of our current title, as if articles derived their mandate from their titles rather than from their sources. If the phrasing of the current title is allowing you to play this stupid game, then the current title should be changed.--G-Dett 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demolition of Settler Homes

Why do we not talk about the 1500 or so homes of settlers which have been demolished against their will? This section should be more in depth. I think this may indicate a bias. Israelis have suffered from disputed demolitions as well. And Why this is article rated high importance? There are terrible human rights abuses besides a few thousand home demolitions, and this article is high importance? There are countries like Saudi Arabia who provide almost no rights to most of their citizens, and this is high importance? I think not.Monitorer 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are editors here who wish this topic to be included. (Personally, I think it's pretty pointless and likely unencyclopedic, because these homes were part of the conflict, demolishing them removed a portion of the conflict). But I'm not really opposed to including them, and I haven't noticed anyone else being really opposed to including them either. The problem we have is that the people who supposedly want it included have failed to provide any text when asked and/or failed/refused to engage with any of the points raised. This pattern of behaviour even seems to distress some pro-Israel editors. If you want this information in here, then write us something. That is the reason you're here, to help write the encyclopedia, isn't it? PalestineRemembered 11:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an intersting comment - you concede the homes were part of the conflict, and that demolishing them removes a portion of the conflict, yet for some reason wish to exclude discussion of a demolition that according to you removes a part of the conflict from an article that discusses demolitions in the conflict. Maybe you should sort out the internal contradictions in your position first, and once you have a coherent one, present it here. Isarig 14:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's rated high-importance with respect to WikiProject Palestine and not on any grander scale. The difference between the settler demolitions and the Palestinian demolitions is under extensive discussion and I would recommend that you read the above threads and engage there, rather than starting again from the beginning. Eleland 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a battlefield

There are plenty of sources that speak of Israeli-Palestinian conflict that include both house demolitions as part of the same conflict, furthermore WP:NPOV requires that we address concerns of mentioning that Israel also demolishes other houses for other purposes.

Those that oppose the mention are being a bit WP:OWNy with the topic.

However the house demolitions in the settlements is already covered in its own article Israeli settlements, and their attempts to POV fork into here are also negative. The community has clearly chosen that these are separate topics.

So I have implemented my solution as per WP:SUMMARY.

Those who insist on expanding material on settlement demolition here, are advised to do it in the main article for the topic. If that section grows too much, they are advised to fork it into its own article.

Please stop the POV pushing and accept that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and that cross-linking topics is an important part of being encyclopedic in our context.

Do not turn this into a battleground. There easy, policy based solutions to these concerns. Follow them and that would be it. Thanks! --Cerejota 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, where are the sources that address the forced evacuation of settlements as related to the demolition of Palestinian homes? You say there are "plenty"; I know of none. I have never read any source that addresses these issues together, or that even speaks of the forced evacuations as "house demolitions." Can you point me to some sources?--G-Dett 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I said as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: every source that talks about one or the other places them in this context. Israel demolishes houses of Palestinians because they are at war with the Palestinians. It demolishes those of settlers because it is part of a complex attempt to resolve the conflict.
Obviously, no sources join them together because they are different issues, and this is why they have different articles. However, what is lost by this mention of other instances of buildings being destroyed, if it will calm reasonable, good faith concerns from some editors? Why the insistence on all-or-nothing "solutions"? I think my proposal is reasonable, and it will stop this from becoming a battlefield -except for a few unreasonable editors hell-bent on making this another battlefield in the I-P conflict, which if they insist in WP:POINT will be dealt with harshly. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The question of the demolition of settlers' homes can and should be thoroughly discussed in article Israeli settlement. Those editors who insist that it should be addressed in this article should take a look at WP:SYNTH. --Marvin Diode 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it should be (and is) thoroughly discussed there, just as Rachael Corrie is discussed in detail another page. That does not preclude us from discussing them here, as well. I've read WP:SYNTH carefully - what is its relevance here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 14:49, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Its relevance is that you are joining together two different issues that no reliable sources join, in order to make a point.--G-Dett 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
They are 2 different issues, both of which fit the current scope of the article- which is home demolitions in the I-P conflict. see again the example I gave above WRT different controversies regarding Clinton. Isarig 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I read your silly Clinton comparison above. Yeah, anything really notable about the 42nd president of the United States you should be able to add to Bill Clinton; he's a notable guy, whose life and career set the parameters of the article about him. But see, Isarig, you can't add stuff about this [other Bill Clinton], earl of Huntingdon, soldier and magnate who died in 1354, to the Bill Clinton article. Even though he's sorta notable too. You'd need a different article for that guy (even though the title of the current one is "accurate") because no reliable sources believe the dead earl and the living ex-president are the same person. And no reliable sources believe that Israel's controversial policy of demolishing Palestinian homes is the same as – or even has anything whatsoever to do with – its policy of forced evacuation of settlements, even though the title of this article can be said to be an "accurate" formulation of the latter. If you really love the title of this article and want to apply it to the unrelated phenomenon of forced evacuation, then create the new article, title it House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (settlement withdrawal), and create a disambig page. But stop playing stupid word games and wasting everyone's time. Some of us are tired of it, others are prepared to appease it, but everyone here sees through it.--G-Dett 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your analogy fails miserably. This [other Bill Clinton is different person, but the house demolitions of setllers are part of the same conflict - the I-P conflict. Your analogy would work if there was some other I-P conflict, in a different time, or a differnt place, to which the demolition of settler homes might belong, but alas, the conflict is one and the same, in time, in place and in participants. As you say, some people are gettign tired of this game - and those people have told you to lay off, stop your ownership of the page, a cease makign this into a POV-pushing battlefield. Isarig 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please focus on article content and not on insulting editors. Do you have a reliable source that links the evacuation of settlements to the phenomenon of house demolitions as practiced by Israel against Palestinians? Isn't odd to insist on including this item here when no one was living in the homes in Gaza at the time they were demolished (they had been evacuated) and everyone received compensation? There seems to be a qualitative difference. Tiamat 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If there are editors here who think Isarig is making any sense at all, please say so, and I will continue to engage him.--G-Dett 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I have no strong objections to your implemented solution, indeed it's basically what I have proposed. What disturbed me was the inclusion of settler-related information in the main section of the article, for example listing widthdrawl concessions as one of the reasons given for demolition. I believe that such actions confuse the issue and logically would force the article into odd contortions ("Human rights groups have condemned house demolition" would have to become "Human rights groups have condemned house demolition except when implementing territorial concessions") which are themselves original research. Eleland 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your agreemnt with my implemnted solution. Perhaps G_Dett wil take note that she's increasingly in a minority posiotn here. Isarig 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Isarig, I was taking to Cerejota; I made specific objections to your version. Nice try anyway though. Eleland 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a disambig page is what's in order. We've got two unrelated policies, which due to a fluke of phrasing could both arguably by described by the same title...it's a textbook situation for a disambig page.--G-Dett 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That could be a solution. I don't think connecting these items in one article is appropriate considering the lack of a reliable source making that connection. Tiamat

16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not a solution. The policies are part of the same conflict, which is the topic of this article. You want to make this article about just one side's demolitions - which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please edit in accordance with WP policy. Isarig 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The policy, not the conflict, is the topic of the article. The policy you've inserted material on is a completely different policy, which no RS has connected to this one. If you want to call it by the same name, you'll need a disambig page.
No. The topic of this article is "House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" It is not limited to any specific policy, and indeed the article discusses at least 4 different policies. RS sources very clearly describe the policy of demolishing settlements as part of the conflict, and quite simply you will not censor this information form this article, so it's best you give it a rest. Isarig 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's true that these two unrelated policies are both related to the I/P conflict (like so many other things are); feel free to add separate references to both in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article.--G-Dett 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Making progess. This is a specifc article, part of a long seris of articles about the I-P conflict. This particular one discusses, as its name suggests, house demolitions in the conflict, so is the appropriate place to discuss the demoliton of settlements. Isarig 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No progress just yet, but we'll have some in a minute here when the disambig page is created. Those interested in editing House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (settlement withdrawal) can decide whether that title is best, or whether the article should be moved and the disambig page deleted.--G-Dett 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the disambig page in unnecessary, and that Isarig's argument is specious. The fact that settlements are being dismantled in the same geographic area as the "Israeli-Palestian conflict" does not mean that they are part of that conflict. They are an internal Israeli controversy. I think that Isarig is engaging in WP:POINT violations here. --Marvin Diode 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In a word: Nonsense. RS treat this as part of the conflict, and explictly refer to it as part of the relationship between Israel and the PNA Isarig 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I think you're right, Marvin. Though I would say that a good case can be made that the forced evacuations are "part of the Israeli-Palestian conflict," (obviously in a different sense than the demolition of Palestinian homes is), that issue is a red herring. As the two policies have nothing to do with one another, they obviously don't belong in the same article, and you're certainly right that Isarig is engaged in WP:POINT-making and word games, and should not be fed but rather sent directly to bed without dinner. The question for me in considering a disambig was whether House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (settlement withdrawal) is a notable subject in its own right. I've spent the afternoon looking for material on that, planning to create the separate article, and there doesn't really seem to be any. That is, the "demolitions" themselves appear to have been incidental to what is usually referred to as "forced evacuations." These forced evacuations were relevant insofar as they "pit Jew against Jew," revealed fault-lines in contemporary Zionism, as well as fault-lines in strategic thinking about "unilateral disengagement," and so on, but whether buildings were abandoned or demolished appears to have been a tertiary issue. If I'm wrong, however, and if the demolition of evacuated settlements is an independently notable topic of greater substance than can be handled by a few sentences in the relevant articles (Israeli settlement and Israel's unilateral disengagement plan), and if it's determined by serious editors that the best title for an independent article on the topic would be – by a most singular coincidence – exactly the title of this article, then a disambig would be called for. At any rate, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. At this point I'm inclined to simply delete the irrelevant material.--G-Dett 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting OR/SYN problem

I plan to remove the "Demolitions due to territorial withdrawals" section, per the preceding discussion. No one has come forward with any sources indicating that it's part of the topic of this article, or even related to it. The only case that's been made for the inclusion of this material is that it conforms literally to the title of the article as it's currently phrased. This argument reeks heavily of WP:POINT, but even if we assume good faith, applying this standard for the inclusion of material will throw open the doors to all manner of heterogeneous material – the bulldozing of 10% of Jenin camp during the Siege of Jenin, the demolition of apartment complexes in residential Gaza by missile or ariel bomb, and so on. The fact that no reliable sources join these different issues when talking about house demolitions in the I/P conflict has been waved aside by Isarig, but beyond the blatant violation of WP:SYN, this creates serious problems for any general statement in the body of the article. The sections on legal status and criticisms, for example, do not apply to the forced-evacuation issue, and they will not apply in the same way to Israel's bombing or rocketing of civilian areas if we are to include that as well. There is absolutely no reason not to do here what policy and common sense dictate, and let the reliable sources set the parameters of our subject matter. "House demolitions" is a coherent, highly prominent and notable subject, recognized by all of the reliable sources to refer to Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, citing security or lack of permit. There is no RS precedent for treating this as part of a hybrid topic with the forced evacuation of settlements, or aerial bombing of civilian areas, or the extremes of urban warfare. My hope is that we won't see any disruptive edit-warring over this; but if so we can file an RfC and move forward on that path.--G-Dett 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the preceding discussion, the majority of editors disagreed with you on this point. Please ceaste your edit warring over this. Isarig 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Can my very first and only edit on this topic be called "edit-warring"? Can you briefly recap your arguments here, Isarig, and specify which editors constitute this "majority" who found them compelling?--G-Dett 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The arguments are in the section above. Read them. Isarig 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to me that the majority of the editors in the discussion are taking Isarig's side, as he claims in his latest edit summary. That being said, I propose this as a compromise: I have removed the "diplomatic measure" assertion from the summary at the beginning of the article, as I maintain that it confuses the issue. However, I left in place the section at the end where Isarig summarizes the material from Israeli settlement, because it is concise not entirely irrelevant. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems sensible Marvin; it's probably the best solution anyway, and the approach I ought to have taken.--G-Dett 14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I like Marvin's solution. See this diff: [18]
If Isarig can find reliable sources that show what he was claiming, then it can be put in the article. But otherwise, this WP:SPINOUT solution (or variation of it) makes sense. I am talking about the section titled: "Demolitions due to territorial withdrawals" near the end of the article.--Timeshifter 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this came from a reliable source: "as a diplomatic measure to implement Israeli concessions of territory to the Palestinian Authority." So it is good that it was removed from the top of the article. --Timeshifter 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I couldn't see an objection to having settler homes in this article, and said "I'm sure some compromise can be reached". However, on seeing User:G-Dett's argument for the first time, I can now see the objection - it's Synthesis, a violation of policy. More than that, "Demolition" was never an issue for anyone. Perhaps User:Isarig could actually deal properly with this objection, instead of claiming it's already included (and making highly dubious claims of there being a different consensus and throwing round dubious accusations of edit-waring). PalestineRemembered 21:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope that all parties are satisfied with my compromise[19], which has not been reverted. I think that Isarig's argument is indeed WP:SYNTH, but having that section at the end is not harmful to the article and is of some tangential interest. --Marvin Diode 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary

And so, the Wikintifada moves forward... throwing reverts instead of rocks. And so the Wikizionists will respond with more WP:POINT and so, the rest of Wikipedia stands in awe as an encyclopedia is turned into a battlefield. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, your comments more and more cross the line of acceptable discourse. Those arguing against the inclusion of the material that Isarig alone wants to insert here are not part of some intifada - they are not even Palestinian editors (I'm the only one in the discussion here). Please stop inflaming the discussion with your sports-like war commentary. We are trying to build consensus here and be honest about the relevance of material presented to this article. If you prefer to make fun, you are free to do so, but perhaps keep it to yourself? Tiamat 11:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"Sports-like war commentary" I can fully accept that, plus it made me laugh! More seriously, sometimes rules get in the way of our purpose: to build an encyclopedia.
Even if a single editor raises an interesting point, and backs it up with editing, we have no reason to crush that editor, tel him or her to fuck off, and start an edit war until ArbCom comes in and bans him or her.
It is irrelevant if those in the Wikintifada are Palestinian or not, just like it doesn't matter if those in the WikIsraeli Defense Forces are Israeli: What matters is that behavior is not one conducive to the development of an encyclopedia, but very conducive to partisan fights. I have some opinions on this subject which I never reveal, on purpose: they are absolutely irrelevant. I have the capacity to write for the enemy, are a sucker for sourcing and research, and can be civil. What I think about the topic is ultimately irrelevant.
Still, while I'll admit sometimes I am a victim of my own love of irony and bad wit (for which I will continuously apologize), I also offer that my proposed solution is one people from all sides can support in order to concentrate on what this article is about, instead of turning it into yet one more battlefield. Sometimes you gots to give hard biscuit to get soft bread. Sometimes WP:IAR is a way to reach consensus. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's so much better when you give soft bread at the outset. But you do have a certain charm sometimes. I'll give you that. :) Tiamat 01:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAMERA not a RS

I removed the following paragraph from this article, because the citation is not from a reliable source, because the non-reliable source that mentions the statistic does not provide a citation so that it can be verified, and because I could not find this statistic anywhere else online:

According to figures from the Jerusalem Municipal Department of Licensing and Inspection, the number of permits requested and approved in 2003 was:
2003[18] West Jerusalem East Jerusalem
Permits requested 1719 138
Permits approved 1425 118
Ratio 83% 85%
The statistics purport to show that a majority of permits requested were granted in eastern Jerusalem, that the ratio of permits granted to Arabs in East Jerusalem was higher than that of permits granted to Jews in West Jerusalem, and that denial of permits, to Arabs and Jews, generally are meant to uphold master plans and building codes.


If someone wants to quote these figures or re-add this paragraph, they need to find them in a reliable source.

I also corrected one of the numbers in the remaining table since it was not copied correctly from its citation, and I provided percentages to clarify. Jgui 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA is at least as a reliable source as ICAHD. Why did you remove one but tot the other? I'll remove the other piece of statistics as well, and If someone wants to quote these figures or re-add this paragraph, they need to find them in a reliable source. Mr. Hicks The III 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
CAMERA is a very poor source, it fails reliable source on many grounds. Not least their language, it should be glaringly obvious that articles entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference", containing such material as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'" have no place in the reference list of an enyclopedia.
Meanwhile ICAHD is a partisan source, and it's information must be used with care. But it is on the spot, it does do investigations, it's not a mouthpiece for anyone else and it has no obvious interest in distortion. PRtalk 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
ICAHD is every bit as biased and partisan as CAMERA - it is a single purpose group opposed to house demolitions, according to its own web site. It is a mouthpiece for its own agenda, and has a claera interest in promoting a single sided presentation of facts. If you are going to rule our CAMERA on rather flimsy grounds and charges of partisanship, then you can't allow ICAHD. That would be a POV censorship. Mr. Hicks The III 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
So it's the old "police are biased against crime so their statistics on crime can not be used" argument. // Liftarn
The ICAHD material should not be blanked. --Marvin Diode 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
But the CAMERA material should? Why? How are these sources different, as far as Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy? Mr. Hicks The III 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hicks, the difference is that ICAHD figures on house demolition in Jerusalem have been cited as being a reliable source by the US State Department here: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61690.htm. I have added this information to the page to address your concerns and clarify. I also fixed a redlink to a Katz reference - did someone remove this - if so it should be added back. Thanks, Jgui 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
CAMERA speaks of "Palestinian duplicity". The day we accept sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity" is the day we treat CAMERA as a reliable source and quote from it. PRtalk 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that that analogy gets right to the meat of the matter. --Marvin Diode 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That analogy is, in a word, nonsense. The parallel to "Palestinian duplicity" is not "Jewish duplicity", a term with clear antiSemitic implications, but rather 'Israeli duplicity'. Both "Palestinian duplicity" and 'Israeli duplicity' are harsh terms, not understated diplomatic ones, but that does not make the sources using them non-reliable. Needless to say, we use such sources in Wikipedia all the time. For example, Egypt's Al-Ahram weekly used the term "Israeli duplicity" (here, fore example), yet it is used extensively as a source for wikipedia articles such as Cinema of Egypt. Similarly, Stephen Walt uses the term in his book The Origins of Alliances, published by Cornell University Press - are we seriously suggesting that CUP or Walt's book is not a reliable source because it uses a harsh term? Mr. Hicks The III 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hicks, Camera is simply not a RS. Please see the definition of WP:RS and then try to explain how you can possibly argue that it is. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
camera is a reliable source with a pro-israeli perspective. there's already a number of situations where their citations have been cross checked, and there they were all found correct to the source used. we should not use them extensively to promote a biased position, however, where an israeli position is lacking, there is room to consider use of their materials. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou, please see the same definition of WP:RS - CAMERA is NOT a reliable source as defined on that page. If you want to use that UNCITED bit of text from their page, then you MUST find it in a reliable source or primary source. An Israeli source (such as the Jerusalem Municipal Department of Licensing and Inspection) would of course be fine - but CAMERA is not. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor reorg

Did minor reorg. Did not move any text; I just changed a couple section names so that they accurately describe their associated text, and changed indents as part of that. Jgui 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a couple paragraphs from Amnesty with citations. Thanks, Jgui 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Meant to add that as part of the above I added a citation to a paragraph with CN on it. Jgui 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor recently removed a relevant image and replaced it with one that has nothing to do with house demolition. Its nice that Cat makes excavators, but its IRRELEVANT since they are apparently not used for house demolition.
An editor also added back an improperly cited and highly disputed bit of text from a clearly partisan group (CAMERA). I have removed this. If someone wants to add this back, then they should leave a note here justifying why a WP page should include text from a non-RS that is uncited in that source, and then why it should be done by improperly citing it on the WP page. Please see the earlier discussion of this. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Collective punishment

MilesAgain, Eleland, and I see the obvious in that this article belongs in Category:Collective punishment, because collective punishment is mentioned in the article. Category placement does not endorse whether house demolition is considered collective punishment. It only helps readers find articles of interest concerning the topic of collective punishment and alleged collective punishment.

Jaakobou seems to be in revert wars in multiple articles. Often for ridiculous reasons. Many things that even hint at being against his favored POV of "Israel can do no wrong" he is trying to remove from wikipedia articles. This is against WP:NPOV. NPOV means that all significant viewpoints are explained in the form of X says Y. Not just the POVs that Jaakobou favors.

Jaakobou also removed this reference link:

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, International Committee of the Red Cross

See this diff.

Here is a wikilink of interest: Fourth Geneva Convention. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

it is indeed my belief that not every article that mentions "a group"'s belief (in this case amnesti international who oppose house demolitions in general) that something is collective punishment, despite explanations by the authorities should now mean that the artilce belongs with that category - for example, 9.11 is accused to be an inside job, but i don't quite believe that we can add a "hoax" and/or "conspiracy" categories to said article. i wouldn't mind the addition of a 'see also' to the article, but i'm afraid that it is already wikilinked more than once in the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You have reverted text 3 times, and you have removed the reference link 3 times for Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. You have violated 3RR. Please quickly self-revert to Eleland's version to avoid being blocked. See WP:3RR. This is a friendly warning requested by the text of the WP:3RR article. You can be blocked for less than 4 reversions in 24 hours.
By the way, see Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks. Not that I necessarily agree with any of them. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thank you User:Timeshifter for bringing up Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks. i note to you, as was my point to begin with, that it is not included in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I only pointed out the category to show that it existed for those articles that allege alternative 9/11 theories. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, this appears to be pure WP:POV on Jaakobou's point. Note also that he's replacing an explanation of Amnesty's position with a rambling, mis-spelled, run-on sentence which actually devotes most of its attention to the Israeli rationale, in the guise of explaining what Amnesty thinks! <eleland/talkedits> 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, rather than whine about "personal insults," how about you accept that it is not appropriate to run around the Wikipedia stamping out any expression of what critics of Israeli policy say. A bullet point under the header, "Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International who oppose the house demolitions accuse the Israeli government and/or the IDF of other motives:" does not need to be saddled with a long, rambling re-iteration of the official Israeli POV which is already provided in the paragraph directly above. <eleland/talkedits> 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Jaakobou will not be able to reply here for awhile. Jaakobou was blocked for 84 hours (3 and a half days) for "edit-warring and persistent reverting across multiple articles." Please see:

[edit] Various improvements

I have made a number of restorations or improvements, as below:

1. (line 1) The same editor who previously removed a relevant image and replaced it with one that has nothing to do with house demolition has done it again, and has once again done it without providing any explanation. I like pictures of big new shiney yellow excavators too, but Cat excavators DO NOT BELONG HERE since they are apparently not used for house demolition. On the other hand, a picture of a house destroyed by the IDF pretty clearly does belong here.

2. The intro paragraph was POV and slanted by providing a large bulleted list of IDF explanations but an abbreviated summary of Rights groups accusations. Since the lede should be both fair and concise, I rewrote each to consist of a single sentence (with citations).

3. (line 18) In the Purpose section which includes more detailed explanations and counter-charges, I have restored the bulleted lists for BOTH sides since that is a fair way to do it - it is clearly POV to present one side of the issue with a bulleted list of five (uncited) claims and to present this against a single sentence for the other side. Why was this change made? We do not know since the editor left no explanation here in the Talk page.

4. (line 52) I fixed a redlink for the Ministry of Defense (Israel) and made another date link similar to others.

5. I changed the rather poor heading "During conflicts in the 2000s" to "Recent Conflicts" since it is more encyclopedic.

6. Restored the B'tselem bulleted items since these were also changed without any explanation here in the Talk page.

7. Finally, I have once again removed the improperly cited and highly disputed bit of text from a clearly partisan group (CAMERA). Let me clearly restate what I stated before: if someone wants to add this back, then they should leave a note here justifying why a WP page should include text from a non-RS that is uncited in that source, and then explain why this text should be inserted by improperly citing it on the WP page (implying that they are citing the Jerusalem Municipal Department of Licensing and Inspection). Please see the earlier discussion of this.

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hicks, you have once again ignored requests to explain your insertion of text from CAMERA which you have repeatedly placed into WP's voice. And you have inserted your text again, this time with similar figures from another source (FMEP). Since you seemed unwilling to correct your insertion to take it out of WP's voice and put it into CAMERA and FMEP's voices, I have done so for you. And I have added additional figures from your sources to give better context to the meaning of the statistics you added and to show how they relate to each other.
Hicks, Please contribute to Talk next time. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with attributing CAMERA claims to CAMERA, and ICAHD to ICAHD. Thank you for adding the proper attribution. I have removed some of the claims you have added which are not supported by the cites you have given, as well as some editorializing comments not found in the sources. As Wikipedia editors, we can not provide our interpretation of "the meaning of the statistics" if the sources do not do it themsleves. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hicks, you have claimed that I have added "claims .. not supported by the cites I have given" and you have lectured me for providing my own interpretation that is not in the sources I have cited. I have rewritten in an attempt to make it crystal clear that I have done neither. These are all the changes I have made:
  • "Before the Six Day War in 1967 there were no Israelis living in East Jerusalem" ((NOTE: this is cited to the statistics from a source that you added, that show that there were no Israelis living in East Jerusalem in 1967 - please check the reference))
  • "After the end of the Six Day War which started the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, Israel began to expropriate land for use by Israeli settlers." ((NOTE: this is to explain the statistic that shows Israelis increasing from 0 to 34% of land for Israelis - once again this is clearly in the reference))
  • "In contrast FMEP and Amnesty International highlight in these figures the small number of Palestinian permit requests (only about 10 percent of the Israeli requests), and argue that this is indicative of the tiny (and ever-shrinking) percentage of land that the Palestinians have available for their use because of the theft of their land." ((NOTE: this is cited to the FMEP who provide the figures and to Amnesty International who state in the reference provided "House demolition in the Arab sector is linked to the state’s policy of large-scale confiscation of land and to restrictive planning regulations. Much of the land surrounding Arab towns and villages has been confiscated and the remaining Arab owned land has been mostly zoned as green land on which it is forbidden to build."))
  • "ICAHD's conclusions have been disputed by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who argue on their website that the larger number of Palestinian demolitions is simply due to the fact that many more Palestinian homes have been built illegally. They claim to have "document[ed] a pattern of politically-motivated behavior and criminal profiteering that characterizes much of the construction in the Arab sector of the Holy City."" ((NOTE: I changed this text because the previous version was incorrect. The cited document did not (as was claimed) contest ICAHD's figures - it instead attributed those figures to the large number of building that have been illegally constructed by Palestinians, and claimed that this construction is politically motivated. I have taken a direct quote from the citation to make this clear))
Hicks, please read the citations, and please raise SPECIFIC objections, not generalities such as "editorializing comments" - if you think I have made an editorializing comment then please clearly specify what and why. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the section about various land allocations and alleged approproation of land. This article is about House demoliitons, and this section discusses specific statistics about demolitions in Jerusalem, it it not the place to bring about various grievences about alleged Israeli land approproation - especially since not of the subsequent arguments refer to these claims. You state that you have added this section in order to "to explain the statistic", but it is not our place, as editors "to explain the statistic" - that is original research which is not allowed.
I've again removed the section that claims that FMEP and AI "argue that this is indicative of the tiny (and ever-shrinking) percentage of land that the Palestinians have available for their use because of the theft of their land." When you first added that section, you sourced it to an article on FMEP - A Settlements Mafia - but that article makes no such claim, and in fact , does not even mention building permits a all. You have now re-added the section, agian sourcing it to this article (which does not support the claim), and adding an AI report. Unfortunately, that report is unavailable on AI's web site, and has not been available there since early January. Perhaps we can revisit this issue once you provide a working link. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hicks, you have just stated "This article is about House demoliitons, and this section discusses specific statistics about demolitions in Jerusalem, it it not the place to bring about various grievences...". I can see it both ways, but since you want to strictly limit this section to discussions of House Demolitions, I will accept your changes; I have therefore removed the remainder of the text in this section discussing Building Permits since this is not, as you state, about House Demolitions. WP is NPOV - if you want to discuss Building Permits then you must allow discussion of both sides of the issue and not delete only one side as you have been doing. I hope removing all discussion of Building Permits satisfies your concern. And by the way, I have no trouble linking to the Amnesty pages contrary to your claims. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the claims of the pro-Arab POV is that buildings are demolished for lack of permits, but that permits are impossibel to get. Thus, the permits issue is relevant, and have never claimed otherwise. However, your other claims are simply not supported by your sources. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hicks, please stop abusing this page. You need to choose - either a full NPOV discussion of building permits has to be made, or no discussion of building permits. I and the other editors of this page do not care which you choose, and we have shown we are willing to accept either you prefer. BUT IT IS POV TO PERMIT ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DISCUSSION AS YOU ARE DOING. I will again remove the one-sided version that you have restored. Please do not take a NPOV page and make it POV - it is against WP policies. Jgui (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not abusing this page, and your personal attacks are getting tiresome. I am more than happy to have all relevant statistics in - but that is not what your favored version has. It has only the ICAHD statistics, without the CAMERA ones. This is unacceptable. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
CAMERA is a propaganda organisation and not a reliable source for anything but thir own views. // Liftarn (talk)
Similar things have been said about ICAHD. We can't present just one side of the issue, per WP:NPOV. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hicks, you have AGAIN made changes unsupported by any discussion here. You previously argued that "This article is about House demoliitons ... it it not the place to bring about various grievences" and the other editors agreed to honor your proposal and removed all discussion of Building Permits. And yet you have returned here numerous times to reinsert a POV one-sided discussion of Building Permits. Please stop abusing this page. It is AGAINST policy to insert POV material as you have been doing. If you have changed your mind, and you now wish to include a discussion of Building Permits in this article, then please explain why you have changed your mind here, so that the other editors can discuss this issue. If the other editors agree, then we can put back a proper NPOV discussion of Building Permits. Until then, I will again remove the disputed and irrelevant material that you keep adding. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)