Talk:Trump peace plan

Trump's borders and borders of 1947/1949/1967

The article is somewhat biased regarding international reactions

Every mention of international reactions show neutral or positive reception to the plan. Major opponents, like Iran and Jordan aren't even mentioned. The article mentions how a "top-ranking Saudi diplomat stated that the plan includes a "clear path leading to complete Palestinian independence", but ignores that "Saudi Arabia's King Salman reassured the Kingdom's commitment to the Palestinian issue and Palestinian rights".

There must be a greater range of reactions in order to properly keep Wikipedia's neutrality. Also, each viewpoint shown should be developed by a proponent of that viewpoint, hopefully with equal space given to each position, for a truly "centrist" picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CentristViewpoint (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/world-reaction-trump-middle-east-plan-200128173439574.html

LuizLSNeto (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not neutral. Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Change "Israel safeguard the Holy Sites and guarantee freedom of worship." at the end of the "Status of Jerusalem and Holy Sites" section

The "Israel safeguard" and "guarantee freedom" is written biased Thanoscar21 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

supreme leader of iran

supreme leader of iran said "they say jerusalem must be in jews hands"... muslim countries stand up against it https://twitter.com/ar_khamenei/status/1222459926456328193 5.75.28.180 (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please rewrite the following garbage from secondary sources. It doesn't even pass muster as a paraphrase of the primary source, being illiterate

Gaza to be part of State of Palestine only after achievement of the “Gaza Criteria.” The State of Israel will implement its obligations only: Hamas, PIJ, and all other militias and terror organizations in Gaza are disarmed. Gaza is fully demilitarized. Hamas, at large (not only Gaza), must commit to the path of peace with the State of Israel by adopting the Quartet principles, which include unambiguously and explicitly recognizing the State of Israel, committing to nonviolence, and accepting previous agreements and obligations between the parties, including the disarming of all terrorist groups.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

In the Israeli conditions section, 'annexation' is misspelled 'nnexation' Trudog82 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Kindly put up India's response to the deal - https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-asks-israel-palestine-to-resolve-issues-through-direct-negotiation-2171575 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:983:FBBB:C90A:6B97:AD09:C5E1 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (I fixed the "nnexation" typo.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

International Reactions section

This should be removed since the involved party is not an external foreign actor, but formed part of the Trump drafting group.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Israeli opposition leader Benny Gantz. Netanyahu has agreed to a four-year land freeze to secure the possibility of a two-state solution.[42]Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Apparently maps showing four phases in the reduction of Palestinian territory from last century down to the proposed bantustans are going viral on the internet (source RAI News). If possible such a map should be reproduced here, under the map proposed by Trump.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC) It also would be helpful if maps provided show quality of lands (good for agriculture, topography, water availability, soil...) to show fairness of land swaps encouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CentristViewpoint (talk • contribs) 00:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

      @Oscardoggy-if I know the maps you are talking about, they poorly reflect how much 
      land was actually under Jewish and Arab control.  The first maps lists all land 
      under Jewish ownership in Palestine in 1946 but lists all land owned by non-Jews 
      AND State-land as being "Arab land".  State land under international law and the 
      Palestine Mandate was designated for the use of all citizens of Palestine, be they 
      Jew or Arab.

Expanded Israel

@Yair rand: per this edit, do you have objection to "borders of an expanded Israel and a Palestinian state"? Otherwise the photomontages gives the misleading impression that the deal is all about giving things to the Palestinians. In order to be balanced we should describe what the Palestinians get and what Israel gets. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: The plan's proposed borders have territory differing from the 1967 borders in both directions, some extra to Israel and a "reasonably comparable" amount transferred to the Palestinians. Even assuming that the territory to Israel is larger (Are there any actual numbers given anywhere? I haven't seen any.), I don't think it would be more appropriate to phrase it as "expanded Israel" than it would be to specifically highlight the "doubling of territory under Palestinian control" which the Trump administration has been repeatedly highlighting. It might be workable to include a more detailed/nuanced explanation of the proposed boundary changes, though.

(Incidentally, why'd the English map get replaced with the Hebrew one?)

(Also, has anyone tried overlaying the map on a regular map including the 1967 lines, Oslo boundaries, and Jerusalem annexation lines? We'd probably still want to have the original map proposal in article, but it would be helpful to have a clarifying one elsewhere, maybe in the Borders section. But I digress.) --Yair rand (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"Deal of the century"

@Drmies: The content about the name "Deal of the century" was originally included in a footnote, explaining that the name was essentially made up by the media but unused by the Trump administration. Right now, the name "Deal of the century" is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I'm not sure whether any mention of it should be re-added, but if it is, the name's source and usage should be made clear, I think. --Yair rand (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Best to leave it out. It's pure rhetoric since the deal was sunk on delivery,- the terms set for its success depend on some Palestinian body committing not only political suicide, but endangering the lives of their families were they to lend their names to a further alienation of their international rights (every sane analyst recognizes this as impossible)- but particularly because put that in and for balance you have to include Abbas's 'smack/slap of the century', and all of the emerging variants (fraud/theft of the century etc.) Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I also think it's best to leave it out, though I wouldn't use Nishidani's argument. The problem was manifold--it's just an appellation, it was in the lead, it was poorly sourced for such a generalizing statement, etc. (And speaking of generalizing, "made up by the media"?) If that was someone's response (or even the response of a few people) it might could go under "Reactions" (since I assume there is such a section), but the lead was the wrong place. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, Netanyahu used it in his speech (standing alongside Trump, Jan 28, 2020): "Mr. president, your deal of the century is the opportunity of the century." Frankly, I'm surprised the bold mention of it was removed from the lead. It's quite a well known alternate name, as seen in many, many reliable sources. El_C 01:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that it is frequently bandied about. The problem is, can a lead showcase an extremely partisan promo brandname, playing on a popular familiarity with the TVish 'sale of the century', tossed about for a few days, echoing a delusion by one of the two parties to the dispute, without balancing it by the change rung on the term by its critics. The answer per NPOV is, in my view, no. A 'deal' is an agreement made between two parties. One party, consisting of the US and Israel axis, presented a proposal whose terms have been rejected almost from the outset by the other party, which is determined not to deal. So it is a market operation by a seller, who has no buyer. It should certainly go in the body of the article, along with 'slap/fraud of the century', but it's an 'if this (Netanyahu's preferred slogan), then also that' issue (Abbas's riposte) per NPOV, and not a matter of how many RS tout the phrase.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Removalism

Here a very close paraphrase of the historical context as provided by Nathan Thrall, one of the foremost contemporary analysts of the conflict writing for the New York Times. It was removed as an inaccurate, Yair. So please oblige us by justifying your edit summary's assertion that it 'is not a remotely neutral summary.' You'd better have some evidence to back your assertion, otherwise it would be just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any particular inaccuracies, no. I removed it because it wasn't neutral (being written by a major analyst writing for the NYT does not guarantee neutrality), and because it wasn't particularly relevant. We don't summarize the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict in every article related to the topic, for good reason. (Even Israeli–Palestinian peace process doesn't try to do that.) On how to summarize the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a paragraph in a neutral manner: That's sufficiently difficult that I won't attempt it here. Nor do I think I need to specifically list every major important historical point that was non-neutrally left out of the summary, nor every point that was non-neutrally highlighted. I think we can avoid arguing out all the major points of the conflicts history here. (There are some decent attempts at brief summaries in some of the high-level articles, but again, this article doesn't need it.)

So no, I don't have any evidence, and I don't think this incredibly broad potential argument is necessary. --Yair rand (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(a)If the source is impeccable, and you dispute its representation, then you rewrite it per the source, you do not erase it. You did. Therefore you dislike the source. You said the summary was not 'neutral', without clarifying whether my summary or Thrall's summary was neutral. Now you are forced to clarify: it is Thrall's summary you do not find neutral. That too is spurious.

(b)That to you the source is not neutral means you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Editors do not have the option of including or excluding top shelf RS on the subjective grounds that the source is not 'neutral'. The guide states:

a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased or you think it constitutes as "fake news". Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.

Your third argument is nowhere grounded in policy or customary practice. The very article you cite, Israeli–Palestinian peace process has a background primer. We have backgrounds in related articles dealing with the run up to an accord or a proposal:Rogers Plan;Madrid Conference of 1991;Oslo Accords; Oslo II Accord; Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty;Camp David Accords; Israel–Jordan peace treaty; Wye River Memorandum etc.etc. We have it in a similar project, i.e. the Road map for peace, which is what Trump's plan is modeled on partially. Idem for the Arab Peace Initiative ('Prelude').

You implicitly admit that fact ('There are some decent attempts at brief summaries in some of the high-level articles,') only to assert a totally subjective opposition (' but again, this article doesn't need it)

In short, you have no policy grounds, the precedents are numerous for an historical background, and you appear simply to personally feel we should make an exception here. That kind of subjective argufying is not how we work here. I'll be restoring it given the very high quality of the source used. By all means feel free to supplement it with any other high quality source that deals in the plan's background (what Kushner dismissed from the plan as 'fairy tales'). Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Not one of those articles attempts to summarize the conflict going back to 1917. I don't object to a background section in general, but it should be a background of the plan itself, including, when applicable, directly relevant preceding efforts that led up to it and how they relate. Not one of the linked similar articles have a background including content on the Balfour declaration or the 1947 partition plan.

This is another arbitrary objection, not based on any policy. That is the third non-policy compliant, subjective objection you have raised. The background you are referring to already exists, in the section on development, another point of incoherence. What you think 'should' be the case, is irrelevant. We have an agreement on a background section, so, on Wikipedia, one looks at those articles which combine (a) coverage of the Trump plan and (b) the background, however the writer approaches that. It is not for editors to dislike sources or refuse them because they disagree with the approach, background or other. To repeat

Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.

Since, per above, you have no good reason, or policy grounds, for your objections, I'll put the text back. The edit summary you made constituted no good reason. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(Unrelated, but: Am I misreading the proposed text, or does it suggest that Israelis are outnumbered by Palestinians in the region?) --Yair rand (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Look at the source article by Thrall, and click on the source from the IDF he links to.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, to save folks time, I have added Thrall's source and used attribution. It is the IDF figure for 2018, which has Jews at 6.5 million and Palestinians over 7 million in the whole territory of historic Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of reactions

@Drmies: I don't understand why the reactions of Brazil, China, India, Japan, Poland, and the UK were removed. It's fairly regular to have such a list of national positions in such articles. It seems like the content is quite important to the topic. --Yair rand (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• OMFG NO it is not. There are plenty of articles where editors saw common sense and included ONLY those responses that came from parties that were directly involved. Certainly it is not hard to see that if you include them all there is nothing stopping you from including them all. Why stop at countries? I follow Leland Sklar on Facebook--maybe he had a reaction too? Drmies (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry if I sound a little irritated but I am a little irritated. With every single disaster, peace plan, speech, explosion, shipwreck, airplane crash, royal fart, we have a list of reactions. One sometimes gets a little tired of it. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I restored China reaction, originally added by myself. What does "these countries have no apparent, immediate stake in this" even mean? Say's who? One editor's personal opinion about relevance does not constitute a valid reason for removal of sourced material. It is in any case self evident that the reactions of veto holders at the UN are indeed relevant.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, YOUR personal opinion is as worth as much as mine. Fortunately, I also have common sense on my side: whether something is relevant or not is relevant--verifiability itself is not grounds for inclusion. And indeed you go on to make an argument--unfortunately, it's not very strong, because there is no reason to believe that the UN Security Council, for now, has anything to do with this. So no, that's not self-evident at all. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In an article as messy and poorly written as this, a large amount of time and effort is going into building a section no one will read (who's on our side, who isn't - that tells one nothing of encyclopedic value about the topic. National positions throw no light on the merits or demerits or even content of the plan, which editors don't seem interested in)

A substantial amount of work has to be done to fix the mess of the paraphrase made from parts of the primary source document. As it stands the paraphrase espouses the content it is supposed to gloss and does so often illiterately: ('The following criteria are a predicate to the formation of a Palestinian State'!!!!). By now there are abundant quality sources that take apart the proposal, and they must replace the clear purport of the paraphrase, using its language as though it were descriptive of realities on the ground, rather than what a large number of commentators state, that it ignores them.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Structure

I see that the controversy stuff keeps being shifted up to precede the actual paraphrase of the contents of the plan. You cannot have a controversy section before the actual nature of the plan's proposals is outlined. It's called hysteron-proteron, Greek for topsyturvy or putting the cart before the horse. In any case, long paragraphs of unfocused, selective patches of criticism will go unread - as they are now, since had even a few people read them, one or two would have fixed the sloppy English.

Could we have some agreement on this? It is a matter of standard wiki article design.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Instead of dividing the article into "pro" and "anti" camps (as often happens early on), the article should be divided by subject: State of Palestine, borders, economic package, etc. Then after that we should have a section on "Reactions" or "Opinions" that briefly describes who is pro and who is against without repeating their reasons in detail, cause the reasoning has already been covered above.VR _talk 23:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, only the problem is, almost no one outside the privileged circle of the Kushner group and Likudniks has anything positive to say about it, other than a diplomatic 'it might serve as a basis for discussion' (which the relevant future negotiating party has ruled out). As I see it, your section divide principle is the way to go, but should consist of (a) the plan proposals in each section stating and then what analysts or reporters state about its implications. For example, it says the Palestinians can have a capital in the Jerusalem area, but critics note that the suggested site is outside Jerusalem and encompasses the one-street slum of Abu Dis and perhaps Shuafat, a gang-ridden shambles of houses, both cut off from easy access to Jerusalem on the other side of the Separation Barrier. This is not therefore 'pro/anti' but rather (a) proposal (b)commentary.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I started in with a bit of shuffling around, trying to get a tighter outline.Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

Eddie-ginnley (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"as applicable" needs a space.

Fixed. Thanks for pointing out. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

International reaction

Brazil is a partner of Israel and USA and could be included as a part favorable for peace agreement. Now I will provide sources for my allegation:

1. Official Brazilian Governament Foreign Affairs page (english):

B777-300ER (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Status quo. One more reason for not parsing the primary source.

our article, per a secondary source, states:

The plan (a) puts the Temple Mount, including Al-Aqsa mosque,[70] under Israeli sovereignty. It (b) calls for the status quo to be maintained

Well, no, and (a) and (b) contradict each other. The plan actually overthrows the status quo, first by asserting Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount, and secondly by making a 'theological' revolution implicit in the following passage:-

People of every faith should be permitted to pray on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, in a manner that is fully respectful to their religion, taking into account the times of each religion’s prayers and holidays, as well as other religious factors.

This means that, against rabbinic edit, Israeli political fiat and customary usage, Jews should be allowed to pray on that site, a proposal that has extremely radical implications and violates the status quo.

Obviously newspapers write to a deadline, but they are not very reliable for precisely that reason. No one seems to have picked up the contradiction (one of scores I have noted, apart from the ludicrous incompetence in the use of English terms the authors don't understand) as yet. As things stand, since we don't have an RS for the point yet, we can't note this. By the same token, the assertion we are making above is incorrect when compared with the primary source, and cannot stand.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is putting not only theIslamic sites but also many such Christian sites as the Church of St. Anne under 'Israeli sovereignty', a fact that as with the Chirac/Macron incidents, is unacceptable to France, just as, generally, major landholders there like the Catholics and Greek Orthodox would be decidedly opposed to having their possessions subject to Israeli, rather than international law, he former of which would have punitive fiscal implications. The 'plan' in such slipshod statements is actually stirring a hornet's nest not only for Palestinians, and editors should keep their eyes out for reactions from those quarters.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Bias much?

"The State of Palestine is what is relevant here not some geographical designation"[1] - actually, no. There are several state and state-like entities in that area, and you can't ignore any of them if you want a proper "background" section. What's more, there's no reason to write anew if you already have the same content, but vetted, in other articles. François Robere (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Your extraordinary ‘rewrite’ is one of several problematical reverts overnight.

• (1) Rewrite from main) by François Robere.

This rewrite breaks the rules. The background to the Trump Peace Plan must comes from sources on that plan which deal in background. That rule has been persistently (and fairly) insisted on by ‘pro-Israeli editors’ for as long as I have been here. I followed it in providing the three background sources which Robere’s edit, with Debresser, erased. One should not, absolutely, pinch.text from another wiki article (itself problematical (e.g.‘In 1922, the British Mandate for Palestine was established’) etc. and incomplete) and then plunk it here after a rewrite. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and poaching stuff from other articles (it has not been 'vetted') is frowned on.

• (2) Not needed here

Debresser. Where, for the nth time, is ytour policy rationale? When, for the nth time, will you actually consult the sources?

Since 1948, 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions have affirmed the following principles regarding Palestinian rights:

This comes from the primary source (Peace and Prosperity 2020 p.5) and the secondary source Dubuisson. Throughout our article, the primary source is cited, so why are you objecting to its use here. Dubuisson, the secondary source, simply fills in the relevant details about what the brief primary source is referring to, but ignores.

(3) Opinions are not needed here, especially one-sided ones

Again, a large number of the sources cited here provide the opinions of experts, such as Martin Indyk, Robert Malley and Nathan Thrall. Rashid Khalidi’s is uniquely erased. The document was overwhelmingly written by three American Jewish people who have no knowledge of the actual history of the dispute, and we paraphrase their spin. Since when is it unacceptable to mention the view on it of a Palestinian scholar of international repute, a specialist in the history of the areas, unlike the authors of the document? Such an erasure replicates the nature of the text we are dealing with, which is explicitly hostile to any Palestinian history being mentioned, and obviously erodes NPOV, apart from the non-policy compliant assertion that 'one-sided views' (we are required to balance different views, not demand they be neutral - as you should know by now) are unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not disagree that we can make use of material from prior articles and I will do some ce in that vein. The plan is directed mainly at the State of Palestine and it's relationship with Israel so it seems that is mainly what we should be looking at.Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What you did here breaks the editing convention I mention above. I am opposed to it for the same reason I opposed Robere's edit: it is simply not done for obvious reasons (a) it assumes the other article is reliable (b) and, since it intrudes 'stuff' that no specific topic-related sources mention, close to WP:OR. This is a woeful practice because it assumes that preexisting articles in wiki are reliable, and correctly report sources. On examination many of them are inadequate. Numerous sources mention the background, only, with all the reverting and erasing and mucking about going on, it is hard to get anything in here. Dubuisson is screwed out, though he is an expert, and we get blobs of copyandpaste from other articles to replace it. For God's sake, let the relevant post 28 literature dictate what is appropriate to the article's sections. If RS do not mention stuff, neither should we.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, copy editing from other articles is OK as long as you specifically say that is what you are doing in the edit summary. That's what I was told when I did it before (without saying I had copied it). You can also do it without attribution if it was your own edit to start with.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, if material in another article is "wrong" (presumably because of inadequate sourcing) then it ought to be fixed there as well as here, right?Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You're setting a precedent for allowing poor editors to shoot down material on the historical background coming from reputable sources dealing with Trump's prosperity plan, and replacing it with crap from poor articles. A lot of Wikipedia articles aren't worth a nob of goat's shit, and that is why scrupulous editors should stick to rules that do not draw on the haphazard compositions of editors elsewhere, but insist on framing something like background on text coming directly from sources that deal directly with the topic. The way the background of a huge subject like the IP conflict is handled is intrinsically aleatory if what Robere did is permitted. There are literally dozens of wiki articles reconstructing that background. He just took a skimpy one (History of the Palestinian territories he appears to like (it misses crucial matters, like what you get in the History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, for example - why link to a poor main article while ignoring the obvious candidate?) and paraphrased it, and so, instead of having a proper historical introduction, you get a blindsiding spin on one or two elements, none of which happen to be mentioned in TPPlan-related articles. I.e. you are providing a warrant for methods that make havoc of encyclopedic composition. Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I copied a sentence or two plus the sources for it from another article I am familiar with. This is done quite frequently and not just by myself. I objected to Robere edit not because he was copy editing but because it was tangential to the plan and because he deleted sourced material in the process. Debresser did the same thing, I haven't properly looked at that one yet.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, we're preventing "recentism" by using established sources. As for article selection - I took the most straightforward one; you're free to pick whatever article you want. François Robere (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary to your contrary, we are not preventing 'recentism' by excluding authoritative sources published after an event. You evidently have never read Wikipedia:Recentism, which is about events, not sources.Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Luckily I'm not "pro-" anything here, so I don't mind. There's no reason not to use pertinent sources because in a background section because they don't address a particular sub-subject. François Robere (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've another leg.Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Sourcing

We haven't had very much secondary reporting on the detail, I thought we could put stuff here for now.

https://fmep.org/resource/settlement-report-january-31-2020/ analyzes that which is "directly relevant for settlement and annexation watchers".Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, a good source.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated https://fmep.org/resource/resources-for-understanding-the-trump-plan-deal-of-the-century/ Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

http://t-j.org.il/LatestDevelopments/tabid/1370/articleID/939/currentpage/1/Default.aspx The Jerusalem aspects Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Photo ops

This article appears to have spent more effort on showcasing photo ops, of which there are two absurd chains, than on content. Is it really necessary to have pics of all the people in Kushner's negotiating program? I can think of no other comparable article which, like this, has jumped on the idea we need provide a full line-up of drafters of what over a score of important sources call a dead-in-the water 'peace' plan.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

)Typically, it can be difficult to get non-copyright pix, seem to have had no trouble here, hah. And how does one make sense of an access restrictions pic from OCHA with title "settlements are lawful"?? Pretty sure we should lose some of these and maybe put the remaining in their more usual positions.Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The article should not be a photo opportunity for Kushner and co.,'s tr(I)ump(h) on the world's stage, which is how the presentation looks now. Two photos in, as you suggest, an appropriate section are enough.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is "Trump Plan" per [as the] article name. Am I wrong? These are the authors, and liaisons. That is relevant.BlueMadrigal (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)—

@BlueMadrigal: Please do not include the pictures without a discussion here first.Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an extreme position. Removal of the pictures. They depict the facts, facts that they depict are in. Concepts are already included in the text. If I'm not wrong, you personally copy edited. BlueMadrigal (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(This is vandalism and an extreme position. Removal of the pictures, which they depict the facts of the relevant events, facts that they depict are in already included in the text. If I'm not wrong you personally copy edited

Nope. Two editors discussed this, while you, looking on, refused to reply to their points and, when the agreement was acted upon, you simply reverted and only then, when requested, dropped a note in here. That is not collaborative, and the issue is clear-cut.

(a) You have 8 photos in one section of Israeli and American figures and their public photo opportunities, breaking WP:NPOV. Photos can depict whatever, but no one in Wikipedia can get away with introducing a massive line up of photos dealing with only half of the equation, and in particular, showcasing the American and Israeli figures in their various public appearances.

The policy is:-

(1)They are decorative cf. 'Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.

(2) There are far too many.cf. 'not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.'

(3) They lack thematic variety. cf.'Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities.'

(4) 'Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.' Don't use images or galleries excessively.

(5) One bears the ridiculous, highly pointy caption 'Paradigm breaking', a bit like calling the effects of a bull unleashed in a China shop 'changing the decor'

In sum. You uploaded images, have at least three times reverted them back when editors who know policy have removed them. You have not engaged in any rational response to the problems, and the whole showcase is nothing more than an abuse of wikipedia to profile the 'team' while ignoring the other party.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ok! sure! blame me for others' analysis of the events ('Paradigm breaking') which is clearly referenced ... There is no picture of Palestinian people!, not because I ignored, they did not participate in development. (Blaming me for that? How is that fair act against me? Also "You uploaded images" is that a fact?) However, if you remove these pictures, there won't be any pictures of the people involved in this process. How is that WP:NPOV. There won't be any video showing the unveiling of their positions. Only thing left in the article will be the criticism of their positions. That makes article more fair? In fact, what will be left after this proposed edit is the criticism of the these people. Envoy is depicted as "married to president's daughter" Chief negotiator is "Israel's spokesman, ... he would frequently lambast the Palestinian side .." Berkowitz is a "young lawyer who worked for Kushner's companies... raised as an orthodox Jew with deep ties to Israel." Given the fact that there is not a single positive statement about the "Trump Peace Plan" in the whole article. These (people) are clearly represented as no good people, and this is not a good plan... Finally, I don't see how I'm the author "ignoring the other party." BlueMadrigal (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: 51.3% edits @Nishidani: 14.5% edits. You can do "anything you like" with this article. It is yours. You guys scared me. BlueMadrigal (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMadrigal: It is just a discussion, it's not personal. I think it is OK to have one or two pictures but not so many and the positioning is unusual. It is fair to say that the plan has been criticized by almost everybody because we have sources saying so. If you have sources praising the plan, you can include those. At the moment, the plan is being presented here even though it is a primary source and mainly represents the views of one side only so I think your argument about NPOV is not valid.Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, there was no 'paradigm shift', because there is nothing new in the Trump plan, as several observers have noted. The plan simply converts standard far-right Israeli positions into a blueprint for US policy. Therefore it is not a 'Redefinition of parameters for US approach', but a 'redefinition of US parameters for an approach', a substantial difference. But to get to the point. What is Ivanka Trump doing there? Why is Avi Berkowitz called 'chief negotiator' when, as you admit ('There is no picture of Palestinian people!, not because I ignored, they did not participate in development.') no negotiations took place (and, according to many observers, were not meant to participate) You can ask a third opinion, you know, but every experienced editor here knows that one cannot dump so many photos in a section on a page dealing with a plan for two parties. By the way you have broken the IR rules. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

More arbitrary reverting posing as a ce

this is a garbled unsourced pastiche replacing a sourced synthesis with citation needed templates for the outline that requires them since it is unsourced. Worse still, the editor appears to think the Balfour Declaration followed the dissolution of the Ottoman empire when every informed editor knows that the Balfour Declaration came virtually before the British army had set foot in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire.

It is obviously absurd for an editor to come in, blow away sourced RS material in exchange for a pastiche with egregiously stupid historical errors and no sourcing. Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I will start fixing this up.Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the obvious stuff, now we just need citations in relation to the 3 arbitrarily added tags; some proper copy editing as opposed to "pastiche" will remedy that. I will do it a bit later on if someone doesn't beat me to it.Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If one sees an ignoramus edit, one without sourcing, devised to erode an eminently good and well referenced passage, one doesn't 'fix' it. One simply restores the text the silly edit is trying to smother. If an editor doesn't know even elementary facts about a topic area, he or she shouldn't edit there, also because fixing the messes just makes hard work even harder for those who do study the topic.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I am just making a bit of an effort to show willing while hopefully making it clear that if you don't actually know the subject, best not to edit it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, the last tag, I read somewhere but can't recall where that there was something in the Trump plan about "transfer" of Israeli Arab Palestinians; was that in the Clinton plan as well, I don't remember that being a part of it?Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've provided the details about the territorial/demographic transfer plan 'buried deep in the document' from Haaretz. As to Clinton's ideas, he was talking about defining Jews who left, for whatever reason, Arab countries after 1948 (until the 1970s) as 'Jewish refugees'. That was an old Israeli talking point developed to crush the fact that 1948 caused (a) an Arab exodus from Palestine which (b) fed into retaliatory measures against the old Jewish communities in the Arab world, whose flight hasd been actively pursued and promoted by Zionist leaders since the 1940s. Worse than that pseudo-equivalence, which annuls historical causality, was that it was an attempt by Clinton to interfere in the forthcoming Israeli elections, throwing a sop to Ehud Barak to help him in his electoral battle with Ariel Sharon. There's a good survey of this, and the political function of the meme to cancel out Israeli responsibilities for the refugee crisis of 1948 in Yehouda Shenhav's 'Arab Jews, population Exchange, and the Palestinian Right of Return,' in Ann M. Lesch, Ian S. Lustick (eds.), Exile and Return: Predicaments of Palestinians and Jews, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008 ISBN 978-0-812-22052-0 pp.225-244Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Tone?

@Wikieditor19920: Please explain (with sourcing, not just your opinion) why you think that Palestine and State of Palestine are inconsistent. Explain by reference to the example Israel /State of Israel and others similar. There are many RS using either of these expressions interchangeably. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for explaining the obvious. WP:SHOWME. Tell me whether or not you believe that "State of Palestine" and "Palestine" are consistent monikers. On WP, we go by naming policy, which requires consistency throughout the article for readability. "State of Palestine" and "Palestine" obviously refer to the same thing, and the former is wordier and less commonly used. The same obviously applies if the article uses the term "State of Israel." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You have applied a tag and are unable to explain why you have done so or provide any sourcing in support of your edit summary and which is also the exact opposite of what you have just said above, quote "State of Palestine" vs. "Palestine" discrepancy needs to be resolved. Latter seems more appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME." I pointed you to the UN usage of these terms interchangeably (sourced in the article), do you want to see a legal opinion as well?Selfstudier (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. You are not comprehending a very simple concept and becoming combative over a very simple editing suggestion. I just explained a) the inconsistency that I am pointing two and b) the relevant Wikipedia policy in play here. Throughout the article, the name we use for Palestinian territories should not waver back and forth between "State of Palestine" and just "Palestine" if we are referring to the same entity. This inconsistency is confusing for readers and violates a basic tenet of MOS:NAME. Almost all articles on Palestine refer to it as just that: Palestine. Wikipedia articles do not go by inconsistent UN naming or "legal opinions." The tag remains until the references are fixed to be consistent throughout, ideally just "Palestine." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your tag, no valid policy reason has been given (MOS:NAME is applicable to names of persons so that is nonsense and your statement "Almost all articles on Palestine refer to it as just that: Palestine" is false eg State of Palestine) and the article is consistent with both its sources and context.Per WP:BRD, you need consensus if you wish to restore this tag. And to be clear, applying a tag is not a "simple editing suggestion". If you want to edit the article, by all means do so and justify your edits with an edit summary in the usual way.Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Note the following:

On 17 December 2012, UN Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon declared that "the designation of 'State of Palestine' shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents",Gharib, Ali (20 December 2012). "U.N. Adds New Name: "State of Palestine"". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 21 December 2012. Retrieved 10 January 2013. thus recognising the title 'State of Palestine' as the state's official name for all UN purposes; on 21 December 2012, a UN memorandum discussed appropriate terminology to be used following GA 67/19. It was noted therein that there was no legal impediment to using the designation Palestine to refer to the geographical area of the Palestinian territory. At the same time, it was explained that there was also no bar to the continued use of the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem" or such other terminology as might customarily be used by the Assembly.O'Brien, Patricia (2012-12-21). "Issues related to General assembly resolution 67/19 on the status of Palestine in the United nations" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved 2019-11-22.

@Selfstudier: You are not entitled to remove a tag because you disagree with it. You are providing a primary source, not a reliable secondary source. The vast majority of sources do not use the term "State of Palestine" and the majority of articles on Wikipedia do not use that term either. Consistency is the chief goal of MOS, and the tag properly identifies an inconsistency in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I reapplied the tag, I didn't notice I was inside the IRR time limit. Getting back to the point, your tag is disputed and you have twice failed to provide any coherent or policy response. I have given you more than enough evidence that State of Palestine and Palestine are not in contradiction in any way in this article. Contributions from other editors are welcome.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, your refusal to acknowledge cited policies and stylistic differences present in the article makes discussing this with you seem like a waste of time. I'd suggest you adopt a different tone and permanently stop edit-warring. As I've noted before, consistency is in fact related to policy, and "State of Palestine" and "Palestine" are obviously stylistically different. Readability is enhanced when the same terms are used throughout the same article. Further, Wikipedia is not required to adhere to official UN naming conventions. Recognition of the "State of Palestine" is a disputed issue. The UN falls on the side of recognition. The United States, France, UK, Germany etc., fall on the other side of the ledger. The vast majority of reliable sources seem to avoid using such a term. It's inappropriate subtly inject a POV into this article through inappropriate use of naming conventions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Codswallop. We are in agreement that discussion is pointless. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article be tagged for "Tone"?

Should this article be tagged [per this diff] and the discussion in the section above?{{Tone|date=February 2020}}

Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Procedural Close The locus of this dispute centers on the usage of Palestine vs State of Palestine, see above. This is a waste of everyone's time, instead just cut directly to the heart of the matter, and seek WP:DR to resolve that specific issue, or open a new RFC that addresses that issue directly. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately,since you are an IP editor, have only joined Wikipedia on 25 January this year and have a total of 11 edits to date, the 500/30 rule does not allow your participation in this RFC. Sorry about that, them's the rules.Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Unstriking comment. User's without extended confirmation are not permitted to make edits to the mainspace page but may comment on article talk pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Restriking comment, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.." Selfstudier (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Close, waste of time, or refactor questionThis comes off as a bad-faith RfC. Opener is asking about whether a tag should be applied, which they attempted to edit-war out of the article, rather than asking whether there is an underlying issue. An appropriate question would be "Should the article use the term 'Palestine' or 'State of Palestine?'" Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest you remove the tag (on its face it seems it is not the correct tag for the given issue in any case), whereupon the RFC would no longer be necessary and you could start another RFC designed according to your taste.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Close, waste of time or refactor question Do we really need to debate a tag? Debate the tone, do an RFC on the tone, but not the placement of the tag. That is just silly. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Heh, well it is an RFC on the "tone", that's what the tag says. As to what it might mean, your guess is as good as mine.Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

(Note to Nishidani I put your comment in this separate section, it was in the middle of the other:)

a proposal to open Palestine to Jewish immigration, in order to establish a national home for the Jewish people

The bolded part is not in the Balfour Declaration: what follows it is. The country had in any case been long open to immigration by Jews. So the added text implies an untruth, -the country was not until the mandate open to Jewish immigration- and is therefore misleading.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I fixed this. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

@François Robere: A couple times now you have simply deleted sourced RS with inadequate explanations for said removal. You can't just take out all of Thrall because you don't like it. If the problem is that you think it is one sided, you are free to add alternative RS with a different view. On the other hand we do not want to replicate pages and pages of material that already exists in the linked main pages so anything added ought to be in summary form.Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thrall isn't the problem, DUE is. There's also a general need for article stability, instead of adding just any source that pops up and serves one's immediate political beliefs. Hence:

1. [2] Replacing a single source with a summary of longstanding content from an existing article (which you reverted, stating "The State of Palestine is what is relevant here not some geographical designation"[3] - itself an inadequate explanation given the history of the area).
2. [4] Reverting Nishidani, who reverted someone else with this clearly biased text,[5] which was already in dispute. It's Nishidani's responsibility to seek WP:CONSENSUS for his additions, not the other way around.
3. Between the two I've kept Thrall and even added a reference to Benny Morris, who isn't exactly a fan favorite at the Israeli right.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Um, this article is supposed to be about the Trump peace plan it is not intended as a vehicle for refighting the entire IP history already covered in a lot of main articles. Thrall was specific RS about the plan and while taking it out, you introduced a load of irrelevancies (improperly attributed) about the Palestinian territories when the plan is supposedly about a future state of Palestine. It's not my style to go running to AE for every little thing but I tend to agree with the commentary in the below section as well.Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If Thrall is a "specific RS about the plan", then why was he used as a comprehensive source about background, and the only one at that? And if this article isn't meant for "refighting the entire IP history" (in which I'm very rarely involved, BTW), then why do you two insist on that usage despite others' objections, when there's just as relevant and "already fought on" material that can be borrowed from other articles (which begs the question what have TA regulars achieved through their constant fighting, if stable content is "improperly attributed"?). François Robere (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. What I mean is that Thrall (and Dubuisson) are current and relevant RS specifically written about and in response to the plan which is the subject of this article (I already restored part of Dubuisson re the applicability of UN resolutions and the non-mention of any of them in the Trump plan). I am not refighting anything, I am trying to put in material that is related to and relevant to the plan and what it says (or doesn't say) in that plan. The section you are intent on making such a meal out of is just intended as a bit of background context for readers and point them in the direction of more info if they need that. (And by improperly attributed I meant that YOU failed to attribute the material properly (you need to specify from where it was copied and as well copy any sources that were with the material)).Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to deal with material popping but that suits my ostensible 'political beliefs'. I am rigorously opposed to editors exercising some perceived right to 'write' their own version of history on Wikipedia as was successively done in removing the material from Thrall and Dubuisson - who (a) analyse/comment on Trump's peace plan' and (b) mention the background. Using it means I can't invent anything to 'spin'0 a background out of pure air. I simply used the guidance of impeccable sourcews.

We had mention, as a specious NPOV balance, that 900,000 Jews emigrating or expelled from Arab countries came to settle the areas 'evacuated' in 1948 by Palestinians, which again, after his revert back to the former draft, insists on reentering:'Much of that land was then settled by some 850,000 Jews who either emigrated or were expelled from Arab countries, leaving them practically "Jew-free.' The material came from a NYTimes article in 2007 that has nothing to do with Trump or peace plans, and regards Israel'. This article is not about Israel, but rather Israeli-US plans for settling annexing and fracturing the West Bank. Therefore, that material is totally inappropriate here, unless it is mentioned in an article on Trump's peace plan for the West Bank because the event refers to over 25 years of Jewish movement - expulsion or emigration- from Arab countries, openly endorsed by Israeli government policy, and affecting Israel, not the Palestinian territories dealt with in the plan. That is what I mean by editors writing background off the top of their heads, rather than using article-relevant sources.

It is also noticeable that in reverting out that material, the following was dropped:

'Since 1948, 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions have affirmed the following principles regarding Palestinian rights:

That, as I complained, is mentioned on page 5 of the Trump Peace Plan document, and taking it out was a sign the disruptive editors hadn't, once again, troubled themselves to actually read the sources.

In writing a background, the only way to avoid WP:OR is to use material on the background to be found in articles directly dealing with the topic. Calling Thrall and Dubuisson's background 'media reaction' is ridiculous, and placing it in a separate section creates a reduplicated/double background that violates elementary principles of editing. There are so many chops and changes, reverts and poor editing here it does not look like this article can ever be stabilized under present editing conditions.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was no other way to restore that particular text without overrunning the existing text, which has been edited 13 times since. I'm under 1RR so I can't work on it further; you're not. What do you think about doing some CE and incorporating the two?

As for "reading the sources" - I assume you've read Thrall and his sources before making the additions I've now tagged with "not in source"?... François Robere (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Disingenuous how? Thrall was clearly used because he has a specific POV; there are plenty of other sources on the history of the entire conflict, if that's what that section is for.

What material did I not attribute properly?

I don't really follow the "meal" references. As it stands now, you and Nishidani have opened more discussions and done more edits on that section than I have. As for length - that "little bit of background" (if that's even applicable for a conflict of this age and complexity) is about 585 words for the current one, vs. eg. Nisidani's revision from a few days ago with 435 words - a bit more than half a page's difference. It's a blip in this article, now over 6,800 words long. François Robere (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the "I'm going to throw my toys out of the pram" aspect, this is really lazy editing, there is not even the hint of an attempt to integrate the restored material properly into the article (resulting in, by way of example, a doubled reference to the Balfour Declaration). Along with gratuitous commentary comprising the editors personal opinions, unsourced. I mean, really.Selfstudier (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The complaint is that Thrall is selected because he has a POV. This objection is meaningless, in the first place we usually refer to RS as biased and all RS are biased and we refer to editors as having a POV and all editors have a POV, the only question is the extent. The WP theoretical solution to this is to fairly represent all sources even though this presents some practical difficulties. Now the fact is that the most biased source on the page is the plan itself subject of the article (almost all available RS describes it as one sided and favoring the Israeli POV, a Netanyahu wish list, the Palestinians were not consulted, etc). If I were to follow your modus operandi I should go through all plan material and tag it to death. In order to have a balanced view we need sources that take the other side of the coin and Thrall is a part of that.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Again not following. As for "lazy editing", I've commented on that yesterday to Nishidani: Unfortunately there was no other way to restore that particular text without overrunning the existing text, which has been edited 13 times since. I'm under 1RR so I can't work on it further; you're not. What do you think about doing some CE and incorporating the two?

Does Policy mandate that comments must include in-line sources on matters of public record?

So you admit Thrall was selected for his POV? And how did the previous version of the background, that included only Thrall, "fairly represent all sources"? Seems like TA regulars didn't even make an effort.

"the most biased source on the page is the plan itself... In order to have a balanced view we need sources that take the other side of the coin and Thrall is a part of that" - since when have we started "balancing" biased material with more biased material? I edit a lot on WWII - should I use Soviet sources exclusively to counter Nazi narratives? That's not how it works. François Robere (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

False comparative, you need to compare an article where the subject of the article is also a principal source for the article. I have explained the reasons why it is quite difficult to find reputable RS that supports the plan. Should you locate any, feel free to include them in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

First off, there's nothing in Policy about the "plan" being the "principal source" for the article. We have similar articles where much more content has been sourced from critiques than from the "principal source" (eg. this), and there's nothing wrong with that. Second, we are (again) talking about the background section, 95% of which would've been just as "up to date" last year as it is today, so there's really no point in using a biased, but "up to date source" there (or in looking for "reputable RS that support the plan", as critiques rarely belong in that section anyway). Thirdly, again, you do not "neutralize" an article by using biased sources - any valid criticism of a subject would be just as prevalent in "mainstream" sources as it is in fringe ones. François Robere (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

On to specifics. You have tagged "failed verification" for the following sentence " According to the IDF Palestinians constitute the majority of the population in the area Israel now controls (Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank). Can you explain further, it says exactly that in Thrall and in the IDF source they use the word Arabs to describe the Palestinians?Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thrall cites Haaretz, which was added here as well. Haaretz makes that statement with regards to Arabs in the entirety of the area, based on one IDF officer's statement about Palestinians in the West Bank coupled with various other statistics. Hence stating that "according to the IDF there are more Pals. than Jews in the territory" is either OR, or a quote of a misrepresentation by Thrall (though it is probably true that the majority of Arab Israelis self-identify as Pal.). Another problem which is mentioned in the Haaretz piece (but not by Thrall) is that the data supplied by that IDF officer was - unusually for his position - based on PLA statistics, which aren't well regarded for accuracy. Finally, the reason I originally removed the statement is that it is simply irrelevant, as it bundles Arab Israelis with Palestinians in a manner that has nothing to do with the subject of this article, and more than hints at a broader agenda regarding the Israeli regime at large. François Robere (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, your last comment is covered by the POV section tag which we can get back to later. I tend to agree that there is nothing much to be gained by reference to the total number of Palestinians in the way it has been expressed (had it been me I would instead have referred to the total number including those elsewhere along the same lines as the 850,000 exodus). Nevertheless, if there are 5 million Palestinians in WB/Gaza then the Thrall statement "Whether in Mr. Trump’s vision or Mr. Clinton’s, American plans have confined most of the majority ethnic group into less than a quarter of the territory" is objectively correct if one assumes that by "territory" they mean Mandatory Palestine and regardless of whether you refer to Israeli Arabs as Palestinians or not. This comment is directed fairly and squarely at the plan's outcome and so must be relevant. I will edit a bit and remove the tag (put it back if you think I did it wrong).Selfstudier (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That statement alone might be correct, but still seems to reflect a certain contested POV on how the entire area should structured and/or governed, so if it's included it should be with attribution. François Robere (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, attribution is fine. However, it looks like Nishidani might not be happy with this rearrangement? He edited it back in (although he has reverted it out again, that might be only temporarily). Nishidani, the difficulty here seems mainly to be the direct attribution to the IDF (when in fact, the chain appears to be Thrall, citing Haaretz, in turn citing the IDF and that these sources may describe Palestinians in one way or another. Apart from that the argument being used to establish the existence of a majority is somewhat strained (this is actually quite an easy argument to make but Thrall has made unnecessary work out of it). Do you have some other suggestion for dealing with the case?Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an extraordinary, I won't say wilful, refusal in recent editing to understanding what NPOV aims for. There are facts, and they are cited in ultra-RS, and some editors are upset, and grasp at straws to elide, bury or blur the straight facts. The fact here is that

The IDf presented data in the Israeli parliament that:

show that more Arabs than Jews live between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. - - -The Israeli army presented data on Monday to a Knesset panel which show that more Arabs than Jews live between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

This was duly noted by Haaretz (please read at least the title:Yotam Berger, Figures Presented by Arm Show More Arabs than Jews Live in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Haaretz 26 May 2018 and then, with attribution cited by Nathan Thrall.

Agreed, except that it says "Arabs" whereas Thrall says "Palestinians", leaving room for the quibble if we use the IDF as the attribution but use the word "Palestinians" rather than "Arabs" (this is of course, a bit of nonsense but still).Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

With attribution, that statement is impeccably sourced and it is neither here nor there that some editor dislikes it, or thinks personally that the IDF stuffed up, and that the situation is more complex. Editors are arrogating to themselves a right to challenge the accuracy of high quality sources, inverting the normative procedures here, which disallow editors from inventing or cherrypicking stuff from here and there WP:SYNTH/WP:OR in order to fabricate a counter story to the one given in the relevant sources. Editors simply have no authority to do what they are doing here. Another example

Tritomex introduced this passage

Much of that land was then settled by some 850,000 Jews who either emigrated or were expelled from Arab countries

This comes from a 2007 article in the NYTimes, poorly cited, the full ref is Warren Hoge, 'Group seeks justice for 'forgotten' Jews,' New York Times 5 November 2007 which writes

The organizing group, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, said it was referring to the more than 850,000 Jews who left their homes in Arab lands after the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948.

The source itself is not worth a nob of goatshit because it either makes history up or reports from an organization that makes history up I.e.

The group cites UN figures showing that 856,000 Jewish residents left Arab countries in 1948.

The source nowhere states that those expelled or migrating Jews settled the land won from the Arabs.

What on earth has such fabricated bullshit or even old news about a certain organization seeking justice for Jews who left or were expelled from Arab countries over two decades got to do with the events of 1948, events predating that outflow? Nothing, but some editor thought the fact might balance the picture, and so he engaged in a classic WP:OR edit. The part I have bolded (Much of that land was then settled by ) has no basis in the source. It's Tritomex inventing something that is nowhere in the source, in order to achieve a fictitious NPOV balance. In the good old days, editors who invented things not in the cited source, and persisted in reverting it back in repeatedly, were almost automatically banned. I don't think one can negotiate text with bad faith editing everywhere apparent and such a blatant insouciance to basic Wikipedia policies.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct, the material given is nowhere to be found in the source. I have deleted the material and the source until the editor finds some persuasive way to connect the material to the article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Fischbach states that most of the 800,000 of Jewish refugees from Arab countries immigrated to Israel (Fischbach, Michael. Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries. 2008, pp. 26-97); Goldberg states that Israel was the main destination for such refugees (Goldberg, Harvey. Sephardi and Middle Eastern Jewries. 1996, p. 1); a 1987 "Tribunal Relating to the Claims of Jews from Arab Lands", headed by two senior American jurists, gives the 600,000 out of 800,000 number (this is cited in Levin, Itamar. Locked Doors. 2001; and in Shulewitz, Malka. The Forgotten Millions. 1999). The connection made by sources (and presumably by the inserting editor as well) is of an unintended population exchange, which does seem to be an important bit of background. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: In your recent editing you cited Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries and pages 26-97; I have this book, which page(s) is/are supporting your edit? (p 26 for example is mainly about the Nakba). In your second source, all it says on the given page 1 is that roughly 300,000 Jews came to Israel in the first 3 and a half years after founding so that doesn't seem to have anything to do with your edit? In truth, is it not the case that you relying principally on the third source, the Goldberg Tribunal? At any rate, I cannot at the moment find the material that would reflect your edit exactly?Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The section give a comprehensive account of this issue; the statements that most directly apply here are in p. 27 ("By 1970 approximately 800,000 Jews had left Arab countries tin the Middle East and North Africa") and p. 97 ("Most Jews who left the Arab world immigrated to Israel"). The second source states, in addition to the 300,000 number pertaining to the first three years since Israel's establishment, that it was the main emigration destination for Arab and North African Jews in the three decades that followed, when "Jewish communities in the Muslim world dwindled to very small numbers". François Robere (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

On that basis we don't really need the third ref, just the first two.(Goldberg investigation is covered in the first one anyway). If I have it right, according to those, we have 800k total leaving Arab world, an initial 300K in the first 3 and a half years and the rest in the subsequent 30 years with 3/4 of them (600K) going to Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

More or less, yeah. François Robere (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The Trump plan explicitly mentions the question of Jewish refugees in parallel with Palestinian refugees. [6] So I add this as reference.Tritomex (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, the mention of the Jewish emigres from other countries has no point in this discussion. The purpose of mentioning them is purely a Israeli propaganda point to try to make an equivalency and thus diminish the Palestinian right of return. Mcdruid (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

1R AE reportable violation. Robere

• (1)this is a revert of this
• (2) This is a revert of this

In between occurred edits by Selfstudier and myself. You are obliged therefore to immediately restore the material you edited out (without, furthermore, any policy based reason for the elision). This insistence, despite clear evidence you know little if anything of the historical background, that you can write it, while chucking out sources by experts who actually are analyzing the Trump plan'ìs historical background, is blatant POV pushing, incompetent at that. Worse still, it seems to be deliberately disruptive by the provocatively arbitrary way you invent history and revert people who use relevant Trumpplan related sources. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

#1 isn't a reversal, but a removal. The insertion took place eight days and some 200 edits before the removal (and two days before I even arrived here), so making the connection between the two is ridiculous. The latter is indeed a reversal, but doesn't break any rules. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You really need to brush up on what a "revert" is. Removing something that was earlier inserted is just as much a revert as inserting something that was earlier removed. There is no general agreement on how recent the original action must be, but 8 days is quite recent and would not save you at AE. Zero^talk 23:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't act on this patent violation, since Sandstein has banned me from appearing at AE (for calling the permabanned and off-wiki inciter of outing people, Icewhiz a POV warrior). I would ask outside eyes to judge, in any case, whether or not this is an IR infraction, and, if so, repeat my request to Robere to self-revert.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Do so. I will revert for the benefit of WP:DGF if an admin of experience states that it is, though I remain convinced that such judgment would be problematic (see below). François Robere (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Uh Zero is an admin. nableezy - 17:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That would mean every removal is a revert, as well as every addition of any material added in the past. That's a ridiculous and unworkable interpretation of policy, effectively limiting editors to one edit a day on affected pages (or else to "Wikiblaming" every single edit they make), but you're welcome to try it. François Robere (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yes, every removal is a revert. nableezy - 17:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't think I really approve of just simply removing properly sourced material (it IS in some sense a revert) without some good reason. If thought one sided, add alternative RS for balance or if too wordy (undue), summarize it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

François Robere Friendly advice: Reverts are broadly construed to prevent edit-warring and encourage talkpage discussion. WP:REVERT. "Partial reverts" are effectively reverts. The decision to apply 1RR to all Palestine-Israel related articles is one made by ArbCom, and you are right that it is rather strict. I strongly suggest you toe the line here and self-revert if you've even come close to violating 1RR, otherwise you risk having to defend yourself at WP:AN/3 instead of here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The definition is at WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. The last part of the definition is about how to count reverts and means that two reverts break 1RR if they are separated by an edit from another editor, whether or not the two reverts are at the same place on the page. Zero^talk 22:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

The section "Israel and the proposed annexation" mentions "President Netanyahu". Netanyahu ain't the president; he's the Prime Minister. Please change accordingly. 2001:16B8:11A4:8700:DC42:48DE:8B6:5118 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Settlements are lawful" caption

I have removed this caption. Frankly, I am confused what that infobox is even meant to convey in terms of encyclopedic content. Suggesting the settlements are lawful is certainly not a WP:NOV claim, and one that is very much in contention. In any event, this should be discussed before it is added back. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That little mini section is flawed, the Trump policy shifts were in no way "widely" seen as a paradigm shift and I have an abundance of sources noting instead that the policy changes were widely seen as breaking with the international consensus. I will get around to fixing it in due course.Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bias, lack of neutrality and BLP violations in the article.

1. Although the plan mentions the question of Jewish refugees in parallel with Palestinian refugees, all references to this is being constantly removed with the explanation that the plan itself did not tackle the issue, which is not true. The plan directly calls for just solution for Jewish refugees in the future. On the other hand, estimates about the number of Palestinian refugees, which are not mentioned by plan, comments by different NGOs, different viewpoints originating only from one side of the conflict are messed up in the background section of this article.
2. The article may contain WP:BLP violations, also in line with the bias approach in which it has been wrriten

Tritomex (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not object to referencing/quoting what the plan says about Jewish refugees in the section of the article "Status of refugees". I do object to the attempt to include this post fact event into the background section in the way that has been attempted. Even the Trump plan (a hopelessly biased document according to the vast majority of RS) distinguishes between the Nakba and these events and with good reason. You fail to mention the One Million Plan which seems to me directly relevant to the issue and instead are intent on presenting only a certain aspect (as well as including edits that are not backed up by their cites).Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I do think that we should judge whether the peace plan is hopelessly biased, yet we have obligation to present it in neutral way. This is far from the current situation. Editorials of cherry picked journals, views of cherry picked NGOs, the views cherry picked marginal people have nothing to do with this background section, nor has Trump casinos or their alleged bankruptcy. It was said that the BG section should focus on issues tackled by the plan itself. This is not happening. The plan clearly refers to both refugee population and calls for just solution for both, mentioning them in same section. The plan says: "A similar number of Jewish refugees were expelled from Arab lands shortly after the creation of the State of Israel, and have also suffered. A just solution for these Jewish refugees should be implemented through an appropriate international mechanism separate from the Israel-Palestinian Peace Agreement." This call for international mechanism that will be established in order to implement just solution for Jewish refugees from Arab countries, have been censored from this article, although it is actually part of peace plan itself. Half of background section elaborates on the history and demography of Palestinian refugees, while the question of Jewish refugees is simply wipped out. As you know the 100 years of conflict is full of details that are important to one or another side, yet are not mentioned directly or indirectly in this plan. Here, we should focus on issues tackled by this peace plan. In which way is the "One Million Plan" from 80 years ago, part of this peace plan of 2020?Tritomex (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"separate from the Israel-Palestinian Peace Agreement." QED. From your comments, I assume you have not bothered to read the (very well sourced) one million plan article (its timeframe is identical with the 850,000 so if you are objecting on that basis, then you are objecting to your own edit as well). You are at liberty to do your own cherry picking, I already indicated this might be hard to do, since there is a shortage of material supporting the plan (well, other than from beneficiaries of it).Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Now, about this BLP claim, I assume this means the tags (about people) you added into that section. For the first, I have given attribution and direct quote from the source and for the second I added an additional RS saying the same thing. On that basis I have removed the tags, if you think the statements are POV then you had better take that up directly with Jewish Currents and the Guardian (I don't disagree that all sources are biased but that doesn't mean that we arbitrarily exclude them). Would you mind removing the section tag as well, please? You haven't provided any explanation at all as to why the remaining sources are disputed. it just looks like a tag bombing exercise for anything you don't like.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Tritomex- You are using the word 'cherry picked' as a synonym for 'stuff I dislike'. That term only has meaning if you can cite several articles which reconstruct the background of Trump's plan in a way decidedly different from the articles you say are 'cherrypicked'. 'Cherrypicked' means editors using some RS are deliberately ignoring countervailing RS. You have not shown this is the case, i.e. that Thrall and Dubuisson's narrative of the background does not cover all the ground given in other RS coverage of the Trump plan.

1. The introduction of the Jewish refugee issue, certainly via the White House screed, is sheer bluster, like the document. For the White House document is notoriously deficient in any historical matters reflecting overwhelming a settler/Zionist narrative (certainly not the history taught in Israeli universities), therefore it is not a reliable source for history.
2. It remarks that there is a 'refugee dispute between Israel and the Palestinians' p.2

This does not reflect Jewish refugees, since it refers Palestinian refugees.

1. It states:

'The Arab-Israeli conflict created both a Palestinian and Jewish refugee problem ...Palestinian refugees, who have suffered over the past 70 years, have been treated as pawns on the broader Middle East chessboard, and empty promises have been made to them and to their host countries. A just, fair and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue is necessary to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . .a similar number of Jewish refugees were expelled from Arab lands shortly after the creation of the State of Israel, and have also suffered. A just solution for these Jewish refugees should be implemented through an appropriate international mechanism separate from the Israel-Palestinian Peace Agreement.p.9

This is complete misleading of course,indeed it asserts an untruth in that that shortly after telescopes events over more than two decades during which Israel and Arabs were engaged in several wars - but note that the White House document deals with the Palestinian refugee issue as a priority to be resolved (by saying in the finer detail Israel has no responsibility and Arabs must fix it) whereas the Jewish refugee problem, which Palestinians did not cause, is to be resolved internationallywithout reference to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace agreement.’(i.e. the Arabs will settle Israeli claims for recompense!)

Note that whereas Palestinians suffered, Jews were expelled. No mention of the fact that the majority of displaced Palestinians were expelled, no mention of the powerful advocacy by the Israeli government to persuade and incentivate Jews in Arab countries to make aliyah - they are all just expelled. The document's abuse of history to achieve 'moral symmetry' is not acceptable in an encyclopedia.

That means, effectively, that the authors themselves regard the Jewish refugee issue as something to be resolved wholly outside the terms of the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Since the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Jewish aliyah or refugees (the highly diversified nature - real refugees fleeing because expelled, aliyah, Zionist immigration factors are all wrapped up into an 'expulsion'), - and since the issue is irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian settlement, by the White House paper's own admission, it is decidedly POV, and WP:OR to try and intrude that datum into this article.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, your opinion that the "the document's abuse of history to achieve 'moral symmetry' is not acceptable in an encyclopedia." is your personal point of view which has nothing to do with the fact that this plan should be presented correctly, accurately and neutrally. Nowhere the document claims that the issue of Jewish refugees, expelled and robbed out of all property they had, is being outside of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It explicitly says the opposite, namely that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "created both Jewish and Palestinian refugee problem" The document calls for just solution for both Jewish and Palestinian refugees (in same chapter) by establishing an international mechanism separate from the Israel-Palestinian Peace Agreement. It provides an official American recognition for Jewish refugee problem and envision the way for finding a just solution for them. You may not like this, or you disagree with this kind of political approach, yet it in the article regarding this peace plan, all aspects should be presented impartially and fully, without turning this page into an attack page on Trump, Friedman, Kushner, or the plan itself. Also, please adhere to 1RR stated above.

Selfstudier, I asked you what is the connection between one million plan and this peace plan? The article has laughable WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations. Take a look: Kushner, a property developer married to Trump's daughter Ivanka, had no prior experience of diplomacy This is sourced with 2017 article. This has nothing to do with the plan and being combined with the next contradictory claim (that Kushner asked the parties not to talk about history, and never discussed his plan with the Palestinians) from another source. This represents a clear example of WP:SYNTH. Than the article continues "David Friedman, who became Trump’s ambassador to Israel after representing his bankrupt casinos."[41] had close ties to the Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, compared Jewish American critics of Israel to collaborators with Nazism and was skeptical about the idea that Palestinians should have a state. The bolded part has nothing to do with the plan, WP:UNDUE, while the claim that Friedman became Trump’s ambassador to Israel after representing his bankrupt casinos has failed verification from the source given and represents WP:BLP violations. Another astonishing example is the synthesis of two different sources implying that Kushner race or ethnic origin played a role in creating this kind of plan by combining two sources, both written well before the release of this plan. It says that "Greenblatt resigned in September 2019, realizing according to Martin Indyk, that the plan had no future,[51] and was replaced by Berkowitz, a young lawyer who worked for Kushner's companies and whom like Kushner, was raised as an orthodox Jew with deep ties to Israel.[57] This is derogatory, fully undue synthesis that has nothing to in article regarding Trump plan. Also, Selfstudier, please adhere to 1RR, as all editors can make just 1 revert per day. Also, templates regarding ongoing discussions, shouldn't be removed. Please read the rules. Tritomex (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You claim that the following statement is sourced to some 2017 article:Kushner, a property developer married to Trump's daughter Ivanka, had no prior experience of diplomacy Your claim is false, this is sourced almost verbatim to two different 2020 plan specific RS, the Guardian and the Economist.

Then you claim that this is synthesized with a different reference, but I quote the Guardian RS "“He said flat out, don’t talk to me about history,” said Aaron David Miller, a US peace negotiator for previous administrations who was consulted by Kushner. “He said, I told the Israelis and the Palestinians not to talk to me about history too.”. So this claim is also untrue.

You had tagged the article with failed verification when the material (which I have now quoted) was in the article, again verbatim.

That is three examples of false claims made by you (not to mention the original exodus material which certainly did fail verification and why it was removed).

You appear to think that the RS ought not to consider or question the competency, character, capability and potential bias of the plan authors. On what basis? A plan by "Joe Soap" is OK with you? As to dueness, short statements about each author culled from RS does not seem undue to me. For balance, if you can find RS saying that the authors are superbly qualified and well adapted to the task, feel free to add that.

You imply that I breached 1R. What I did was to fix (not revert) 2 tags that you said "may" be BLP violations, plus the false "failed verification" tag applied by you and I explained on the talk page what I had done (as far as I can tell you don't seem to have even read it).

Instead of spending all this time and effort in talk, you could always edit the article. I have the impression that your tagging does not really represent a serious minded attempt to identify/fix problems and is more along the lines of making a point (you added a whole pile of tags in one shot right after the exodus material was removed).Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere the document claims that the issue of Jewish refugees, expelled and robbed out of all property they had, is being outside of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It explicitly says the opposite, namely that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "created both Jewish and Palestinian refugee problem"

Tritomex, you are having difficulty reading what I wrote? Clearly in your reply you are unfamiliar with the document, and the history of the Jewish Refugee issue it touches on, making the usual meme equation. The neutrality wiki aspires to cannot be compromised by citing it directly when, according to 99% of the sources commenting on it, it is a totally one-sided statement about the IP conflict. Precisely because the White House draft is a highly politicized document which ignores most of the history of that area, and does so deliberately (in your quote it ignores the One Million Plan and the ongoing efforts by Zionism to have Jews come to Israel after that state was established) and highlights only an extreme version of one side's narrative, it cannot be used to document any history, unless that material comes to us through a reputably authored RS on the Trump 'Peace' Plan. That is the point I made. Comic book history is not appropriate for facts. One of the first things Israel tried to do to negotiate land claims with Iraq over Jewish property losses, from 1948 onwards, was to offer the monetary value of land and property Palestinians had lost in Israel in exchange for a reimbursement of the monetary value of land and property Jews had lost in leaving Iraq. Hilarious.

The Iraqis were to pocket monies owed by Israel to Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and Israel was to get monies owed to Iraqi Jews by their former government. Israel and Iraq would feather their nests and screw the Palestinians - that was the plan entertained by the Israeli Foreign Ministry in the good old days! Of course, many Arab Jews refused to sign over their individual rights to recompense to the state of Israel) There are hundreds of such details neither in the relevant wiki articles, nor in the white paper screed, but meticulously set down in the relevant specialist literature on this farce. And it deals predominantly with Iraq and Egypt, not with all Arab countries, as the white house paper implies. Sigh Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Annexation of the Old City of Hebron

Hebron plus settlements

I am pretty sure that this plan envisages annexation of the entire Old City of Hebron to Israel. On the map there is an Israeli-annexation snake wiggling its way up to Hebron, but what actually is intended to happen to the city itself is obfuscated by a big round circle showing that there will be a bridge in the vicinity.

Has anyone seen any sources discussing this? I know that Netanyahu promised it to the Israeli electorate last year.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The plan only envisages a power plant to supply electricity to the South Hebron Hills. Of course the old city will be expropriated if Netanyahu has his way: he's been arguing for this since at least 1996,- and was earlier dead set against government desires to disentangle the army from that settler mess - when he persuaded that hapless Arafat to agree to a rewrite of the Hebron protocol in the Oslo Accord. I too have seen mention of such an intention, but it's not as far as I can see in the plan itself, so can't be mentioned if so. Of course, it also depends on the outcome of the corruption trials, the immunity bid and Netanyahoo's political future.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

https://fmep.org/resource/settlement-report-january-31-2020/ talks about the Hebron settlement enclaves (ie inside Palestinian areas) and that the plan allows Israel to take whatever it wants to build and secure roads to those enclaves so it doesn't take much imagination to see where that would lead.Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The list of enclaves does not mention Givat Harsina and Kiryat Arba. Which means they are being annexed. Per the image above, if they are being annexed, we can assume that H2 (which includes the Old City) is being annexed. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Afaik (correct me if wrong) virtually all settlements would be annexed (even the so called "illegal" ones): "incorporate the vast majority of Israeli settlements into contiguous Israeli territory" (note the contiguous) and "Israeli enclaves located inside contiguous Palestinian territory will become part of the State of Israel and be connected to it through an effective transportation system". The roads for those two you mention are already off limits.Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The question is whether this means the Old City of Hebron, which includes some small settlements but is otherwise almost entirely Palestinian, and is extremely important to Palestinian cultural identity (see e.g. [7]), gets annexed or not. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensual changes?

@Selfstudier: Regarding your reversal of this revision:

1. The first change is a reversal of Nableezy's recent change from "invaded" to "became involved",[8] which he backed by the disingenuous claim that the eight foreign armies didn't "invade" anything, but the "Jewish militias" did; and that any claim to the contrary is "POV". Well, we have an entire article on that, complete with sources and maps, one of which I brought to here. This wasn't discussed agreed upon by anyone, so reverting it with sources is only disruptive to the inserting editor's POV. As an aside, I couldn't help but notice Nableezy used the term "Jewish militias" in his edit summary - a term which no longer held by the time the war had begun - itself suggesting a POV.
2. The second change restores the mention of Jewish refugees from Arab countries. This was explained above,[9][10] and you agreed to the inclusion of two of the four sources.[11]
3. The third change clarifies what Thrall, Haaretz and the IDF actually said. This too was explained,[12] and you agreed to attribute the statement.[13][14]

So on what grounds do you call this "disruptive"? François Robere (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to deal with all this at once; for now, in respect of the Jewish refugees, the outcome of our previous discussion was moved out of the background section and into the refugees section which you appear to have simply ignored. Do you actually keep track of changes in the article? Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. The numbers and the mention of Jewish refugees were edited out, but the mention of Pal. refugees was kept. This didn't seem to keep with the spirit of our agreement, so I added a similar mention for the Jewish refugees. François Robere (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't edited out, it was moved to the appropriate section. You appear to have forgotten that this issue was first raised by Tritomex, not by you. In the course of the discussion with him, I said quote"

I do not object to referencing/quoting what the plan says about Jewish refugees in the section of the article "Status of refugees". I do object to the attempt to include this post fact event into the background section in the way that has been attempted. Even the Trump plan (a hopelessly biased document according to the vast majority of RS) distinguishes between the Nakba and these events and with good reason. You fail to mention the One Million Plan which seems to me directly relevant to the issue and instead are intent on presenting only a certain aspect (as well as including edits that are not backed up by their cites)."unquote. All I did was to implement that. It is entirely appropriate to mention (and that is all that it is, a mention) the Palestinian refugees as part of the background. It is not appropriate to put in the background more than a mention of material about Jewish refugees over the next 35 years, the Trump plan is quite specific about its separate nature.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you accept that the Jewish refugee question has in fact been addressed in the article, I want to make some progress on the rest. Instead of all this reverting/mass edits, I suggest we go through the background introduction (which I tend to view as being the least important part of this particular article) line by line and agree it. On this basis, the first sentence is lifted almost verbatim from the first sentence of the lead of the Balfour Declaration (featured) article, are you OK with it?Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to mention (and that is all that it is, a mention) the Palestinian refugees as part of the background... It is not appropriate to put in the background more than a mention of material about Jewish refugees But there was no such mention, which is why I saw fit to add this: "during the period immediately following the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries immigrated to the new state". If it's too long, I can trim it.

Mind we're not talking 35 years after the events - hundreds of thousands of Jews fled from Arab countries in the first three years after the war and hundreds of thousands more in the next twenty years or so, but many others had fled before the war had even started (see Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries). François Robere (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The "Jewish refugees" (this is not even the right phrase since not all were refugees or fleeing) has been dealt with in the article already in an appropriate place. When you want to discuss the other issues, let me know.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

First off, I'm here to discuss everything, it's you who said I am not going to deal with all this at once.

Second, you agreed that mentioning the Jewish refugees ("refugees" being the term used by some sources, eg. Goldberg) in the background is appropriate, so why are you rejecting it now? François Robere (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agreed no such thing, I agreed the exact opposite, putting it where it is now. With sources. Using the language of those sources.Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So you're of the opinion that only Pal. refugees should be mentioned in the background section? François Robere (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That is what I have said since the beginning of all this, the only reason I am agreeing to it at all (ie in the refugee section) is because it is mentioned specifically (to be dealt with separately from the IP process) in the (hopelessly biased) Trump plan. If you look at Israeli–Palestinian peace process it is not mentioned there either, whereas the Palestinian refugees are mentioned rather a lot. Here in the background section, the mention is half a sentence, wikilinked. If I suddenly said that the background should contain 25 years of Israeli failure to deal with the Palestinians as a people, you'd be objecting to that, wouldn't you? It's just a small introductory background section, you can't put everything in it, just some highlights and pointers to other articles. As it is, you have more attention in this article to the Jewish "refugees" than to the Palestinian refugees.Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Here in the background section, the mention is half a sentence, wikilinked So what's wrong with another half a sentence to deal with the Jewish ones? It is part of the background.

Lots of things are part of the background and not included. This issue is between Jews and some Arab states and has nothing to do with the IP conflict, the Palestinians are not responsible for it.

Indeed. There's no mention of the Jordanian occupation of the WB (and the Egyptian's of Gaza), the perpetuation of the Pal. refugee problem by Arab countries, the terrorism directed at Israelis by Palestinians, the fact Arab countries were the ones to start the 1948 war, the rejection of several settlement proposals by Palestinian leaders, and much more. Any reason why these bits in particular aren't mentioned? There doesn't seem to be any clear rationale behind it other than what narrative they serve. François Robere (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

you'd be objecting to that, wouldn't you? If that's how you phrased it, then yes; but if you had opted for a more balanced discussion, accounting for the failures of all sides (which is not to suggest a parity of power - a false balance - but rather that all of the sides involved had made major mistakes at crucial junctures of this local history), and it was backed by RS, then no.

Whole books, lots of them, are written about the issues and most of them are not addressed in this little section.

Indeed. You opted for the one that's clearly biased over any of the sources - "whole books", five of them - that I cited. François Robere (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As it is, you have more attention in this article to the Jewish "refugees" than to the Palestinian refugees Do we now? François Robere (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we do (and they are not refugees, the relevant Wikipedia article calls it an exodus which is more accurate if somewhat biblical). Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The relevant article also refers to a 1948 Palestinian exodus. Would you suggest changing the terminology for Palestinians as well? François Robere (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

There's also the 1949–1956 Palestinian exodus and the 1967 Palestinian exodus. Neither of those are in the article which if one were to follow your logical contortions, ought to be.

I'm just following your logic. If you think these should be included then include them, but watch your terminology and bear in mind that if we cover that in the background, we've all the more reason to cover the Jewish refugees as well. François Robere (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm is lost on you, I see. I have said all along that the background is intended only as a short intro to this article which is about the Trump peace plan, duh. Why on earth would I want to add minor matters into it?Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You're being loose with your tenses and making things muddled in the article. You have later developing into full-scale invasion by several of the neighboring Arab states following Israel's declaration of independence. By the time hostilities had concluded, Israel was in control of 78% of Mandatory Palestine, and much of the local Arab populace was either expelled or fled. During the period immediately following the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries immigrated to the new state. The Arab states invaded Palestine, not Israel, but your next sentence has Israel as the other side of the hostilities. The Jordanians for example only operated in the territory of the designated Arab state, that was an invasion of what exactly? And Im sorry you are unable to distinguish the tense in my edit summary. The Jewish militias (Hagannah, Lehi) did indeed invade the territory designated for an Arab state. That you think using that term and not using Israel for a period when, hello, Israel did not exist, is suggesting a POV, is interesting, but doesnt exactly make me think youll get why the way you are phrasing things in the article make things muddled. nableezy - 16:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To repeat, Robere: this is background to a peace plan ostensibly dealing not with events in Israel but with Palestine down to 1948 and the West Bank. As is noted above, meme replication of misleading information, i.e. correlating Palestinian refugees compelled to flee for whatever reason in a war (1948) and the subsequent evacuation, flight or exodus of Jewish refugees, large numbers of whom came from nations not directly involved in the events of 1948 (the nations of the Maghreb -Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Yemen etc) and whose aliyah had actively been pursued by Zionist emissaries since the 1940s, before the outbreak of hostilities, is POV pushing. Many slipshod sources promote the meme, but it is not 'encyclopedic', i.e. consonant with the best scholarship. So too, as Nableezy notes, the David fighting off an invasive Goliath-like 6 nation Arab coalition aiming to destroy the new state of Israel is crap historically, but repeated mechanically by historians with a POV mission. The Iraqi/Syrian foray in the Galilee was quickly stymied by brilliant and bold tactics, and they subsequently had to reform and go south to join the Jordanian forces, which had withdrawn wholly from the area designated for an Arab Palestine just before Israel made its declaration. Jordan repossessed that area, and defended it successfully, despite repeated Israeli attempts throughout key areas of the Arab-designated sectors to maintain colonies beyond the borders assigned to Israel. Again we are dealing with myths. In any encyclopedic work of value, one just can't toe mindlessly a known POV line. It is irrelevant to the West Bank territorial issue that post 1948 many Jews migrated to Israel: American and Russian Jews under no compulsion to flee from their countries make up an statistically disproportionate part of the West Bank settler community, and they are there for ideological reasons or because land, being stolen, is very cheap.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: As mentioned several times before, Arab armies very much invaded Israel, hence the explicit use of the term by such authors as Zeev Maoz, Meir Zamir, Yoav Gelber and Benny Morris (though even an invasion only of the Palestinian part of the land is still very much an "invasion"). Even Gelber, who's careful to note that Transjordan for one had only intended to invade the future Palestinian state, acknowledges that they joined in on "the Arab coalition [that] invaded Palestine and attacked the newly born state of Israel" (Gelber, 1997). Feel free to rephrase as you will, but please stick to what the sources say.

@Nishidani: this is background to a peace plan ostensibly dealing not with events in Israel That's exactly why the inclusion of Thrall's comments on "the majority of the area Israel no controls" looks odd.[15] That said, the background section is supposed to be comprehensive (if concise); the presence of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab lands - many fleeing as a result of pressures stemming from objections to the Jewish state (Morocco included) - is very much part of the background of the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, and the occupation of the Palestinian territories in particular. TBH, if we were comprehensive we would've also addressed the question of why refugees are still such an issue 70 years after the fact, when eg. the last DP camps in Europe closed down <15 years after the war. If you're dealing with the events of 1948 there's no way around either of these. François Robere (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, try to follow the source yourself. It says invaded Palestine. Not Israel. Get it this time? nableezy - 20:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but that usage by Gelber corresponds with Mandatory Palestine, not the future Palestinian state, so it doesn't preclude an invasion of Israel like you suggest. What's more, he clearly states that the Arab armies attacked Israel, and names several battles taking place on Israeli territory. He also mentions the aggressive rule of the Jordanians in the West Bank, which this article fails to mention. Morris notes attacks on the Jewish neighborhoods and settlements around Jerusalem, Kibbutzim in the Galilee and the Negev, and even an airport in Tel Aviv. He documents the various goals of the (discoordinated) Arab forces over time, ranging from the eradication of all Jewish presence in Palestine, to merely defending Palestinian territories. Like Gelber, he also suggests the Arab countries didn't consider much the native Arab population. Enough? François Robere (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I put in Thrall because is, so far, the best short incisive overview I could find which emerged in direct response to the Trump plan: It was mercilessly attacked by people saying, more or less, 'but he's left out my favourite meme' and hence it's unbalanced, and, worst still, editors rewriting the history from fav sources having nothing to do with Trump's peace plan. Both of those strategies, driving numerous reverts, were flawed. But to your points (you have ignored almost every point I made, but I insist on not reciprocating the discourtesy.

• The first is incomprehensible ('the majority of the area Israel now controls'). Unless you can clarify what on earth you mean there, I can't respond.
• The background section is not meant to be comnprehensive in the sense you appear to understand that. The background is focused on those elements in a very complex history which bear upon the key features of the Trump plan, which Thrall sets forth by focusing on the twin elements of demographic shifts and landloss.
• You use 'refugees' as a synonym for immigrants with complex different motivations. Manygene were decidedly not refugees, but typical immigrants, moving to Israel under government schemes, with assistance and incentives, as opposed to the roughly 700,000 Palestinians who did not emigrate out of Palestine. Citing wiki articles on each instance not helpful - they are in a woeful state of insufficiency and neglect. Of the quarter of a million Moroccan Jews, some 18,000, mostly poor left for Israel in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, and then aliyah numbers dropped radically, and Zionist missions were required to turn the numbers up, something which generated a law denying Moroccans of Jewish persuasion from leaving the country -not to hold them hostage by any means.
• In two paragraphs, we aren't talking about the 'background of the Arab-Israeli conflict in general', the misimpression you are laboring under. We are talking of what happened to Palestinians and their land in events leading up to this final measure to complete the process of their historic disenfranchisement and dispossession. What's the point in mentioning the history of Arabs from Morocco to Yemen? None.
• So, you dislike Thrall (who has written an important recent book on the IP conflict and is one of the ranking analysts of these issues), and so want to jam in notes on Jewish immigrants to Israel, the apolitical status of diaspora Palestinians, and, everything I guess but the kitchen sink. Trump's plan consists essentially of (a)giving more valuable land to Israel and (b)creating Bantustan enclaves for a population as large as Israel's. Palestinians in international law have a right to 22% of historic Palestine and Trump's plan wants them to disrecognize their right to 30% of the West Bank. That is what the plan suggests, and a background, as Thrall does, should focus on these fundamental issues - the trajectory of land possession and demographic figures over the last century prior to the plan's exacerbation of the trend. Everything else is just waffle.Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

1. You restored a statement, wrongly attributed to the IDF, that "Palestinians constitute the majority of the population in the area Israel now controls". We already discussed it.
2. The presence of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is very much part of that "demographic change", is it not?
   1. Does the "plan" address other aspects of the occupation as well, or only those two that you focused on?
3. You can't separate motives so easily. Morocco (as an example) saw a series of pogroms and a rise in antisemitism in the late 1940's and early 1950's. The number of immigrants before the events was limited; after them it grew to the tens of thousands. Was there an economic motive to the immigration? Perhaps. Events like this often affect the poor disproportionately; Israel was not a rich country then, but it is plausible that the physical and financial insecurity brought on by the antisemitic atmosphere in Morocco at the time pushed poorer members of society to emigrate first. All in all, I think the several hundred thousands that suffered by such should merit a mention there.
4. the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, and the occupation of the Palestinian territories in particular.
   1. You cannot untie the two. For example, what role in their disenfranchisement did the Arab nations have, directly or indirectly (directly - by rule; indirectly - by pushing Haganah into certain military maneuvers)?
   2. What's the point in mentioning the history of Arabs from Morocco to Yemen? Insofar as they explain issues of demographics and ethos in the discussed territories...
5. I don't "dislike" Thrall, I think he's been misused here.
6. and so want to jam in... everything I guess but the kitchen sink I'm sorry my views of how this conflict is structured do not concur with your objective, unbiased, and unabashed analysis of reality. Surely I'm in the wrong, and we must present only what's convenient to one of the sides.
7. Jarred's so-called "plan" being shitty isn't a justification for pursuing an WP:AGENDA. Take it elsewhere. François Robere (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that you really need to bring current Trump plan related sources to the debate, not just your own opinions or old Israeli talking points and propaganda.(You might be right about the IDF attribution but between you and Tritomex you already have tags all over the place so just put another one.)Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Like the ones above in the Secondary Sourcing section or like https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2020/the-failed-deals-of-the-century/index.html Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is I bring scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to the table, and you call them "propaganda" and "memes". Al Jazeera over well-established academics? (Is this an encyclopedia or not?) François Robere (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

In the future, the Trump plan will appear in "scholarly" RS (as a footnote probably); in the meantime, we have Thrall, AJ and a mountain of other WP acceptable RS calling this plan crap (politely). If you find any that say how wonderful it is, feel free to add them in at some appropriate place. This is normal for things like this, it's not exactly breaking news but it's recent and topical so one shouldn't expect to see super sources at this point although the AJ material is really rather good comparatively speaking. If you are bringing scholarly sources its because it relates to something historical and not to the Trump plan as such.Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I'm under the impression you're not taking to heart anything I say. Have I at any point in any of these discussions said anything even remotely similar to that straw-man you've set up? And BTW - what is the background for if not for historical and current context? François Robere (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, what you wanted in the article is now in the article (I know it is because I put it there after agreeing it with you). Now it is just that you appear grimly determined in the face of all reasoned argument, to have that information located in another place in the article than where it is now. If you want it somewhere else, I suggest you start an RFC and get consensus for that idea.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As well, you are now adding unnecessary duplication to the article, even adding an unsourced statement that virtually duplicates a sourced statement made in the following section. Have you actually read the article? Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT followed by WP:BLUDGEON, and since you are now serially doing this, you’re close to reportable misbehaviour. I’ll only deal with one example, the first in your litany.

(1).You restored a statement, wrongly attributed to the IDF, that "Palestinians constitute the majority of the population in the area Israel now controls". We already discussed it.

Yes it was discussed, and you were comprehensively shown to be error, as the link shows.

Two sources write that the statement came from the IDF. You consistently say this is wrong attribution. Thrall paraphrases

• Yotam Berger, [16] "Figures Presented by Army Show More Arabs than Jews Live in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza", Haaretz 26 May 2018

You objected earlier stating

Thrall cites Haaretz, which was added here as well. Haaretz makes that statement with regards to Arabs in the entirety of the area, based on one IDF officer's statement about Palestinians in the West Bank coupled with various other statistics. Hence stating that "according to the IDF there are more Pals. than Jews in the territory" is either OR, or a quote of a misrepresentation by Thrall (though it is probably true that the majority of Arab Israelis self-identify as Pal.). François Robere (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thrall wrote:’ There are now more Palestinians than Jews living in the territory under Israel’s control, according to the Israeli military.’

Berger wrote:’ The Israeli army presented data on Monday to a Knesset panel which show that more Arabs than Jews live between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

You write:-

Another problem which is mentioned in the Haaretz piece (but not by Thrall) is that the data supplied by that IDF officer was - unusually for his position - based on PLA statistics, which aren't well regarded for accuracy.

Note you cannot even get PLO right (PLA, presumably Palestinian Liberation Authority!)

As bolded, the two sources state exactly what the edit you contest state, attributively. Your attempts to argue it out of our article are based on prevarication, and insinuendo. Every birth and death in the Palestinian West Bank Population Register must be, under the Oslo Accords, be communicated to the IDF which however refuses to allow the Palestinians to register tens of thousands of people on technicaL grounds. But the IDF know this, you don’t, and the IDF when asked to provide the Knesset with data, supplied them with register data they control minutely, doing so through a spokesman. You can argufy till the cows come home, but thed doubly sourced statement is, and has been since day 1, impeccable, and you refuse, even now, to accept it.WP:STONEWALL.

No one here is obliged to diligently follow up recycled arguments which are made in what is, obviously,a bad faith tactic of relentless attrition in the face of the factual record. -Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Berger: "According to Civil Administration's deputy commander... five million Palestinians live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip... According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, as of September 2017 some 6.5 Jews live in Israel." So it's pretty clear that the IDF spokesperson did not make the assertion that "Palestinians constitute the majority of the population in the area Israel now controls", as you insist, but rather that it's a generalization by Berger based on several data sources, which Thrall then modified to refer to Palestinians rather than Arabs. There were similar reports from Ynet, Maariv, and Times of Israel. Now please take this to ANI so that our colleagues can opine on who's doing what here. François Robere (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Moved a current editor comment from the middle of talk page

@Onceinawhile: I disagree with a few of your recent changes to the page, and I think they present an NPOV problem. What is the justification for removing key points/conditions of the plan from the lead [17], like security assurances and recognition of Israel, in favor of vague generalizations like "compliance with the 180-page plan?" Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I moved this comment to this current section, it was sitting way up the page in an irrelevant section. The Trump plan does include a list of conditions that are as well dealt with in the article body, including one that says "complied with all the other terms and conditions of this Vision." So I don't really understand your objection.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor, the point is that the paragraph says that commentators have called these conditions impossible or fantastic. “Recognition of Israel” or “security assurances” are neither impossible nor fantastic. They have been given by the Palestinians hundreds of times already. So if we are going to choose examples for the lede, we should pick difficult ones like “total demilitarization” or “compliance with all other terms”, both of which are definitely impossible. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The "point" of the paragraph is not to be built around the viewpoint of one reliable source -- WP:DUE, WP:NPOV. The purpose of the lead is to present a summary of the article, and that includes a substantive description of the main conditions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand your point. So long as we don’t misrepresent the widely-held view that the Palestinian conditions are unachievable by juxtaposing the statement with the most achievable of the conditions, then I don’t mind. The lede was just fine before we listed any of the conditions there. If we have to list some, then we need to do it in a consistent manner. That is all. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You are admitting openly that you are trying to frame the lead and its presentation of the facts around a POV. The lead as I edited it included a summary of arguably the most prominent conditions, which were 1) recognition of Israel, 2) security assurances, 3) dropping all legal claims against the US and Israel in international courts. You added "compliance with a 180-page document" which is not a formal condition and added "total demilitarization," the second of which is reasonable but not the first, and removed 1) and 2). Your sole justification here is that you believe these key/objectively verifiable aspects of the plan are "too reasonable" and therefore should be removed because you somehow believe this undermines the view of a source. Widely held views can be represented in the lead. Along with the main factual substantive points in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "which is not a formal condition"? Selfstudier quoted it above. It is even in the list of conditions that we have in the article's main image. Your statement "arguably the most prominent conditions" is an invention. And noone said "too reasonable". I said "don’t misrepresent the widely-held view that the Palestinian conditions are unachievable by juxtaposing the statement with the most achievable of the conditions".

The main point here is that if we are going to select some conditions to put as examples in the lede immediately next to the statement that "Many of these conditions have been denounced by opponents of the plan as "impossible" or "fantastic"", then there should be a logical connection between the two sentences. Otherwise it would be WP:SYNTH.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: The descriptors "impossible" and "fantastic are is drawn from an opinion piece cited in the lead next to that sentence. Opinion pieces do not show widely held views. They are not coming from the editorial board of the reliable source, they are coming from one person. This line doesn't even belong in the lead, and we certainly shouldn't be selectively presenting facts around it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Correction: "Impossible" is from the AP, though this is still difficult to incorporate because the piece is short and doesn't specify which conditions it is describing. Nonetheless, this has been readded to the lead, along with a summary of the conditions that have been the focus of most attention in the press. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What a load of claptrap. You introduce cherry picked conditions into the lead and then when someone expands said list to include other pertinent conditions, you not only revert back to your pet list of conditions (along with a false claim that those are the ones reflected in the majority of sources) you delete RS and other relevant material at the same time. This is blatant POV pushing and disruptive editing to boot. Reverted, get consensus for changes in here first before making major changes to the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also note there was no explanation for removal of ”...contingent on Israel and the United States subsequently agreeing that a list of conditions have been implemented”. And op-eds from notable writers are entirely valid as sources for the statement “Many of these conditions have been denounced by opponents of the plan“. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A few points:

• An opinion piece is not representative of widely held views. The issue is WP:WEIGHT, not verifiability.
• A condition is obviously premised on agreeing that a certain circumstance has been implemented. That is the definition of a condition. The extra sentence is wasted space.
• The list of conditions that I drew is basically the first four of seven that are summarized later on in the article. It is not POV for the article to summarize that section, and then present views on the agreement as whole, perhaps in a separate paragraph. These two pieces of information can co-exist in the lead without contradicting each other. To suggest that we need to frame the presentation of facts around a particular point of view is wrong.
• Finally, Selfstudier You need to calm down. Stop treating this like a battleground.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

To your points:

• Great, so there should be no objection to the inclusion of those citations – alongside the AP etc – assuming no extra weight added to the text which is fine with me
• The point that the sources make is that having one counterparty approve the other counterparty’s conditions is ridiculous. Contractual terms in normal contracts are to be implemented in the opinion of a neutral third party or a competent court. There is nothing in here that requires Israel to be reasonable. They could simply say “no”, even if the Palestinians bent over backwards. “We cannot approve this until the Palestinians prove that every possible weapon has been removed from circulation” or some other such impossible requirement. It is the most biased part of the whole document.
• It is widely agreed that this document is more about propaganda than other factors. So obviously the conditions at the top of the list are going to be the ones which look most fair to the American/Israeli side. They are therefore the least interesting and relevant conditions when explaining the plan to readers. We are not here to propagate propaganda.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Finding RS on this is easy, I have dozens and could likely find the same over again without too much effort, here is Haaretz reporting on a CNN interview with Kushner:

Kushner: Palestinians Must Meet Mideast Plan's Conditions to Be Granted Statehood

'Zakaria stressed that "no Arab country" currently satisfies the requirements Palestinians are being expected to meet in the next four years – including ensuring freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, and an independent judiciary," in addition to “established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions.""Isn't this just a way of telling the Palestinians you're never actually going to get a state," Zakaria inquired, "because ... if no Arab countries today in a position that you are demanding of the Palestinians before they can be made a state, effectively, it's a killer amendment." Struggling to respond, Trump's senior adviser called the conditions presented to the Palestinians "basic."'

Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:

• Any emphasis on an an opinion piece in the lead is undue weight. This is not arithmetic where we can include an inappropriate source along side an appropriate one.
• Obviously any condition must be shown to be met. We do not need another sentence expounding on the concept of what a condition is.
• Normative analysis about what in the document is biased and what is not relevant here. It's not propagandizing to give an overview of the plan's main points in accordance with MOS:LEAD. The main point summarized in the article should not to be excluded from the lead because they are "too reasonable." Currently the lead is almost entire composed of reactions to the plan, general and specific, with little indication of what the substance of the plan. This can easily be remedied without the juxtaposition you raised an issue with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the plan itself is a primary source document (widely considered by RS as biased "..the actual document itself represents a far less conciliatory if garbled vision, often reading like a series of Israeli government talking points.") of recent origin so it is hardly a surprise to find the lead consisting primarily of secondary reaction to it. I admit the difficulty of discussing the specific plan content in such circumstances but that's where we are. I did provide some secondary sources that attempt to deal with the plan content in large chunks. One acceptable way of getting at the specifics of the plan without being accused of cherry picking is by citing parts of it in support of secondaries that refer to those parts.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Wikieditor, while we have your attention, I note that although you have been merrily editing the article and spending some time here, you have made no effort at all to deal with your own "tone" tag.Your edit summary for it says "WP:NAME requires that subjects are referred to in a consistent manner. "State of Palestine" vs. "Palestine" discrepancy needs to be resolved. Latter seems more appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME." So is that saying that in your opinion all reference to State of Palestine should be replaced with Palestine? And then the "tone" will be OK?Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, & removed. I don't think there are any other issues ATM that still warrant the tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, my apologies, but the issue goes beyond that. Way too much of this article reads like it is lifted directly from the WhiteHouse.gov page. Most of the sections on the details of the proposal should be re-written entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad you were able to adduce another reason for maintaining the tag, haha.Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I only came into this after the article was already mostly written and there were a lot of obvious problems with it and we did fix quite a lot of those. It is perfectly possible that the primary has been misused, I will certainly take a closer look at it now that you have raised the issue.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Appreciated. This article needs a lot of work. The back-and-forth with "State of Israel..." then "State of Palestine..." with the state capitalized in all instances is not the proper format for an encylopedic article. That's my only point. We need secondary sources summarizing the points of the plan in the body. Then, I think, we can dedicate a paragraph of the lead to the substantive points, and another to reactions and criticisms. With those elements separated, I don't think that there will be any implication or improper juxtaposition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Israel Palestine issue is a separate thing. The problem there is ISO has "the State of Israel" (official) and "Israel" (short) whereas they have "the State of Palestine" (official) and "Palestine, State of" (short). You may well ask why that should be, I would hazard a guess that it is because of the historical arguments about what the word "Palestine" by itself might mean (WP dab page as well refers). Thus, I included into the article various UN legal and other sources that show the actual agreed and recommended usage there. I don't really think it is as bad as all that as long as one only uses Palestine when it is clear from the context what is meant and it should be wikilinked carefully so it goes the right place or else not wikilinked at all. The Trump plan only adds to the confusion since the state referred to there is not the State of Palestine but some other entity existing in the imagination of the plan authors and nowhere else. There are editors who will complain about either usage so one cannot really win on this issue.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

UN naming conventions are helpful IMO but should not be binding. I'm just not seeing "State of Palestine" as a commonly used name. Most of the best secondary sources (NYT) refer to a "Palestinian state" to avoid the confusion when just using the word "Palestine." I think "State of Israel" should never be used, just "Israel." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

ISO is binding and ISO gets its data from the UN. I don't disagree with you in general terms. I don't really object to just using the word Palestine (the UN also endorses this usage) and reserving the official title for occasional use in the right context, it just needs a little bit more care than when using Israel. Beyond that, I see no need for jumping through additional hoops merely in order to avoid offending this or that zealot other than that, on occasion, it is also appropriate to refer to the OPT.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that's really binding here is the WP MOS. I don't think we're required to adhere to any single source, though they obviously all provide useful context. A possible solution consistent with secondary sources/UN/ISO might be to use "Palestinian state" when referring to the proposed, but State of Palestine when referring to the entity currently recognized by the orgs you mentioned. I agree that "Palestine" is also geographic term and could engender confusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, it is exactly this kind of discussion that I usually avoid ie fruitless and circular. Because you will say this on one day and another editor faced with the same set of facts will say another thing on another day. The MOS doesn't cover this exact situation, why would it, its sui generis. If it really is an issue, then the only way for it to be resolved is centrally and not in this or that article, that is what has been done in the past. Fwiw, I don't think that is necessary but that's just me.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

So for the main issue we talked about, I have gone through and id'd some areas where there is potentially too much reliance on the plan document itself and tagged the article globally for the same thing.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the last sentence of the first paragraph be modified?

Should the last sentence in the lead be modified? Currently it says, "Donald Trump formally unveiled the plan in a White House press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on January 28, 2020; but Palestinian representatives were not invited for the negotiation." That last section of the sentence doesn't quite sound right. Should it be changed to something along the lines of, "... on January 8, although no Palestinian authorities were invited for negotiations." I think that sound easier to understand and comprehend. This isn't supposed to be an RfC; rather just an informal discussion. Thanks! Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, that change seems fine, thanks for pointing out. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanoscar21 (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

East Jerusalem as a Palestinian Capital- edit request on 8 July 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

change

"The plan rejects a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, proposing instead a Palestinian capital on the outskirts of the city. The proposed site for a Palestinian capital includes the Shuafat refugee camp, described as "a gang-ridden slum".[11][12] Many Israeli settlers have expressed discontent and concern with the plan's security assurances.[11][13][14][15]"

to

"Regarding a Palestinian Capital Trump's Plan states under paragraph 'Political Status of Jerusalem' the following:

"On December 6, 2017, on behalf of the United States of America, President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The President also made clear that the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem would be subject to final status negotiations between the parties. We believe that returning to a divided Jerusalem, and in particular having two separate security forces in one of the most sensitive areas on earth, would be a grave mistake. While a physical division of the city must be avoided, a security barrier currently exists that does not follow the municipal boundary and that already separates Arab neighborhoods (i.e., Kafr Aqab, and the eastern part of Shuafat) in Jerusalem from the rest of the neighborhoods in the city. This physical barrier should remain in place and should serve as a border between the capitals of the two parties. Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel, and it should remain an undivided city. The sovereign capital of the State of Palestine should be in the section of East Jerusalem located in all areas east and north of the existing security barrier, including Kafr Aqab, the eastern part of Shuafat and Abu Dis, and could be named Al Quds or another name as determined by the State of Palestine."

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Peace treaty

please put the actual peace treaty here, so that we can read it. not have to listen to political narratives from the left

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Peace-to-Prosperity-0120.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.238.240 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC) 

It is linked externally (see external links). WP prefers to use independent third party sources for its articles, if there not any, we quote directly from the plan document (it's not a treaty). Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in the first paragraph

In the first paragraph, it is written that “House press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 28 January 2020, although no Palestinian authorities were invited for negotiations.[1]”

This is false. The link writes that no Palestinian representatives were invited to the unveiling of the plan. It has nothing to do with the negotiations, and the sentence gives a false impression that Palestinians weren’t invited to negotiate. As it is written elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, Palestinians rejected the entire process from the onset, which is why they weren’t part of the negotiations (and subsequently the unveiling). I propose that we change the sentence to “ House press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 28 January 2020, although no Palestinian representatives were invited to the unveiling[1]” (To be honest, I don’t think “although no Palestinian representatives were invited to the unveiling” is a sufficiently important detail to warrant being highlighted in the first paragraph, but someone more experienced than me can make that decision)

NeffeG (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I amended the sentence per source "The plan, which had been delayed for two years, has already been rejected by the Palestinians, whose representatives were not invited to the meeting." Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading Lead

I see no reason why WP:RECENTISM should win the day in the lead of this article, with hypothetical nonsense that never actually happened being the entire final paragraph of the lead. It says that someone claimed something which immediately became false, and is therefore irrelevant to this day. None of that has anything to do with the plan. Bill Williams 22:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I agree the last paragraph could be improved to address your point. I do think that the topic of the paragraph should remain though, as the question of whether immediate annexation was part of the plan – and the different perspectives held by the different protagonists – is a crucial element and should be well represented in the lede. The reason for this is that the plan itself was theoretical and almost certainly could never have been implemented; but annexation was the clear practical step and could have happened effectively overnight if the US government was supportive. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Reviving prospects?

If Trump wins again? Anything on this? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

Specify "François" Dubuisson. The name appears out of nowhere. The footnote (28) helps but the text could be more explicit. 173.2.228.243 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've also added it a second time in the "Status of Jerusalem, Palestinian capital and Holy Sites", since it is quite far away from the first occurrence. Liu1126 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)