 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Please don't pipe things like "mass expulsion of Jew" for Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, however you may feel about the topic, in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks, TewfikTalk 06:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi.Excuse me, please, the word "disengagement" is a totally POV word, implying that there was nothing wrong with what was done. Part of the gov't's agenda to whitewash its actions. Expulsion, in contrast, is simply an accurate description of what happened. Jews were forced to leave their homes. That's called expulsion. Check the dictionary. Nothin POV about that. Yehoishophot Oliver 06:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, "disengagement" is the official name of the event which Wikipedia recognises as Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. You are welcome to try and change the article name (something which I don't foresee as being successful), or even to add criticism to it. But we cannot use piping here to express a POV which would not be accepted elsewhere. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Words like expulsion are not a point of view (though I don't deny that I have one). They simply describing what happened physically, instead of using politically correct POV words that aim to distort reality and ignore facts.
- For example, the word "evacuate" is a twisted POV word. If there's a fire coming, you evacuate people out of genuine concern for their safety. But in the case of the Gaza expulsion, removing Jews from the threat of attacks was not the excuse for the expulsion. Sharon's only explanation (given during the expulsion) was that it was necessary for "demographic" purposes, i.e., Israel can't annex Gaza because they don't want to make so many arabs Israeli citizens. That's political.
- Similarly, the word "pullout" is a purely military word, implying that the only motive of the act is military. The opposite was the case here, with all the military warning of the rockets on Sderot and Ashkelon, etc., which no one was surprised to see happen immediately after the expulsion. So again, "pullout" is a false, twisted POV word. Yehoishophot Oliver 12:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you deny that others would make cases for those other words? Obviously there is more than one point of view, but we can only use the one that has arisen as being neutral in consensus. If you can change the consensus on the main article Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, then you would have a much more compelling case. Until then, it simply is not neutral, regardless of whether any one user believes personally in one or another POV. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Refugee
editI have removed the word "refugee" as was in the sentence "One group moved to the temporary government refugee camp of Yivul near the Egyptian border". There is a good article on refugees which defines the concept. The people of Netzarim and other Jewish Israelis living in the Gaza Strip were forcibly moved by their government, they were not persons "seeking asylum" "outside the country of his nationality", and they were not fleeing "persecution, war, terrorism, extreme poverty, famines, and natural disaster". They were homeless, in a sad situation, treated badly whatever but NOT refugees. Benqish 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I made the change before reading the talk page. I understand, as you pointed out now, that WP refers to refugees only if they were forced into another country, and technically the settlers were forced off there land in Gaza back to Israel, but that would ironically be argued. Anyway, the better word would definitely be displaced persons. Tthough how else should these temporary /villages set up to house them be described? Would referring to it as not unlike a refugee camp be okay, or is that confusing? --Shuki 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? The villagers of gush Katif weren't fleeing "persecution, war, [and] terrorism"?! What nonsense. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
relevancy to any article
editSee Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation)#The_.22See_also.22_section. We'd expect that anything in a 'see also' section is directly related to the subject of the article. Ex: We would not place a link to the NY Mets article on the New York page. We would also not clutter the 'external links' where we refrain from cruft and other URLs that can be accessed by a simple search on google. 'See also' is for additional related reading, not a collection of subjects that are indirectly related to the article. We would not add 'cherry tomatoes', yeshiva, orthodox jewry, to the see also because it is redundant and unneeded. Likewise, the pallywood section is not related to Netzarim at all, and even a mention in see also is not warranted. The Dura mention might be tolerated, frankly, only because there was a mention to the Netzarim junction which was about a km and half from the Netzarim village at a crossroads with an Arab road, a major flashpoint. Otherwise, pallywood and Dura have nothing to do with Netzarim. --Shuki 17:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Etimology
editI think it is important to put in something [even just a fwe lines] about the meaning of the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.14.220 (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)