Talk:Palestine Papers

Help

Please help create this page. This is recent but contains a considerable amount of history. As this is not an article yet I hope you understand it is meant as a placeholder.

The full list of files can be found at http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/search Which is all 1600 documents leaked recently and released today by theguardian and al-jazerra.General Choomin (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems.

From what I see there is no discussion in regards to antisemitic insitement and the golan heights is refered to in such discussions. General Choomin (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What?--Aa2-2004 (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The template isn't exactly fitting. I guess it's an all encompassing template. I just don't think it fits currently since there are talks about the Golan Heights and Syria by Israeli officials as well as Palestinian Officials asking to show Syria the map. This conversation is current headline news in which the Israeli delegation demands more Palestinian territory due to the effect of a future peace with Syria. In regards to antisemitism, I don't see how these papers fit into said discussion when we are still combing over it. But I deffer to more experienced users since that template is standardized I guess. I just don't think it fits. I am sorta rusty so please forgive my ignorance on wiki mechanics. General Choomin (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

desperately needs to be rewritten

I moved this section to talk, only the first sentence remains. I dont know enough about the subject to rewrite it, but it desperately needs to be rewritten before being added back to the article:

According to the first evening of Al Jazeera's networks broadcast, the Palestinian Authority was going to concede all Jewish communities in East Jerusalem, including the Armenian Quarter and Ma'ale Adumim but not Har Homa.

However, Israeli diplomat Shlomo Ben-Ami, have stressed during the TV broadcast that the The Clinton Parameters from Camp David 2000 which he had been personally involved in at the time, have already discussed the division of Jerusalem according to "What is Arab to the Arabs, and what is Jewish to the Jews" (demographic division rather than geographical 1967 lines), a principle that was accepted by then chairman Yasser Arafat, Ben-Ami claimed, aside from what is known to Arabs as Haram al-Sharif or to Jews as Temple Mount. The only difference, Ben-Amin claimed, was that chairman Arafat agreed, in principle, to the (demographic) division of Jerusalem as of Clinton Parameters, aside from Haram al-Sharif which he insisted upon receiving as a whole, without concessions (which was unacceptable to Jews concerning the Wailing Wall), while later Arekat agreed to find "creative solutions" specifically concerning the era of Haram, eventually including a Palestinian concession on the Jewish and Armenian quarters in East Jerusalem, according to Al Jazeera's broadcast. Responding to a question whether he would be willing to separate the issue of the borders from Jerusalem (i.e. 1967 borders), Arekat was quoted replying "We will use the Clinton Parameters" (for Jerusalem, Haram al-Sharif), and also conceded to agreeing on a joint Israel-Palestinian Committee on Haram.

Someone else added the rewritten tag before me. Adamtheclown (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of documents and stuff

Can we cite the documents themselves from the aljazzera website or do we have to cite an article which reports it? There is a lot more to do and it is disappointing that not much is being actually done.

In the future, however, I do feel that all the data in revealed in these articles will have to be moved to respected articles involving those topics. In which those articles will require a rewrite as much of what was reported turns out to be spin or false. But, I suspect that will be sometime in the future and we should add the facts and citations revealed currently to this article.--General Choomin (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The release of the documents is itself a significant event already having various implications and doubtless will have many more. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention not a Wikileak

While I don't like adding possible WP:OR stuff about what something is NOT, I think it would be good to mention this is NOT a wikileak. I was confused on that and others might be also. On the other hand, it seems to me someone reported Julian Assange said he had a bunch of stuff that other publications wouldn't look at. (Should have saved that article; not sure if did.) Maybe he released it as a non-wikileak to avoid retaliation on other leaks, or whatever. Or maybe he just hasn't gotten it together to leak yet. A reason to just leave that hanging... CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As you wrote, it would be original research for us to say that these papers are not from Wikileaks without a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus I didn't do due diligence and find a relevant source that would explicate it, like this: "The documents revealed by Al Jazeera are much more important than the documents recently released by WikiLeaks." CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Add this topic under PLO article

It talks about the PLO and their corruption. Should be added to their respective wiki article. Thebutterfly (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to say the PLO is corrupt? Sounds like you have a personal grudge. Perhaps not the most neutral editor? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't talk about the PLO corruption. That is not what it is. It is the leaked files of the minutes and records of the peace process between Israel and Palestine. It might show facts such as "the napkin map" or "the biggest Israel" which where proposed. As well as revealing details that shed new light on the individuals in that process and the frank talks and admissions they said in confidence. But labeling parties to such talks as "corrupt" or as "warmongers" only contributes to adding bias by inserting loaded words.

Now if you can show that corruption was planned and executed in the papers then that is alright. You can also add that, in frank talks, the head of Kadima admitted that there would be no Palestinian state. Since that is directly in the papers. Please reply with sources so we can further collaborate in writing this article.--General Choomin (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It ALSO talks about PLO corruption. Look at the section where they're having discussions with Casinos, and with a Dutyfree Merchandise chain for just two examples. Impartiality is all good, but let's stick to the real world and not pretend that the sky is green or the PLO isn't corrupt. ESPECIALLY when discussing a set of papers that (among many other things) shows example of corruption. 90.184.72.43 (talk)

Idea to change format in relation to time line instead current format

I think it would be much easier to do this by date. Such as each event listed in chronological order. Since some events such as the napkin map abbas-olmert talks of 2008 is a very specific and important event that includes many properties of the the separate sections.

Also, since this an exclusive between two papers and it's only slowly trickling out to other media I don't think that it would be fair to delete additions that don't have a source every second sentence.

Also, the whole napkin map thing was added in response to clear vandalism. A person added clearly NPOV info relying on information from an article on jpost that was released last year. Which, I'm pretty sure is unrelated to a leak that occurred this year.

Anyways, could someone write up an article on this? http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0125/Possible-source-of-Palestine-papers-leak The article claims to have found the source of the leak. Thanks. --General Choomin (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one wrote or edited it I decided to take it into my own hands and added the csmonitor article regarding the people who might have leaked the info. --General Choomin (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Commentary magazine? Plus some extra thoughts.

Really? It is a partisan rag which shouldn't be considered a source. Clearly it violates NPOV. Also the article was not specifically reacting to the papers but was bashing the guardian.

Anyways, I hope more people can find time to discuss changes instead of doing it unilaterally. As well as adding new information to the article. Such as the leak coming from erekat's office and offering to resign. A lot has happened since then and we should be busy compiling them and discussing perhaps a total rewrite. Since this leak has repercussions in other I-P articles. --General Choomin (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok this makes me sad.

So I haven't been here in awhile and it seems people are adding as much pov as possible. Even creating sections that are already covered with loaded language on items that are already covered in older and npov written sections in the article. In effect to "sanitize" or even white wash it to make it something else. An example of this is the new and up in front section of "Jerusalem" which has been covered. If there is a need to make such a section then it hardly deserves to be ahead of everything else that was written. Come on people! --General Choomin (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit out words you don't like yet are sourced

I already went through this once before in which the term "illegal" was edited out for no apparent reason. The article cited uses that term to describe the colonization of East Jerusalem and the West bank. It is also generally refered to as "illegal" by 99% of the world. I do not try to include such OR in the article since it does not pertain to the papers. I just use the terminology provided by the documents and articles about them and later cite them.

If you can't discuss this in the talk page then don't add it. The term, illegal settlements, will always be in the section where my sources state it is.

I wish more people would stop trying to annon edit the article to whitewash "illegal" and instead read the documents to add more info. Since this covers more then a decade of Palestine/Israel peace talks and efforts.

--General Choomin (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Regarding this edit.

This is not personal commentary, but a summary of the article content, if you can offer better wording please do. The first sentence: Is refers to the authentication the documentaiton by Al-Jazeera, The Guardian(reference in Authenticity section) and Yankie Galenty confirmation(reference in refuge section). The second sentence: Is based on the Reaction/Palestinian Authority section, where they claim that reportage/commentary on the document was inaccurate and taken out of context. (personal commentary: which makes sense there is no way for them to know if what said is part of negotiation tactic or anything of value) --79.179.150.69 (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

By writing that "It appears that most of the documents are genuine", you put Wikipedia in the position of opining on the authenticity of the documents. Instead, we should say that Al-Jazeera, The Guardian, and Galenty have said the documents are genuine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaked by AlJezzera or Leaked "TO" AlJezeera?

THIS article states the Papers were leaked TO AlJezeera. Why does the Wiki article state they were leaked BY AlJezeera? Mercy11 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Al Jazeera didn't "leak" anything; they weren't in any way connected to the process which generated the documents. The material was leaked to them and they published it. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)