User:ImTheIP/MyToDoList
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Precedent
I'm pretty sure this sentence is wrong:
- Timothy V. Waters argues that if similar circumstances arise in the future, this precedent would allow the ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law.[21]
In a legal context, a precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. No such precedent has been established wrt the Sudeten Germans. Waters himself doesn't make that claim in the article so it must have been inserted by a Wikipedian unaware of the exact meaning of the word "precedent."
Also from reading the article, it appears more incorrect to say that Waters' investigation of the Sudeten question reveals that it "COULD allow the ethnic cleansing ... " rather than "WOULD allow:"
Palestinian right of return
- The "rights" and "general welfare" of Israel's Jewish citizens would be endangered if millions of Palestinians who were openly hostile to Israel's existence became a majority. ... The Palestinian right of return would result in the loss of Israeli sovereignty and its replacement with an Arab-majority state, and the dismantling of Israeli society in favor of an Arab-Muslim dominated society, resulting in the destruction of a UN member state
Hilarious racist unsourced garbage on Wikipedia. Yay!
Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel
This is one very biased article.
Fajr-5
There is no evidence that Hamas and Islamic Jihad has any Fajr-5 rockets left. It should also be mentioned the sources claiming they operated a homemade copy of the missile and not the real thing.
500/30-rule
There is a rule that prevents you from editing pages and even talk pages on some topics unless you have made 500 editors and been a Wikipedia editor for over 30 days. That rule is incredibly stupid. Since most of my edits are to those topics, they are being reverted by the Wikipedia "police force". But I think I don't break any rules by reproducing those edits here without breaking any rules. If I understand Wikipedia policies correctly, this page is "mine" and I can write almost anything I want on it.
If I ever rack up 500 edits, maybe I'll redo those edits or whatever. Probably not... Stupid rules annoy me and Wikipedia has too many of them.
Right of Return
- By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
I would like to correct this! :)
UN Watch
This article makes my eyes bleed.ImTheIP (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Maan News
- An Israeli NGO, NGO Monitor, criticizes Ma'an for regularly re-publishing "non-verifiable or inaccurate claims" from partisan NGOs and for, "subjective, biased reporting."[10] Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) criticized Ma'an for "sanitizing" its English-language reporting while publishing in Arabic reports that “include the hate ideology espoused by the terror organizations that deny Israel's right to exist [and] express reverence for suicide terrorists."[10] In further reports, PMW criticized Ma'an for "demonization of Jews,",[11] for publishing news stories in materially different Arabic and English versions,[12] and for Holocaust denial.[13][14]
Nowhere is it stated that both of these are pro-Israeli orgs and what they state should be taken with huge grains of salt. ImTheIP (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Israeli Settlement
- I didn't know about that rule. Seem weird that it would be forbidden for me to report about errors in the article texts? 1) I think that because EJ is a part of the WB, it is illogical to list it separately. The article intro doesn't mention the number of settlers in other WB cities such as Hebron, Jericho and Ramallah. 2) I agree that PCBC is a bad source - it was just the first I found when googling. We can use another source as long as it contains the total number of WB settlers. ImTheIP (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Please be careful about East Jerusalem
The intro reads:
- Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights.
But since East Jerusalem is a part of the West Bank, it should instead read:
- Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights.
By listing "the West Bank, East Jerusalem..." Wikipedia is implying that the territories are distinct from each other. They aren't. Also, the count of settlers is not right.
- On 30 June 2014, according to the Yesha Council, 382,031 Jewish settlers lived in the 121 officially recognised settlements in the West Bank, over 300,000 Israelis lived in settlements in East Jerusalem and over 20,000 lived in settlements in the Golan Heights.[31][32][33] In January 2015 the Israeli Interior Ministry gave figures of 389,250 Israelis living in the West Bank and a further 375,000 Israelis living in East Jerusalem.
Two counts doesn't need to be repeated in the intro. Just pick the Interior Ministry's count and omit the Yesha Council's. But the big problem I see, is that it doesn't state the total count of settlers. I propose the section should be reworded something like to:
- According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of settlers who lived in the West Bank was at the end of 2014 was 599,901 of whom 286,997 lived in the Jerusalem area.
The data I found from: http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/512/default.aspx?tabID=512&lang=en&ItemID=1627&mid=3171&wversion=Staging But the important point is that the total should be given first, then the number can be broken down according to the various regions of the West Bank (among which East Jerusalem is one). ImTheIP (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
East Jerusalem
Status in international law
Article says:
- East Jerusalem's status in international law however remains uncertain: the United Nations' Security Council immediately dismissed the resolution of unification as a "violation of international law",[10] and the international community does not recognize Israel's or Palestinian sovereignty there.[11]
I think it should say "is clear" and not "remains uncertain." The international community and international law, as expressed by UN resolutions, consider East Jerusalem part of the West Bank and considers the West Bank to be under belligerent occupation. The status of East Jerusalem is not different from the status of any other Palestinian city such as Ramallah. ImTheIP (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Green Line
The name comes from the green ink used to draw the line on the map while the armistice talks were going on.[1] After the Six-Day War, the territories captured by Israel beyond the Green Line came to be designated as East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula (the Sinai Peninsula has since been returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace treaty). These territories are often referred to as Israeli occupied territories.
Prof Schwebel's quote
- "...modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful (if not necessarily desirable), whether those modifications are...'insubstantial alterations required for mutual security' or more substantial alterations—such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem."
So this is his legal opinion. But a lot of scholars with equal legal status have argued the exact opposite position. Therefore, I think it is unfair that his quote is left unchallenged. Either his quote should be removed or a quote by a scholar who argues that the "modifications of the 1949 armistice lines" as executed in 1967 should be introduced. ImTheIP (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
al-Araqeeb
Aerial photography
Article says:
- The State presented an aerial shot of the place proving that the Al-Araqeeb area had no cultivated land during the British mandate period.[28]
The reference 28 is to a site called Global Report. According to The Jerusalem Post it was the Bedouins that presented aerial photography showing that the land was cultivated. http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Court-rejects-6-Beduin-Negev-land-lawsuits
- The Beduin also presented aerial photographs from 1945 onwards, which they said showed there had been extensive cultivation covering al-Arakib, meaning that it could not have been classified as Mawat land.
Can another source for the statement "The State presented an aerial shot of the place ..." be provided? Otherwise I think that sentence should be removed because it is an error. ImTheIP (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Palestinian rocket arsenal
As of July 2014[update] Palestinian attacks on Israel using rockets have killed 23 people,[2] mostly civilians, and injured more than 1,900 people, but their main effect is their creation of widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life among the Israeli populace.[3] Medical studies in Sderot, the Israeli city closest to the Gaza Strip, have documented a post-traumatic stress disorder incidence among young children of almost 50%, as well as high rates of depression and miscarriage.[4][5][6]
How many people have died from Gaza rockets into Israel?|date=14 July 2014}}</ref> mostly civilians, but their main effect is their creation of widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life among the Israeli populace.
Israel–United States military relations
About three quarters of the aid is earmarked for purchases of military equipment from U.S. companies and the rest is spent on domestic equipment.[7]
Separate page for US-Israel aid
Shouldn't there be one? There is one about United States foreign aid, Israel–United States military relations and Israel–United States relations. But not one specifically about the military and economic aid given to Israel. I think there should be one because it is a huge topic. But I'm not prepared to write that page. You could "refactor" the aid part from the other pages to that new one. ImTheIP (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Brit milah
"Some Jewish families practice brit shalom instead." <- This should not be mentioned in the intro paragraph because those families are a very tiny minority. ImTheIP (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Brit shalom
mainstream Judaism
- Brit shalom is recognized by organizations affiliated in Secular Humanistic Judaism (including the Society for Humanistic Judaism, the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, and the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism), but not by any group generally considered to be a part of mainstream Judaism.
It's a weird statement. Especially the italic and bold part. How is it determined that these groups are not mainstream? I can try and reword it. ImTheIP (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Palestinian rocket arsenal
Fatalities and injured
The page says 28, but the source it quotes says "Rocket fatalities only: 23". Perhaps that page has been updated? The number "more than 1,900 people injured" is not mentioned in any of the sources so it should be removed. I'll make these changes shortly. ImTheIP (talk)
West Bank
Settler count is wrong
Since it is impossible for me to edit this article, I'll just list what is wrong with the intro paragraph here:
- As of July 2015 it has an estimated population of 2,785,366 Palestinians,[3] and approximately 371,000 Israeli settlers,[3] and approximately another 212,000 Jewish Israelis in East Jerusalem.[3]
Israel is the only country that makes the distinction between settlers in West Bank that doesn't live in East Jerusalem and settlers that do live in East Jerusalem in the West Bank. It is therefore wrong of Wikipedia to make that distinction, since it is the fringe view. Please reword the sentence to:
- As of July 2015 it has an estimated population of 2,785,366 Palestinians,[3] and approximately 583,000 Israeli settlers. About 260,800 Palestinians and 212,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem which is the West Bank's largest city.
Since the count of Israelis living in East Jerusalem is given, the count of Palestinians should also be given. ImTheIP (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
United Nations resolution 194
I must say this article is very cluttered and not very well-written. ImTheIP (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Violent bla bla
- I agree, the map isn't very good. The outline of PA controlled areas as shown on this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority appears to be more correct. ImTheIP (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed a few issues like this but Sepsis II undid my changes. :/ ImTheIP (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Israeli border police noticed two Palestinians crossing over the West Bank barrier and getting into a waiting car which sped away when approached. The car crashed into a military jeep near the al-Zayyim checkpoint, lightly injuring four Israeli soldiers. The soldiers opened fire on the car, injuring its three Palestinian passengers.
Counting words
Article contains text like:
- 2 Palestinians were shot, a third suffered bruising and 4 Israeli soldiers suffered
My understanding of English is that four counts <= twelve, counting words should be used. So it should say "Two Palestinians were shot, a third suffered bruising and four Israeli soldiers suffered" Do you agree with me or is there a reason numbers are used? ImTheIP (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright. Fair enough. ImTheIP (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- During the day, five mortar shells are fired at IDF units working on both sides of the Gaza border fence trying to locate hidden tunnels. IDF tanks stationed close to Gaza returns fire at nearby Hamas positions.[8]
+
- During the night between may 4th and 5th, and in response to the five mortar attacks, Israel launched several airstrikes and used tank fire against what it identified as Hamas positions within the Gaza Strip.Authorities in Gaza say the mortars were fired to stop Israeli bulldozers leveling areas inside the strip.[9][10]
May 3
May 2
- In the morning a mortar shell was fired at an IDF engineering unit near the Gaza border fence. An IDF tank fired at a Hamas observation point in southern Gaza near a landfill.[13]
Arab Peace Initiative
I must say, I think it is still shabby. I tried to do some cleanup on it but it is hard to fix all the issues it has. ImTheIP (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
US Reactions
Initially, the initiative was met with enthusiastic support from the Bush administration. According to Bush's spokesperson Ari Fleischer "the president praised the crown prince's ideas regarding the full Arab-Israeli normalization once a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached." [14] Though he stressed that it could only be implemented with the cessation of terrorist attacks against Israel.
His successor, Barack Obama expressed praise in the spirit, but not support of its details, for the Initiative in the first days of his presidency. In an interview with Al-Arabiya network on January 27, 2009, he said:
Palestinian refugees
The estimate of 711,000 implies accuracy when there is none. It is also based on a number given in 1950. Modern historical research has improved upon that number. Therefore, the number should reflect what current historians estimate the number to be. ImTheIP (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Green Line: the name given to the 1949 Armistice lines that constituted the de facto borders of pre-1967 Israel — "Glossary: Israel", Library of Congress Country Studies
- Nguyen, Phan (14 July 2014). "How many people have died from Gaza rockets into Israel?". Mondoweiss.
- Martin Patience, Playing cat and mouse with Gaza rockets, BBC News 28-02-2008
- Report: Missiles on Sderot increase miscarriages, Jerusalem Post 24-02-2013
- Study: Half of Sderot's toddlers suffering from PTSD, Ynet News 30-06-2009
- Israeli survey: Almost half of Sderot preteens show symptoms of PTSD, Haaretz 20-11-2012
- "CRS Report for Congress: U.S Foreign Aid to Israel" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 15 June 2016.