Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Qalqilya

The section now reads: An often-quoted example of the effects of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, a city of around 45,000, where an 8 meter-high concrete section is built on the Green Line between the city and the nearby Trans-Israel Highway. The wall in this section, referred to as an "anti-sniper wall," has been claimed to prevent gun attacks against Israeli motorists on the Trans-Israel Highway.[39] The city is accessible through a main road from the east, and an underground tunnel built in September 2004 on the south side connects Qalqilyah with the adjacent village of Habla. Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to change the route of the barrier in this area to ease movement of Palestinians between Qalqilyah and five surrounding villages. In the same ruling, the court rejected the arguments that the fence must be built only on the Green Line. The ruling cited the topography of the terrain, security considerations, and sections 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations 1907 and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as reasons for this rejection.

This "Green Line" lead seems misleading -- isn't the salient point regarding Qalqilya that the municipality is completely surrounded by the barrier? With most of the barrier far east of the Green Line? (see this map) Believe this should be noted in a section on the effects of the barrier. RomaC (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If the barrier is actually built on the Green Line, then how is it misleading to say so? If the salient point is that Qalqilyah is completely surrounded by the barrier, why not change the section to include that rather than trying to remove something that others feel relevant? Also it would appear that the Green Line issue is important since the ISC made a ruling with respect to it, a bit later on in the same paragraph. It is good editing to tie the beginning of a paragraph into the end of it, as this paragraph does. Perhaps you could could expand the section to address your concerns, perhaps adding your changes here before you put them in the body of the article, so we can develop a consensus for the changes. Stellarkid (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. Part of the barrier is built on the Green Line, most of the barrier that surrounds Qalqilya is built off the Green Line, as I wrote. I don't see what is unclear about what I wrote. Also, what do you mean by suggesting that I am "trying to remove something that others fell relevant"? What did I try to remove? RomaC (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the wording at this point could be improved because the wall only follows the Green Line at one point near the Trans-Israel Highway. This wording may be a better way to explain the complex situation:

An often-quoted example of the effects of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, a city of around 45,000, which is almost surrounded by the wall and where one 8 meter-high concrete section follows the Green Line between the city and the nearby Trans-Israel Highway. This section of the wall, referred to as an "anti-sniper wall," has been claimed to prevent gun attacks against Israeli motorists on the Trans-Israel Highway.[39] The city is accessible through a main road from the east, and an underground tunnel built in September 2004 on the south side connects Qalqilyah with the adjacent village of Habla. Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to change the route of the barrier in this area to ease movement of Palestinians between Qalqilyah and five surrounding villages. In the same ruling, the court rejected the arguments that the fence must be built only on the Green Line. The ruling cited the topography of the terrain, security considerations, and sections 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations 1907 and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as reasons for this rejection.

Michael Glass (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That is clearer to me. @Tiamut,@ Roma C-- it appeared you wanted to remove the Green Line reference as not "salient." Stellarkid (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You talking to me? Or RomaC? Tiamut^talk 18:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I found Michael Glass' version clearer and sorry yes I was talking to RomaC. Stellarkid (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What? What? Someone talking to me? H-e-l-l-o...? OK, so unsure, is it "almost" surrounded or "completely" surrounded? Source and map indicate completely surrounded. Anyway "almost surrounded" is grammatically problematic, as quirky adverb "almost" has special needs as a modifier (consider "Israel is almost Jewish") so should be "almost completely surrounded" for style. However, back to the maps and sources (the Wiki entry for Qalqilya says "completely encircled"). This is a salient point let's get it right. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been to Qaliqilya and its not "almost surrounded", its totally surrounded. There is one exit/entrance. But don't take my word for it. Here's a reliable print source saying it: "Qalqilya town is surrounded on all sides by the Barrier. To the west is an eight- metre-high wall and observation tower system. A fence complex, which includes patrol roads, trace paths and trenches encircles the city from the north, south and east. The sole entrance to the city is through the military checkpoint." Tiamut^talk 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, "I've been to Qalqilya..." is original research. But the sources we have and the other sources I've seen and source you just provided and the maps all confirm that it is "totally surrounded." So there shouldn't be a problem putting this into the article, I hope. Once the protection is lifted. RomaC (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag team attack

This looks like a tagteam attack on Mbz1 in an effort to force this cartoon onto the page. This has a real familiar feel to it. Some people on this page have suggested that Mbz1 has a legitimate point. Let's leave the cartoon out until we determine whether or not the point is valid. The cartoon will not run away if it is not on the page for a while, while we discuss it? Stellarkid (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

and there is no "tag-teaming" to put in the other cartoon? How exactly does the above comment not apply to the suicide bomber cartoon as well? nableezy - 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stellar, agree the cartoons should be out while they are discussed, so can you do that? And if you have accusations and complaints about editors' behavior can you please direct these through appropriate channels? I will cooperate fully. To start, if you are hoping we can address this here, what particular edits strike you at this time as inappropriate? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

right, there is tag-teaming and edit-warring for both. Stellarkid (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, there is editing without regard to consensus which is resulting in the edits being made being reverted by mutliple editors. Please assume good faith and avoid making accusations unrelated to article improvement here. Take your concerns to the appropriate conduct forum, if you feel you have evidence to support them. Tiamut^talk 07:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess here is the support.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page for three days to stop the revert-warring. Please discuss the disputed issues here on the Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on assurances I've received on my Talk page, I've unprotected the article. This article will be on my watchlist, and I won't hesitate to protect it again if the edit-warring resumes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cartoons

You have one image that clearly expresses Israel's POV, ie "the wall is defensive," but some here find this cartoon personally offensive, or even racist. This is a personal opinion, however, not backed by any RS. WP:CENSOR says However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. The material is relevant and appropriate. Now the Latuff cartoon, on the other hand, is Holocaust-denying by definition, which is generally considered to be antisemitic [1] and the charge is backed with a report from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a noted WP:RS. It also compares contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, one of the descriptors charged by the European Fundamental Rights Agency to be descriptive of antisemitism. Stellarkid (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Latuff carton is not "Holocaust denying by definition" and repeating the same falsehood does not make it true. nableezy - 06:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli cartoon is "relevant and appropriate" but the Latuff cartoon is "Holocaust-denying by definition"...sigh. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear on what the two cartoons are. They are both political cartoons. The first cartoon, added by Mbz1 on Jan 7, has a clear Israeli POV[2]; the second cartoon, with a clear Palestinian POV[3], was added Jan 22. Please take a look, because the images that Mbz1 presented higher up on this Talk page are not at issue here.

Alright, are some editors really going to try and argue that they oppose having both cartoons in the article; that they oppose having only the second cartoon in the article; that they oppose having neither cartoon in the article; and that they only support having just the first cartoon in the article? And try to use Wiki policy to back up such an incredible stance? Really? RomaC (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@RomaC, it is not unheard of that a single cartoon, which represents Palestinian POV only is used in an article like for example here. I assure you that testimonies of the kids that apparently were used for that cartoon cannot be considered a reliable source by any fair minded, neutral editor. Now about cartoon from this article. Let's do it it one cartoon at a time, please. Let's please first discuss suicide bomber cartoon. Please explain to me clearly, point by point how this cartoon is Israeli POV? Is it POV because there never were suicide bombers in Israel, or it is POV because a suicide bomber cannot climb the barrier? --Mbz1 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It represents a POV that the wall was built to prevent suicide bombers, a POV that is highly contested. But that is not why it should not be in the article, it should not be in the article because no serious encyclopedia would put such a thing into a serious article on the barrier. nableezy - 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth Nableezy. I agree with RomaC that both cartoons should be removed. Tiamut^talk 07:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I know you have edited this article. Please prove your impartiality yet another time today :), and remove the carton from the article because according to you "no serious encyclopedia would put such a thing into a serious article". Then your arguments here will look much better, and it really would be a good example for me to follow :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it per BRD and left a note on the talk page to discuss it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Graph

I could take a graph from here and upload it as a fair use image. Then it could be used instead of cartoon. The graph clearly shows suicide bombing outbreak before the construction of the security tense has started, and the reduction after that. What do you think?--Mbz1 (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be better. nableezy - 07:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

<- copy/paste from section above to keep potential graph sources together in single talk page section

Here is a graph from the MFA or here for the graph by itself but it's not clear to me where they have put the statistical source data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

<- Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it too. Goes only to 2003. I do not think we need to have a source for this graph. First of all it comes from a reliable source, and second of all all the facts of suicide bombings inside Israel are well known and well documented. --Mbz1 (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just meant someone might prefer to make a better looking graph from the MFA source data....if I could have found it. It's somewhere... Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look some more tomorrow. --Mbz1 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cartoons and drama

Ok, seems editors held off on this while there was some drama going on with an editor. Glad that everyone seems fine, and that concerns for the editor's well-being were perhaps exaggerated. Health and happiness. Now, am removing the contentious cartoon. We can all start at with a clean slate. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead

"The Israeli West Bank barrier is a security barrier being constructed by the State of Israel to protect the country from ongoing terror attacks, emanating from the West Bank." — This is the claim of the Israeli government, and the source given is the Israeli government. It cannot be given as fact but only as a claim. If this Israeli claim is given, the Palestinian claim must also be given. This is what the rules require of us. I think it is better to leave the issue of reasons until later where there is more space to discuss it properly. Zero^talk 15:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the ref "BBC_Q&A_September_2005"=Q&A: What is the West Bank barrier? used elsewhere in the article would be a far better source. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. The lede already reflects an overly-long summary of the opposing viewpoints contained in the article. That statement shouldn't be written in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia in any event. harlan (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur, see an edit was made but another editor has now reinserted the Israeli Gov't reasoning as the first-reference description of the wall, which does not seem to be NPOV, and anyway does not belong in the lead. RomaC (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted back to Zero's version while editors discuss where to present Israeli Gov't reasoning, do not believe it belongs on first reference, which should be NPOV. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If the israeli government is the organization which built the wall, then their reasoning is the one that belongs in the lede. The fact that there are those who disagree with the stated purpose of wall for political or other reasons is important, and needs to be discussed. But to remove the reasoning of the wall's constructor to me seems to be POV whitewashing. If anything, the proper response is to bring the Israeli reason in one sentence, and then another sentence along the lines of "there are others, including the Palestinians, who believe the wall was constructed for other reasons," and then have the expanded discussion later in the article where it belongs. However, removing the properly sourced and cited reason of the government responsible for constructing the barrier in the lede where the barrier is being introduced strikes me as being POV whitewashing. -- Avi (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that presenting primary sourced information provided by a belligerent in a conflict as unattributed fact is inappropriate. Essentially the material is advocating the narrative of the State of Israel. Imagine starting the article by presenting information provided by the other belligerent in the conflict as unattributed fact or starting it by presenting the view of the UN, EU, ICJ on the barrier as unattributed fact. What would you think then ? Would removing it still be POV whitewashing ? As wikipedia why would we have a preferemce for any of those narratives ? We have to comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from "Apartheid" Wall

When one types in "Apartheid Wall," it redirects to this page. I do not believe this should be because the term "Apartheid" is highly controversial, not to mention factually untrue when one applies the definition of apartheid, which includes explicit relation to race, and the barrier was built with no ideas of race involved. And this view has been expressed by a very high number in the political and academic community. The fact it is even a matter of dispute is why it should not redirect from "Apartheid Wall" to this page. I think it would be more appropriate for "Apartheid Wall" to go to a page which references the fact that some refer to the Israeli West Bank Barrier as such, with a link to this page.Tallicfan20 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See the result here Nableezy (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that name is untrue and misleading. However, it is unfortunately rather common, which is why we redirect the readers here, to the article with the correct name, that gives good and accurate information about it. The article also covers the issue of the barrier's various names, under "Names of the barrier". It is not the custom here the have separate articles for the same thing, even when different names are used. okedem (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel's security fence (the term used by the barrier's proponents) and Apartheid wall (the term used by the barrier's opponents) both redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier (the neutral term). So we have neutrality on naming. Compare Iron Curtain. --John Nagle (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a valid criteria for determining neutrality - "Apartheid Wall" is an inflammatory, provocative term. "Security wall" is merely a description. Something normal doesn't balance out something controversial. "Apartheid Wall" should not link to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.70.2 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects don't need to be neutral. That isn't their role, see WP:RNEUTRAL. Their role is to "point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term."

..and for interest

• Israeli_West_Bank_barrier - viewed 91307 times in 2010
• Apartheid_wall - viewed 986 times in 2010
• West_Bank_Security_Fence - viewed 139 times in 2010

Sean.hoyland - talk 01:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Where can I find information on Obamas opinion on the wall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.154.124 (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bias Article

This article seems quiet POV to me, with many of the sources coming from the Israeli State and military. The article needs a general clean up to focus it and remove as many POV statements as possible. If you have anything to add, or any real arguments against, please discuss here. I will get on with it in a week or two. I've had problems with people connected to the issue reverting my edits calling it a wall, people who obviously have personal reasons for it not to be called a wall because that sounds bad. By the way, the true definition of a wall doesnt make any comparison about the material it is made of:

'an architectural partition with a height and length greater than its thickness; used to divide or enclose an area or to support another structure It could be made of paper, concrete, glass, anything you can think of. What classifies it as a wall is that it encloses an area.

and another

'anything that suggests a wall in structure or function or effect; "a wall of water"; "a wall of smoke"; "a wall of prejudice"' A fence is a kind of wall and this again shows how the material it is made of doesnt matter. A barrier is a POV way of downplaying what it means to wall in a population.

One of the editors even told me that I should stop what I am doing because 'its been discussed a million times' which is in no way a defense against seeking to balance this article. And if its been discussed so much than obviously there is disagreement .

I would appreciate some support on these issues, and I will be mindful that most criticism will come from interested parties, with personal reasons to disagree.ValenShephard 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

ValenShephard, what you are doing here is original research and synthesis of sources to advance a position. Please review those two policies before making further edits. Secondly, since this is a controversial topic in of itself, I ask that you discuss edits before making them, especially controversial ones. Lastly, I don't think the article needs a general cleanup. It's not great, but it's not in bad shape like some other articles which I encourage you to look at when you have time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Give me an example of what you think I am doing. What original research? What sources did I synthesise? I can find dozens of sources that refer to it as a wall, what kind of source will be acceptable to you? How you define the structure is very important, it says alot about the intentions of the structure and its purpose. The subject of the article is very important to make more balanced because it is such a contentious event in the region. The article does mildly advance the Israeli POV and so are you. ValenShephard 14:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I have some comments too

• You need to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions before you do anything if you haven't done so already. This article is within scope of the sanctions.
• There's nothing wrong with information coming from the Israeli State and military. It's essential for WP:NPOV compliance to ensure that they're POV is represented and attributed to them, preferably via secondary rather than primary sources.
• Dictionary definitions aren't relevant. Wikipedia just names things according to WP:COMMONNAME. Editors opinions are irrelevant.
• 'a million times' is probably a slight exaggeration but it's hard to tell because there's no archive index on this page. I'll add one.
• I agree with Ynhockey that discussing controversial edits before making them is a sensible approach. You don't have to do that but if you make a controversial edit you should expect it to get reverted/changed per WP:BRD. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You have some good points, I read that common naming thing, look at this, done on google:

Hits for 'Israeli West Bank Wall': Results 1 - 10 of about 2,380,000 for israeli west bank wall. (0.26 seconds)

HIts for 'Israeli West Bank Barrier': Results 1 - 10 of about 397,000 for israeli west bank barrier. (0.15 seconds)

What do we make of this? ValenShephard 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Nothing? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Those numbers don't contain information that can be used to determine the common name used by reliable sources. Only reliable sources are relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that the ICJ, the highest judicial body in the world, explicitly rules out any terms other than "wall" in referring to the structure? Shoplifter (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the ICJ's advisory opinion are you referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall (the term which the General Assembly has chosen to use and which is also used in the Opinion, since the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense), the Court considers whether or not the construction of the wall is contrary to international law. " Shoplifter (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they don't explicitly rule out other terms, they simply explain why they picked the term 'wall' and the ICJ don't have any jurisdiction over language usage by anyone, anywhere. Even with the UN itself different bodies refer to it using different terminology just like UN resolutions sometimes refer to Israeli settlements as settlements and other times as neighborhoods. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

By saying that "wall" is the most accurate choice of wording, then it follows that the other choices are less accurate. Remember, this is a court of law. They're not picking paper slips out of a tombola. Their decisions have legal consequences, so also their (explicit) choice of terminology. This idea you have about different bodies of the UN using different words, that's a nice little fairy tale for the partisans, but it doesn't impinge on the fact that the General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution ordering Israel to stop building the "wall". Shoplifter (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, The Humanitarian Impact of the West Bank Barrier on Palestinian Communities - United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, a source that is already used in the article. You know, your attitude is pretty fucking annoying. Luckily I don't care but someone will at some point. You might want to do something about that if you want other editors to take proposals you make seriously. Comments like 'This idea you have' and calling people 'partisans' is particularly ill-advised. Also, making statements like 'it doesn't impinge on the fact that the General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution ordering Israel to stop building the "wall".' is pointless. Anyone editing this article should already know that and it's already in the article. Just focus on the article content and complying with wiki policies, try not to make comments about editors based on your models of what they believe (it's not about what editors believe) and don't make the fatal error of thinking you will achieve anything by battling other editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what, you're right. I was unnecessarily rude and flip, I apologize. But my point of the resolution voted on being the expression of the states' view, I retain is correct. And this should be our source in labeling the structure. Shoplifter (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

How exactly was it decided that it should be called barrier not wall thenValenShephard 17:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)? Most sources call it a wall, and looking at the instructions you told me to look at, wall is the most commonly used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I agree, it should be changed to "wall". Just because "barrier" is considered more neutral by certain news organizations (such as the BBC) that does not warrant that such a description be used in an encyclopedia which should rely on authoritative primary sources (the ICJ and the UN General Assembly in particular, both of whom use "wall" to describe the structure). Shoplifter (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does not primary sources if it can be avoided. Neutrality is also a core policy of Wikipedia, and is just as important (if not more) than verifiability. I suggest that you review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV before continuing. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you square the fact that the UN General Assembly (highest political body in the world) and the ICJ (highest judicial body in the world) uses the word "wall" before continuing. Or, in other words, literally the whole world (excluding the US, Israel and a few US satellite states in the Pacific Ocean) holds the structure to be a wall, according to the UN vote. Shoplifter (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And that is relevant because? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think you're feigning stupidity by this question (socratic irony, perhaps?), but I will answer you anyway. If 150 nations favor calling something by a certain designation, and 6 nations oppose, that equals a worlwide consensus. You like to throw around Wikipedia policies, do you remember the one about conforming to the worldwide view? Shoplifter (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a policy. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not the supreme authourity on what is and isnt wikipedia policy. This is getting out of hand.

I propose a section, quite high up the article because we have such contrasting views on it, which offers arguments on how the event should be named. Something like: 1,2,3,4,5 refer to it as A and 6,7,8,9,10 refer to it as B. You cant possibly have any objections to this because of the controvesy here, and the massive variations on how the structure is refered to from different sources. Best wishes ValenShephard 11:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Bias Naming continued

I've realised that the opponants to Not calling it a wall here have ran out of arguments. You are very bias individuals and all you can do is to link us to articles on how to edit wikipedia.

But even when I followed the rules of one of those links, on how the most commonly used name of an event or object should be used, if properly sourced, you refused to acknowledge that. You told me that the amount of hits on a search engine suddenly dont matter, even though your own link told me they do, and you started telling me that only proper sources can be used. Without ever telling me what a proper source is, and why the sources that you used to call it a barrier, are more valid than what others could find calling it a wall.

Now, we've found out that Israeli West Bank Wall gets 500%, or 5x, more hits on google than Israeli West Bank Barrier and the UN and ICJ refer to it as a wall, and on another note, have decreed that the wall is illegal.

How about the Berlin Wall, when it was initially built, was a chain link fence, yet it was still very widely referred to as a wall. There is no disagreement that the berlin wall was a wall, even when it was 'only' fencing. So how can we not agree that a fence, with some parts of it being concrete structures, does not constitue a wall? Afterall, a fence is a type of wall.

Also, there are many quotes from israels military and its state apparatus, yet we have no comparable quotes from the palestinian state, to the best of my knowledge.

If neutrality is the core of wikipedia, how can we use the name given to the wall by the people who built it? who decided that it should be built? The israelis call it a barrier because their reasons talk about it being defensive, a barrier is a defensive term. Just how the East German leadership used the excuse of defending themselves from the wests 'militarism' to built their own wall. In that sense that is not a very neutral stand point because the israeli naming and description of the wall and its purposes, are too heavily weighted in the article. if anything, the people who are affected by the wall should have their opinions heard also. But there is basically nothing, as far as i could tell, from sources of people walled in by the structure. If its not correct to add such things, then I will stand corrected.

The most neutral will be how the UN and ICJ refer to it, how they have explicitely given suggestions over how it should be called a wall. And yes, they do not control what language others use, but does the Israeli State and Military control how we should call it? If anything, the UNs word will be a great authourity on this issue.

You said that Israeli military and state sources should be used, and I totally agree, but their weight and frequency are above that of sources from the palestinian side. This needs to be fixed.

So in conclusion, the bias individuals that insist on sanitising this article, to make it seem acceptable to the world, by not calling it a wall, have ran out of real arguments and with the rising support for calling it a wall, I will continue this battle for fairness here.

I ask anyone who agrees with this to offer their arguments and sources to this issue. Please do not allow a small handfull of bias individuals to decide on how this structure will be called. Best wishes, ValenShephard 08:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I think we should compromise to calling it 'fence/wall' as it is composed of both fencing, and something which is unquestionably a wall. If there are no real onjections to this, then I will go through the article in the near future inserting this. ValenShephard 09:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I have some comments. You need to remove all comments about other editors, remove all arguments from first principals (arguments have to be based on reliable sources not logic), remove rhetorical questions based on first principals, remove personal opinions about which sources are the most neutral or have the most weight, remove arguments based on informationless ghit stats and see what you have left. None of those things are relevant for article content decisions.

I don't have a history of editing this article so actually I don't know what is the most policy compliant name for this article. If you want to change the name of the article you will need to do so based on policy compliant evidence. Before you even get that far I would suggest that you make sure that the decision procedure you intend to use to decide between alternative names is agreed in advance or else you will be wasting your time. Once you have that then you can carry out a wide ranging survey of high quality reliable sources to see which terminology they use and compile a list. You can't do that with google hits. You need to read the articles. An individual article is quite likely to use various terms so you might even need to count the instances of term usage. Also check the archives for existing surveys.

My point is that if you want to change something you will need evidence. If you have good policy compliant evidence and you have an agreed decision procedure then there is no policy based reason for anyone to object. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt trying to provide evidence for changing it, I will do that later, I was trying to point out some fundamental flaws in how this article is administered,. Google hits was an example, dont get stuck on part of the argument which you can easily battle. What was wrong with my other statements? They were my personal opinion for wanting to change the naming, not evidence for doing so. What I said about the neutrality of certain sources is not my opinion, a statement from the HUngarian government will be in the POV of hungary, the statements of a union, will be the POV of a union. All I was saying is that there should be more statements from other POVs to offer a balance, as most as from the Israli POV. Which one editor said needs to happen, and I agree, but other sources need to be there.ValenShephard 10:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

What will you accept as a reliable source? If I find a few from international bodies, then I guess you wont have any opposition to changing it to 'fence/wall'? If there is 4 in favour of calling it a barrier, I'll find 4 in favour of calling it a wall. So how do we then decide what to call it? I want an answer to that, because I have been consistently asking why its been decided to call it a barrier based on some sources, but not a wall based on other sources? Does their weight matter? Does what the UN carry more weight than a single country? I dont know, so i'm asking. ValenShephard 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Again, all I can do is refer back to the UN vote which includes the forceful language "not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem" and "not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction." [4] Since this resolution was adopted by 150 nations in favor, 6 opposed and with 10 abstentions, there is a worldwide consensus that the structure should be considered a wall. Shoplifter (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Here is a summary of my gripe with this article: Why has it been decided to call it a barrier when there are equally numerous and reliable sources reffering to it as a wall, fence, of both? It makes no sense to me why one source would have been taken more importance over the other, except for due to a POV of those who chose it. You could argue that its simply my POV to call it a wall, but from what I have seen, and I will provide sources soon, the name wall is more numerously seen in reliable sources from more nations and organisations than simply one perspective, provided overwhelmingly in this article.

I want to know why barrier was chosen first before we continue. Because by all the articles I've been linked to, the name wall or fence makes more sense according to their guidelines.

ValenShephard 10:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

First of all, why are you opening more than one talk section on the same topic? It is confusing to the reader. Secondly, you have answered your own question: "there are equally numerous and reliable sources reffering[sic] to it as a wall, fence, of both?"

That's exactly the problem, and why we came up with a neutral name. It's actually one of those rare circumstances where Wikipedians from both sides of the dispute agree. If you wish to affect a change, please create an argument based on Wikipedia policies, not on real-world debate, which is not relevant here, unless we are talking about reliable sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Final section of article dealing with "Apartheid" claims

At present, this final section of the main article consists of the following statement: "Some opponents of the barrier claim that building and maintaining the wall is a crime of apartheid,[105] isolating Palestinian communities in the West Bank and consolidating the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. However, this is disputed by others. [106][107]" That is the whole text. The statement is manifestly unbalanced. Reasons are given for the claim that the barrier is a "crime of apartheid," making out that it is a reasonable charge, even though, as if grudgingly, it is admitted that this is "disputed by others." But no reasons are given for why it might be reasonably disputed by others, so only one voice or view is actually justified at all in the text. Footnotes are presented on both sides, but this does not amount to equal treatment in the text as presented. In fact, any disagreement with the apartheid claims are made to seem weak and defensive rather than worthy of summary in the actual text. This is manifestly unbalanced and betrays non-neutral POV. So, without changing anything already in the present text, I have tried to add the following words after "but this is disputed by others": "who point out that the alleged "crimes" do not fit the definition of apartheid as given by the South African regime itself, and are further contradicted by the absence of racially discriminatory laws in Israel, the extension of full democracy to Israeli Arabs, and the state of belligerency between Israel and the Palestinians; this state of belligerency, not found in South Africa, requires not the intermixture and exploitation of Palestinians but on the contrary the strict separation of populations ensured by the security fence." That now does justice to the other side of this dispute. The reader can draw their own conclusions, thus ensuring the possibility in the text of a neutral point of view. The above clarification in the text is well-sourced, since it summarizes the footnoted sources already in the section, footnotes 106 and 107, thus it is adequate even according to previous editors's citations. But I have added to footnote 107 two further sources, namely: " Also see the article on "Debunking the Apartheid Analogy" on the Global Forum for Combatting Antisemitism, http://www.gfantisemitism.org/aboutus/Pages/DebunkingtheApartheidAnalogy.aspx and Gideon Shemoni, "Deconstructing Apartheid Accusations Against Israel," at http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=1806&TTL=Deconstructing_Apartheid_Accusatio" Despite the reasonableness of these minor additions, my contribution has been reverted constantly by various editors, and I have been threatened with being banned from Wikipedia on my own talk page. Be it noted, I have not eliminated any text presently on the site. So I am not reverting anybody. I am merely trying to ensure balance and NPOV by enlarging one sentence. This obviously troubles a number of editors. Such an inhospitable response to a minor contribution indicates a larger lack of NPOV in the article as a whole, already highlighted by earlier comments on this talk page.122.107.224.148 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those "sources" say one word about the wall. You are attempting to make a point not made by the "sources" provided, this is original synthesis of published sources to promote a view. That is against the policies of this website. Get a source that actually makes the point you are attempting to make and the material can be included. Until that time it remains original synthesis that will be removed. And a revert is any action that reverses another person's action. So each time you reinsert the material you are reverting the removal. And each removal is a revert of the insertion. Read WP:EW for more information on what constitutes a revert. Also, the crime of apartheid in international law is not dependent it being analogous to South Africa under apartheid. The crime of apartheid is "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." See here. nableezy - 00:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My summary as already given includes the items ALREADY in the footnotes cited, not just the new ones I added. My point is not an original synthesis, but has often been pointed out. However, I appreciate your comment, since it sent me back to the sources and I have one that is really exceptionally appropriate to add, so it strengthens my contribution, namely, Ronnie Sabel, "The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid," from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, at http://www.jcpa.org/text/apartheid.pdf See his page 11, and all the website sources cited there in footnotes 59, 60 and 61. I happily add these references to my edit, and thank you for the suggestion. These specifically make the claim that the security fence, which is used by apartheid accusers as evidence, is necessary instead to defend Israel from attack, my non-original point in the edit. I presume now that in accordance with your promised agreement the edit will be permitted to appear in the article. The revised text will therefore appear as already written, with the additional citation of the above work in footnote 107. By the way, Nableezy, I notice that you like to call the security fence a "wall." May I respectfully point out that this is 97% false, since 97% of the security barrier is a fence in actual fact, and only 3% true? I hope that this is not to you an acceptable standard of truth in your Wikipedia statements about Israel? Perhaps this sheds some light on the use of the "apartheid" label itself, with "apartheid" clearly being radically different from the Israel-Palestinian situation, so that it has to be redefined merely to a vague synonym for "racism in general," and even then it does not apply in the slightest to Israel's relation with the Palestinians -- as pointed out in the edit we are discussing. 122.107.224.148 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research, and pay particular attention to the section about "synthesis". Everything you are adding to the article is "original research", that is, your own analysis, not supported by the sources you cite. In order to avoid synthesis, you must find sources that make the point with respect to the Security Wall, not about Israel and apartheid in general.

Also, please read WP:BURDEN. It is your responsibility to demonstrate why the material you want to add to the article satisfies Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually none of it is original research, as you might discover if you bothered to read the cited works. And this is easy to show. However, I will demonstrate the justification for this assertion when I have time for it.122.107.224.148 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I call it a wall because the case at the ICJ is commonly called the Wall case (officially Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory). And I noticed you like to call it a "security barrier". Each of us has a POV, the important part is that we edit articles in accordance with NPOV. I wouldnt have a problem with you using this source to include why detractors of the claim that the wall is an act of apartheid say so. The reason I have reverted you is that the sources you gave did not back the edit you made. If you provide proper sourcing I think it would be fine to include. But I am not the only person who has objected to the edit and I would suggest you wait a bit before re-adding it to the article. There is a problem with using this source to support your edit though. Your edit does not talk about the claim that the wall is an example of Israel committing the crime of apartheid, it is an OR view that because this is not analogous to South African Apartheid (note the capitalization) or the OED definition of apartheid that it is not so and that further the "state of belligerency between Israel and the Palestinians" that it requires a "security fence" is needed to "strict separation of population". The first part of your edit plainly does not belong in the article as it is an attempt to answer the overall claim that Israel is guilty of apartheid and not specific to whether or not the wall is an example of apartheid. A place for it (with a proper source of course) could be Israel and the apartheid analogy. What the source does support is the second part of the edit, though the wording needs to be changed. I would phrase it as "who say that Israel has the right to erect a barrier to protect itself and its citizens from terrorist threats. They also argue that while the ICJ criticized the route of the barrier for going beyond the Green Line, at no time did the ICJ say that Israel does not have the right to build a barrier nor did they refer to it as an "Apartheid Wall"." Those sentences would be supported by the source and, in my view, appropriate for inclusion. But, again, I suggest you wait to see what others have to say. nableezy - 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Now you want to change your previously given commitment since I fulfilled it, and wish to create another obstacle, excluding the tiny little addition I made on the new grounds that it is actually suddenly irrelevant to the topic. Of course it is not. But I am not really surprised: that really is exactly what I thought you would do. And, as far as that goes, the ICJ did indeed term the security fence barrier a "Wall," indicating that it too finds no problem in stating as true fact something that is 97% false. In their case, no charitable assumption can be made that they were unaware of the actual realities, so for them it was simply a conscious and intentional lie. That tells us where the ICJ is coming from, and why Israel quite rightly refused its adjudication in this matter, making the opinion the ICJ insisted on giving merely an opinion, without any legal force or application. As for the actual no-no of my attempt to restore a minimal balance to this little section on the Apartheid analogy, that is something I shall return to in due course when I have time for it, after this coming week.122.107.224.148 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not commit to anything. I read the source you just provided and made my own determination of what it supports and what it does not. Any material you wish to insert needs to be related to the topic of the article through the sources. I have not created any obstacles for you, I quite plainly stated what I think can be in the article and what I think cannot be in the article. Your argument about Israel not being guilt of apartheid because it is not analogous to South African Apartheid or because it does not meet the OED definition is both unsupported by the source and completely irrelevant to the wall, the topic of this article. You can continue trying to place your own opinions on these issues in the article, but they will continue to be removed. And if you persist you may find yourself unable to edit the article. nableezy - 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ advisory opinion dealt with the legal consequences of existing international law. That means their advice isn't necessarily a mere opinion. Some of Israel's so-called supporters said there was actually no need for the Court to pile-on.

For example, Great Britain's statement to the Court said:

"At the meeting on 20 October 2003, no speaker admitted any doubt as to the illegality of the wall (one speaker expressed the opinion that the statement that it was illegal was merely restating the obvious) or suggested any reason why the opinion of the Court was necessary for the work of the General Assembly. This is not a case in which the General Assembly genuinely needs legal advice in order to carry out its functions. It has already declared the wall to be illegal. The United Kingdom voted in favour of that resolution." [5]

Your JCPA source does not address the Syrian, Lebanese, or Palestinian written statements regarding the crime of apartheid in the Wall case, or the fact that they cited the ICERD, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, and the Rome Statute. All of those list apartheid as a grave breach of the law and/or a crime. Most western countries are state parties to one or more of those conventions. While he says the ICSPCA is considered obsolete, it is nevertheless incorporated in the latest published version of the International Criminal Court's Legal Tools.

I've never heard of a campaign to de-legitimize Israel or the Wall. Every other country in the world has voted in favor of resolutions saying that Israel's actions in the OPT "have no legitimacy" in the first place, and the Wall was just the latest example. P.S. I reverted you because there are a number of well known lists of laws in Israel that discriminate against the citizens of non-Jewish nationality. See for example page 26 of Apartheid against the Palestinian People [6] harlan (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

INFO

Where can i find information on Obamas opinion on the wall? please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.154.124 (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag added September 2010

All relevant subsections should be balanced between the pro and anti barrier opinions. The lead should position prominently the consensus intl law position.Haberstr (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What? the article is balanced fine, all relevant positions are stated clearly. If anything the article is too big. tag-spamming is not okay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ftsw blocked as a sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasK. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction comments

In the introduction, paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 seems both misplaced and not neutral. Supporters and opponents personal opinions and reasons for their standpoints should not be part of that section, or in the article at all in the current form. Statistics and relevant numbers should be placed in sections relevant to what they provide, such as sub sections of Effects and consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadahl (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rv

I reverted the edit by the LibiBamizrach account as its a blocked account that has been blocked because its either a sock and/or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for his actions with several accounts = abusing multiple accounts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bard

A couple of users have been reinserting a piece by Mitchell Bard from the JVL into the article. The things that JVL hosts from other reliable sources are reliable, however the things that Bard himself puts together are not. There is no editorial board at JVL, there is no known process of fact-checking, there are none of the things that make a source reliable. If this material is accurate you should have no trouble finding a better source for it. nableezy - 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Better source added (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and prose re-written to reflect source (e.g. 90% statistic removed). -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Avi, though I would prefer that when we cite the MFA that we give an explicit attribution. nableezy - 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I thought I did attribute it in the citation? -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant in-text attribution, such as "according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs ..." nableezy - 18:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Better? -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup. nableezy - 21:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that level of detail belongs in the body of the article, not in the lede. See WP:LEDE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Likely so, I was just trying to ensure proper sourcing; if a better construction can be found that keeps the spirit in the lede and moves the stats to the body, I have no issues with that. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the use of this source may be WP:SYNTH, because it discusses the number of deaths (page 4), but it doesn't mention the security barrier. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly SYNTH. It would not only need to mention the barrier but also assert a casual relationship between the barrier and the attacks. It does neither. Zero^talk 08:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always found JVL to be quite reliable and accessible. A lot of the pages do include secondary citations. Here is the lead prior to Avi's additions link.

Two things wrong IMO:

• A) No mention of the start of the construction. The lead should mention when the barrier was put in place. One could infer such a barrier existed since 1948. The date of construction isn't mentioned until a dozen paragraphs later.
• B) And naturally the lead should include the motivation behind the barrier. The link between the second intifada and the violence was the rationale. That should be emphasized. Opposition should then follow, etc..etc. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy?

This article is so full of weasel expressions it is not even funny. "Some say this while others say that" is pointless if it is not mentioned who says what and out of which motivation. ♆ CUSH ♆ 05:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why the index of this discussion page is called "West_Bank_barrier" while the end tag of the address of the article is "Apartheid_wall"? The very name of the file proclaims bias. The file should be renamed in accordance with the title.

And note that this suggests a bias at Wikipedia itself rather than by a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.72.12 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you search for "apartheid wall", or follow a link to that phrase? If so, you got redirected here automatically, but the URL at the top would show ".../Apartheid_wall", and the article title would show

"Israeli West Bank barrier
(Redirected from Apartheid wall)"

It's letting you know how you got here, (and giving you a link to the redirect page, in case the redirect should be changed).

—WWoods (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much ideology and technical details are missing

It seems to me that the article contains too much propaganda and the factual description of the wall is missing. I opened it because I wanted to know how much of the barrier is already constructed and what is the expected deadline. However, I cannot see such basic facts here. 88.102.95.151 (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Who needs facts about the wall in an article about the wall when you can list the political opinions of every irrelevant leftist figure? -75.150.254.105 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please Allow Quote to Remain

I think the quote by Arnold Roth should be allowed to stay on the page to go with section discussing Israeli opinions. Many quotes have been given by those who oppose it. Even though Roth is not a politician, the statement is well-sourced and other articles on Wikipedia have given quotes by people who are not famous. --2602:304:6F76:2CB9:68C4:F7F5:A290:5A96 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

the author is not notable, and the quote should be removed. It adds nothing to the article.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Roth's personal tragedy notwithstanding, his opinion carries no weight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So unless you are famous, your opinion is of no value? Good to know. --74.192.78.125 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Palestinian West Bank" ?

"between Israel and Palestinian West Bank"
This statement, that the entire west bank is exclusive Palestinian territory distinct from Israeli teritory, is in contrast to the policy of the Israel and the U.S. Megaidler (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for Building the Barrier

I changed:

"Supporters argue..."

to

"Israel argues that the barrier is necessary..."

I read the source associated with the phrase and there is no mention of any other supporters except for Israel:

" What is the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area?

The Security Fence is being built with the sole purpose of saving the lives of the Israeli citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000. The fact that over 800 men, women and children have been killed in horrific suicide bombings and other terror attacks clearly justifies the attempt to place a physical barrier in the path of terrorists. It should be noted that terrorism has been defined throughout the international community as a crime against humanity. As such, the State of Israel not only has the right but also the obligation to do everything in its power to lessen the impact and scope of terrorism on the citizens of Israel. "

The source in question comes from the Israeli Ministry of Defense and does not mention any other country that supports the reason for building the barrier. http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm

So why was this edit reverted?

Thanks,user: karimmtl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talk • contribs) 11:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because I mistakenly believed there were more sources than just the Israeli Ministry of Defense. I've restored your change. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad References

Here is the line in the introduction:

Some Jewish settlers condemn the barrier for appearing to renounce the Jewish claim to the whole of the Land of Israel.[11]

The source links to an archive page http://web.archive.org/web/20071008123543/http://www.womeningreen.org/sayjune02.htm where a woman called Ruth Matar is simply stating her opinion. Ruth Matar is a nobody, the source is simply her opinion.

If no one objects I'll remove that part of the introduction, or can the moderator remove it him or herself.

Thanks Karimmtl 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talk • contribs)

Malik, do you object to me removing that part of the article? Or did anyone else read the link and researched who Ruth Matar or womeningreen is? In not I will remove it today, so please don't accuse me of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. If anybody objects, you can discuss it with them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another bad reference: "According to a 2005 report published by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, the barrier being built around Jerusalem may have unintended effects on the city. According to the study, many Jerusalem Palestinians who were living in areas outside the barrier are now moving back into the city, creating housing shortages, increased real estate prices, and the phenomenon of Palestinians moving into traditionally Jewish neighborhoods of the city."

Although this is an interesting and important section, the reference for this source links to an article discussing the danger of a nuclear Iran (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/)and has nothing to do with the text in question. I will try to search for a source to support the claims otherwise...another one bites the dust. Karimmtl 22:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talk • contribs)

References or notes

CAN WHOEVER is misusing <ref> tags please desist?? Zero^talk 12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. (That was me, obviously.) I believe it is now in the appropriate state. If not, please let me know. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok now. Feel free to delete this whole section including my comments. Zero^talk 06:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding, "...designed to create physical separation..." to the introduction?

sockpuppet

[This section is intended to exclude ISC/ICJ discussion which is (currently) on another section of this talk page.] The introductory paragraph currently reads, "The Israeli West Bank barrier is a barrier built by Israel in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line"). Upon completion, its total length will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi), laying 9.4% of the West Bank and 23,000 Palestinians apart to the 'Israeli' (Western) side." I am soliciting comments to determine whether it is possible or recommended to include text about the purpose of the barrier perhaps along the lines, (rough draft proposed) "The Israeli West Bank barrier is a barrier built by Israel in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line") designed to create physical separation between Israelis?/Jews? west of the barrier and Palestinians?/Arabs? east of the barrier. Upon completion, its total length will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi), laying 9.4% of the West Bank and 23,000 Palestinians apart to the 'Israeli' (Western) side." (optional draft text) "...separation between large populations of..."? Is there a way of writing text along these lines that is NPOV and makes sense from many POVs, e.g., could be read as "separates large populations of Israelis?/Jews? to steal West Bank land by including settlements in the West Bank on the western side of the barrier" and also could be read as "separates large populations of Palestinians?/Arabs? from which many suicide bombers and terrorist have come". (Note: I am not saying I agree with either of these and I have written this text in the extreme for illustrative purposes to ask whether there is some common text that is mutually agreed.) I believe there are many references that could be cited from many POVs to support something like this. Currently, the first paragraph does not address "Why?" because the answer is controversial and may require more detail than is appropriate for an introductory paragraph... but maybe there is a way (at least partially) to answer "Why?" in the first paragraph. Comments? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just Another Brick in the Wall

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

Just Another Brick in the Wall

Israel in the process of building a wall, that when completed, will be approximately 3% of the length of the Great Wall of China. The idea of building walls to protect borders or ideologies is not a new concept for humanity (Berlin Wall), so why is this wall the subject of such contention? http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Border_barrier

“Maybe because it is part of one of the oldest recognized armed conflicts in the world” (http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=United_Nations and http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Uppsala_Conflict_Data_Program), or pehaps is it because of the contant spotlight the media shines on this conflict?

It would be irresponsible to give a definitive answer any of these questions, however the wall is still being being built. As a defense mechanism against incursions it has shown its value for Israel for defensive purposes, on the other hand it has demonstrated an adverse impact on the Palestinian livelihood, limiting access to education, health, water, etc.

Does anyone have the moral authority to determine if this is the best collaborative solution? As the UN has done its best to productively address the situation, as its Charter addresses, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml), hence the implementation of UN’s recommendations is left up to the states, and is still currently a subject of debate.

Albert Einstein has been quoted as having said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results”; maybe the answer to this is not the option that humanity has used since time immemorial but looking at the situation from another angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.78.29 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Organization of Introduction section

Sockpuppet

This is support for a brief summary in the Introduction section and its proposed format. This is not an argument for excluding facts from the article, but only for placing the inclusion of all relevant facts in the appropriate sections. The current (my last) edit kept the Introduction format as, Paragraph 1: briefly describe Who? What? Where? (but not Why? because Why? is disputed and is covered in Paragraphs 2 and 3). Paragraph 2: "Barrier proponents..." topic sentence with 73 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary) Paragraph 3: "Barrier opponents..." topic sentence with 77 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary) Also, there is a section on "names" which is prominently located as the first section in the article. This covers the different names so "(or Wall)" need not be in the Introduction. Also, technically the 1949 Armistice line is not recognized (by anyone?) as a border (See: "without prejudice to future borders...") so the term "border" should probably be replaced with only the more accurate and neutral "1949 Armistice Line" (optional: "('Green Line')" SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Short and incomplete response: the wordings "Barrier proponents/opponents" should be removed anyway. This is not an opinion poll. Section "Names" is no reason to omit names from the lede. I question why the section "Names" needs to exist in the first place. In this article the green line need not be discussed. If that line is under discussion, any first article link can solve that. What I miss is clear clean fact listing. Areas and people affected. That's simple numbers. I already added some sourced figures. And while we are at it: why is the page named like this, while it does not represent any of the names in play?. (Since it is across (throughout) the West Bank, I'll propose the Palestinian name by first option). -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Before continuing here, please undo the 1RR breach. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Re: introduction section organized as Paragraph 1 (one or two sentences summarizing Who? What? Where?), Paragraph 2 (Barrier proponents say...), Paragraph 3 (Barrier opponents say...), this seems to be a fairly standard way to present controversial issues on Wikipedia with NPOV... to acknowledge outright that the issue is controversial and to present the different views. To save space, text such as "The barrier is very controversial" is omitted but clearly implied. To ignore this would seem to be a disservice to the reader. Consider how to present, "The purpose of the barrier is..." without using some sort of literary device that presents a dichotomy ("Some say... On the other hand..."). The 73- and 77-word paragraphs seem to summarize these perspectives fairly. Re: "simple numbers", it is not so simple. Consider the conclusion of the first paragraph with, "The ICJ has stated that the barrier as constructed is illegal" vs. "The Israeli Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the barrier." Not so simple... not just numbers. Re: the "names" section, the reason for having this section is to organize similar points in a single section which is referenced by a Table of Contents. The four paragraphs discussing four common/authoritative/used naming conventions are all relevant and should be included in the article. (A rhetorical question might be, "Why not get rid of all sections and just put all of the text in the introduction?"... well... the answer is: sections organize the article.) (I do not know why the article is named IWBB.) Re: the Green Line, I do not understand the reference to "discussing" it. I suggested that the term "border" is not the most accurate because (I believe... not sure) nobody (Israel? PA? UN?) recognizes this as a border in the sense of being a recognized, permanent, political border. To the contrary, the phrase from the 1949 Israel-Jordanian Armistice agreement is often quoted, "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines" to emphasize that it is NOT a border. Rather than the term, "border" and its political connotations, I suggest using the term "1949 Armistice Line" with an optional "("Green Line")" to recognize the very widely used term, Green Line. The 1949 Armistice Line need not be discussed -- it can be linked. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Before I can dive into this, please first revert the WP:1RR edit I mentioned ( [7] and [8]). -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Your promise not to continue is accepted. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Getting sneaky? -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (Your promise not to continue remains accepted) Re: Paragraph 1, I propose, "The Israeli West Bank barrier is an Israeli-built barrier throughout the West Bank or along the [1949 Armistice Agreements|1949 Armistice line ('Green Line')]REF.../REF Upon completion, its total length from ((northern end)) to ((southern end)) will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi).REF.../REF" the removal of "wall" from the introduction is only for summary purposes. There is a good discussion of the names of the IWBB prominently in the first section below the introduction. (Rhetorical question: "Why not include everything in the introduction?" Answer: "Because it's a summary.") the opinion of the ICJ is already in the ICJ section and was/is in the third paragraph of the introduction. Again, "Why not include everything?" Answer: "Because this is a brief summary. The other relevant parts are in the article." E.g., NOT "The IWBB is... and the ICJ opined it is illegal... and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled it is legal... and some people believe it has reduced terrorist bombings... and some people believe it has increased unemployment... and... etc.")— Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattliteTungsten (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I restored the situation into before you broke the 1RR rule. From this point, I can read comments. I repeat the you (@SeattliteTungsten:) are not allowed to write on my talkpage any more, because you called me a 'terrorist', twice. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I changed the Introduction to cite the 2004 Israeli Supreme Court case which upheld the legality of building the barrier for security reasons. I do not actually expect this change to last for more than 100 seconds and I am doing this to encourage discussion of the issue on the Talk page, as I have previously encouraged, but which you have so far refused to do. I am trying to suggest that putting *any* reference to controversial opinions in the leading paragraph is not the best format. The legality is a very complicated issue and is difficult to summarize in the introduction. I am suggesting that the Introduction be kept to a brief summary of a short description of What? Who? Where? When? with (again, brief) summaries of various points which are then covered in detail, in the article, organized by a ToC into logical sections with all POVs. My suggested format for the introduction is three paragraphs: P1 (very brief What? Where? Who?), P2 (Supporters argue...) and P3 (Opponents argue...) where P2 and P3 are approximately equal in size. ...Comments? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC) 100 seconds you can have. Why did you call me a terrorist, twice? And: that Israeli High Court, what were they High on? Thanks -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I am very surprised the reference to the Israeli Supreme Court decision has lasted more than 100 seconds. I agree to remove the reference to the Israeli Supreme Court if there is a process of discussion and solicitation of opinions on this Talk page about a structure for the Introduction page. I have tried to initiate such a discussion (above) but so far nobody has commented on a proposed design of introduction that is NPOV or suggested the rationale behind any other structure for the introduction. I am again asking you and others for comments on the proposed P1, P2, P3 structure described above. (I propose moving forward as best we can. If you really, really, really, really want to have a discussion about my use of the word terrorist and your use of the word "high" we can have that on your talk page. I prefer just to try moving forward. I spent about 1/2 hour reading the English version of the Israeli Supreme Court decision and I recommend you do the same. It is very well-considered and explains the nuances of international law which make this issue complicated.) Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Hi, everybody. I remain surprised that the reference to the Israeli Supreme Court decision has remained as long as it has. Nobody has commented here about the proposed three paragraph format: P1 = extremely brief, facts that both sides agree on, Who? What? Where?; P2 = Proponents claim...; P3 = Opponents claim. IMHO, references to either the ICJ or the ISC decisions are too much detail for the introduction but if someone disagrees they can be put, respectively, in either P2 or P3. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC) It should be mentioned in the lede. Illegal by Isreal. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Can you eloborate on this? It seems that one POV is, "In 2004, the ICJ ruled that... illegal" and another POV would be, "In 2004, the ISC ruled that... legal." The ISC ruling was by the highest court having jurisdiction. The ICJ ruling was a non-binding advisory opinion lacking consent to jurisdiction so it seems the ISC ruling is more relevant -- at least, both rulings have similar relevance. So, then there is a situation where to be NPOV both rulings should be mentioned... but then they have to be explained... and then there is a situation where the introduction devotes (maybe) 1/5 or 1/4 or 1/3 of the introductory text explaining the legal issues, jurisdiction, and potentially the inclusion of comparing/contrasting the two rulings. Then, it begs the question, "Why is this much detail in the introduction?" It seems to me that the introduction should only cover a very brief overview of the IWBB. Comments/explanation/reasoning about why you are proposing the structure you propose? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC) No need to 'elaborate'. Your scheme of "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" (or whatever opinions you gather) says it all: you sweep newspapers and higher courts into the same section. I maintain that a statement by a court this important should be in the lede. More so because the Israeli state court contradicts Israeli state behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) You wrote that there is no need for you to elaborate on this talk page. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I have only watched this from afar. I am not against this division into "barrier proponents" and "opponents". However, there should be WP:DUE weight given, and there should not be any false balance. The opponents include the ICJ, and it should be mentioned in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, I agree that WP:DUE is an issue here. My addition (and subsequent removal) of, "In 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that building a barrier for security reasons is legal under international law" to the first paragraph of the introduction was meant to demonstrate that putting either of these two citations (ICJ, ISC) in the first paragraph is problematic because the two rulings, with explanation, with context is simply more detail than is appropriate for the first paragraph of this article. The first paragraph should simply answer What? Who? Where? etc. as simply and noncontroversially as possible. The other information is not removed from the article but simply put in the appropriate section. I suggest that this is a WP:DUE problem, (AAA) P1: "The barrier is... and the ICJ ruled it violated international law." P2: "Barrier proponents argue..." P3: "Barrier opponents argue..." as is this likewise/similarly a WP:DUE problem, (BBB) P1: "The barrier is... and the ISC ruled the barrier is legal under international law." P2: "Barrier proponents argue..." P3: "Barrier opponents argue..." but this is too cumbersome, (CCC) P1: (long winded... could exceed 250 words) "The barrier is... and the ISC ruled the barrier is legal under international law and the ICJ ruled it violates international law and you have to understand that the ICJ opinion was advisory based on a UN General Assembly resolution but has not been ratified by the Security Council and you have to understand that the ISC is the highest court having jurisdiction because Israel did not consent to ISC jurisdiction but you also have to understand that while Israel did not appear for oral arguments Israel did submit a written document to the ICJ in which Israel addressed the lack of jurisdiction and you have to understand that under the 1949 Armistice agreements... and this is the end of the first paragraph of this article." P2: "Barrier proponents argue..." P3: "Barrier opponents argue..." so I am suggesting that this might be the most sensible way that does not violate WP:DUE, (DDD) P1: "The barrier is... [very short and noncontroversial paragraph] <= 75 words" P2: "Barrier proponents argue... [optional: include brief summary to ISC ruling and link to details] <= 100 words" P3: "Barrier opponents argue... [optional: include brief summary to ICJ ruling and link to details] <= 100 words" From the AAA supporters, I ask, "If you suggest AAA is best, why not BBB?" The reason I ask this question should be obvious. I think both AAA and BBB are too POV which leaves CCC or DDD (or EEE... TBD!) but CCC is too cumbersome, ergo, DDD. Comments? Thanks and have a wonderful day. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC) It's hard to figure out what what is happening in this section, but I'll make some comments. The ICJ is the highest judicial authority in international law according to the UN Charter which Israel signed. Although the ISC is free to disagree with it, to claim that the two are somehow equal is absurd. It is also misleading as well as an NPOV violation to write as now "The Security Council has yet to accept the ICJ's ruling". Why not write "The Security Council has yet to reject the ICJ's ruling", which is just as true? Despite the implication, and ST's even stronger "has not been ratified by the Security Council", there is no need for the SC to approve ICJ opinions and no ratification procedure exists. The SC has enforcement powers that no other UN organ has, but it is not superior to the ICJ in judicial matters. It is the other way around, as is clear in the UN Charter (Article 92, and Article 1 of the ICJ statute, also see Article 36). This advisory opinion was requested by and provided to the GA, not the SC, anyway. Also, advisory opinions are non-binding because that is the rule for advisory opinions, not because Israel didn't consent to it. There is in fact no concept of consent that applies to advisory opinions so the question is not even meaningful. Zerotalk 05:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Hi. Thank you for your comments. There might be other things happening in this section but one thing that is happening is an attempted discussion of AAA vs. BBB vs. CCC vs. DDD structures (see above for these references). I have suggested DDD is best and tried to explain why. Assuming you are suggesting that either AAA or CCC is better, you (perhaps inadvertently) have very well demonstrated why AAA tends to morph into CCC which then becomes very unmanagable for the introduction. Remember, I am not suggesting that any of the points you raise should not be included in the article: I am only suggesting that a fair presentation with all of the details becomes too much for the introduction. I might illustrate this by inserting text taken directly from another Wikipedia page: "In October 2003, United Nations Security Council (which has enforcement powers that no other UN organ has) rejected a resolution stating, "The construction by Israel, the occupying power, of a wall in the Occupied Territories departing from the armistice line of 1949 is illegal under relevant provisions of international law and must be ceased and reversed." However, in December 2003, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to make a non-binding advisory opinion on the "legal consequences arising" from the construction of the barrier. The ICJ is the highest judicial authority in international law according to the UN Charter which Israel signed. The hearings began in February 2004. However, Israel made a written submission to the court rejecting the authority of the court to rule on the case, announced it would not appear at the court to make oral submissions, noted that advisory rulings of the ICJ are not binding, and on January 30, 2004, announced officially it did not recognize ICJ authority to rule over the barrier issue. However, Wikipedia editors such as Zero agree advisory opinions are non-binding but state this is the rule for advisory opinions. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell also noted that the ICJ ruling was not binding and on July 13, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution HR 713 deploring "the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)... for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations between the parties." [16] The Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case." However, the ISC (which is the highest court of the government controlling the West Bank and whose opinions are binding and non-advisory) ruled that building a barrier for security reasons was legal under international law." The point of the above gobbldygook is to suggest that the issue is complicated and should be addressed in detail... in the appropriate sections. It requires too much detail to include in the introductory paragraph. (Please don't argue with the substance of the above paragraph. The point is to illustrate that it is a complicated subject -- not to suggest that the above text is final, ready copy.) (To editors: please explicitly argue in favor or against AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (or EEE (TBD!)). Thanks and have a wonderful day. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC) @SeattliteTungsten: I am afraid you have yet to grasp the most important rule of WP discussions: WP:TLDR. Please address the problem in bite-sized chunks. Nobody reads walls of text. The Israeli supreme court is Israel's own judicial body, and it governs Israel's domestic actions. To compare it with the ICJ which is an independent international body is absurd. You can mention that ISC has rendered opinion, but to avoid false balance, one must give due weight to the opinion outside Israel, which considers the barrier illegal. Kingsindian (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC) For the ADHD-challenged: "Please explicitly argue in favor or against AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (or EEE (TBD!))." These four structures -- describing where ICJ and ISC are mentioned in the introduction -- are defined above. I am arguing in favor of DDD. Three of the descriptions are each three lines, which is bite-sized. (If "or EEE (TBD!)" is not clear, this means "you may define another proposed structure for discussion and the next structure after the ones proposed could be referred to as EEE." The differences between AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD are the placement of references to ICJ and ISC, if any, in the introduction and how detailed they are.) I fully appreciate WP:TLDR which is why I am arguing for having a short introduction with details presented in bite-sized sections in the same article or in different articles. The purpose of my inclusion of the paragraph I referred to as "gobbldygook" was to illustrate that too much information in the introduction will make it useless because people will gloss over it and not read it. (The "gobbldygook" is only illustrative of my argument that too much text is "becomes very unmanagable for the introduction." The substance of my previous comment without the gobbldygook was only 225 words. I am sorry if this was too long.) I concur that in the present context comparing the ICJ and the ISC is absurd. The ISC is the supreme judicial authority having opinions regarding the barrier that are binding, will be enforced, and will ultimately and finally control the future of the barrier. By contrast, the ICJ's opinions are almost completely irrelevent. (Barrier route changes result from ISC rulings not ICJ rulings. I am not expressing a POV about whether I believe this description of the world is good or bad: I am only expressing a POV that if you believe the opposite, you live in La-la-Fairy-Wiki-Land not reality.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Might makes right" is not a rule we follow here on Wikipedia. The ICJ ruling is authoritative, regardless of whether it is implemented or not. In the barrier opponents section, we should indicated that it includes the rest of the world, the ICJ, human rights orgs, the Red Cross and international law specialists. In the proponents, we can add the ISC and Israeli govt. Due weight should be given and the respective weight made clear. How exactly this is done can be discussed. Kingsindian (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I oppose "might makes right" and the use of physical force on Wikipedia. I officially retract any previous statements I made suggesting that "might makes right" is a rule we follow here on Wikipedia. To the extent that "might makes reality" regarding the legal and administrative control of a geographical area, i.e., German control of Paris, Allied control of Paris, Polish control of Danzig, U.S. control of Texas and California, Jordanian control of the West Bank, Israeli control of the West Bank... reporting the reality NPOV is a rule we follow here on Wikipedia. Due weight should be given to, "Twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had 'submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case.'" in addition to due weight being given to the nature of the ICJ's ruling being advisory and non-binding in addition to due weight being given to the ISC ruling. It would be helpful to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD. (I posted and subsequently removed an example of BBB to try to illustrate that BBB (and AAA) are both not NPOV.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC) You continue to claim NPOV status for items that are not. Consider your 23 countries claim. First, you don't have a source for it except some US politician, but let's assume it is correct. That's less than half the submissions and even a smaller fraction if the European Union submission is counted according to all its countries (which is what a US politician would do). Why aren't the majority of the submissions getting a mention? It's also misleading since many of the submissions asking the ICJ to not issue an opinion do not deny the jurisdiction of the court and make strong statements against the wall. For example the European Union submission says that "the proposed request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice is inappropriate. It will not help the efforts of the two parties to relaunch a political dialogue." but then it goes on to emphasise the EU's own resolution "that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law”. Including this as if it somehow supports Israel's case is unacceptable. Zerotalk 00:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC) And, incidentally, the statements of G8 members Japan and Russia do not request the ICJ to decline the case. Zerotalk 00:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Thank you. This continues to well illustrate that the issue is complicated -- more complicated than the appropriate amount of space in the introduction can provide. This is why I have suggested that the DDD structure is best with a very brief mention, if any, (and a link to the section providing lots of detail). I am not suggesting any information be deleted. I am only suggesting that the text should be well organized into logical sections and not all (largely, mostly) reiterated in the introduction. It would be helpful to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (see above) or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC) This well illustrates that the issue is complicated and requires a lot of information -- more detail that can be provided in an introduction. Again, I am not suggesting that any information be deleted from the article. I am only suggesting that it be well organized into logical sections and not all (largely, mostly) reiterated in the introduction. It would be helpful to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (see above) or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD. If you are not arguing in favor of a proposed structure for the introductory text and are simply arguing with me, that is okay but let us know. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC) After weeks of editing, here and elsewhere, the lede is still not encyclopedic. Nothing has been done with my original points. It still needs an overhaul. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC) It would be helpful to identify what you propose. One way to do this is to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (see above) or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD by process of elimination: AAA has POV/WP:DUE problems ("If you favor AAA, why not BBB?"); BBB has POV/WP:DUE problems ("If you favor BBB, why not AAA?"); CCC is unwieldy and inappropriately long for the introduction. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC) What are you doing, SeattliteTungsten? First you call me a terrorist, and now you changed your own post to make me look like a fool [9]? What "Help" do you need? -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) (What I am trying to do is: inquire and seek consensus -- or compromise -- regarding a format for the introduction. I did move a lot of my own text from my own postings to footnotes (to be deleted?) because another editor complained there was too much to read. It think it is okay to subordinate one's own comments. I did not modify any of your comments. You wrote that your own comments make you "look like a fool" (your words, not mine). Please do not blame me for this.) It would be helpful for you to identify what you are advocating, and why it is better than other alternatives. To help facilitate this, I have outlined four paragraph structures for the introduction (AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD: see above) for ease of reference. If you don't like any of mine and want to suggest your own, feel free to do so (start with EEE). I am arguing in favor of DDD which has (optionally) only a short reference to ICJ and ISC rulings and a links to full details. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Basic talkpage behaviour: don't edit earlier posts, not even your own. Whatever you intended, my responses to your original post now may look inconsistant. I request you restore the original talk flow situation (and of course you can always withdraw explicitly the 'terrorist' accusations you made). -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC) (You wrote that your posts "make me look like a fool" and you wrote that your responses may look inconsistent. IMHO, you do not "look like a fool" nor do your responses "look inconsistent" so relax... no need to be so hard on yourself.) It would be helpful for you to identify what you are advocating, and why it is better than other alternatives. Are you advocating AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD or something else? If something else, it might be convenient to label it (e.g. EEE) for referential purposes. For the reasons stated above, I am arguing in favor of DDD which has (optionally) only a short reference to ICJ and ISC rulings and a links to full details. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I have said this before, but I will repeat. The precise form of AAA, BBB etc. is not important. What is important is that due weight be given. It should be made clear that outside Israel, the rest of international bodies, the ICJ, human rights orgs, the Red Cross and so on, consider it illegal, and the effects of cutting up the West Bank is mentioned. As long as there is no false balance, the precise form is not important. Kingsindian (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Fair enough but it still needs to be clear what we're talking about... hence AAA, BBB, etc. (Feel free to add your own.) I have a strong bias (which is part of DDD -- see above). This is a not a political bias but a literary bias: no more than three paragraphs each with word counts not exceeding, respectively, 75, 100, and 100 -- or 275 total. I do not intend to be a structure-Nazi but I need to be able to refer to something concrete so here goes: it sounds like you are proposing either EEE or GGG. EEE is like AAA with the first paragraph ending with text such as, "The barrier has been criticized as illegal by many organizations such as [LINK] ICJ, [LINK] Red Cross, [LINK] <another>, [LINK] <another>." GGG is like DDD with the third paragraph ending with text similarly. I do not want to put words in your mouth but is this a concrete example of what you propose? In response to EEE, I counter rhetorically: why not FFF which is like BBB but ends with the text that I added and removed, "The ISC ruled the barrier was legal under international law..." or something like that. Of course, I am countering to show that AAA and BBB are both biased and DDD or GGG are reasonable compromises. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

There are two parts of the article where the following statistics are claimed. This version is in the intro:

Between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 people and injuring over 1,900. However, from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out, killing 64 Israelis and wounding 445.

Citations are to this obsolete government web page and this newspaper article. Comments:

• I cannot find these statistics in either source. Where are they from?
• I question the reliability of deleted government web pages. We often use archives as courtesy links for sources that are still current, but governments remove material for a variety of reasons that include party politics, change of policy, replacement by different claims, etc.. So a deleted government web page can't be taken as a reflection of the claims of the current government.
• Quite besides the sourcing problem, the fact that this is just "lying by statistics" is obvious from the chart on that page. Here is a direct link. One can see that the largest decrease in attacks occurred before construction of the wall even started. The picture just shows the growth and decline of the Second Intifada. Of course we are allowed to say that proponents of the wall claim these statistics in their support (but where is the source for that claim?), but we aren't allowed to state them in Wikipedia's voice as if their relevance is obvious. Zero^talk 12:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Hi. Thank you for checking sources. Verification of sources is (always?) helpful. Re: sourcing, a very quick search brings up this current MFA page which includes a large pdf called "Saving Lives: Israel's Anti-Terrorist Fence, Answers to Questions" which appears to have some (updated?) (partial?) information cited. I have edited some of the quoted text (e.g., for brevity) but I was not the originator of the statements and do not vouch for them. I do not know whether the assertions were or are supported by the sources. They should be. Re: correlations, causality, and attributions, I think the "Results" section fairly attributes the alleged connection between constructing the barrier and a decline in terrorism: The first sentence reads, "Suicide bombings have decreased since the construction of the barrier." which I likely wrote or touched and is well-supported by the external sources. There are two footnotes on this sentence alone. The following three paragraphs respectively begin with, "The Israeli MFA and Israel SA report...", "The MFA predicts..." and "[Israel officers quoted in Ma'ariv...]". I understand the point about making statements in Wikipedia's voice and in this case should be very clear to the reader from these paragraphs who is making the statements and where they come from. IMHO, this seems okay because there is sufficient, clear, and obvious attribution. Not every statement on Wikipedia must be qualified by its source. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

change "History" to "Timeline" and add "Appendix: Detailed Timeline"

I propose something along the lines of,

1. rename "History" to "Timeline"
2. move all text verbatim preserving "In[/on] DATE, ..." paragraph format in "Timeline" to "Appendix: Detailed Timeline"
3. write one paragraph not to exceed seven sentences in "Timeline" summarizing "Appendix Detailed Timeline"
4. prepend to "Timeline" (was "History") the indented link, ":see Appendix: Detailed Timeline"
5. some other day in the future: potentially create a separate article, "Israeli West Bank Barrier Timeline."

Comments? (Helpful comments include, "Go for it" or "Bad idea" or "Bad idea because..." or "I propose ...") SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. ("Detailed Timeline" at the end, not "Appendix: Detailed Timeline"). Humuskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. (comment: don't strikethrough other people's text... but otherwise ok) TeapotDame (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)