Misplaced Pages

Talk:West Bank barrier: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:24, 9 August 2016 editBolter21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,123 edits →Lede edits← Previous edit Revision as of 00:03, 10 August 2016 edit undoKamel Tebaast (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,614 edits →Lede edits: Revised wording--LedeNext edit →
Line 128: Line 128:
::::Can we reach a consensus? <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC) ::::Can we reach a consensus? <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::This phrasing doesn't sound that good in my opinion. I think that it would be better to write "in the West Bank and the green line"--] <small>''(])''</small> 23:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC) :::::This phrasing doesn't sound that good in my opinion. I think that it would be better to write "in the West Bank and the green line"--] <small>''(])''</small> 23:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

::::::How is this? The '''Israeli West Bank barrier''' or '''wall''' (for further names see ]) is a ] and ] that was built by the Israeli government despite Palestinian opposition in the ] or along the ]. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


== OR == == OR ==

Revision as of 00:03, 10 August 2016

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Former good articleWest Bank barrier was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 20, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 23, 2004.
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconPalestine B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Fence for Life

The Fence for Life stuff repeatedly added by User:Gilsrafnorn was first introduced by the long-banned Zeq in 2006. Gilsrafnorn's failure to even check if the URL is still active is not reassuring as to intent to build an encyclopedia. Incidentally, exactly the same text appears in a book here, but it may have been plagiarised from here rather than the other way around. In any case, the text is unacceptably hagiographic and the organization is almost absent from English publications. To see what this non-notable organization actually proposed, see here; as well as the huge land-grab from the fence itself, all of the Jordan Valley is an additional "Israeli control zone". Zero 14:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As you can see here, the organization was not absent in English publications before Israel started to build the fence (other sources are dead links, unfortunately), while the reliable book of Gabriel Tabarani shows the civil organization was a considerable factor in pressuring the government to build the fence, especially after the Dolphinarium attack (barrier route is a different issue). Other less notable events are included in the timeline, so Fence for Life at least deserves a mention. At the same time, the report of Israel's state comptroller's in July 2002 was removed by Qualitatis without explanation or discussion.--Gilsrafnorn (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet.
I didn't say it was absent, I said it was almost absent. However, it is completely absent from the article you linked to. This organization deserves maybe one sentence in the article. The two mentions you added including the long paragraph which you edit-warred back in that still contains the same dead link you obviously didn't bother to check is utterly unacceptable. As far as I can see your mentions of "Fence for Life" are entirely unsourced. Zero 23:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Misleading

"Opponents object to a route that in some places substantially deviates eastward from the Green Line"--this sounds like a white wash. In fact most of the wall (85%) is on Palestinian Land eastward of the Green Line---not just in "some places." Tell the truth, fellow editors! 2601:645:8300:2BB7:5906:1F70:C28F:68F8 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A length of 700km that displaces an area of 77,000 ha (770 km^2) has an average displacement width of 1.1 km relative to a base length , or about 0.15% or 1/636th of the length.
One length (e.g., "separation barrier") can be said to "mostly follow" another length (e.g., "Green Line") if the average displacement area between the lengths is 0.15% or 1/636th of the length, under any normal, common, consistent and rational use of the words "mostly" and "follow" or the phrase "mostly follow."
The barrier "mostly follows" the Green Line is accurate just like a river is "mostly shallow" if it is, on average, one foot deep. Both are, simply, true. Just because a person can still drown in a river that is "mostly shallow" and, on average, 1 foot deep, the barrier could diverge significantly from the Green Line in "some places" yet still "mostly follow" it.
I concur that editors should tell the truth: the barrier "mostly follows" the Green Line; "partly follows" is misleading. Intent Latte Guests (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
See WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sepsis II (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
My comment was about the subject matter. Your response was about the editorial permission policies. I was not making a comment about editorial permission policies: I was making a comment about the subject matter. This thread is agnostic w.r.t. the editorial permission policies. Intent Latte Guests (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
You arent allowed to edit this article or its talk page per the link above. nableezy - 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
You also aren't allowed to use multiple accounts. Sepsis II (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede edits

@Galatz:, I fail to understand your characterization of my edits as POV. Can you explain? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure.
Firstly by adding that was unilaterally you are implying Israel has no right to do this. There is a huge section on legality within the article, and by putting one POV in the lead only, its a violation of WP:POV.
Second you replaced The Israeli government argues that it protects civilians from suicide bombings and other terror attacks that increased significantly during the Second Intifada with The wall was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000, and was presented by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it. The wording "was presented as" implies its not true and its just what they are saying. - Galatz 20:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You understood "unilateral" as implying "illegality", but that is NOT the meaning the word. Unilaterally is calling it the way it is. A one-sided move. Unless you want to claim that the other side did in fact agree to it? Similarly, you reject "presented" because it "implies its not true and its just what they are saying". I find your objection ironic considering that WP:POV, the policy which you cited as your reason for your revert, precisely states that opinions should be attributed and not presented as true facts. Now, are you going to self-revert? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't even understand your argument. Thats nothing like what I said - Galatz 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thats exactly what you said. You wrote unilaterally implies Israel has no right to do this. No, it implies they did it without agreement from the Palestinians, as that would be bilaterally. Unilateral just means they did it themselves (oh and whether they have a right to do it seems kind of settled law). nableezy - 21:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
By specifically stating that it was unilateral though implies that it should have been bilateral, which is not the case. - Galatz 00:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it absolutely does not, that makes no sense. It does not give any indication of what should happen, only what did happen. And as far as not the case, again thats kind of settled legally speaking, it was found to be a war crime. And that, upon reviewing the lead, is conspicuously absent from it. Ill be adding material on its legality to the lead shortly per WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV. nableezy - 00:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Galatz, I think you're 100% wrong about "unilaterally". When something happens along an international border, it typically happens by agreement of the two parties or it happens by action of one party (unilaterally). The wall was built unilaterally. I don't see how stating that implies it should have been done differently or that the party acting had no right to do so. I wonder if you may be projecting.
The change in the second paragraph (from "The Israeli government argues that it protects civilians from suicide bombings and other terror attacks that increased significantly during the Second Intifada." to "The wall was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000, and was presented by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it.") seems to me to put the wall in better historical context by putting the intifada before the wall. I don't see how "presented" makes Israel seem any more or less trustworthy than "argues". If you do, please explain. I recommend reading the guideline WP:SAY. Please keep in mind that we can wordsmith the sentence. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
If you read the section in the article about the Security Council it clearly states their only issue with it is where it deviates from the green line. Their issue isnt that they did it unilaterally not bilaterally. The barrier along the Gaza border, which follows the line there, was also done unilaterally and no one complains about it. When Israel said they were going to build a barrier along the Egypt border they also didn't ask Egypt for permission. Why is this barrier different?
For your second point, I understand they might fall under WP:SAY but you also must consider the WP:IMPARTIAL tone. One read in a way that they are presenting it but its not true, the other one read in a way that its only stating their argument. There is a difference between wordsmith and changing the meaning. I dont have a problem with adding historical context, that wasn't where my issue was. - Galatz 13:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Although other editors and myself don't see the issue with "presented", I will restore the wording with "defended" instead. I think it is important that the article say this was seen as a temporary measure at the time. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Galatz, it is just you arguing against this, and there isnt any dispute about what the word unilaterally means and that it unquestionably applies here. Your argument doesnt make any sense, it depends on supposed implications that do not exist. nableezy - 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Unilateral" is a simple uncontested fact and one of the more notable characteristics of this structure. I don't see the case against the word. Zero 00:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, there are two more editors against the word "unilaterally", Kamel Tebaast in Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#unilaterally_built and me in User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#POV_accusations. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I am also against it. I don't think it was meant to be POV, but it may be interprated as POV and does not really include important information in the sentence. If we say it was built by the Israeli government, that's enough.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Youre against it, but you dont have any actual reasons for it. Unilaterally means without agreement from other parties, you know the party to whom much of the land that this barrier is built on legally belongs. Israel built does not mean Israel built without the agreement of the Palestinians, which is what Israel did. You can read into it whatever you like, but the words do not mean anything besides Israel built this barrier without the Palestinians agreement. That is factually true. Yall dislike the facts ok, but that isnt Misplaced Pages's problem. nableezy - 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy, you really must tune down your belligerence. Bolter21 clearly stated his reason, so please don't say he doesn't have a reason. Also, you are again obfuscating the issue. The issue is not, whether Israel asked anybody else for their permission or not. The issue is whether that needs to be stressed with the word "unilaterally". Debresser (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There wasnt anything belligerent in that. Allow me to rephrase. None of the people who have argued against unilaterally have made any policy based reasoning for removing it. One user said that they feel that it implies something that the word does not mean. Im sorry the user feels that way, but a users feelings dont really have any impact on Misplaced Pages articles. Another said "POV" without saying how stating an uncontested fact is "POV". You counted users against it, I dont think I need to demonstrate that this is not any type of policy based reasoning. Bolter said it may be interpreted as POV, I dont see how that is a reason. What is the policy based reason to not include an uncontested fact about the building of the wall? And before you ask why include it, well because the article says the majority of the barrier was built on occupied Palestinian territory. That begs the question did the Palestinians agree to this. If they had then I would support including bilaterally in the description of how it was built. They did not, so unilaterally is the word that belongs. nableezy - 16:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with nableezy. I think people are reading too much into the word "unilaterally", which simply means "done or undertaken by one person or party" (per Merriam-Webster). It is being used to differentiate the unilateral construction of the barrier—undertaken solely by Israel—from an action negotiated or agreed upon between multiple parties. I think it is an accurate description of Israel's construction of the barrier—can somebody cite reliable sources that say Israel did not undertake the construction unilaterally?—and a neutral one as well.
I think it would be helpful if editors who disagree with the use of the word "unilaterally" would be very specific about their concerns. Is there a specific policy or guideline it violates? Please cite it. Describe how it violates it. What do you propose instead? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, if we can't come to agreement among ourselves, that's okay. We can invite uninvolved editors to comment through a Request for comments if necessary. I know that most of the editors who have contributed to this discussion know that, but Kamel Tebaast may not. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about this, but the policy is WP:NOPV. I think asking an outside opinion is probably an excellent idea. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean the policy is WP:NPOV? How does this violate that policy? What POV is there in it saying unilaterally? NPOV says representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. What significant view on the building of the wall is not fairly and proportionately represented by including unilaterally in the description of the building of the wall? Because here are a couple of RS that, according to NPOV, should be represented in the article:
So a. is there any dispute on whether or not the construction of the barrier was a unilateral move or not? and b. why should the published view in reliable sources not be included in the description of the construction of the barrier? nableezy - 19:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no issue that the move was decided upon by Israel alone, or that sources say so. The question is whether the Misplaced Pages article should stress that, and in the lead, by using the word "unilaterally". That is an NPOV issue, and as said above, I will be happy to receive neutral, outside input on it. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
How is it stressing it? Why is that detail, one you accept as uncontested fact supported by reliable sources, not relevant? What from WP:NPOV supports that it should not be in the lead? nableezy - 23:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Against inclusion of the word "unilaterally" As Malik Shabazz (below) and Debresser (above) pointed out, I was late to this party. I arrived at my conclusions and subsequently edited unilaterally (and was warned for doing so), without any knowledge of this thread. That in itself is partial proof that Galatz's opinions are not isolated. There are several reasons "unilaterally" should not be in the lede, let alone the first sentence:

  • It is redundant. Simply writing that the barrier "was built by the Israeli government" means that the Israeli government unilaterally built it, otherwise, it would have stated that it was a joint project between parties A and B.
  • M Shabazz's argument that it "typically happens by agreement of the two parties or it happens by action of one party (unilaterally)" is irrelevant, and that is not how it is written in most Misplaced Pages pages: The Egypt–Gaza barrier that splits Rafah is contested by Hamas, but nothing is written in the lede about it being unilaterally built by Egypt with the help of the U.S.; or in the Saudi–Yemen barrier, or the Mexico–United States barrier, or the Roma wall.
  • The word "contested" precedes the phrase, therefore, what you're trying to achieve (imply, articulate) in your arguments ("they did it without agreement", "they did it themselves") is partially achieved.
  • As Galatz alluded above, and was echoed in many of the rebbuttles, the word unilateral most often means that something is done by one party when in fact, it should have been achieved through discussions, or in partnership with others. As such, placing such a controversial word in the first sentence, especially when there is room in the article to highlight such a debate, breaks many Misplaced Pages policies .
  • As for policies, M.Shabbaz: WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:W2W, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:LABEL, WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, WP:REDUNDANCY, to name a few.
  • As far as I can see, from the creation of the article on 2003-11-16, the word "unilaterally" was never in the lede sentence or paragraph. It was added by Al-Andalusi on 2016-06-29. That alone raises question as to why M.Shabbaz gave me a warning for disruptive editing while he did not give Al-Andalusi the same warning? I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with POV.
  • M.Shabazz's and Nableezy's reverts to place the word, seem to constitute WP:EDITWAR more than my single and justifiable edit to remove.
  • Your arguments for inclusion would be intellectually honest if you simply wrote in the lede what you've written above: "without agreement from the Palestinians", "it was found to be a war crime", "without agreement from other parties". If that is what you want, then write that, and we'll discuss those merits, or lack thereof. However, by placing the word, then articulating your real meanings behind the scenes (here), is simply obfuscating your POV behind a nuanced word.

Burying the lede/lead I was going to write about the issue that the entire lede had been buried, then I saw that Galatz made some of those points. All discussion about the word "unilaterally" is a distant second to the fact that the security fence was first built to stop Palestinian terrorist suicide bombings in Israel during the second intifada. Presently, the lede paragraph is 114 words, and more than 70 words are to the points that it is longer than the Green line, cuts deep into the West Bank, and isolates Palestinians from the territory. Not one word about Palestinian suicide bombers, Israeli deaths that were reduced because of the barrier, yet many of you argue that this is not POV. It is worthy to note the original article:

In 2003, Israel began construction on a security fence along much of its border with the West Bank, called the "seam zone". The purpose of the fence is to prevent terrorists from entering into Israeli cities, a problem which has plagued Israel since 2000. Israel emphasizes that the fence is solely for security measures: the fence is intended to make patrolling the border easier, not to completely prevent travel across the border in either direction.
Israeli citizens have shown huge support for the wall, but other countries have expressed considerable opposition to it, some going so far as to suggest it is a "blatant grab for land".

And what it is today:

The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a contested separation and security barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line". At a total length of 708 kilometres (440 mi) upon completion, the border traced by the barrier is more than double the length of the Green Line: only 15% of the barrier sits on the Green Line or in Israel, with the remaining 85% cutting at times 18 kilometres (11 mi) deep into the West Bank, isolating about 9.4% of the West Bank and 25,000 Palestinians from the bulk of that territory.

The lede that I propose:

The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a contested separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government to stop an increased wave of Palestinian suicide bombings and attacks in Israel (between 2000-2006 there were 4,000 terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of 1,639 Israelis). From 2007-2015, after the completion of the barrier, there were 32 suicide-bomb attacks resulting in 20 Israeli deaths.. (There were zero suicide-bombings in 2009 and 2010.) The barrier was built in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line". At a total length of 708 kilometres (440 mi) upon completion, the border traced by the barrier is more than double the length of the Green Line: 15% of the barrier sits on the Green Line or in Israel, with the remaining 85% at times cutting 18 kilometres (11 mi) into the West Bank, isolating about 9.4% of the West Bank and 25,000 Palestinians from the bulk of that territory.

In addition to M.Shabazz's suggestion, we can take this to WP:DRN. KamelTebaast 23:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. UN OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), ‘Barrier Update: Special Focus’, (2011), http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_barrier_update_july_2011_english.pdf
  2. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/20/israels-security-fence-saves-lives-builder-tells-america/
  3. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/20/israels-security-fence-saves-lives-builder-tells-america/
  4. UN OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), ‘Barrier Update: Special Focus’, (2011), http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_barrier_update_july_2011_english.pdf
The material you want in the first paragraph is already in the second paragraph, except that it does not present it as undisputed fact that the purpose was to stop suicide bombings and not to effectively annex occupied territory. As far as unilaterally, no it is not redundant, saying Israel built it does not mean that Israel built it unilaterally, that doesnt even begin to make any sense. You seem to be under the impression that putting a collection of wikilinks makes it so they actually support your argument. What POV is in "unilaterally"? Are there any reliable sources that say it was not built unilaterally? If not that is an uncontested fact. Where in WP:W2W does it list unilaterally as a word to watch? Oh, and as far as intellectually honest, I did add to the lead the ICJ found it to be a word crime. That wasnt related to the unilateral point however, that comment was in response to Galatz mistaken claim that Israel had a right to build a wall in occupied territory. Try not to do that again. nableezy - 23:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Kamel Tebaast, but I don't do walls of text. Please boil down what you have to say to a few specific points, and—as I asked—point to specific policy or guideline violations. Handwaving and rattling off the names of random policies and guidelines doesn't help to advance the discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The main reason this structure is controversial and the subject of high-level debate/court cases/etc both inside and outside Israel is that (1) it is largely situated in the West Bank, and (2) it was built without Palestinian approval and in fact against strong Palestinian opposition. It never would have been sent to the ICJ if either one of those two features was absent. At the moment part (2) is represented at the start of the article solely by the weak word "unilaterally". I'm thinking that rather than keeping or deleting the word it should be replaced by a phrase like "despite Palestinian opposition". The intended meaning would then be much clearer to readers. Zero 01:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Zero, a very good solution. That is the way to resolve this issue. Just a small source, and go ahead. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Zero0000, I agree in principal. However, to add your phrase AND to keep the word "contested" would be WP:UNDUE and redundant. How is this?
The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government despite Palestinian opposition in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line".
Can we reach a consensus? KamelTebaast 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This phrasing doesn't sound that good in my opinion. I think that it would be better to write "in the West Bank and the green line"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
How is this? The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government despite Palestinian opposition in the West Bank or along the Green Line. KamelTebaast 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OR

Regarding

but as Israel chose not to accept ICJ jurisdiction nor make oral statements, the opinion was advisory rather than binding.

that is both OR and complete nonsense. The opinion of the ICJ was advising the General Assembly on the legality of the wall under international law. It being an "advisory opinon" isnt due to Israel not making oral statements. It was an advisory opinion because it came in response to a request from the UN General Assembly. nableezy - 01:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Security vs. Separation

The Security wall, barrier, fence, was built to stop suicide bombings. Period. Pro-Palestinian nationalist propagandist POV pushing to turn this into an apartheid-type barrier separating people based on religion or ethnicity, won't succeed. KamelTebaast 04:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed several times in the archives, and despite your belief that is not a factual statement but a contested POV. nableezy - 04:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
nableezy beat me to reverting you, but don't try a blatant POV push like that again. A separation barrier is a specific type of barrier that has its own Misplaced Pages article; security barrier is a redirect to barrier, which is essentially a list of types of barriers. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
To the point on calling it a "separation barrier", reliable sources do so routinely, eg BBC, Guardian, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, and my understanding is that it is likewise often called that in Hebrew. Is there a reason besides your own political beliefs you feel we should not include a common term used in English reliable sources? nableezy - 04:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You know what? Insteed of doing it in English, I"ll show you how the Israeli POV calls it (ctrl+F is your friend), there is a tendency of news media sites to have a different tone when writing in English, so this is how Israelis and Israeli media honestly call it in their native tongue (a proof this is not "Palestinian propaganda"):
So "Seperation" is no Palestinian propaganda. This discussion is over.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Israeli news services (English)
International news services (English)
Government of Israel
I guess this discussion isn't over. KamelTebaast 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Can add also referred to as a security barrier. That however doesnt negate that it is a separation barrier. And the sources above disproves your rather foolish assertion that it is Pro-Palestinian nationalist propagand that calls it a separation barrier. nableezy - 19:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Kamel, you said this is Arab propaganda, I showed you it isn't. My point was not to say this is not a security barrier (this security barrier has been protecting my life for the last 13 years), my point was that "seperation barrier" is not an Arab propaganda, some of the sources you brought also regard the Israeli usage of the term "security" as a single sided view, like the New York Times, while the majority of the others use both terms. There is already a "Names" section with the name "security fence". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a valid source for this matter and if you want you can add a link to Defensive wall, but not in place of Separation Barrier.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And if we're gonna go counting news organizations, several of yours also call it a separation barrier:

Please dont pretend like calling it a separation barrier is some anti-Israel POV, it is definitionally a separation barrier and all these sources have no problem calling it that and generally do more often than they call it a "security barrier" (which actually is a POV, an opposing one being that it is a land grab and not a security measure). I got tired of going through those google searches as it is fairly clear that you arent interested in giving an objective portrayal of how sources describe it and are instead just looking for things to back up your own personal POV. If you had been even a little bit interested in making this article NPOV you would have examined how often sources use each phrase instead of dropping a collection of links to prove that security is the common term when sources you cite in fact use separation barrier more often. nableezy - 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • nableezy My examples of the term "security" barrier were based on news, not OP-EDs within news services, which your thorough search I'm sure did not differentiate between.
  • There is generally a difference when Israelis use "separation" barrier in Hebrew from how it is used in the English speaking world, with a connotation to Apartheid.
  • Bolter21 I never used the word Arabs, rather "Pro-Palestinian nationalists"

This was first built by the Government of Israel as a Security fence. I'm okay with referring to it as security fence, wall, or barrier, with an addition that it is also referred to as "separation barrier." KamelTebaast 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Were any of the links I posted an op-ed within the news service? Or was each of them a news article? As far as what you are okay with, no, that wont do, as it appears that separation barrier is both more often used in reliable sources (by several times from the search results above in fact) and the article that we have that describes the type of barrier here is separation barrier. As far as what you claim was the intention of Israel, again that is not undisputed fact. That is a contested POV, please do not continue asserting POVs as though they were fact. Yes, you said pro-Palestinian nationalists, something that is factually wrong as saying Arabs, or is the Jerusalem Post now a pro-Palestinian Arab news organization? How about the NY Times, or the LA Times, or the Guardian? As far as the new line that separation in English carries a connotation of Apartheid, unsupported assertion. One that the liberal use of "separation barrier" by a large number of reliable sources across the English speaking world demonstrates is again a foolishly made factually incorrect claim. Oh, and separation barrier does not once say "apartheid" in that article. Try to stop making factually wrong claims in your zeal to fight the good fight, k? nableezy - 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Kamel, when you are regarding to something as "pro-Palestinian propagandits..."aparthid"...blah blah", don't expect to have a serious discussion. The fence is a fence, on this we all agree. The fence is also a seperation fence, becuase it seperates Israel from the "savages" that lie behind , this is not a pro-Palestinian view and this does not contridict the security factor of the fence and actually used by a large variaty of sources, including the most ultra-nationalist ones, even the sources you provided used the term "separation". Sure there is not enough wording about the fact this is de-facto, regardless of what analysists are saying, a security fence, but also "separation fence" can relate to this purpose. "Separation" is not a bad word (like "apartheid", "aggression", "colonialism" or any other word that will be an actual WP:POV), but just a word used by both Israelis of all the edges of the political spectrum and the rest of the world. The reason why there's the use of the word "barrier" is simply becuase this is a bit more than a fence and a wall, so "barrier" is good, this is why the article is called "Israeli West Bank barrier". I"ll make a bold edit to try and resolve this conflict, revert it if you disagree.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

nableezy for clarity:

  • My reference to news vs. OP-EDs was with regard to your numbers comparisons, not your linked articles.
  • Those comparisons cannot be used to determine, as you tried, more usages, therefore it should be adopted.
  • You wrote: "Oh, and separation barrier does not once say "apartheid" in that article."
Explain this in the article: "In Arabic, it is called wall of apartheid جدار الفصل العنصري, jidar al-fasl al-'unsuri".

Because the term "separation" is highly controversial, and because the article is named Israeli West Bank barrier, the term "separation" should not be placed in front of the word barrier in any of the uses within the article; WP:POVPUSH. However, because other names are offered, even though some are highly offensive, such as "Apartheid", I am willing to forego placing "security" in front of "barrier" and I'll accept the following opening sentence:

The Israeli West Bank barrier (for further names see here) is a contested barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line".

KamelTebaast 21:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Kamel, you have to accept that "separation" is not controversial, this is all in your head. I have gave you a list of Israeli sources, including the most ultra-nationalist ones (namely Arutz Sheva, HaKol HaYehudi and 0404 News). And a word being "offensive" to you is not an argument. I think the existance of the article State of Palestine is deeply offensive, but I am not going to try and delete it now just because I don't like it. Your offer is unacceptable, because barrier links to a disambiguation page and simply "barrier" doesn't explain the topic well. Separation is not POV of anyone, "separation fence" is a name used by IDF officials and the man who initiated the barrier.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21, as I've stated, there is a different connotation between Hebrew usage and English. That said, it is enough that the Government of Israel does not officially use the term "separation" barrier which makes it controversial. (As far a "offensive", that was for this page's discussion, not as an attempt to remove Apartheid.) Enough of this argument. Your WP:BOLD edit is unacceptable. "Security" or nothing. KamelTebaast 22:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Explain to me why "separation" is POV and I"ll try to refute it. Should I fail to refute it, we will have to have a broader involvment here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Separation isnt highly controversial. Thats the unsupported opinion of a random person on the internet. Reliable sources routinely use "separation barrier" to describe the subject of this article, and our article does the same. Explain what to you? That isnt the article I linked to. Separation barrier, which you claimed has a connotation of "Apartheid", does not once have that word in the article. What else is there to explain? And lets be clear on something here, Kamel Tebaast, it was your bold edit, and that was reverted. You do not determine what happens on this page, so your ultimatum is noted and ignored. nableezy - 22:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolter, I object to the addition of "defensive barrier". That is not appropriate in the lead in Misplaced Pages's voice, it says as fact what is disputed, namely that the purpose of the barrier is security and not to effectively annex occupied territory. Security barrier and apartheid wall are opposite sides of the same coin, and including one in Misplaced Pages's voice is POV. nableezy - 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, (it was an argument so) I"ll self-revert and come up with an improved version tommorow. But I will not self revert my changes from "wall" to "barrier", calling the entire thing a "wall" is both wrong and misleading.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with most of the changes, where it describes the barrier in Misplaced Pages's voice it should use barrier unless its specifically talking about the portions of the barrier that are in fact a wall. But "West Bank wall" is a common term for the barrier as a whole, and for that reason I think it should be retained in the lead. Im not overly concerned with it, but I rather it be included until there is further outside discussion on it to get other views. nableezy - 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Guys, it is really very simple. Since it is both, since sources call it both, since there are opinions it is either, we on Misplaced Pages must use both names. Bolter21 was right with his first edit "WP:BOLD, trying to resolve conflict", and I have restored it as the obvious and only correct path of action according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not that simple. Where Misplaced Pages describes POVs they must be described as POVs, and whether or not the purpose of this barrier was security or a land grab are very much contested POVs. What is not a POV, what is undisputed fact, is that this barrier separates two populations. And to the point, that edit is challenged, and should not be restored absent a consensus here on this talk page for it. nableezy - 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
nableezy, your "undisputed fact" that this barrier separates two populations is no more factual than the fact that the security barrier has drastically reduced suicide bombings in Israel and saved Israeli lives.
"Between 2000 and 2006, there were 4,000 terrorist attacks in Israel, resulting in the deaths of 1,639 Israelis. In stark contrast to those statistics, from 2007 through the present in 2015, there have only been 32 suicide-bomb attacks, and only 20 Israelis have died."
As I already stated prior, there is a section for everyone's names, including the Arabic "Aparthied Wall". Therefore, you adding the one name that you want while excluding all others is POV. Other than "barrier", Bolter21's original solution, both separation and security, (followed by Debresser recent edit and reverted by you), is the only acceptable solution. KamelTebaast 19:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/20/israels-security-fence-saves-lives-builder-tells-america/
The article says that. Per WP:CON and WP:EW this new addition should not be edit-warred in, as you and Debresser are doing. nableezy - 20:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have been WP:BOLD and not violated WP:1RR, so why are your reverts of mine and Debresser's not an edit war? KamelTebaast 23:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is dead (Kamel lost), but anyway here are some examples of Israeli official bodies using "separation": the title for a Knesset debate, and the words of some of the speakers, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs page that calls it "separation fence" repeatedly and even gives an argument for that name ("The fence was not meant to separate the two peoples by religion or race but to separate terrorists from their victims."), a High Court ruling that calls it "separation fence" throughout. Zero 05:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

After looking at some more sources Im fine with including security barrier in the lede as it is now and withdraw my objection. nableezy - 18:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wall

Thats a fairly common term, and its use in such things as the ICJ case should allow its inclusion in the first line. As it is long-standing material, Bolter21 could you self-revert your removal and bring the reasons for removal here? nableezy - 21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A common term, but a joke for a lead section. Per WP:UNDUE, there is no reason to say "The Israeli West Bank barrier, or that 8% of it that pro-Palestinians like to cry about". There is enough people that regard this as an "Aparthied Wall" and using this term in the very first sentence of the article continues this myth that "there is a wall between Israel and Palestine" while in reality the absolute majority of it is a fence.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Bolter, the title of the ICJ case was Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This isnt about "apartheid" or "Palestinians crying". This is about a term used in official documents about the topic of this article. This is long-standing material and should be returned. nableezy - 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The "West Bank barrier" is not a wall, 6% of it is a wall (Just like Israel is not the Galilee, but 10% of it it). The ICJ talks about the wall part I assume.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesnt, the decision deals with the entire barrier. Wall is the term they used to describe it. Youre arguing about the truth of the description, and that really isnt relevant. My point is that "wall" is a significant alternative title for it, as evidenced by its use in UN organs. nableezy - 22:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Nableezy. It is commonly called "wall", and in all the areas I know what it looks like, it looks like a wall. Even if the article says it is a "fence", that is not a contradiction, because that fence includes a wall among other things. In addition, sources also use "wall" at times, so "wall" must be able to stay, at least in places. I see no reason to ask Bolter to undo his edit, we can do this for him, with all respect, of course. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Than I am sorry we have such people in the UN. Calling a 700km fence a "wall" is clearly POV, even coming from the UN (OCHAoPt have already made things like lowering the number of Israeli deaths in their statistics and including uncertain Palestinian deaths) and therefore shouldn't be in the lead. The most NPOV thing to do is to refer it as a "barrier" in short. We have enough sources in the discussion above that people call it "Separation Fence" and "Security Barrier" so giving weight to a single term, that is highly misleading and in this case actually advocate propaganda, this can't be there. A wall is a wall, not a "90-95% fence and the rest a concrete wall up to 8 meters high".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
With some exceptions it is a wall when adjacent to Palestinian population centers and a double wire fence in other places. So, while it should not be called a wall in summary, it is also missing an important point to call it only a fence or mostly a fence. Zero 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the ICJ, "wall" is the word used by the General Assembly in its request for an opinion from the ICJ. The ICJ commented on the terminology like this:
"the 'wall; in question is a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel ('fence') or by the Secretary-General ('barrier'), are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense. In this Opinion, the Court has therefore chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly." (Para. 67 of ICJ Ruling) Zero 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I never understood some Wikipedians rush to accept every word that comes out of the UN, as if everything the UN says is gold.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Its not that everything they say is gold or undisputed fact or anything like that, its that it generally represents a fairly significant POV and as such merits inclusion. nableezy - 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it quite weird to have a point of view about what is a physical thing? Like, there is a pineapple, but the UN calls it a melon, so is there a significance to it?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That was a response to your comment on rushing to accept every word, not about whether or not what is called a wall is actually a wall. nableezy - 21:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed the UN is a significant POV, but in this matter it isn't, especially when they are representing nonsense.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem fairly convinced that wall is not an acceptable term to use. However, it is a term that is often used, by involved parties (most quotes from Palestinian officials Ive seen refer to it as the wall), outside groups such as the UN and the ICJ, and reliable sources. Thats what matters here. nableezy - 21:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the name "wall", just not as a secondary name to the article and not as a word to describe the entire thing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not it should be in the first sentence is determined by the criteria in WP:ALTNAME, namely whether or not West Bank wall is a significant alternative name. My position is its usage indicates that it is in fact a significant alternative name. nableezy - 21:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not more significant than "separation fence/barrier", "security fence/batter" or "apartheid wall".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That is belied by the fact that UN agencies/organs such as the ICJ use "wall" as shorthand for the barrier as a whole. nableezy - 15:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
My point is that we are dealing with a place with many many names and many name combinations, we can't simply call it "wall" becuase some, including the UN do, especially when it doesn't require a lot to understand that "wall" is a very bad description of the whole barrier, as it is a standing physical thing and not anything else that require academic and neutral interpretation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
And my point is that isnt what determines what we call it, or the alternative titles we give it, on Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 19:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

unilaterally built

The present opening sentence is:

The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a contested separation and security barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line".

The term unilaterally is both redundant and POV pushing, therefore, it needs to be deleted. Just stating that it is a "contested separation and security barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government" means exactly the same thing. It states that the Israeli government built it. That is unilaterally built! KamelTebaast 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above, titled "Lede edits". You're late to this party. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 06:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. Better late than never. I'll be joining it tomorrow. KamelTebaast 07:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Categories: