Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:48, 27 April 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli permit regime in the West Bank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Palestine This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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: 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. 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!

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

name

I think Israeli permit regime is better, its what Ive seen most often in the sources describing it as a whole. Thoughts on renaming? And thank you Nishidani for getting this started. nableezy - 17:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No objection, and no hurry.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Regime" carries connotations of authoritarianism, and the name of an article should not be to imply or express an opinion. "Israeli permit system" should be the name of this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it is the 'system' employed by an occupying power over an occupied people, over which the latter, as subjects of military rule, have zero input. Israel is a democracy, not a regime. The governing authority of much of the West Bank does not rule by democratic principles, but according to perceived military interests, and, being unrevocable by those ruled, is a 'regime', which is, in usage, (a)an authoritarian ruling authority's 'ordered way of doing things,' which one could slightly quibble over in so far as the permit 'system' is arbitrary and notoriously not 'systematic'. One could say 'regimen' as an alternative, of course.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani That is certainly your opinion, but Misplaced Pages policy on loaded terms is clear: they should be avoided. Whether the permit system constitutes an authoritarian-like "regime" may be the subject of interesting scholarly debate, but here we should strive for neutrality in presenting the issue. All of the sources calling it a "regime" are highly opinionated, but more neutral ones like AP refer to it more consistently as a "system." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That is naïve. Wiki policy is always subject to interpretation, and you hav e also given your opinion. What do you mean by 'loaded term'. All terms are loaded, even democracy (there are democracies that are not 'democracies' in our western sense of that term. The alternative title you suggest is ambiguous, since 'Israeli permit system' could equally refer to permits (to ride a motorbike, drive a car, whatevcer) issued within Israel by Israeli authorities. That is not a 'regime', whereas a permit regime issued by Israeli military authorities outside Israel for non-Israelis is adequately and neutrally covered, without ambiguity, by the term Nableezy proposed, which has excellent RS authority.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate with you the merits of the system, which may very well be problematic. I'm telling you that "regime" is a loaded term that carries a negative connotation, and to use this term in the article's title is inherently pushing a point of view about it. There is clearly a subset of highly opinionated sources pieces that characterize the permit system as a "regime," but the most reliable sources, including AP and WaPo, call it a system, even while criticizing it. This is classic WP:NPOV: if something is bad, it shouldn't be referred to as "bad" in Misplaced Pages's voice (don't state opinions as facts) but with a reliable source describing it as such. This title is clearly not in compliance with this fundamental WP rule. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You sidestepped my point about ambiguity. Your suggestion opens up the way to mislead readers, who at a glance might well think that is the article to get the drum on what permits are required to get one's home legally built inside Israel. From your remarks it would appear that of the several meanings of the term 'regime' in English, you have only in mind one, i.e. 'regime' can only bear a negative connotation. In answering my point about ambiguity, I would also appreciate it if you explain to me why any modern state's 'system' of taxation is customarily referred to as a 'tax regime'. You are, in effect. (in)effectively challenging English usage, for your monosemiological take on this word would mean that calling a system of taxation a 'regime' is 'loaded', when it is normal.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing ambiguous here - in regular usage for American English, regime almost always is used pejoratively. In certain very specific contexts, like "tax regime," it has a different meaning as a modification of regimen, but this does not reflect how the term is typically applied. And it also has nothing to do with location or borders - "Israeli Permit System" no less implies that it is limited to Israeli domestic policy than does "Israeli Permit Regime." You clearly understand that "regime" has a negative connotation here, as you indicated in your previous argument when you defended the description of the system as "authoritarian." This is not the place for you to push or defend a particular point of view; WP:NPOV takes an extreme example and states that even genocide should not be described as evil in Wiki voice, it should be described as evil by a reliable source. The same logic applies here, and you'll note that the two sources I linked above were both sharply critical but still referred to it as a "system." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There is clearly a subset of highly opinionated sources pieces that characterize the permit system as a "regime,". Uh what? The sources that actually deal with this almost all talk about a permit regime when talking about the overarching system of control. Here Living Emergency: Israel's Permit Regime in the Occupied West Bank. Neve Gordon's Israel's Occupation repeatedly refers to it as the permit regime. OCHA oPT: Permit Regime. World Bank, repeatedly refers to a regime. clearly not in compliance with this fundamental WP rule? Oh okay, I guess that settles it, Wikieditor19920 is the arbiter of what is NPOV. This is the common name used in reliable sources for the topic. That is what Misplaced Pages policy says decides an article title. The incredibly imaginative "Regime" carries connotations of authoritarianism (regarding a method of control as part of a military occupation at that) does not change that, sorry to say. nableezy - 16:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, thank you for but more neutral ones like AP refer to it more consistently as a "system." Because if you really think AP is more neutral then perhaps you should actually read the article. Where it says, in your source, As a sign of how central the system is to everyone’s lives, the Arabic Facebook page of the head of COGAT, Gen. Yoav Mordechai, has more than 410,000 followers, most likely almost all of them Palestinians, watching for any announcements concerning the permit regime. Or in other AP articles: But with the outbreak of Palestinian unrest in the late 1980s, Israel began imposing security closures and a permit regime. Or another one: Some warn that the situation in Jerusalem is becoming increasingly unsustainable, particularly for tens of thousands of Palestinians whose daily lives are disrupted by the barrier and by Israel's permit regime, which bars most Palestinians in the West Bank from entering the city. nableezy - 16:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Poor name. Should be COGAT permit system or some such. Regime is POV pushing. Israeli is too wide in scope. Israel has many permit systems - you need a permit to put chairs and tables outside of a cafe. You need a permit to export various types of goods. There are dozens of different permit systems inside pre-1967 Israel (in the 80s, during the hyper inflation crisis, one needed a permit to hold dollars or a foreign bank account).Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME trumps proof by assertion. That said, I am not opposed to Israeli permit regime in the occupied Palestinian territories. nableezy - 19:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps 'Israeli West Bank permit regime,' since Gaza has a different authority issuing most permits.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As for "proof by assertion" - you want this article stuffed with cafe chair permits, Fire brigade permits, export permits, and umm - really dozens of different permit systems in Israel (I can source 100-200 different permit systems - copious sourcing available for all them)? If the title is wide - you open up the scope.... As for "in" - I think it is COGAT or Israeli Civil Administration in both cases. If you limit the article to the West Bank - then West Bank works as well. OpT can work as well. Israeli Civil Administration permit system might be simplest. Depends on scope. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I really dont understand how that is supposed to answer regime vs system. Which is what my comment is about. Im fine with limiting the scope in geography in the title. nableezy - 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The Israeli Civil Administration is itself an egregious euphemism, like settlement| for what is just colonial carpet-baggng. But I, like most editors here, don't fuss about it, as opposed to wryly shaking my head every time I see it used as a term to camouflage what is a military bureaucracy intent on making life as difficult as possible for the occupied people they rule over. It's like calling larceny something like altruistic lifestyle downsizing. You missed the point I made earlier. 'Regime' is not a word one would use of any society's internal rules for doing things, save for taxation, which is 'vexatious'. Ther permit regime described here is notoriously 'vexatious' as a huge body of material not written by the usual suspects underlines. It is appropriate for a regimen of rules imposed by an authoritarian military body on an occupied people, and its use here excludes Israel implicitly.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with Israeli West Bank permit regime. But the idea that regime shouldnt be used needs to be substantiated by more than an unsourced feeling. Reliable sources, when discussing the overarching system, call it the permit regime. Icewhiz, do you honestly believe that not to be the case? nableezy - 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Civil Administration" (or the American "Civil Affairs") is by definition military. As for system - a simple google-news search shows this to be more popular. Including sources such as Mondoweiss - "Al Haq’s director Shawan Jabarin discusses a new report exposing the complex system of restrictions Israeli authorities impose to control access to Palestinian territory and to stop family reunification.". You aren't going to accuse Mondoweiss of being pro-occupation, are you? I'm not surprised sources use system (often with "arcane", "elaborate", etc.) - as regime is technically inaccurate - the permits are not a form of government or rule - but rather an aspect of such government (or regime). Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If Mondoweiss above isn't explicit enough on permits - "With over 400 checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank, a discriminatory system for the military issuance of mobility permits". Or Amira Hess on Haaretz (writing on permits) - " On the contrary. A follow-up on the bureaucracy behind the exit permit refusals shows an important aspect of Israeli society, whose best officers and legal officials have developed a system of denials that ignores basic human and family needs." - again hardly a pro-occupation source, to say the least. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, is Mondoweiss now a reliable source? A simple google news search? Have you read any of the results. Ive given specific examples of reliable sources that call the overarching policy the permit regime. And some of them use it as a proper noun. Ive seen a description of a system in your quotes, nothing however that indicates the name used for the system is anything other than the permit regime. nableezy - 22:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh - I've never implied Mondoweiss was a reliable source, however for determining common vernacular less than adequate sources may be assessed as well. Icewhiz (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Google scholar - "west bank"+"permit system" - 678 results vs. 297 results for "permit regime". Yeah - sure - there are some POINTy sources that use the less accurate and POVish regime - however the common name is system. Icewhiz (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"POINTy sources that use the less accurate and POVish", like I really dont even understand what that means. WP:POINT is about disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Like if I were to create an article about every Palestinian victim of Israeli violence in response to the creation of a series of non-notable articles on Israeli victims, that could rightfully be called POINTy. A book published by Stanford University Press however is called a reliable source. How is it less accurate? How is it POV? Have you read any of the results from google scholar? Are they talking about the overarching regime, or a system of permits within that regime, for example the exit permit system, or the work permit system? Or are they discussing the entire structure of the method of control, which the sources I have presented are discussing and call the permit regime. You have to actually read the sources. For example:

Orna Ben-Naftali; Michael Sfard; Hedi Viterbo (10 May 2018). The ABC of the OPT: A Legal Lexicon of the Israeli Control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Cambridge University Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-107-15652-4. In order to prevent their entry into Israel, a legal fence had to be erected. The latter, made up of military declarations and orders coupled with a bureaucratic permit system, was tasked with doing what the physical fence is not smart enough to do: selection. To use the fence as a filter, the military had to cast a complicated legal net around it, impenetrable to Palestinians and open to everyone else. The legal fence is known as the "permit regime" ... The permit regime is thus clearly a legal regime of separation and discrimination based on nationality/ethnicity.

Unless you actually read the sources your WP:GHITS dont actually mean anything. nableezy - 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

And can somebody actually demonstrate, not assert, how 'regime' is POV? The nonsense up above about how regime only is used for authoritarian governments is kind of out there. A legal regime is not exactly an authoritarian topic. Can somebody explain this using something other than their feelings as the basis? nableezy - 00:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Regime has a negative connotation per source - and in this case "system" is more common by a factor over two clearly being the COMMONNAME.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the source, which also does not illustrate this with regard to the West Bank. To the contrary, it is defining a phrase (regime change), not the word 'regime'. And secondly it is the former that has a negative connotation, nor the latter. It further defining 'regime change (as) the replacement of one administration or government by another, especially by means of military force' it perfectly describes what happened when the Jordanian regime was replaced by the Israel in 1967. Israel effected regime change by supplanting the Jordanian civil administration with an Israeli military regime, which persists to this day.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, possibly when describing a government the use of regime can have negative connotations per your source. That is not what this is about. This is about a legal regime, which is a standard and neutral term. And again, system is not the common name. Did you read any of the sources in your google search result? Are they talking about a specific system within the regime? Or are they describing the overarching method of control, which the sources that use "permit regime" are and what this article is about? nableezy - 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Again - system is clearly the COMMONNAME, used by the vast majority of sources. The results for "permit system" in scholar are as on-topic to this article as the far fewer "permit regime". Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, that is not true. You havent even read any of the sources. You know full well your name is challenged, if you want to move it from regime open a requested move. nableezy - 14:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I have read several of the sources. Most of the sources use "system" - this is clear in even a cursory BEFORE in google scholar. That you cherry-picked a small minority of sources with "regime", carries little weight in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not cherry picked a thing. Ive shown that sources dealing with the overarching method of control use regime. You used a google book search on regime "negative connotation", and without even reading the source brought it here to try to prove that regime has a negative connotation, neglecting the fact that it was talking about calling an actual government a "regime" and had nothing to do with this topic. Much like the rest of your google search results, you need to actually examine the sources. nableezy - 15:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To assert that "regime" does not have a negative connotation, particularly in this context, is to ignore the widely accepted meaning of this word in usual political discourse. The sources that are applying the term are clearly doing so to express criticism. On "regime" having a negative connotation, this source provides a compelling interpretation. Note that this is a selected paper from a senior at Concordia University in Canada that was edited by a professor. It does make reference to numerous reliable sources and explains usage of the term as such: The word was adapted from the French, whose usage of the word is strongly connected to the 1789 French Revolution and the overthrow of l’ancien régime (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2013). Modern usage of this term has a distinct negative connotation, and it is used outside of anthropology to refer to governments or administrations in order to mark them as “non-democratic”.

We also have Encyclopedia Britannica, which acknowledges the intrinsic criticism in the word's regular usage:

In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most social scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The term, though, can be used in a political context. It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition.

The article name "Israeli Permit Regime" is also not used unanimously by reliable sources, which makes WP:COMMONNAME a stretch. Some of the most reliable sources like WaPo and AP refer to it as a system (while criticizing it), and some academic papers and reports pointedly call it a "regime." Between these two, "system" is the superior choice according to WP:POVNAMING: The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. Under these guidelines, the article name should refer to it as a "system," an objectively neutral term that is loyal to the sources, with the first line within the article mentioning that it is sometimes referred to as a "regime." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to move the title you need to open a requested move. You know the move is disputed, your move violated WP:RMUM. If you do not self-revert I will seek administrative redress. You are also making things up. AP calls it a regime. And, by the way, academia is preferred to news sources per WP:RS. And by the way, your compelling reason has nothing to do with this. It is not calling a government a regime. That is what your source says has negative connotations. This is a legal regime. That is a standard term. Your unfamiliarity with it does not make it disparaging. nableezy - 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

residency permits and deportations

Nish I think the story of Berlanty Azzam might be used in some way here. See Margalit, Alon; Hibbin, Sarah (2011). "Unlawful Presence of Protected Persons in Occupied Territory? An Analysis of Israel's Permit Regime and Expulsions from the West Bank under the Law of Occupation". 13: 245–282. doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_7. ISSN 1389-1359. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (can provide a pdf if you wish) nableezy - 00:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, send that on if you still have my email. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move.(non-admin closure) EggRoll97 00:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Israeli permit system in the West Bank → Israeli permit regime in the West Bank – This is the term used in scholarly works that deal with the entirety of the topic. Above, users have made a number of spurious arguments about regime. One of them is that it is non-neutral, based off sources that say calling a government a regime is disparaging. Yes, that is true, however we are not calling a government a regime, we are calling a legal regime a legal regime. The reason this should be moved is that is what the sources call it. Examples, and this is by no means a comprehensive list:

• Berda, Yael (2018). Living emergency : Israel's permit regime in the occupied West Bank. Stanford, California: Stanford Briefs, an imprint of Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-0282-3. OCLC 994974366. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gordon, N. (2008). Israel's Occupation. University of California Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-520-94236-3. Retrieved 2019-03-19. Even this cursory overview suggests that the permit regime infiltrated almost every aspect of Palestinian society, creating an intricate web through which the population was managed. Indeed revealing the way the permit regime spread across the entire social terrain and the way it shaped the minutest daily practices sheds light on the vast resources and energe put into administering the occupied inhabitants, both on the level of the individual Palestinian. The permit regime functioned simultaneously as the scaffolding for many other forms of control and thus as part of the infrastructre of control, as well as a controlling apparatus in its own right. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Margalit, Alon; Hibbin, Sarah (2011). "Unlawful Presence of Protected Persons in Occupied Territory? An Analysis of Israel's Permit Regime and Expulsions from the West Bank under the Law of Occupation". 13. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law: 245–282. doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_7. ISSN 1389-1359. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "The economic effects of restricted access to land in the West Bank" (PDF). World Bank. 2008. p. 5. Furthermore, combined with checkpoints and a permit regime imposed on access of Palestinians from other areas to the Jordan Valley, Israel is enforcing a de facto Eastern Separation Zone without walls or fences along the Jordan Valley and the shores of the Dead Sea. This zone includes 43 Israeli settlements and 42 Palestinian localities.
• Tawil-Souri, Helga (2011). "Colored Identity". Social Text. 29 (2). Duke University Press: 78. doi:10.1215/01642472-1259488. ISSN 0164-2472. Not long after the 1967 occupation, Israel ordered implementation of a collective permit to enter Israel, mandatory for all Palestinians, which metamorphosed into the current individual permit regime after the first intifada. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Even the sources that other editors claim are "more neutral" above, such as the AP, and that use "permit system" in fact use "permit regime". This AP source was provided as evidence that "permit system" should be preferred. However it actually repeatedly refers to a "permit regime" (quotes are As a sign of how central the system is to everyone’s lives, the Arabic Facebook page of the head of COGAT, Gen. Yoav Mordechai, has more than 410,000 followers, most likely almost all of them Palestinians, watching for any announcements concerning the permit regime. and Critics say that turned a defensive measure into a land grab. It also created a complex subset of the permit regime.) Other news sources likewise use "permit regime" when discussing the overarching method of control.

• BBC: The Israeli authorities say they are implementing a security regime under which Palestinians must apply for permits to leave the occupied territories into "Israel proper". ... Ten Israeli coach drivers were also arrested and face charges for breaching the permit regime.
• Haaretz: Human rights organizations have challenged the permit regime on various grounds. ... The checkpoint-monitoring organization Machsom Watch claims that the Shin Bet security service uses the permit regime to recruit informers.
• AP: In the beginning, there were no barriers. But with the outbreak of Palestinian unrest in the late 1980s, Israel began imposing security closures and a permit regime.

The term “permit regime” refers to a bureaucratic apparatus of the occupation modeled around that which developed in the West Bank between the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 through the early 2000s, when the separation barrier made West Bank residents increasingly dependent on permits from the Israeli army’s Civil Administration for movement within the West Bank, as well as for permission to enter Israel.

The sources that are focused on this subject use "permit regime". A blind google search result does not, in any way, negate that fact. The argument that regime is non-neutral is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. This is not a case of calling a government a regime because one disagrees with that government. This is a set of laws and military orders that govern a set of people. More commonly known as a legal regime. Nableezy 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regime is POVish, and more importantly not the WP:COMMONNAME. Per Google scholar - "west bank"+"permit system" - 678 results vs. 297 results for "West Bank"+"permit regime". Yeah - sure - as the long wall of text above demostrates the are some sources that use the POVish "regime". However more than twice as many academic sources use "system" - clearly the COMMONNAME.Icewhiz (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Google results are totally irrelevant because there are a lot of results from unreliable sources, the argument should be about what most reliable sources say not Google search results--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Google scholar (not normal google). And we commonly use ngram, scholar, gbooks, or gnews to make these determinations. There are hundreds of published acadmic works on the permit systems - you can't list them all. I can throw here a wall of text twice as long as above with twice as many sources - it will prove nothing - as there are too many sources here to list.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• And if one actually looks at your scholar listing, theyll see articles like this one. Where there is actually one mention of a permit system, where it says Before the checkpoint and permit system was imposed, people travelling from Bethlehem to Ramallah would go through Jerusalem via Road 60, a well-maintained highway (see Figure 1). The sources that are focused on the topic, that provide in depth research of it, call it the permit regime. A stray mention in a source that is not focused on it does not negate that. Which is why WP:GHITS is not and has never been a valid argument. nableezy - 21:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Off topic - GHITS is from a deletion essay. For COMMONNAME we routinely use scholar/book/news hits (as well as in some cases plain google). Source depth is also irrelevant for common name (are we confised here with AfD?).WP:COMMKNNAME - policy - explicitely states search engines as one of the methods to determine the common name.Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Again, many of your sources, which you clearly have not read, will have a stray mention of "permit system". Some of them may be on entirely different topics at that. The sources that are in-depth analyses of the topic invariably refer to it as a permit regime. Hell, the books that are about the topic entirely call it a permit regime. And if you do searches on titles permit system has 157 google results, while permit regime has 231. On scholar same story, 0 results for permit system in the title, more than that for regime. If you do a search on news results youll see 362 for system but 529 for regime. Remind me again how google search results proved the common name? The sources that focus on the topic call it permit regime. Full stop. nableezy - 22:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Again irrelevant AfD arguements. This is a move discussion. You are also wrong - most in depth sources use system, for instance "permit%20aystem"&f=false this book. Now, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There isnt an AfD argument in my comment, sorry. Responding to a comment directed at me is not bludgeoning, sorry. nableezy - 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - We generally avoid language with a negative connotation but this is not the situation here and I would support the word "regime" being used. But maybe "rules" would be an alternative here? "Israeli permit rules in the West Bank"? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont think that works to be honest. There are rules and systems that are a part of the overarching regime. This article covers that overarching method of control, or as Berda calls it the "bureaucratic apparatus". nableezy - 22:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What will remain is that where sources state 'regime' and a few score will be used to document it, that language will be retained in the text. As to negative connotations, that has been discussed. If people can't get a handle on the fact that 'regime' in English per 'permit regime'/'tax regime'/'diet regime'/'study regime' etc.etc., does not refer to a political reality intrinsically, well, that's modern downdowned education's fault. People read wiki to broaden their education, not to limit it. Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I will largely copy my response on the article's talk page. To assert that "regime" does not have a negative connotation, particularly in this context, is to ignore the widely accepted meaning of this word in usual political discourse. The sources that are applying the term are clearly doing so to express criticism. On "regime" having a negative connotation, this source provides a compelling interpretation. Note that this is a selected paper from a senior at Concordia University in Canada that was edited by a professor. It does make reference to numerous reliable sources and explains usage of the term as such: The word was adapted from the French, whose usage of the word is strongly connected to the 1789 French Revolution and the overthrow of l’ancien régime (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2013). Modern usage of this term has a distinct negative connotation, and it is used outside of anthropology to refer to governments or administrations in order to mark them as “non-democratic”. We also have Encyclopedia Britannica, which acknowledges the intrinsic criticism in the word's regular usage:

In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most social scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The term, though, can be used in a political context. It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition.

Your own AP source calls it the permit regime. Your source about regime being "disparaging" is about regime being applied to a government. That is not what this is. nableezy - 00:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "my" source—and it uses both regime and system, in some cases interchangeably (but more frequently the latter). The other sources you cited pointedly use "regime" in the title, likely because it's provocative, but then proceed to use system and regime in its actual contents. And regime generally covers any system of control, and it is almost always a pejorative in this manner, including here. The sources using both terms clearly shows that "regime" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and in this case the better option is to default to the more objective phrasing and note that it has also been referred to as a "regime" in the first line of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(a)Technnically when you write:

The other sources you cited pointedly use "regime" in the title, likely because it's provocative, but then proceed to use system and regime in its actual contents

One thing is evident. This is deceptive prevarication: you haven't examined, or are not familiar with them, but feign to have done so.

To take just the first source cited by Nableezy, which has established itself as the standard technical source on the permit 'system', namely Yael Berda's Living emergency : Israel's permit regime in the occupied West Bank, Stanford University Press 2018, the facts are exactly the opposite to your assertion above.

Berda uses 'permit system 4 times (pp.40,101,118,170)

and employs 'permit regime' 66 times (excluding the title page, and publishing details).

Pretending to have checked without doing so, and making contrafactual claims is frowned on in Misplaced Pages, and can lead to a report.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(b)Your quotation re regime defines the 'political' sense of the word, as used by Marxist or structuralists in anthropology. You ignore my point that one can speak of a diet regime, a study regime, a fiscal regime, without engaging in politics. As noted, to define a word that has several uses only in its political sense, in order to challenge the validity of its use in non-political contexts, is extremely clumsy. It's embarrassing to have to remind editors that challenging one's use of 'dictate' as in 'the native informant dictated his story to the community' as POV-pushing because dictate can mean 'bully' 'issue orders' would be the height of folly. Any native speaker knows, or should know, this. Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Support permit regime. It is the standard scholarly term, as noted above, and opposition to its use is based on unfamiliarity with the sources (see above for an egregious example) and elementary confusion over the several distinct uses of the term. A 'permit regime', like 'diet regime', 'fitness regime', 'study regime', 'training regime', 'fiscal regime', 'meditation regime''medication regime', 'travel regime', 'care regime', 'nursing regime', 'running regime', 'maintenance regime', 'operating regime' etc.etc.etc. It is sheer linguistic prevarication to assert that in all of these instances we are dealing with the political sense of regime. There is no argument here. We are dealing with known linguistic facts.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I will note that the erudite original author of this article named it Israeli permit system after, surely as is his practice, a through and complete examination of every relevant source as well as taking into consideration relevant NPOV policy. Thus, it is somewhat surprising that said author is now claiming other editors who support "system" are engaging in a prevarication, are "clumsy", or haven't studied the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually in the original version at Occupation of the West Bank I simply titled it 'Permits'. That section was written in a few hours. Now that it is hived off, and subject to expansion, certainly 'a through and complete examination of every relevant source' means just that, and tweaking or expanding the text according to what those sources say. So far, they favour 'permit regime', not only as Nableezy's sources say, and this will be more evident as time allows for thicker coverage. What I would like objectors to answer is my point about English usage, which contradicts with evidence everything asserted by those who question this usage. 'Permnit regime' differs in no way, linguisticially, from all other uses of 'noun+regime': they are politically neutral. If one can't answer that, then there is no case for objecting to it.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The negative connotation is well documented, it has nothing to do with technical meaning of the word. Being a loan-word from French (and first widely applied for Reign of Terror in revolutionary France), it has acquired, as other loan-words, a negative connotation.... This is where (partially) Pardon my French comes from. Don't be coy Nishidani - you are a master wordsmith, certainly you are well apprised of the tone of "regime" and other words in English. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

False evidence again. This book p.156 refers to the political meaning of regime. You've been told that regime has several meanings in English, all amply illustrated of which the political sense is one, a class which that book does not deal with but that in 'permit regime', regime refers to 'a system or ordered way of doing things', not to an authoritarian mode of government. Please desist from manipulating English usage. It is precisely because I have a certain obsessive care for being linguistically tidy in hewing to the semantics and syntax that I support 'permit regime'. To spin it as belonging to a different semantic class than 'fitness regime', 'study regime', 'training regime', 'fiscal regime', 'meditation regime' 'medication regime', 'travel regime', 'care regime', 'nursing regime', 'running regime', 'maintenance regime', 'operating regime' , 'lecturing regime,' 'deadline regime,', passport regime visas regime, certification regime, transit regime , 'exchange rate regime', 'trading regime', 'flight regime', 'extraction regime', 'sales regime', 'scheduling regime', 'inheritance regime' , etc. etc.etc., is, in linguistic analysis, flawed. As all of these examples show, noun+regime (as opposed to adjective+regime, as in authoritarian regime/democratic regime/totalitarian regime/fascist regime/Nazi regime/ etc.) in English is a distinct class of its own, and one that is politically neutral, in referring to the rules governing the application or execution of whatever the noun in the case refers to. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand that meaning depends on context and that "Israeli permit regime" insinuates something entirely different from "fitness regime?" And by the way, my point above was completely accurate - the sources cited indeed use both "regime" and "system," and that's more than enough to dispel the notion that WP:COMMONNAME would justify the use of "regime" in the article title. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Apropos understanding something, you haven't done your homework. If you followed my links (i.e. evidence) you would see in the numerous sources that 'noun+regime' is itself preceeded by a denominator of the country concerned as in 'EU'/'United States'/'Canada' etc. Anyone reading in numerous books 'European trading regime' or the 'Austrian and U.S. visa regimes' won't, if they are familiar with English usage, jump to the conclusion we are dealing with an authoritarian trading dictatorship, or Austrian and American political regimes. Attempts to consistently rephrase everything concerning Israel to make out it is invariably a special/exceptional case, though everything that happens there has happened or happens elsewhere are POV-pushing. The commoname hypothesis is again flagwaving, for you would have to show that it is the common 'universal' name across countries. It may be the common name in Israeli government publications, for example (that would have to be weeded out), but like Judea and Samaria for the West Bank, national usage does not trump the standard usage in scholarly works, as indeed in the latter regard a specific arbcom-derived decision determined. Nishidani (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on google search results "Israeli permit system" vs "Israeli permit regime" 3320 vs 1160 even searching google books its 198 v2s 182 SCAH (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

shin bet coercion

Nish, I think we need a section on Shin Bet's involvement in the disbursement of permits and the blackmail to collaborate. Sources I have on this are Berda Living Emergency (pp. 60-65) and Gordan's Israel's Occupation (pp 39, 42, 161). Ill go through the journals I have saved off, but any other sources on this just dump here and if you dont get to it I will. Also think we need something on how they were used to both keep Palestinians as unskilled laborers and stopped them from developing an economy of their own. nableezy - 03:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of dozen potential headings to sort out the vast quantity of material on this. I suggest on makes a section for each facet of the permit regime, and then provide a subsection with an exemplary instance of the practice, as my last edits did. It is a pity that sources don't allow one to note any other comparison other than apartheid. I mean, for example, the permit conditions for the Mixtec Indians, if they are not as many are, illegals, who do the hardscrabble labour of fruit picking in the San Joaquin Valley are perhaps even worse. The local police are used by the state to blackmail them there as well, into living under intolerable working conditions, to keep wages low. Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: This is not a WP:FORUM to comment on the IPC and the Israeli govt. If the sources don't support an alleged analogy, I don't know why you're bringing it up here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

who are you trying to impress here? nableezy - 15:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No one. If you want to sit and commiserate with other editors about how terrible Israel is, do it off Wiki. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

also known as

@Wikieditor19920: you have violated the 1RR. And beyond that, you are making things up. And doing so for reasons that entirely escape me. Kindly self-revert. nableezy - 22:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

And in case there is any wikilawyering, 1st revert 2nd revert, both reverting this. nableezy - 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I see that you are actively editing. Do you plan on rectifying your 1RR violation? Or even attempting to explain the completely nonsensical edit summary for your tendentious edit? nableezy - 01:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll assume that the 1RR applies, though the page should have an editing notice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please notice the head of this page. Thank you for selfreverting.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the 1RR notice that should appear when an editor clicks "edit." I think that would eliminate any further possibility for confusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And to the point, it is very obviously also known as the permit regime. A ton of sources have already been provided demonstrating that. That nonsense about "sometimes referred to as" is in fact nonsense. It is often directly called the permit regime. And a no consensus to overturn the move-warring is emphatically not a consensus saying that permit regime is not the common name, and even if it were that makes not one whit of difference in saying it is also known as. nableezy - 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed this, as we already concluded in the RM that this is non-neutral language. Furthermore, it is factually incorrect to call this the "Israeli permit regime", as Israeli permit systems/regimes/schemes are in place outside of the West Bank as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That is an unequivocal falsehood. Please do not make such deceitful arguments. It is also not factually incorrect, as the cited sources explicitly call it the regime. And when you dishonestly modify what is attributed to a living person you are both being dishonest about the source and a living person, also known as violating BLP. nableezy - 21:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And regarding the laughable claim it is "non-neutral" language, WP:NPOV requires that "permit regime" be included. Per WP:NPOV articles must include all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I have demonstrated that reliable sources call the topic of this article the "permit regime". That means it is required to be included. Please do not continue to make tendentious edits. As a reminder, this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 22:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: - please strike the personal attacks above. Your assertion regarding a paraphrased description is incorrect - I did not modify a direct quote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont think I wrote that you modified a direct quote. You did however replace what a source says and what is attributed to him with something he did not say. Noting that is not a personal attack. Please do not continue to substitute your POV in place of what reliable sources report. Where the source says the permit regime our article does to. Where it says system then ours will to. But pretending that your completely bogus argument on POV makes it so what reliable sources say cannot be used here is tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 04:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As system and the lesser used regime or regimen are alternative terms for the same thing - when paraphrasing (as opposed to a direct quote) - they may be replaced as synonymous. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If they are synonymous then one is no more POV than the other. You really should try to develop a consistent argument instead of bouncing around to ones that conflict, it would demonstrate intellectual integrity. Either way, when the cited source says regime so too will we. Given that they are synonymous apparently. nableezy - 15:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we shall follow the consensus established in the recent RM for language in this article. They are synonymous - with a different POV spin.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand how lying is becoming an acceptable tactic in Misplaced Pages discussions. The move request, following your move warring, ended in No consensus. nableezy - 16:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence of lesser use. To the contrary:-

• "Israeli permit regime" 208 results
• "Israeli permit system" 204 results

There is very strong evidence that in the academic literature 'permit regime' which is the correct technical phrase written by people who actually understand that in English usage, is the preferred term. 'Regime' in such contexts does not mean a political entity. This is also a question of linguistic competence, as I have documented thoroughly, with zero responses indicating any flaw in the linguistic evidence.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no argument here. The Israeli permit regime and Israeli permit system are both widely attested. As Nableezy argued, WP:NPOV requires both to be nominated. Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The source cited in this revert - Haaretz - is using "permit regimen", and not "Israeli permit regime". Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Im sure you are aware there are other sources. nableezy - 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

And oh by the way, that Haaretz source also calls it the permit regime. Again, being dishonest about things that anybody can click and look at themselves does not seem to be the best argument to make. The Haaretz source says

Human rights organizations have challenged the permit regime on various grounds.

It also says

The checkpoint-monitoring organization Machsom Watch claims that the Shin Bet security service uses the permit regime to recruit informers.

The only place it says regimen is in the subtitle. Something you have previously said article titles are not appropriate sources - they are edited for sensation. Match article text. nableezy - 19:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph2 has "Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy." - so not just the subtitle. This is in the quotation in the citation. You are correct that in relating to Machsom Watch's stmts Haaretz does use regime further down in the piece - but that is not what we are quoting.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you are right, that was hidden by the ad banner in my search. So once in the article text it says regimen. Twice it says regime. Either way, it supports regime. As do the other sources in this article. nableezy - 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS and other tendentious editing

Icewhiz, please read WP:BLOGS. Please read where it says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Please read what Stanford University Press is. WP:TE specifies that tendentious editing is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. You are violating that in spades. nableezy - 15:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Quoting a particular viewpoint - twice to boot (Berda already appearing in the previous sentence which I left in place - though it is questionable as well) - in the lede is UNDUE. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body - not a place to interject random quotes. An expert writing in a blog may be considered reliable - and also may not. Given that we have no lack of published material here (including by Berda) - using an unpublished blog is not necessary.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not a particular viewpoint quoted twice. That was not a random quote, it is a definition of the topic. UNDUE means that it promotes a viewpoint that other reliable sources dispute. What reliable source disputes any part of Berda's definition. Why exactly are you pretending that sources do not call this topic the permit regime? Why do you insist on continued tendentious edits and dishonest arguments? Whatever, I have some evidence to compile. nableezy - 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. As WP:BLOGS points out, while one may use self-published work by experts - the next sentence (which you omitted) - is "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.". There's no particular reason to quote Berda at all (a fairly young scholar - h-index of 5 ). Quoting her in the lede, and from a blog? Really not needed. Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Berda's age is now disqualifying. Ill add that to the hall of fame of dishonest arguments. nableezy - 16:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Berda is not a widely cited scholar. Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, her book has just been cited by 16 papers in a shade over a year. nableezy - 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz. Stop inventing ideas for challenging perfectly legitimate sources. You're an experienced editor, and should know better. Berda has published with Stanford a major source for the topic, and the SUP 'blog' serves to notify the scholarly community in synthesis of what her overview of the topic of which she is an expert is. 'The SUP blog showcases new books and Press news in addition to serving as a forum for our authors—past and present—to expound on issues related to their scholarship.'Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy You may or may not be correct about this particular source being legitimate; I have yet to look into it. Based on a cursory search, Ms. Yael Berda does not unequivocally appear to be an established expert—she seems more like a burgeoning scholar in the field, so it's wise to exercise caution. As for your suggestion that Icewhiz is engaged in WP:TE, I almost had to re-read that again to ensure that I wasn't seeing things. Your entire body of edits on talk pages largely consist of pointed, unnecessary accusations of bias against other editors and open hostility towards those you disagree with, in addition to inappropriate forum-like commentary. This is evident even here. Your user talk page includes a userbox that openly advocates "violence." You have no credibility to make such an accusation, particular in ARBPIA, against anyone, and doing so indicates a remarkable lack of self-awareness and inability to work with editors you disagree with. You'd do well to retract those comments and apologize to Icewhiz. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yael Berda is the author of several pieces specifically about the permit regime that have been cited in numerous works. The most basic of searches would reveal that (see how many papers and books on the permit regime she has had published by top quality publishers and how often they are cited). The idea that you, whose entire contribution to this article, after hounding me to it, revolves around one word, can say the entire body of edits on talk pages are unnecessary accusations of bias is kind of funny but not that important to me. You have literally done nothing on this article of any substance. You have added no sources, you have added no material, you have only made arguments that any person who examines them will quickly see are both false and pointless. If you have anything to say about the article feel free, your comments about me can be considered to have fallen on deaf ears. nableezy - 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Again double standards. Nableezy should apologize for protesting tendentious editing? 'a remarkable lack of self-awareness and inability to work with editors he (you) disagree with' is an an NPA violation. No editing to the article, and a personal attack on the bona fides of those who do actually work on it. Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

When people who have demonstrated that they are even a little bit interested in improving the article have something to say about me Ill listen. nableezy - 21:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

When you say "improving the article" in that sense, it's pretty clear you mean "making changes to your liking." I see that you've also filed an incredibly flimsy and absurd report against Icewhiz in WP:AE. I'll be commenting there as well to provide some important context. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope. It means actually adding content. Doing research. Analyzing sources. You know, improving the article. Do what you want lol. nableezy - 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I question the rigor and neutrality of your analysis and whether you're giving undue weight to certain viewpoints. Sixteen citations is absolutely nothing in her field. Anyone who's written a PhD paper can get sixteen citations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

lol, k. For a book published a year ago on a specific topic. What the policy says whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. You know what Stanford University Press is? Yeah, thats a "reliable third-party publication". Question what you like, your questioning is literally not on the list of things I care about. nableezy - 13:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Time for a reality check - the question is not if SUP is a reliable source, it's if this specific scholar's opinion deserves the weight it is accorded in the article by way of mentioning her views in the lead. SUP redounds in Berda's favor, but does not make her the determinative expert—looks like a lot of scholars on this subject have also had their works published in prestigious university presses, go figure. Her views can be included—in the body along with the rest of them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gordon

Wikieditor19920, misrepresenting sources is a serious issue on an encyclopedia. In this edit, you changed what was cited to Gordon. What he says on page 33 is

The permit regime and the networks of surveillance also deserve to be covered as part of the infrastructure of control. As with other forms of control, Israel began introducing an elaborate permit regime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before the armed conflict had ended.

On page 34 (and emphasis in original)

While each permit can be analyzed on its own in order to show how it controlled a specific sphere, by noting examples of several permits from each category I hope to provide a glimpse of how the permit regime operated to shape practically every aspect of Palestinian life

He very specifically says the regime shaped every aspect of Palestinian life, not some "system".

What exactly is "problematic" about including the time range of when the permits began to be required? Or do you think the word "occupation" is somehow verboten, as youve had the unfortunate habit of removing it elsewhere.

Why did you add weasel words "has been characterized ... exceedingly difficult"?

Why do you think you are entitled to demand that people follow sources on language and then refuse to do so here? nableezy - 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll start out by saying I don't appreciate the title of this heading. You need to learn how to write headings that are not an attack or criticism per WP:TPG.

• System and regime are used interchangeable by a number of the sources, and in this context, they communicate the same meaning. WP:PARAPHRASE does not mean a word-for-word regurgitation.
• I don't have a problem with the word "occupied," but "the occupation" is not specific nor appropriate to use. This phrase should either not be used at all or be replaced by something more specific.
• "Exceedingly difficult" synonymous with "almost impossible."
• Otherwise, I really don't understand your issue. You also did a full revert instead of a partial revert, removing some other grammatical changes and areas where I tightened wording. I don't appreciate this either and don't think it's productive.

That's really what I have to say about it. At this point, I've not done a level of research where I'm interested in completely reworking the actual content of the article, but if every minor wording change is going to be met with this sort of confrontation, then frankly I'm not too interested in that either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not true, I did a partial revert. I dont think you are in a position to tell me what I need to learn on this or pretty much any other topic. What you appreciate is not my concern, my concern is misrepresenting the cited sources, sources you apparently have not read. Gordon emphasizes the regime is what "shaped practically every aspect of Palestinian life". If the terms are equivalent there is no reason to replace one with the other. Your contention that regime is POV is just that, a contention made without basis. In other articles you demand sourcing for specific wording, yet here you are saying you can ignore the wording of the source. Why is "the occupation" not specific or appropriate to use? Its a standard term in this topic area to discuss the period from when Israel began to occupy the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 00:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"The occupation" is standard according to whom? Based on an analysis of all the articles you've edited and inserted that term into? Nonsense. We've already discussed the POV issues with "regime," so I'm not going to relitigate that with you here. If a change in wording alters the meaning of the original text or introduces some sort of bias, WP:STICKTOSOURCE prevails. I don't see how "permit system" does either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you made up some nonsense about POV without understanding that every source saying it has a negative connotation is in reference to it being used to describe a government. You claimed that "more neutral " like the AP use system, without apparently realizing that they in fact use "regime" regularly. So no, it is not POV. Gordon is specifically talking about a "regime". So too does the article then. "The occupation" is common in reliable sources. You should try reading some. Might learn a thing or two. nableezy - 13:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yael Berda does not have to be necessarily mentioned in the lead, you are correct in my opinion.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

tag?

Wikieditor19920, you need to justify the tag. What is given undue weight? What sources dispute what is in the article currently? nableezy - 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only is "regime" the word used by very many sources, it is the correct word according to legal jargon. Search for "legal regime". Here for example we read "The most basic definition of a legal regime is a system or framework of rules governing some physical territory or discrete realm of action that is at least in principle rooted in some sort of law." Which is exactly what this article is about. Zero 02:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It is blindingly obvious that Yael Berda is an expert on the topic of this article. Neither Wikieditor19920 nor anyone else has provided a logical, let alone policy-based, reason for not including her analysis. After reading the failed attempts above to argue othrwise, it is clear that the case consists entirely of IDONTLIKEIT. The tag has not been justified, so it can be removed. Zero 04:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Berda shouldn't be taking up 49% of the lede - she's one of many scholars in the field, and we should reflect a diverse set of views.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

What you meant to write was "Berda shouldn't have one sentence in the lede", but that wouldn't be your style. Actually, as an expert she doesn't need to be attributed except by citation. There is nothing disputable about the content. Zero 09:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 has some issues with the "mind blowingly obvious", see this discussion for example. It would require an RfC to resolve even this most trivial obvious issue. Anyway, based on the above discussions I too would agree with removal of the tag here. -- GreenC 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh good, GreenC showing up on another obscure article to try and belittle me, again without reading the discussion or properly evaluating the facts at hand. I applied the tag because I'm unclear why we're giving Yael Berda, a PhD student, such significant weight in the article and in the lead. She may be a brilliant scholar but she does not have the deep background/credentials to be considered the prevailing authority on this subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh Berda is an assistant professor. You have literally no idea what you are talking about. And regardless, the sources are published by hello Stanford University Press. You want to challenge them go right ahead. Id enjoy the laugh. nableezy - 05:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight means giving a disputed viewpoint more weight than is proportional in reliable sources. What view is disputed in this article? You are required to justify the tag. What views are in the article that are even disputed? nableezy - 05:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Yael Berda who is an expert scholar in the field, particularly in the topic area, published in an RS, does refer to it as "permit regime" and it is an excellent source suitable for the lead. She wrote an in-depth piece and is one of the numerous scholars who described the permits in this way. Many other authors refer to it also as "permit regime" in peer-reviewed settings, many other references exist as well; some are cited already and I believe are supportable elsewhere.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy Regardless, being published in SUP doesn't make her as the end all be all—Google Scholar reveals extremely limited citations. Sorry, this doesn't establish her as the undisputed expert in the field. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight means giving a disputed viewpoint more weight than is proportional in reliable sources. What view is disputed in this article? Consider actually reading the policy again. Whether or not someone is an authority affects the weight their opinion is given in the article—I don't understand why Yael Berda is the authority mentioned in the lead. Are there no other, more established scholars that should be quoted in the lead or is hers just the opinion you most agree with? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh first you made up that she is a PhD student (she is not), now you are making up what the policy says. Here is what it actually says:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Again, what viewpoint in this article is disputed by any reliable source? Do you have any other "more established scholars" that should be included that dispute anything in the article? Or is this a personal opinion without any backing in any source? Have you read any sources on this topic at all? nableezy - 04:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me explain it more simply: her view does not have enough weight for the lead. It can be included in the body, but there is nothing to distinguish her opinion from any other mentioned in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That isnt just "her view", it is what a reliable source says defines the topic. It belongs in the lead. It does not even need to be attributed to Berda. You have provided zero policy basis for it, just a vague wave to a policy that does not say what you think it does. nableezy - 15:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting tired of these nasty, dogmatic replies—a view that's been published in a reliable source is not by default lead-worthy. You have not established that Berda is any more of an authority, or that her view is more significant than others that are only presented in the body of the article. WP:DUE is not just about inclusion or non-inclusion, it's about placement and emphasis. Placing Berda's views in the lead is WP:UNDUE because she is not the prevailing expert on the matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, you have been called out on so many bad judgements about sources, I can not trust your opinion out of hand without evidence. You talk a good game ("these nasty, dogmatic replies") but there is little of substance to it. -- GreenC 16:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You straight up made something up (Berda is a PhD student) and are going to castigate me for "dogmatic replies"? Please quote what from WP:UNDUE supports your position. I have quoted the policy and nothing in it supports your position. It is not a due violation absent any reliable sources that dispute it. nableezy - 17:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

GreenC Your following me around on different pages is starting to get creepy. I have made no "bad judgments" about sources, but why don't you link to that discussion where you insist that a biography is a primary source and tell me otherwise. Or better yet, why don't you contribute something to this discussion that isn't a personal knock against me. I know you're familiar with WP:HOUNDING, so perhaps you should act the part.

As for Berda, I acknowledge that I initially looked at the wrong profile listing her as a PhD student (she in fact appears to be a professor at Hebrew University), but I have since done a deeper dive and still do not find anything that warrants including her opinion in the lead above the other scholars whose views are only in the article body.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.

Berda is one of many scholars who have written on this subject. Neve Gordon has also written on it extensively (and his works are cited in the article), and he is only noted in the body. Making Berda's characterization the first viewpoint that readers are introduced to gives her undue weight, and the entire line that begins with "according to Berda" belongs in the body, not the lead. GizzyCat and Icewhiz already agree with me on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance much? You hounded me here lol. Again, what she wrote is not an opinion. The operative part of the policy you quoted is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Is Berda's view disputed by any other source? Then proportionality is not a concern. Thats what you seem to be missing about DUE, which is part of NPOV. Have you read anything from Gordon? Have you seen anything that disputes anything from Berda? You seem to be arguing that any scholarly view on this topic should not be in the lead. I dont see any basis for that argument in any policy, and the policy you have quoted does not support the view. It needs other sources disputing a statement to make it a due concern. Your entire argument here is based on a misreading of policy. As far as who agrees with you, what? GizzyCat said it does not have to be in the lead, the user did not say it should not be in the lead. Please dont mischaracterize others views. nableezy - 22:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, you've confused opinions and analysis for facts—Yael Berda's assessment of the Israeli permit system is absolutely her own opinion, and her viewpoint carries no more weight than the other scholars cited in the body. Whether or not her view is "disputed" is irrelevant; weight is determined by the reliability and prevalence of the source, and I'll refer you back to the portion of the policy cited above. Each scholar's commentary and analysis is distinct, and one scholar does not belong in the lead unless they are the definitive authority, which Berda is not. Icewhiz, GizzyCat, and I each agree on this, and we have a rough consensus against her inclusion in the lead. If you believe otherwise, you need to build consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, youve confused your personal opinion with Misplaced Pages policy. An uncontested statement from a reliable source is a fact on Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"unless they are the definitive authority". TOur policies say no such thing. In the vast majority of cases we rely on WEIGHT specifically "widely held views" aka common knowledge. As for criticisms of racial profiling, it is so widely held by so many critics, not including mention of that in the lead is POV. Per WP:LEAD it is a summary of the most important topics discussed in the article. It doesn't need to mention Berda at all only say something to the effect that critics see it as a form of racial profiling. -- GreenC 15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If someone is not a well-known authority on a matter, that is in fact a very strong case against their inclusion in the lead. If a certain view is widely held by scholars, then it can be mentioned. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's ok to have Yael Berda in the history segment really. The lead was also ok in my opinion but if there are editors who argue that it is UNDUE in the lead, just let it go. There is no point of disputing such a minor thing. I'll rearrange the "History" section a little but please just let go. Don't waste time on unnecessary arguments folks. Please. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Somebody is making things up. There is absolutely nothing in any policy that says anything about being "well-known". Berda is a reliable source on this topic, full stop. The horseshit about not widely cited is in fact horseshit. And even then, that horseshit is not anywhere in WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT. Im going to continue expanding this article, and I am going to continue using Berda. And in so doing the lead section will also be expanded, and will likely include more from Berda. If the only reason you are at this page is to argue over literally one word then fine do that. I am going to do something more constructive with my time and actually build the article. nableezy - 20:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

At no point was my argument focused on "one word"—it was about the representation of viewpoints in the lead, which is exactly what WP:DUE is meant to address. I am fine with noting general consensus among certain groups of scholars on the subject, and we should likewise note Israel's asserted justification the system (as reported in reliable sources) and any other prominent views/criticisms. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

italics

GizzyCatBella, why did you add italics to all the quotes? The only times a quote should be in italics is if a. the source is in italics, or b. it is a foreign word (like via dolorosa). See MOS:NOITALQUOTE. Could you undo that please? nableezy - 20:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

citation style

This page has a pre-existing citation style. Please try to follow it. See WP:CITEVAR. We are using shortened footnotes in the text and full citations below with the citation templates. nableezy - 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

its like im talking to myself here. nableezy - 21:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What tool is used for this method of formatting citations? Or it's done manually? GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You can do it manually. The basic instructions for this style are at {{sfn}}. It takes a little effort to learn how to use this style, but once you're familiar with it, you will find editing the wikitext much easier, since it gets rid of the huge clutter of long, horizontally formatted templates (LHT clutter) that unfortunately still mess up most wiki articles. There is a long thread on my talk page about this style, which will remain there permanently, protected from archiving by the bot.There is a tool which will convert pages to this citation style (and a lot more besides, notably correcting errors in cite templates - you won't believe the crap that people put in cite templates - and Visual Editor (VE) is one of the worst offenders; search my talk page and its archives for more of my opinions on VE). The tool is still in development, so it remains private, and only I can use it.So long as I am using this tool regularly on this page, it really doesn't matter too much if people use some other style, as my tool can easily convert it.One of these days I will get round to documenting it properly!--NSH001 (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NSH001. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 can you at least try to follow WP:CITEVAR? nableezy - 20:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not as familiar with the citation style we're using here--no objection if you want to change it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fat chance, as Nab was one of the inspirations for the present style; my contribution is developing a script that automates conversion to this style (plus a lot else). My script also automates the conversion, if preferred, to list-defined references (WP:LDR), as that is equally effective in eliminating LHT clutter. --NSH001 (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For examples, see User:NSH001/ETVP/examples. --NSH001 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? Try WP:AGF. This talk page is lacking enough of that already. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I gave you my realistic assessment of whether Nab might want to change the citation style, then offered some links, which taken together with my earlier statementts in this thread, give an explanation of the citation style. That has nothing whatsover to do with AGF. --NSH001 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. Unsure what "fat chance" was in reference to. Might want to try and be clearer in the future to avoid misunderstandings. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Pieterse

Uh Icewhiz, this is what the source says:

The parallels extend to the finer print as well, as with South Africa's pass laws, and Israel's special IDs for Arabs (stamped with a "B") and requirements for travel passes in the occupied territories.

You seriously arguing it is not comparing the permits for movement to the pass laws? nableezy - 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I read the source. It is comparing a specific requirement, at a specific time, for travel passes in the occupied territory to SA. It is not comparing a "system" or "regime" of permits. Other sources (e.g. Berda) state that the regime/system only started post-Oslo (1993) - well after this source was written. Absent the source referring to a permit regime or system - then yes - tying it to our article is WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is comparing one part of that regime. No, including material on a specific permit is not OR in the article on the overarching regime. Gordon says the regime started in 1967. Does the source compare the requirement for a permit for movement to apartheid? nableezy - 15:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, Ill rephrase in the body and add several other sources in the lead for the sentence you removed. nableezy - 15:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Without Pieterse referring to a regime, system, or any other clearly synonymous word - Misplaced Pages editors making a guess regarding Pieterse's intentions based on a feature Pieterse mentions being present in other sources (written at a different time) that do discuss a "system" or "regime" - is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is not our place to guess about the intention of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. This article is about the permit regime, and Pietrese is discussing one of those permits. nableezy - 16:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A singular instance of permits is not a system.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

So your position is that we cannot include anything about specific permits here? Huh, Ill have to update my list of inconsistent arguments. nableezy - 16:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that, though that may be SYNTH as well - depends on the circumstances. In this particular instance we were using text on travel passes to source "The regime itself has been likened to the South African pass system under apartheid" - a clear misrepresentation of the cited source which does not refer to "the regime". Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure I already said I would rephrase it. nableezy - 16:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Israeli_permits nableezy - 16:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy is that "list of inconsistent arguments" the same arsenal you draw from in making your own? Icewhiz is correct here: she is referring to one element of the permit system, not the entire system itself. The line reads:

Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt.

I'm also utterly unsurprised that you've immediately sought formal dispute resolution, as you're wont to do, instead of discussing the matter on this talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you try restricting your comments to topics you understand? Because, hello, I said Pietrese is talking about one of the permits. And Sherlock, that isnt the source under discussion here lol. nableezy - 16:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This diff addresses both. I know your default is to get personal/run to dispute resolution when you don't get your way, because your arguments lack substance and are unpersuasive, but you're wrong, and what I see is clearly WP:OR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

lol, no it does not. What you quoted is an entirely different source. One you misrepresented. And the idea that you are going to say I am getting personal and then follow that with I know your default is to get personal/run to dispute resolution when you don't get your way, because your arguments lack substance and are unpersuasive, but you're wrong is incredibly funny. Thank you. nableezy - 19:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

misrepresentation of sources

Wikieditor19920, Loewenstein wrote "Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime." She did not write that the "systems" limitations on movement are more restrictive. She wrote that the regime as a whole is. Kindly stop misrepresenting sources. It is a serious issue on Misplaced Pages, one that may be reported. nableezy - 16:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. Don't threaten me, and stop creating these disruptive, personalized talk page sections which are in blatant violation of WP:TPG. What I wrote is a perfect paraphrase of what she said: she compared the restriction on movement in the apartheid regime to the supposed restriction on movement implemented by the Israeli pass system. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not threatening you, and there is nothing personalized in the section header. You are blatantly misrepresenting what she wrote. The quote is

Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt. Israeli ID policies are tearing apart families, ruining livelihoods and preventing access to property. Individual members of families – including parents of young children – are capriciously being prevented from returning to their homes. The silence of the international community in the face of these violations of humanitarian law is ominous.

Where exactly does she say that what is "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime" is "the system's set of restrictions on movement"? Hint, she does not. She says the regime as a whole is. What you put in the article is a blatant misrepresentation of the source, and done only to further your rather silly goal of expunging the word "regime" from the article. nableezy - 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good, so that wasn't a threat? While we're on the subject, note that other things that can lead to a "report" are lack of civility, POV pushing, and personal attacks. Your talk headings are just a series of groundless invectives—Lowenstein is explicitly comparing the pass systems and the resident ID requirements. By the way, why does this even belong in the lead? You've been consistent about selectively researching and quoting sources supporting the POV you're trying to push here, which is the purported apartheid analogy, but many of the sources themselves paint a more complex picture, including how the need for the permit system arose in the first place. I find it surprising that that's not also mentioned in the lead:

The Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem (ARIJ)

By the end of 1967, Israeli military forces seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip entirely, declaring them closed military zones. They were then administered by the military commander. (Handel, 2009) In 1972, the Israeli military leader Moshe Dayan declared the “Open Borders” policy. (Gazit, 2003) by which Palestinians were granted general exit permission in order to integrate them into the Israeli labor force. They enjoyed relatively free movement until the end of the second half of 1980s. (Parizot, 2017) With the eruption of the first Intifada “uprising” in 1987, and the deteriorating security situation, the Israeli army completely restrained Palestinian movement applying security mechanisms like curfews and closures. (Hass, 2002) The freedom of movement between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including inside the “Green Line,” was denied to the Palestinians. Travelling abroad was also restricted under the pretext of security. (Abu Zahra and Adah Kay, 2012) This step aimed to thwart the expansion of the uprising. (CDS, 2015)

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you or can you not say where Loewenstein says anything about "the system's set of restrictions on movement" as being "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime"? Because that is what you put in the article, where she actually says the regime as a whole is "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime". What you are surprised is not in the lead is covered in the history section, added by, guess who, me. I assure you, I give literally 0 care to if you think my talk page headings are "invective". If you would like to report that by all means feel free. nableezy - 19:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Review the section you quoted again: Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt. She is specifically referring to the restrictions on movement in the Israeli system. And you claim that you added relevant background to the history section, but you've done everything you can to place any source mentioning "apartheid" in the lead while the background & violence that led to the system is barely referenced in the body. You should also read the WP:TPG, more specifically WP:TALKNEW, and act accordingly, preferable by editing the names of the headers you've already filled this page with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Jesus christ, no she is not. She is saying that for the people who have residence cards that this is not enough to escape the permit regime. She says, and you are quoting it so I have no idea why you are having trouble understanding it, "a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime". She says that the "permit regime" is what "is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime". She goes on to say that as a result "Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt". And that "Israeli ID policies are tearing apart families, ruining livelihoods and preventing access to property." And that "Individual members of families – including parents of young children – are capriciously being prevented from returning to their homes." She does not say that the only thing that is "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime" is the restrictions on movement. She says the regime, as a whole, is. As far as WP:TPG, add that to the list of things you should actually read. Hello, your name does not appear in a single talk page section title. Get it? Great. nableezy - 22:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote is a clear reference to freedom of movement, not necessarily the entire permit system. And because you apparently missed this bit from WP:TPG: Don't criticize in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may interpret the heading as an attack on them.. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry that you feel that my raising misrepresenting sources is criticizing you. I dont feel that way. If you would like to bring that up then there are places you can do so. Here, on this talk page, we are meant to discuss the article. And I am discussing how sources are being misrepresented. nableezy - 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as the out there claim that the sentence is not necessarily about the permit regime, the sentence does not allow for such manipulation. She said Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Again. a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Not a portion of a permit regime that is more complex and ruthlessly enforced. But the permit regime. That you dislike what the source says does not allow you to change what it says. nableezy - 01:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::: You have not addressed my central point, at all. Can you provide a source to show that she has some sort of "special expertise" beyond the other scholars on the subject and explain why the content under "Overview of terms" cannot be incorporated into "History?" I have seen no justification for either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC) (Wrong section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

Wrong section apparently. nableezy - 21:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In reply to your previous post: No sources are being misrepresented, and if you feel they are, it's your (and everyone's) responsibility to WP:AGF and not create talk page headings that are openly critical or accusatory. That's a clear violation of WP:TPG. I'm not interested any further in listening to you pretend not to understand what I'm saying. The headings have now been revised so that they reflect the name of the source being discussed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. When you repeatedly misrepresent a source to push a POV that is misrepresenting sources. Finally, do not modify what I have written, including the talk page section header. If you have a problem with it go report it and see what's treated as a bigger deal. You misrepresenting sources or my calling it out on the talk page. nableezy - 16:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You want to pretend to justify your tag? nableezy - 16:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF means striking the exact opposite tone that's present in almost all of your posts, and not being radioactively toxic in your interactions with other editors. No one's misrepresented any sources, though you've certainly misrepresented the body of sources and run askew of WP:NPOV by selectively emphasizing negative sources in the lead. I also have some news for you: you do not "own" headings, regardless of whether you wrote them, and filling the talk page with headings that attribute negative intentions is clearly in violation of the talk page guidelines. Some further suggested reading from WP:TPG: Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To that end, please restore the heading that I wrote. The "justification" or, rather, the glaringly obvious issue with citing Loewenstein is that she is not a reputable, mainstream source. She's mostly present in WP:FRINGE publications, and doesn't belong in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you of all people are going to lecture me on AGF lol. No, the heading is accurate, it is actually "descriptive of the content of the discussion" I opened this section about a misrepresentation of a source. As far as your new claim about the source that she is "not a reputable mainstream source", you do realize this was published in Forced Migration Review right? Which is published by the University of Oxford's Refugee Studies Centre. If you would like to challenge that by all means, WP:RSN is thataway. nableezy - 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Overview of terms"

This article should not be written or structured like a research paper, even though it is heavily reliant on academic sources. Relevant terms should be defined in the body text. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

And this is based on what exactly? nableezy - 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The definition supplied was not appropriate to the historical background. There are several others available, which will be added in due course, and like, them, Berda's term needs a section to alert the reader. Change the heading if you like, but it has no place, being a recent definition (her Hebrew monograph dates to 2012) to a section on events from 1967 onwards. By the way as any familiarity with Shira Robinson's book will tell you, the racial profiling system put into place in the occupied territories developed from the one used against Israeli Palestinians/Arabs from 1948 down to 1966, at least.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

First, overly technical terms that require an extended explanation should be avoided per MOS:JARGON. Second, there is nothing in Berda's piece that requires any specialized understanding, and the header for her views is unnecessary and, again, a WP:WEIGHT issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A definition of terms is not 'jargon'. Secondly, it is not only her view, since the section will be expanded. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If it requires additional explanation and is not understandable to a layman, it's jargon. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please read the policies you cite? MOS:JARGON is about technical topics. It says that we should try to make technical topics as easily understandable as possible. It does not say we should not introduce terms to the readers and explain them. nableezy - 21:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Do everyone a favor and read it yourself. MOS:JARGON is exactly the policy that applies when you try to introduce an "overview of terms" section; this is never necessary. A non-technical term does not require a section providing an explanation. And by the way, it's a useless section in the first place because, despite the heading, it introduces no terms that require defining. The result is, unsurprisingly, WP:UNDUE weight Berda, again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. It very specifically is about technical topics. This is not a technical topics. Your undue weight argument is likewise based off nothing. Nothing at all. Please quote what exactly in WP:DUE supports your view. Please quote what exactly in MOS:JARGON supports your view. Because I can show that it does not. What it actually says is Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using. See, even if it did apply, which it does not, the manual of style says to explain the "jargon". And the material in the section emphatically is not "jargon". nableezy - 22:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, explain to me why an "overview of terms" is necessary if references are not excessively esoteric or technical for the average reader to understand. If they weren't, such a section wouldn't be necessary; and also, please indicate which terms this section even serves to provide an overview of. WP:UNDUE means not placing minor scholars in a section of their own, and that's precisely what you've done here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your understanding of UNDUE and of Berda seem to be on the same level. Berda is not a "minor scholar". What is in that section is the view of reliable sources. If there are conflicting views they should of course be added. Since you have not quoted what from WP:DUE or MOS:JARGON supports your position I can only assume that nothing in them do. nableezy - 22:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be significantly above yours, apparently, not that I'd trust your assessment. Here's a quote from the policy in case you're confused: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. Berda is no more prominent than any of the other scholars who have been cited (likely on the lesser end, in comparison to full professors and those with far more published works) and does not deserve her own section, whether or not you want to dress it up as an "overview of terms" which in fact provides no terms. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

lol, I see you got your education at the I know you are but what am I school. You should have kept reading, because it says right after that

However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

Is there any evidence that Berda represents a minority view? Because you need reliable sources disputing what she says to make that case. As far as I have seen you have none. It later says

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public.

Again, you need sources that show a dispute to make an undue weight claim. Do you have any? nableezy - 22:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong--if you believe that Berda's opinion carries more weight than any other scholar in the article, so much so that she should be granted her own section, the onus is on you to demonstrate that with sources. I have searched Berda's name and works compared to others in this article including Gordon and I do not see that she is a significantly more prolific or authoritative scholar than he or any other cited. It's not my job to prove a negative, you need to show that she deserves her own section, and come by it honestly rather than this "overview of terms" nonsense. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean by showing how Berda's views are being cited by other sources? Have you noticed what is the reference there? And no, I have shown that a view is treated as significant by reliable sources. You have made an unsourced supposition that there are other sources that show that this view is given too much weight. I ask you which sources. You respond with, surprise, no sources. nableezy - 22:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The relative weight of her views does not justify isolating them in a single section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not missing the point. I am flat out saying you have no point. nableezy - 22:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, if you can't show that Berda has more weight than the other scholars cited in this article, then a separate section for is WP:UNDUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Weight is, as you said, relative. Relative to other sources. There need to be sources disputing a view for there to be a weight issue. Feel free to take it to NPOV/N. nableezy - 23:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, and tag teaming isn't consensus. This is a meaningless section, it belongs in the body of the article, and we don't give obscure scholars their own section. That's classic WP:UNDUE, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she is or isn't a minority view or is "disputed." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I do think so. See how it works when somebody just makes a blatant statement and expects others to accede to their demands? The most basic reading of WP:NPOV makes this obvious. See where it says Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Berda is not an "obscure scholar". That you dont know her speaks more to the breadth of your knowledge than it does to hers. nableezy - 03:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You're almost there, but there's a key concept you're not understanding: proportion. Is she more prominent than the other scholars cited? Is she more prolific? Is she the prevailing authority? Any objective evaluation would lead to a "no" for each of these, which is why her views shouldn't be isolated under a single heading. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol, no. The view is what needs to be proportional. That is what you, again, refuse to understand. DUE is about giving views their weight proportional weight. Again, when a reliable source makes a statement that no other reliable source disputes there is definitionally no DUE issue. nableezy - 13:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(a) The article is about Israel's permit system. (b)The most up-to-date scholarly analysis in English of this system is by Berda. (c) She qualified in law in Israel at Hebrew University and went on to argue cases, many of them about permit law, before all the relevant judicial bodies that handle permit cases,-the Israeli Supreme court, administrative courts and the military criminal courts. (d) She then obtained an MA in sociology from TAU, (e) a PhD from the Department of Sociology at Princeton University, was resident scholar at Harvard University. (f)She is an expert on comparative bureaucratic systems. She made her reputation in this highly specialized area with the Hebrew edition of her book in 2012, and then obtained tenure at her alma mater as assistant professor. According to Haaretz, her latest English work is contextualized as follows, based on close practical, legal experience of the empirical basis for the topic of this area, which no authority cited, from Neve Gordon onwards, has.

Berda represented hundreds of such Palestinians, and along the way, she collected a great deal of information on the workings of the Shin Bet’s entry-permit system. When she began working as a sociologist, she used this data for her research. It is the most detailed description available about the way in which the method works – a bureaucracy of “constant emergency,” as her book is titled.

None of the other authorities cited here have this unique background, as a lawyer specializing in permit litigation, with over 80 case loads to her credit, a sociologist specializing on bureaucracy with particular regard to Israel's permit system, with two books to her credit precisely on the permit system, and the last judged to be the most detailed description available for the way the Israeli permit system works on Palestinians. Stop the hectoring, which is assuming farcical proportions of vapidly flatulent niggling, based on an obvious unfamiliarity with the topic.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Shany Littman, 'How the Shin Bet got unlimited power to decide which Palestinians are allowed into Israel?,' Haaretz 12 April 2018.

What you fail to mention that her law work was part of her "social justice activism" or "activist journey", with her book beginning with personal stories, working with "NGO Machsom Watch". She's also "active in the “A Land for All” movement, which until recently was called “Two States, One Homeland,” and advocates a confederative solution". We are not dealing with a scholar that is detached from the subject of study, but with an activist very much immersed in the subject and attempting to change it - as such - WP:BIASED applies. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Good grief! No serious scholar of worth is 'detached from the subject of his study'!!!! That's a recipe for scholarly failure. Read A. E. Housman, scrupulously austere in getting the minutiae of philological problems right, yet passionate, acerbic to the point of exasperation. I could cite hundreds of cases. Passion has even been theorized as intrinsic to good scholarship and teaching. Read George Steiner for god's sake.

If you cite a policy please read it beforehand, i.e.WP:BIASED reads:

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.'

The policy doesn't apply to this or most quality works written about social regimes which everyone, including blind Freddy and his mutt, knows to be deeply discriminatory esp. those that go through the arduous process of PhD scrutiny and peer-review in top-level Western universities books. Most classic studies of oppression, prejudice, or whatever form of discrimination, have been authored by people with a mission. Gordon Allport who wrote one of the definitive early works on prejudice was open about his work being inspired by a 'moral quest'. It's like impeaching Abraham Joshua Heschel's reliability as a source on the American civil rights movement, in which he participated, because he had a normative Torah based passion for social justice. I could give a million examples. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge Berda then by all means WP:RSN is thataway. Id enjoy the spectacle of seeing a user argue that a book published by Stanford University Press written by a professor at Hebrew University who has as a professional prior to her academic career focused on this subject is not a reliable source. Would actually love to see that. nableezy - 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not say it was not a RS - as a matter of fact, by linking to WP:BIASED I was implying it was. This is, as publications by other activists in an academic press, a biased RS - which needs to be balanced by sources with an opposing bias to achieve NPOV. So no - this is not a RSN issue. As for bias and NPOV - the bias is rather clearly self-declared by the author herself.Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You need other reliable sources showing her views are disputed. Nobody has stopped anybody from adding reliable sources here. The goal of some editors however has not been to add other sources, but rather to bury ones they dislike. nableezy - 15:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz is arguing that a lawyer who specializes in permit litigation is a social activist and therefore, even if they went on to write a detailed academically peer-reviewed work on the topic, biased. That means no lawyer with any background in human rights issues would be accepted as an expert on the issue because biased. It's a weird argument, really weird.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no comment on whether or not Berda is biased. What I find incredible is how dogmatically Nableezy is asserting that WP:DUE is not an issue. To be clear, for Nableezy and anyone else involved: This is not about whether her views may be included. It is about whether a scholar with no more authority in the subject than any other cited source deserves her own section, because editors happen to apparently personally agree with her analysis more than others and choose to emphasize it for that reason. The answer is obviously that she is not, and the "overview of terms" section is both WP:UNDUE and includes nothing that couldn't also exist under the "History" section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

'a scholar with no more authority in the subject than any other cited source deserves her own section'. I.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. This was answered above. She has specific competences no other scholar cited here has. If you wish to disprove this, indicate where Neve Gordon et al have specialized technical knowledge, and qualifications, in permit law and practice. If you cannot provide evidence, then your assertion is what it looks like, blah-blahing.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Its worse than that Nish. Wikieditor19920 cant even articulate what is a minority view in that section. His entire premise is based on literally nothing from WP:DUE. Not one word supports his view. nableezy - 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In this case - this is law based activism (in Machsom Watch) - similar to say Michael Sfard or crossing lines sharply to the other side - Itamar Ben-Gvir. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, do you have any sources that dispute what Berda is saying? If not then I really do not know what exactly it is you are looking for here. If you have such sources by all means bring them. Without them though there is no DUE issue. nableezy - 17:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz. Just a note on the term 'activist'. Every single person who has assisted Israel in its establishment as a state (I guess that includes even me, I worked voluntarily there), has spoken vigorously on its behalf (that includes me: I often quarreled with Palestinians before 1982), and defended its policies, enacted legislation regarding Israel, belonged to any organization, formal or informal, that underwrites Zionism, is an activist by the same token. Alan Dershowitz is an activist, Tony Blair is an activist, Chuck Schumer, alias shomer Yisrael, ad infinitum, are all 'activists', as are Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. There is nothing negative or disinvalidating in having a cause at heart, in being ac tive on behalf of that cause - it lies at the very heart of democracy. True, in the illiterate drift of much wiki talk 'activist' is coded language for 'partisan militant on the left', but Misplaced Pages is not a safe guide to language and conceptual thinking.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving my comment from the other thread: neither you nor Nableezy have addressed my central point whatsoever. Please provide a source showing that Berda has a "special expertise" beyond the other scholars on the subject and explain why "Overview of terms" cannot be incorporated into "History." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a source showing that Berda has a "special expertise" beyond the other scholars on the subject

I.er. you didn't read what I quoted above which described her book as

the most detailed description available for the way the Israeli permit system works on Palestinians

You ignored my request to show that any other authority cited here has (a) a degree in law (b) practices law ( c) specialized in permit law (d) wrote a book on the permit system and (e) had it reviewed as the 'most detailed description available'. All that counts here is your requests (duly answered and ignored), while you ignore what other editors request you do, i.e. familiarize yourself with wiki policy and the subject. You have done zero substantive edits to the page and are using it, and the talk page as an attritional battleground.

We have, exhaustively and in insisting only you are correct and now reverting again to your utterly irrational merging of history and definition sections makes a hash of the text, and does so in the face of two editors who have consistently shown your reasons are not grounded in policy, let alone intelligent page composition. You said it was undue to focus on Berda. I answered that by adding Rubenberg, so it is no longer an assertion of Berda's views alone, as you claimed. No! You ignored the adjustment and its going some way to meeting your complaint, and now we have definitions plunked into history. Edt-warring and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Don't cite consensus, either. Consensus does not mean doing what you alone insist be done. Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The section is meaningless, it assigns WP:UNDUE weigh to Berda (a charge you have NOT answered, and it is not resolved by sprinkling in a few other opinions) and you better believe that consensus matters if you want to give undue emphasis to a relatively junior scholar with few published works than others on the same subject. That's called WP:CHERRYPICKING, and not the way to write an article. And lastly, we previously formed a rough consensus against including Berda alone in the lead on the basis of weight, and you've tried to circumvent that by simply giving her her own section. Did you say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We have repeatedly answered it. That you dislike the answer does not make the answer any less valid. Your continued bleating about a "junior scholar" as though that means something is not something that is based on any policy. As far as cherrypicking, exactly what in the sources have been left out? Do you even read what you post? We have not formed any such consensus, your edit-warring is not a consensus sorry. nableezy - 16:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added several other sources to that section, which should make the incredibly silly DUE objection to the section only containing one voice moot. If you feel other sources speak to the topic by all means bring them. nableezy - 17:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As I have said from the beginning, there is nothing wrong with Berda as a source. In fact, I've found her reading useful on the subject; however, the point that I've consistently made, and which you have not addressed, is that her views on the subject should not be presented in their own section. WP:UNDUE presents a very logical basis for this opinion. You have countered by saying that she is not "disputed" or a "minority" view, and therefore my objections somehow don't hold. But that would only apply if I was saying that she should not be included in the article at all, which I emphatically am not. As I've asserted already, her writings and views should be incorporated into the history section of the article, along with the other prominent scholars who have written about the permit system, because her views do not carry any more weight than those. The fact that the section was inaptly named is another factor favoring getting rid of it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Your position is based on no policy, and in any event is moot. She is not the only person cited in the section now. nableezy - 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I just cited the policy, actually. Apparently it is, because you've now (somewhat) addressed the issue by incorporating other views and ensuring the Berda is not the only one represented. However, how do you figure that another section providing "definitions" is necessary in the body, in addition to the lead? Isn't the point of the lead to define what the "permit system" or "permit regime" is, and doesn't it already? Why do we need this section? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes you made a WP:VAGUEWAVE to a policy that does not support your position. The lead summarizes the body, this is an expansion of the definition and has more detail than would be appropriate for the lead. And hello, nothing was stopping you from adding more sources to that section. You are allowed to be constructive here, not purely destructive. nableezy - 17:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I would hardly call merging two sections "destructive." Notice that I did not remove any actual content. I'm still not convinced that this shouldn't be integrated into the body or lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Luckily nobody needs to convince you of anything. nableezy - 18:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)\

Yeah, actually, you do. You don't WP:OWN this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nor do you. Nobody needs your consent for anything. Sorry to tell you, you dont actually decide anything here. We as a group do, and consensus does not depend on any one persons consent. nableezy - 18:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Glad you brought up WP:CONSENSUS, which isn't just limited to editors you agree with. I see you've tried to address the WP:DUE issues in the section; we're about halfway there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, your misunderstanding of our policies does not make it so we need your consent. And you dont even have an argument anymore as hello Berda is not the only person quoted in that section now. nableezy - 19:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Trust me, I haven't misunderstood anything. I'll continue to raise issues where I see them, and right now, WP:NPOV seems to be the most significant one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, do what you want. Your view however carries no more weight than anybody elses. If you think you get to decide what is and is not NPOV well I suppose thats nice for you, but it has zero impact on me, my edits, or anybody else. nableezy - 21:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's why the problem with POV isn't only in the article, it's with (some of) the editors contributing to it. Try not behaving like an ideologue and treating this talk page like a battleground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Im not sure if you are talking to yourself, but I generally agree with your first sentence. nableezy - 03:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good! I suppose we're getting somewhere. Let's start with not placing disproportionate emphasis on scholars we may or may not agree with, not stating opinions as facts, and not selectively picking and quoting from sources to omit any information that could balance the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

These are not opinions, the views of scholars that are not disputed by reliable sources are facts on Misplaced Pages, and nobody has omitted any information. The article is balanced. That you are unfamiliar with how sources treat this topic does not make it so the article needs to follow your misunderstandings. nableezy - 16:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the work permit section needs balancing. Doesnt include the systematic exploitation of Palestinian workers as a result of the work permit regime. Will address that shortly. nableezy - 16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is reliant on the degree to which a scholar has been published in reliable sources, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are disputed. Competing views can be presented in proportion to their presence in such sources; what we cannot do, and which you've attempted repeatedly, is place undue emphasis on the views of scholars with limited published works by placing them in the lead, giving them their own sections, etc. These are basic, fundamental tenets of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV that you appear not to grasp or outright ignore. A current example? Loewenstein in the lead. From what I can find, she has published a single work on the subject and is otherwise undistinguished in the field.

As for the work permit section—go right ahead! I purposely left it short and fully expect it to be fleshed out. I'd encourage you not to try and craft a narrative, as you appear to suggest, instead of presenting a factual description based on the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Quote what in WP:WEIGHT supports any part of that. nableezy - 17:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Directly from WP:DUE Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public. Now likewise show me where you see the word "disputed" anywhere on that policy page or in one of the supplementals. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Viewpoints. How do you not get this? Are you seriously arguing that the viewpoint that the permit regime resembles South African apartheid is not prevalent in reliable sources? You see where the policy says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources? You understand what the word proportion means? When there are reliable sources that describe X, and none that oppose X, what do you think the proportionality of X is? I dont really see the need to continue arguing with you over this. Your idiosyncratic views are your own, and nobody else is governed by them. nableezy - 18:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And can you maybe not conflate ten different issues in each section? nableezy - 18:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There are viewpoints and then there are the purveyors of those views, or their own interpretation. A specific scholar can still be WP:UNDUE for the lead. From the explanatory supplement: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And the next sentence says? Ill help you, The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. See WP:RS#Scholarship for why these are the most reliable type of sources. nableezy - 18:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of the cited scholars have published in academic sources, so relative weight comes down to which sources they've been published in, and how widely distributed their work is in said reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Youre missing the point. It is not that the cited scholars have published in academic sources, its that the source cited is an academic source. That it is published by a top-quality press. That it is specifically focused on the topic. Youre objecting to what now exactly? That there is a single quote in the lead? That quote is representative of the 8 other sources cited on the comparison of the regime to South African Apartheid. That is a significant view, widely published in reliable sources. And that specific view is from Forced Migration Review published by the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. You see where Im going with this? nableezy - 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of the cited scholars have published in academic sources

Almost all of the cited writers have published in written sources

Almost all of the cited translators have published translations

Almost all of the carnivores have eaten meat

Almost all of the wiki editors have edited wikipedia

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This argufying is pointless, esp. if one's interlocutor can't see a simple tautology involved in thinking scholars write for academic publications.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, find a different way to call attention to your otherwise ignorable posts than disruptive blockquoting. And none of that makes the Loewenstein quote in the lead necessary or justified. The lead can summarize the analogy without a) violating WP:CITEOVERKILL and b) providing quotes that convey information that can be rewritten as prose and without giving in-text attribution to otherwise non-notable scholars. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You made an egregious tautology. I noted it. You display almost zero familiarity with the topic, to judge by your edits, but engage in a huge amount of empty quibbling. Please desist, and allow content editors to actually do the constructive work required here. This is all intensely boring and detracts from time better spent actually mastering the relevant literature.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Challenging potentially, IMHO, POV edits is almost as tedious and "intensely boring" as reading your hifalutin diatribes. And as far as the subject matter, please, inform me of which edits were factually inaccurate or unsupported by sources—you won't find any. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And regardless of the sources available, WP:CITEOVERKILL is not the way to go. At the very least, that should be fixed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You know thats an essay right? The citations were added because the material was challenged. If we remove the citations the material will again be challenged as not being cited. nableezy - 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any less relevant here. Tell me, does this sound familiar? One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Garphism is the study of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It makes it something that nobody is required to follow. And that quote gets some very basic things wrong (notability has nothing to do with article content, notability is a related to the inclusion of articles as topics, not what is covered within those articles). You may think there are too many citations there, but that appears to be a personal problem. nableezy - 01:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it's a problem with the article, one that you're apparently taking personally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really? Youd be better off reading sources than trying to read my mind. The material that has those citations was challenged. So more citations were added. Im fine with moving the bulk of the citations in to the body if that will alleviate this current distress. nableezy - 04:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

second intifida was in 1987

Uh what? That surely is a mistake. nableezy - 20:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well that part is fixed, but where in the ARIJ source does it say that it expanded after the first intifada? The general exit permit remained in place until the start of the Gulf War. All I see in the source is that closures and began to be used more. nableezy - 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to section 1.1 on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please quote what from the source supports the language you inserted in to the article? I read the source, I do not see where it says what you have placed here. If I missed something please quote it. nableezy - 22:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A reminder that WP:YOUCANSEARCH too, but:

By the end of 1967, Israeli military forces seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip entirely, declaring them closed military zones. They were then administered by the military commander. (Handel, 2009) In 1972, the Israeli military leader Moshe Dayan declared the “Open Borders” policy. (Gazit, 2003) by which Palestinians were granted general exit permission in order to integrate them into the Israeli labor force. They enjoyed relatively free movement until the end of the second half of 1980s. (Parizot, 2017) With the eruption of the first Intifada “uprising” in 1987, and the deteriorating security situation, the Israeli army completely restrained Palestinian movement applying security mechanisms like curfews and closures. (Hass, 2002) The freedom of movement between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including inside the “Green Line,” was denied to the Palestinians. Travelling abroad was also restricted under the pretext of security. (Abu Zahra and Adah Kay, 2012) This step aimed to thwart the expansion of the uprising. (CDS, 2015)

. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh obviously I looked at the source, and obviously I dont think it contains what you cited to it. So where exactly does that quote say anything close to The expansion of the permit system has been traced to the first Intifada or “uprising” in 1987? nableezy - 22:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you need it bolded for you? The paragraph above explicitly describes an expansion of the permit system following the Intifada. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You are venturing into WP:CIR territory. Exactly what in the source says anything close to "The expansion of the permit system has been traced to the first Intifada"? Because the quoted portion does not say anything of the sort. What the source says is that closures (another topic) and curfews (also another topic) expanded as a result of the first intifada. It does not say that the permit regime did. It actually says that one of the bigger topics, the general exit permit, lasted well beyond the start of the first intifada. nableezy - 22:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue these petty back-and-forths. I'm interested in discussing content, not doing the dozens with you. From the rest of 1.1, which you've also neglected to read:

In 1989, workers from the Gaza Strip were forced to get magnetic cards to access Israel, though this wasn’t enough to guarantee receiving a permit (Smierat, 2013). 'In 1991, the general exit permit of 1972 was cancelled and replaced with a new policy. Based on this policy, Palestinians were required to get individual permits. This event marked the beginning of implementation of the “Permit Regime” in order to filter out Palestinian movement under security pretext in Israel.' (BADIL, 2015) The permit regime contributed to demarcating Israeli-Palestinian spaces and the emerging segregation project supported by the former Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin. (Zureik, et al, edited, 2011)

The first Intifada prompted the stricter set of movement restrictions accompanied by the requirement for ID cards, and this ultimately led to the "implementation" of the permit regime. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that happened in 1991. It does not say that this was a result of the first intifada. You seem to be either ignoring or missing what I am saying. You attribute the expansion of the permit regime to the first intifada. You cite this source for it. Where, exactly, does this source attribute said expansion to the intifada? The closing line of your comment, The first Intifada prompted the stricter set of movement restrictions accompanied by the requirement for ID cards, and this ultimately led to the "implementation" of the permit regime. is what I am looking for a source for. I understand that you feel that this is true, however you have not provided a source that explicitly says so. Does the source cited actually do so? If not I will be removing the material as failing verification. And, oh by the way, I am discussing the content. If you are unwilling to do so feel free to find your way elsewhere. Maybe hound another editor instead of me, that would be great. nableezy - 23:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You can like or dislike my paraphrase, but it's directly attributed to the source. The issuance of ID cards restricting movement is tied to the first Intifada by ARJI, and that is what became the permit system, the modern version of which was established in 1991. A reminder that this page is under 1RR restriction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow. No, the issuing of ID cards is not what became the permit system. And no, the "modern version" was not established in 1991. Where are you getting any of this from? Because it isnt in the source. 1RR? Wtf are you talking about now? nableezy - 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I've now bolded the relevant portion for you. The 1991 policy change on movement, and the requirement for permits, is mentioned in this source and others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That is one source, others give a different start of the regime (Gordon says 1967 for example). Yes, the general exit permit was revoked in 1991. That is not by any means the beginning of the requirement for a host of other permits, only for individualized exit permits. Also, you know you linked to Berda right? And Btselem is also talking about that one permit. Freedom of movement is not the only thing that the permit regime covers. That one part changed, drastically, in 1991. The rest either predates that considerably or was expanded after that. nableezy - 01:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct - what was inserted into the article is directly supported by the source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

kickbacks and other exploitation

Nish I kind of think that should be its own section. I got a few more sources on that Ill bring. nableezy - 20:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I know. But the problem is to get information in, and then sort it. For example I'm thinking of a section on the inability of any educated Palestinian, let alone many experienced lawyers to understand how the system works, and what its legal jargon means. There's no hurry, is there? Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, none at all. nableezy - 20:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

And now I cant recall which sources I had on the kickbacks to Israeli employers I had. Nish, if you have more sources on that dump em here, the work permit section still needs a bit on that. nableezy - 21:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible WP:NPOV issues

I'm going to maintain a running list of instances in this article where an opinion from a reliable source is stated as a fact without any qualification, in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV. I'll also include my suggestions for rewording.

• The pretext for this new permit regime regarding movements was to contain the expansion of the uprisings and protect both the IDF and Israeli civilians from military confrontations with armed Palestinians. This line in the lead needs to be attributed to Al-Qadi. Whether or not something is a "pretext" is clearly a matter of opinion.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Zygmunt Bauman's warnings of the debilitating effect bureaucracy may have on the human condition has been cited to throw light on the Orwellian or Kafkaesque trap of red tape that, it is argued, places a stranglehold on Palestinian autonomy Orwellian? This cannot be stated in Wiki voice. If this is being attributed to Bauman, this must be made clear. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• A broader issue is that a significant deal of the prose is poorly paraphrased, with the offending text in the Wiki article nearly mirroring what's stated in the respective sources. This is not just NPOV, because many of these sources editorialize in ways inappropriate for Wiki, but this could also be seen as WP:PLAGIARISM. For example, the line about "transforming rights" is almost directly lifted, word for word, from Gordon without quotations or in-text attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to demonstrate the general quality of the above complaints. for example, the line about "transforming rights" is almost directly lifted, word for word, from Gordon without quotations or in-text attribution.

Here is what the source says

A structural arbitrariness informed the very operation of the permit regime, which was part of and parcel of the collosal juridical-bureaucratic apparatus that upheld the occupation. Numerous rights like freedom of movement were transformed into privileges that were handed out in the form of a permit that could be revoked at any moment for an array of known and unknown reasons.

Here is what the article says, with an in-line citation to this source

the regime has been characterized as arbitrary and as one that transforms rights such as freedom of movement into privileges that were to be granted or revoked by the military authority

That is according to the above editor "almost directly lifted, word for word". And the idea that we should not be reflecting our sources is rather out there for somebody to say out loud. I get that some people wish the sources said something besides what they do, but our job here is to reflect the sources, not substitute our views for theirs. nableezy - 01:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You should worry about the quality of your writing, not my complaints, which are really suggestions. I highlighted the problematic sections of text for you. You also didn't answer either of my other points. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that isnt plagiarism. My writing isnt poor lol. You can keep acting like you the big man around here, but you dont actually decide anything. I did in fact answer your other points. When I said demonstrate the general quality of the above complaints I was saying that just with the silly claim that we a. should not reflect the sources and b. that this sentence is "almost directly lifted, word for word" (when neither of the portions you bolded are word for word the same) that the other claims are likewise silly. nableezy - 02:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Zygmunt Bauman

Wikieditor19920 here you go, not even listing the problem in the talk page header. This is a horrendously bad edit. You completely misunderstood what the sentence in the article meant, and apparently did not even look at the source. Bauman didnt write anything about the permit regime. The source, and the article, says that Bauman's writings about "bureaucracy's debilitating impact on the human condition" are echoed in Amira Hass' writing about the occupation's bureaucracy that controls Palestinian freedoms of movement, work and so on. It is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Please correct it. And please do not continue editing without regard for what the sources say. nableezy - 04:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep. This one comes close to my all time best-misreadings-on-Misplaced Pages list. Just for the record (further proof of incompetence)

Zygmunt Bauman's warnings of the debilitating effect bureaucracy may have on the human condition has been cited to throw light on the Orwellian or Kafkaesque trap of red tape that, it is argued, places a stranglehold on Palestinian autonomy.

1. Zureik 2015, p. 121. sfn error: no target: CITEREFZureik2015 (help)

Has been rewritten (ungrammatically) by

Zygmunt Bauman's characterized the bureaucracy as "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque."

1. Zureik 2015, p. 121. sfn error: no target: CITEREFZureik2015 (help)

Comically the edit summary reads:'Fixed bad paraphrases, statements of opinion as fact.' The bad paraphrase also consisted in using the source word 'pretext' instead of 'justification', which is a euphemistic gloss, and would have required 'asserted (justification)'. If you can't sight it, Wikieditor19920, 'Zygmunt Bauman's characterized' is a double elementary English error. It confuses the possessive function of 's which cannot take a verb as an object (a competent reader will stop and ask himself 'what, related to Bauman, characterized which bureaucracy..etc.' ), unless of course you were thinking, equally ungrammatically of the contractive function of 's (Zygmunt Bauman is/has) which in any case also either garbles the sentence 'Zygmunt Bauman is characterized the bureaucracy', or, in abbreviating 'has' to 's, violates normal prose conventions) Jeezus.

Nableezy is correct. You (a) did not read the source (b) did not understand the straightforward accurate paraphrase of the source (b) and solved your nescient perplexity by writing garbled English while, miraculously, distorting the source. Quite an achievement.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, let's all lose our shit over a typo. The first draft was nearly unintelligible, and it's not worth taking another stab at. And Nishidani, "pretext" is exactly the type of editorializing we should avoid—that's not "glossing over." You should learn to keep your opinions to off Wiki. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• Unassessed Palestine-related articles
• Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles