Misplaced Pages

Talk:West Bank barrier: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:38, 9 September 2014 editDePiep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 edits →Organization of Introduction section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:01, 10 September 2024 edit undoAidan9382-Bot (talk | contribs)Bots9,124 edits Update archiving templates after a page move (Report bot issues) 
(376 intermediate revisions by 70 users not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:


|currentstatus=DGA |currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Geography}} |topic=Geography
|itndate=23 February 2004}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=Top|attention=yes}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Law}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top|attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=high}}
}}

<!-- Do not remove the sanction template --> <!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}

{{sanctions| '''See ] for details.'''}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K |maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 8 |counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:West Bank barrier/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archive box|auto=long |bot=MiszaBot I |age=60 |search=yes}} {{Archive box|auto=long |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=60 |search=yes}}

== Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}

<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->


* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl|textdiff}})''':


I think one more paragraph should be added to the sub-section 'Effects on Palestinians'.
== Construction ==
Any information on the companies that are fabricating it?


Below is the paragraph:
== "Palestinian West Bank" ? ==


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


'''Effects on Palestinians working in Israel'''
== Reasons for Building the Barrier ==


I changed:


The wall significantly impacts the rights, freedom and mobility of Palestinian workers especially<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>.
"Supporters argue..."
It represents for Palestinians a complex system of control, surveillance and oppression. According to the Washington Post, about 70000 Palestinians cross checkpoints daily to work in Israel, mainly in construction sites<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/occupied/checkpoint/</ref>. Security forces at checkpoints have the authority to turn back Palestinians without reason or, as often is the case, turn a short commute into an hours-long, humiliating journey<ref>https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution</ref>. Workers leave their homes in the very early morning, some as early as 2am<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>, and spend hours commuting, not returning to their homes until the late evening<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>. The military checkpoints they need to cross are usually overcrowded, in poor conditions and characterized by long processing times<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>. They are herded through congested steel cages and metal turnstiles and go through invasive security checks. They are not allowed to take their own tools, food and drinks with them, adding an additional financial burden<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf</ref>. Several human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported human rights abuses inside checkpoints, including arbitrary arrests and unlawful shootings<ref>https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#_ftn330</ref><ref>https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Full-Report.pdf</ref>. The daily struggle and humiliation of going through a checkpoint is not only for workers but also for those communities that were cut in two by the presence of the separation wall. West Bank Palestinians who live on the Jerusalem side in areas like Nabi Samuel are forbidden to go to the Jerusalem site outside their homes and must cross a checkpoint to attend schools or go to work or to the hospital<ref>https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution</ref>.


to


* '''Why it should be changed''':
"Israel argues that the barrier is necessary..."


I think this paragraph is necessary as the article does not mention the daily experience of Palestinian workers going through checkpoints to cross the border. Their experience significantly changed since the building of the Wall, as before they could freely cross the border.
I read the source associated with the phrase and there is no mention of any other supporters except for Israel:


* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':
" What is the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area?


] (]) 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The Security Fence is being built with the sole purpose of saving the lives of the Israeli citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000. The fact that over 800 men, women and children have been killed in horrific suicide bombings and other terror attacks clearly justifies the attempt to place a physical barrier in the path of terrorists. It should be noted that terrorism has been defined throughout the international community as a crime against humanity. As such, the State of Israel not only has the right but also the obligation to do everything in its power to lessen the impact and scope of terrorism on the citizens of Israel. "
<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
:'''Done.''' — ] (]) 09:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}


== Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023 (2) ==
The source in question comes from the Israeli Ministry of Defense and does not mention any other country that supports the reason for building the barrier. http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm


{{Edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}
So why was this edit reverted?


<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
Thanks,user: karimmtl <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:I reverted the edit because I mistakenly believed there were more sources than just the Israeli Ministry of Defense. I've restored your change. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


* '''What I think should be changed:
== Bad References ==


The page name should be changed from 'Israeli West Bank barrier' to 'Israeli West Bank wall'.
Here is the line in the introduction:


* '''Why it should be changed''':
Some Jewish settlers condemn the barrier for appearing to renounce the Jewish claim to the whole of the Land of Israel.


This is a contentious topic, with the two opposing sides proposing diametrically opposing names. The pro-Israel side calls it ‘security fence’ (which is ‘too technical and depoliticizing of the wall’<ref>https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA</ref>) while the pro-Palestinian side calls it ‘apartheid wall’ ( which ‘needs a fuller understanding and accounting of the differences and similarities between the case of Israel and that of South Africa prior to 1994’<ref>https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA</ref>). This is included in the ‘Names’ section and picking either of these names would be against Misplaced Pages’s neutrality policy. Below are the reasons why I think ‘Israeli West Bank Wall’ would be a more appropriate name than ‘Israeli West Bank barrier’.
The source links to an archive page http://web.archive.org/web/20071008123543/http://www.womeningreen.org/sayjune02.htm where a woman called Ruth Matar is simply stating her opinion. Ruth Matar is a nobody, the source is simply her opinion.


Given how it is a contentious two-sided debate, it would be good to look at the most neutral perspective, which is the one of the international community. Both the ICJ and the UN have called it ‘wall’<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20040902090629/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2004/ipresscom2004-28_mwp_20040709.htm</ref><ref>https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/07/472712</ref>. Furthemore, both the ICJ and the UN have declared the wall illegal under international law, questioning whether the Israeli perspective on this topic should be put on the same level as the Palestinian.
If no one objects I'll remove that part of the introduction, or can the moderator remove it him or herself.


I did an Ngram of the most common names: West Bank barrier, Israeli security fence, Israeli Wall, Apartheid wall<ref>https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=West+Bank+barrier%2C+Israeli+security+fence%2C+Israeli+Wall%2C+Apartheid+wall&year_start=1990&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3</ref>. It appears that ‘apartheid wall’ is the most used, but I agree that it is not neutral enough. ‘Israeli wall’ is the second most used, highlighting how ‘wall’ is overall more used. The terms ‘security fence’ and ‘barrier’ are significantly less used. Hence, renaming it ‘Israeli West Bank wall’ is more appropriate as it is the most common name and the one used by the most neutral of the actors at play (the international community).
Thanks Karimmtl 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


To those arguing that the structure is not only made out of the concrete wall but also includes fences and other types of barriers, I would like to point to the comment made by the user ‘Onceinawhile’, who wrote that ‘Whatever we do here it seems logical that it would follow how we have named the Trump wall<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Trump_wall</ref>, which similarly is not technically mostly “wall” and obviously had a much longer official name’.
:Malik, do you object to me removing that part of the article? Or did anyone else read the link and researched who Ruth Matar or womeningreen is? In not I will remove it today, so please don't accuse me of vandalism. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Finally, the connotation of the word ‘wall’ is a lot stronger than the word ‘barrier’, which seems more technical and broad. The term wall more appropriately reflects the lived experience of Palestinians and the consequences of its structure in terms of limitations on their freedom of movement, their self-determination and their economic opportunities.
::Go ahead. If anybody objects, you can discuss it with them. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


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


Although this is an interesting and important section, the reference for this source links to an article discussing the danger of a nuclear Iran (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/)and has nothing to do with the text in question. I will try to search for a source to support the claims otherwise...another one bites the dust. Karimmtl 22:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':
== SYNTH edits ==


] (]) 23:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Data showing a GNP increase is inadmissible in this article without a reliable source that connects it to the West Bank barrier. The World Bank source does not do that, so it's appearance here is a textbook case of ]. The choice of GNP is also clearly biased when other measures show a different trend. A much better measure of the economic lot of individuals is the ] (roughly, purchasing power per person) which lags even far behind the rest of the Arab world and in 2012 was less than 1/6 of that in Israel. But that is ineligible too, for the same reason. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
:Changes like these need consensus. One ] editor alone cannot make this change. See ] for starting a move discussion — ] (]) 09:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023 ==
This was debated years ago and resolved as non-synthesized information. It is purely factual and tied into the barrier discussion for the same reason that the speculative comments about the barrier's negative effects are included -- except that the GDP data is not speculative; it is actual data about the GDP of the West Bank. The resolution years ago when the previous citation of GDP data was shown (and has been part of this page for several years without any futher controversy after being discussed and resolved) was to adopt the NPOV approach and show all points of view. One point of view is to speculate that the barrier will coincide with lower GDP. Another point of view is to show that it, in fact, does not coincide with lower GDP. Thus, the resolution from years ago was to include both points of view: the speculation of lower GDP and the actual GDP. It is not a biased choice of GDP: it was simply the most accessible GDP measurement available. It's two clicks away on the World Bank site. (The reference was deleted.) The CIA Factbook does not have as many years of historical data easily available (as far as I could see.) ] (]) 20:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Israeli West Bank barrier|answered=yes}}
: Please look at the United Nations example given at ]. It is very similar to this example. You are trying to imply that the barrier didn't adversely affect the economy, but your source does not state that. How do you know that the GDP wouldn't have risen even faster if it wasn't for the barrier? It needs expert judgement, for which we need sources. Also, the text in the article only refers to the economic effect on people living near the barrier and does not make a claim about the WB&amp;G economy as a whole as far as I can see, so your data on the whole region doesn't address the issue anyway. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
: Do you have a source relating the GDP data to the barrier? Did you look at the example on ] that I asked you to look at? The fact that you made the same false arguments in 2006, with no support from any other editor as far as I can see, has no bearing on this case whatever. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, together with the Swiss Agency for Development (SDC) established a CHF 1,6 Mio project to set up a “Barrier Monitoring Unit” (BMU) and, after three years, hand it over to the Palestinian Authority. Its stated purpose was to “improve access to land, livelihoods, and services for Palestinian communities affected by the West Bank Barrier”.
It is not SYNTH. The World Bank report estimates the GDP loss due to the barrier (actually cites two studies which are close due to "barrier" and "checkpoints and movement permits so it is an upper bound.) The World Bank has estimated for the West Bank both the total aggregate GDP and the total aggregate GDP loss due to "barriers, checkpoints and movement permits" -- a subset of which is "barriers" so the World Bank has calculated an upper bound on the aggregate loss due to "barriers". The upper bound is about $185m or $229m (according to the two studies used/cited by the World Bank, respectively). It seems to be OK with Zero0000 to show outdated GDP growth on the chart that has been on this page since 2006 until now but to update the chart with more recent World Bank data is not okay?!? Arguably, without the World Bank report citation which is the first reference for the first sentence, there is a feasible argument that it could be SYNTH but the World Bank report added recently specifically discusses and estimates the economic effect of the barrier (and checkpoints and other restrictions -- unfortunately, it does not break them out.) ] (]) 05:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


The justification for the unit derived from the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion and its subsequent adoption by the General Assembly, and from the expressed need for documentation of the barrier’s impact. The BMU provided data and assistance to many of the UN humanitarian agencies on the ground, as well as to international, local, and academic institutions, including the Palestinian Authority which had six ministries involved during the implementation phase. Together with UNOCHA, the BMU was the main mechanism by which humanitarian diplomacy on the barrier was implemented.
: Your sentence "It seems to be OK..." is complete bollocks; please restrict yourself to your own opinions and let me state mine. Looking at this more closely, the OR problem is even worse than I thought. The refers to "barriers, checkpoints and movement permit" but doesn't attempt to distinguish the effects of each. Then it cites two studies. considers the effects on the labor market and says "These lower bound estimates suggest therefore that the overall cost of the checkpoints on the West Bank labor market amount to around USD 229 million, which is mainly determined by the reduction in the wages. This cost is far from being negligible, equivalent to 6% of the West Bank GDP in 2007." Not only is it primarily attributed to checkpoints, not the separation barrier, the value of 6% it gives contradicts your value. That's because you divided a cost estimate for one year by the GDP for a different year; exactly why we don't allow OR. The estimates extra car costs (petrol, oil, maintenance, etc) caused by having to drive greater distances to avoid checkpoints when going from one West Bank location to another. The cost is attributed to the lack of permits to cross checkpoints, especially Qalandiya checkpoint, not to the separation barrier. So these two estimates (1) are not attributed to the barrier, (2) are for completely different things so should be added not compared, (3) refer to only specific types of cost and omit many other types. They would be appropriate for ], but the lack of sourced connection to the separation barrier makes them not usable here. And of course the GDP pictures are 100% synth as you still did not find any source connecting them to the article topic. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


The BMU aimed at building local capacity, transferring skill sets to partner organisations, and to individual stakeholders and beneficiaries. Stefan G. Ziegler initiator and manager of the BMU pursued research with internationally renowned partners, such as the Politecnico di Milano, the University of Bern, and the Graduate Institute in Geneva, and was particularly successful in strengthening advocacy efforts even beyond the project (see Broken-the-film.com further below). This included messaging about the barrier’s impacts at such places as the EU Parliament, the UN in New York, at Cornell University as well as with publications, for example, EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland. Stefan G. Ziegler realized the tremendous potential for capacity building and shared institutional learning. His participative action research approach became one of the outstanding motivational pillars of the collaboration with the BMU by its associates and stakeholders.
: Incidentally your images say "West Bank" but their source says "West Bank and Gaza". There is also the question of whether they include East Jerusalem. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


A key achievement of the BMU was its methodology, the institutionalisation of an innovative advocacy approach, initially entitled the Academic Cooperation Palestine Project (ACPP). The BMU was commended for creating a ‘community of practice‘ as well as a model for future educational development as part of what became known as the ‘LearningAlliance’*.
==Organization of Introduction section==
This is support for a brief summary in the Introduction section and its proposed format. This is not an argument for excluding facts from the article, but only for placing the inclusion of all relevant facts in the appropriate sections.


*spelling of our Geneva based NGO is in one word LearnigngAlliance while in our Misplaced Pages entry it is in two. ] (]) 11:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The current (my last) edit kept the Introduction format as,
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
# Paragraph 1: briefly describe Who? What? Where? (but not Why? because Why? is disputed and is covered in Paragraphs 2 and 3).
# Paragraph 2: "Barrier proponents..." topic sentence with 73 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary)
# Paragraph 3: "Barrier opponents..." topic sentence with 77 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024 ==
Also, there is a section on "names" which is prominently located as the first section in the article. This covers the different names so "(or Wall)" need not be in the Introduction.


{{edit extended-protected|Israeli West Bank barrier|answered=yes}}
Also, technically the 1949 Armistice line is not recognized (by anyone?) as a border (See: "without prejudice to future borders...") so the term "border" should probably be replaced with only the more accurate and neutral "1949 Armistice Line" (optional: "('Green Line')").
In the effectiveness section, citation 70 (referring to Haaretz reporting) references Hamas and the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier. Since this article refers exclusively to the West Bank barrier, discussion regarding the Gaza barrier should be removed. ] (]) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
:Why do you think the text in the source cited is referring to the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier? ] (]) 17:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
::Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza Strip where as the Palestinian Authority is the governing body of the West Bank. Though there is mention of the Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank, this article primarily refers to Hamas when discussing the effectiveness of military activities. ] (]) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:::That does not answer the question I asked. ] (]) 03:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
::::The article cited refers to Hamas, who governs Gaza. This page is for the West Bank barrier. ] (]) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::You are mistaken, that article is about Shin Bet saying attacks that originated in the West Bank decreased, but no longer because of this barrier. A. because no barrier in Gaza is referred to as a security fence by Israel, and b. the quote "But the main reason for the reduction in terrorist acts over the past year is the truce in the territories, as partial as it may be. The fact that Hamas, in general, stopped engaging in terror activities changed the picture. The Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank upgraded its capability and was responsible for the murder of 23 Israelis in 2005, but during that time, Hamas - the leading terror organization in recent years - has scaled back its engagement in terror. Its focus on the political arena and the preparations for the Palestinian parliamentary elections have limited its active involvement in terror to a large extent." makes it even more obvious. That article is from February 2006, prior to there even being a Hamas electoral win, or the battle with Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank and them taking over the governance of Gaza, and yes Hamas also is in the West Bank. Then and now. ''']''' - 14:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


== Grammar first sentence ==
] (]) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
:Short and incomplete response:
:the wordings "Barrier proponents/opponents" should be removed anyway. This is not an opinion poll.
:Section "Names" is no reason to omit names from the lede. I question why the section "Names" needs to exist in the first place.
:In ''this'' article the green line need not be discussed. If that line is under discussion, any first article link can solve that.
:What I miss is clear clean fact listing. Areas and people affected. That's simple numbers. I already added some sourced figures.
:And while we are at it: why is the page named like this, while it does not represent any of the ''names'' in play?. (Since it is ''across'' (throughout) the West Bank, I'll propose the Palestinian name by first option). -] (]) 23:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
:Before continuing here, please undo the 1RR breach. -] (]) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


First sentence is both a run-on sentence and has grammar issues. One way to address is to split off"who often call it wall of apartheid" into a separate sentence. ] (]) 04:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
::Re: introduction section organized as Paragraph 1 (one or two sentences summarizing Who? What? Where?), Paragraph 2 (Barrier proponents say...), Paragraph 3 (Barrier opponents say...), this seems to be a fairly standard way to present controversial issues on Misplaced Pages with NPOV... to acknowledge outright that the issue is controversial and to present the different views. To save space, text such as "The barrier is very controversial" is omitted but clearly implied. To ignore this would seem to be a disservice to the reader. Consider how to present, "The purpose of the barrier is..." without using some sort of literary device that presents a dichotomy ("Some say... On the other hand..."). The 73- and 77-word paragraphs seem to summarize these perspectives fairly.
::Re: "simple numbers", it is not so simple. Consider the conclusion of the first paragraph with, "The ICJ has stated that the barrier as constructed is illegal" vs. "The Israeli Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the barrier." Not so simple... not just numbers.
::Re: the "names" section, the reason for having this section is to organize similar points in a single section which is referenced by a Table of Contents. The four paragraphs discussing four common/authoritative/used naming conventions are all relevant and should be included in the article. (A rhetorical question might be, "Why not get rid of all sections and just put all of the text in the introduction?"... well... the answer is: sections organize the article.) (I do not know why the article is named IWBB.)
::Re: the Green Line, I do not understand the reference to "discussing" it. I suggested that the term "border" is not the most accurate because (I believe... not sure) nobody (Israel? PA? UN?) recognizes this as a border in the sense of being a recognized, permanent, political border. To the contrary, the phrase from the 1949 Israel-Jordanian Armistice agreement is often quoted, "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines" to emphasize that it is NOT a border. Rather than the term, "border" and its political connotations, I suggest using the term "1949 Armistice Line" with an optional "("Green Line")" to recognize the very widely used term, Green Line. The 1949 Armistice Line need not be discussed -- it can be linked.
:: ] (]) 03:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Before I can dive into this, please first revert the ] edit I mentioned ( and ). -] (]) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:01, 10 September 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

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

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

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!



Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

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

Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

I think one more paragraph should be added to the sub-section 'Effects on Palestinians'.

Below is the paragraph:


Effects on Palestinians working in Israel


The wall significantly impacts the rights, freedom and mobility of Palestinian workers especially. It represents for Palestinians a complex system of control, surveillance and oppression. According to the Washington Post, about 70000 Palestinians cross checkpoints daily to work in Israel, mainly in construction sites. Security forces at checkpoints have the authority to turn back Palestinians without reason or, as often is the case, turn a short commute into an hours-long, humiliating journey. Workers leave their homes in the very early morning, some as early as 2am, and spend hours commuting, not returning to their homes until the late evening. The military checkpoints they need to cross are usually overcrowded, in poor conditions and characterized by long processing times. They are herded through congested steel cages and metal turnstiles and go through invasive security checks. They are not allowed to take their own tools, food and drinks with them, adding an additional financial burden. Several human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported human rights abuses inside checkpoints, including arbitrary arrests and unlawful shootings. The daily struggle and humiliation of going through a checkpoint is not only for workers but also for those communities that were cut in two by the presence of the separation wall. West Bank Palestinians who live on the Jerusalem side in areas like Nabi Samuel are forbidden to go to the Jerusalem site outside their homes and must cross a checkpoint to attend schools or go to work or to the hospital.


  • Why it should be changed:

I think this paragraph is necessary as the article does not mention the daily experience of Palestinian workers going through checkpoints to cross the border. Their experience significantly changed since the building of the Wall, as before they could freely cross the border.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/occupied/checkpoint/
  3. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_%27separation%27_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  5. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Busbridge/publication/303982954_The_wall_has_feet_but_so_do_we_Palestinian_workers_in_Israel_and_the_'separation'_wall/links/599249410f7e9b433f415156/The-wall-has-feet-but-so-do-we-Palestinian-workers-in-Israel-and-the-separation-wall.pdf
  8. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution#_ftn330
  9. https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Full-Report.pdf
  10. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution

Extended-protected edit request on November 30, 2023 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.


  • What I think should be changed:

The page name should be changed from 'Israeli West Bank barrier' to 'Israeli West Bank wall'.

  • Why it should be changed:

This is a contentious topic, with the two opposing sides proposing diametrically opposing names. The pro-Israel side calls it ‘security fence’ (which is ‘too technical and depoliticizing of the wall’) while the pro-Palestinian side calls it ‘apartheid wall’ ( which ‘needs a fuller understanding and accounting of the differences and similarities between the case of Israel and that of South Africa prior to 1994’). This is included in the ‘Names’ section and picking either of these names would be against Misplaced Pages’s neutrality policy. Below are the reasons why I think ‘Israeli West Bank Wall’ would be a more appropriate name than ‘Israeli West Bank barrier’.

Given how it is a contentious two-sided debate, it would be good to look at the most neutral perspective, which is the one of the international community. Both the ICJ and the UN have called it ‘wall’. Furthemore, both the ICJ and the UN have declared the wall illegal under international law, questioning whether the Israeli perspective on this topic should be put on the same level as the Palestinian.

I did an Ngram of the most common names: West Bank barrier, Israeli security fence, Israeli Wall, Apartheid wall. It appears that ‘apartheid wall’ is the most used, but I agree that it is not neutral enough. ‘Israeli wall’ is the second most used, highlighting how ‘wall’ is overall more used. The terms ‘security fence’ and ‘barrier’ are significantly less used. Hence, renaming it ‘Israeli West Bank wall’ is more appropriate as it is the most common name and the one used by the most neutral of the actors at play (the international community).

To those arguing that the structure is not only made out of the concrete wall but also includes fences and other types of barriers, I would like to point to the comment made by the user ‘Onceinawhile’, who wrote that ‘Whatever we do here it seems logical that it would follow how we have named the Trump wall, which similarly is not technically mostly “wall” and obviously had a much longer official name’.

Finally, the connotation of the word ‘wall’ is a lot stronger than the word ‘barrier’, which seems more technical and broad. The term wall more appropriately reflects the lived experience of Palestinians and the consequences of its structure in terms of limitations on their freedom of movement, their self-determination and their economic opportunities.


  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

OwlzOfMinerva (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes like these need consensus. One extended confirmed editor alone cannot make this change. See WP:PCM for starting a move discussion — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
  2. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49716470/Constructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_Social_Movements_and_the_Politics_of_the_Wall_Barrier_Fence-libre.pdf?1476890516=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DConstructing_a_Wall_Discursive_Fields_So.pdf&Expires=1701390446&Signature=LWQzcVKCPAH4WvqLsW87c9BW4q32vEniQZoYiMnhycd0r20Z3B9-FzrX6FKZvtJYBOp3C-qEjzA1zFuC0Bib0FjhIAdU9QfbSw5FmE1Espv3xjMcR7ySMbUVD2t38D3C2LP~Gy7fy4fHuRn15UEeckAo4Mr2F9nWC12kHaOMN7wpnPNInG-4yUHkcARH5Tv8MB-Zgtfm3qIY6fO684j6Zqephk-zlVVAldbCXdrKf5VXlDxO~wBx7LAkzTZjMr048gGo2H159S7ZddPKzd-D0E2ye3CVheSVYjPPM41JJyBCrMD4xpIs97X8-ZbHdeRcVS5NBAHmUIW5iD98Jj7dww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
  3. https://web.archive.org/web/20040902090629/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2004/ipresscom2004-28_mwp_20040709.htm
  4. https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/07/472712
  5. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=West+Bank+barrier%2C+Israeli+security+fence%2C+Israeli+Wall%2C+Apartheid+wall&year_start=1990&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/Trump_wall

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023

This edit request to Israeli West Bank barrier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, together with the Swiss Agency for Development (SDC) established a CHF 1,6 Mio project to set up a “Barrier Monitoring Unit” (BMU) and, after three years, hand it over to the Palestinian Authority. Its stated purpose was to “improve access to land, livelihoods, and services for Palestinian communities affected by the West Bank Barrier”.

The justification for the unit derived from the 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion and its subsequent adoption by the General Assembly, and from the expressed need for documentation of the barrier’s impact. The BMU provided data and assistance to many of the UN humanitarian agencies on the ground, as well as to international, local, and academic institutions, including the Palestinian Authority which had six ministries involved during the implementation phase. Together with UNOCHA, the BMU was the main mechanism by which humanitarian diplomacy on the barrier was implemented.

The BMU aimed at building local capacity, transferring skill sets to partner organisations, and to individual stakeholders and beneficiaries. Stefan G. Ziegler initiator and manager of the BMU pursued research with internationally renowned partners, such as the Politecnico di Milano, the University of Bern, and the Graduate Institute in Geneva, and was particularly successful in strengthening advocacy efforts even beyond the project (see Broken-the-film.com further below). This included messaging about the barrier’s impacts at such places as the EU Parliament, the UN in New York, at Cornell University as well as with publications, for example, EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland. Stefan G. Ziegler realized the tremendous potential for capacity building and shared institutional learning. His participative action research approach became one of the outstanding motivational pillars of the collaboration with the BMU by its associates and stakeholders.

A key achievement of the BMU was its methodology, the institutionalisation of an innovative advocacy approach, initially entitled the Academic Cooperation Palestine Project (ACPP). The BMU was commended for creating a ‘community of practice‘ as well as a model for future educational development as part of what became known as the ‘LearningAlliance’*.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  04:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

This edit request to Israeli West Bank barrier has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the effectiveness section, citation 70 (referring to Haaretz reporting) references Hamas and the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier. Since this article refers exclusively to the West Bank barrier, discussion regarding the Gaza barrier should be removed. SierraLinC (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think the text in the source cited is referring to the barrier in Gaza, not the West Bank barrier? Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza Strip where as the Palestinian Authority is the governing body of the West Bank. Though there is mention of the Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank, this article primarily refers to Hamas when discussing the effectiveness of military activities. SierraLinC (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That does not answer the question I asked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The article cited refers to Hamas, who governs Gaza. This page is for the West Bank barrier. SierraLinC (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You are mistaken, that article is about Shin Bet saying attacks that originated in the West Bank decreased, but no longer because of this barrier. A. because no barrier in Gaza is referred to as a security fence by Israel, and b. the quote "But the main reason for the reduction in terrorist acts over the past year is the truce in the territories, as partial as it may be. The fact that Hamas, in general, stopped engaging in terror activities changed the picture. The Islamic Jihad network in the West Bank upgraded its capability and was responsible for the murder of 23 Israelis in 2005, but during that time, Hamas - the leading terror organization in recent years - has scaled back its engagement in terror. Its focus on the political arena and the preparations for the Palestinian parliamentary elections have limited its active involvement in terror to a large extent." makes it even more obvious. That article is from February 2006, prior to there even being a Hamas electoral win, or the battle with Fatah in Gaza and the West Bank and them taking over the governance of Gaza, and yes Hamas also is in the West Bank. Then and now. nableezy - 14:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Grammar first sentence

First sentence is both a run-on sentence and has grammar issues. One way to address is to split off"who often call it wall of apartheid" into a separate sentence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: