Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:38, 9 September 2014

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.

Please 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.

	West 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 Date Process Result July 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed February 20, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Israel B‑class High‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance 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.

Palestine B‑class Top‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate 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: 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!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 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.

Construction

Any information on the companies that are fabricating it?

"Palestinian West Bank" ?

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

Reasons for Building the Barrier

I changed:

"Supporters argue..."

to

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

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

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

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

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

So why was this edit reverted?

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

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

Bad References

Here is the line in the introduction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SYNTH edits

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 WP:SYNTH. 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 GNI/capita (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. Zero 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the United Nations example given at WP:SYNTH. 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&G economy as a whole as far as I can see, so your data on the whole region doesn't address the issue anyway. Zero 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 WP:SYNTH 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. Zero 04:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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 WB report refers to "barriers, checkpoints and movement permit" but doesn't attempt to distinguish the effects of each. Then it cites two studies. One of them 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 other source 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 West Bank, 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. Zero 11:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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. Zero 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

The current (my last) edit kept the Introduction format as,

1. Paragraph 1: briefly describe Who? What? Where? (but not Why? because Why? is disputed and is covered in Paragraphs 2 and 3).
2. Paragraph 2: "Barrier proponents..." topic sentence with 73 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary)
3. Paragraph 3: "Barrier opponents..." topic sentence with 77 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary)

Also, there is a section on "names" which is prominently located as the first section in the article. This covers the different names so "(or Wall)" need not be in the Introduction.

Also, technically the 1949 Armistice line is not recognized (by anyone?) as a border (See: "without prejudice to future borders...") so the term "border" should probably be replaced with only the more accurate and neutral "1949 Armistice Line" (optional: "('Green Line')").

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Short and incomplete response:

the wordings "Barrier proponents/opponents" should be removed anyway. This is not an opinion poll.

Section "Names" is no reason to omit names from the lede. I question why the section "Names" needs to exist in the first place.

In this article the green line need not be discussed. If that line is under discussion, any first article link can solve that.

What I miss is clear clean fact listing. Areas and people affected. That's simple numbers. I already added some sourced figures.

And while we are at it: why is the page named like this, while it does not represent any of the names in play?. (Since it is across (throughout) the West Bank, I'll propose the Palestinian name by first option). -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Before continuing here, please undo the 1RR breach. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: introduction section organized as Paragraph 1 (one or two sentences summarizing Who? What? Where?), Paragraph 2 (Barrier proponents say...), Paragraph 3 (Barrier opponents say...), this seems to be a fairly standard way to present controversial issues on 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.

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I can dive into this, please first revert the WP:1RR edit I mentioned ( and ). -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• Palestine-related articles needing attention
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions