Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israeli permit regime in the West Bank

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 8 April 2019 (→also known as). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:17, 8 April 2019 by Nableezy (talk | contribs) (→also known as)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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:
WikiProject iconIsrael
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconPalestine
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
???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:
  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

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.

The author of the book above published by Stanford University Press titled Living Emergency: Israel's Permit Regime in the Occupied West Bank wrote, on the SU Press blog, the following:

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)
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.

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" in their titles but actually use "system" and "regime" interchangeably if you actually delve into the reports themselves. 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) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
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:-
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 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)

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.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Categories: