This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza–Israel barrier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm not sure but it seems like this {{Template:Arab-Israeli_Arbitration_Enforcement}} should probably be added here EdwardLane (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Note: the language here is sharply POV, not much different from an Israeli press release (except that Israeli press releases are considerably more literate). I've fixed numerous grammatical and spelling errors, but someone needs to fix the content. Whoever wrote this article has no business doing so.
Whoever thinks that only people who do not identify with a particular point of view should write articles have no business working for the wiki either. Who do you think wrote the articles about Greenpeace, activism, Peace movement and others, their name is legion? Probably not the resident Neocons. If you want to express a different POV, please use the NPOV method for incorporating it into the article, but do not run around saying who should and should not write articles. Watcher11:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
The list of attacks is only very marginally related to the subject. It can also be considered POV as it only cites an Israeli military source. I suggest that it be removed. If someone wants to write an artikle entitled "list of acts of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or similar, he can dig it up from this artikles history. B'Tselem's homepage might also be a good place to start as it has lots of statistics (and links to even more statistics) from both sides. PeR 18:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The list are related and relevant, since they handle the security issue of the Gaza Strip barrier - attacks on it (the crossings) and attack that came from Gaza (which the barrier should have blocked in theory). Since there is no other place where the attacks and the barrier are discussed, I return the lists. Also note the list only up to June 8 2003 is according to IDF data. MathKnight 18:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to create the "list of acts of violence" article I mentioned. Occupying half the space in this article does not seem justified to me. My main point, however, is that any listing of violent acts from only one side of a conflict is inflammatory. PeR
There is already a list called Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004. The point here is the security performance of the Gaza Strip barrier. So far, there is no shortage of space, so I see no reason to delete it, since its provide information about the preventing functioning of the barrier, as well as some cases that peaceful civilian crossing (Erez, Karni) were used for terrorism. MathKnight 20:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Only the list of attacks "Through" the barrier is relavent because those should have been blocked. Attacks on the checkpoint are not relavent becaues the checkpoint should be considered "Inside the barrier" and attacks on the checkpoint could not possibly have been blocked by the barrier.
The list of attacks on the crossings (such as Erez, Karni and Rafah) is also relevant, as they are frequently clossed because of them. MathKnight 09:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If a list of attacks on Israel is valid. Then a list of Israeli attacks on Gaza is also valid. Because of the wall, they should have no reason to attack Gaza. In light of this, I have started a list of Israeli attacks on gaza. --Majestiq 19:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is a list of attacks related to the crossing (either on and either through), try not to make into a flaming debate. MathKnight 21:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"List of attacks on Gaza Strip crossing points" section to be deleted if legitimate sources are not found
The whole list is incredibly POV and biased. I discovered that actually there was not one valid source link in the entire section. With the exception of one link in Hebrew, which makes it unverifiable in an English language encyclopedia, all links were invalid, expired, or broken. Given the extremely biased nature of this list, and it's disputed relevance, I am announcing my intention of deleting it unless credible impartial journalistic sources can be cited. --AladdinSE 20:14, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
It will be hard and will take a long time to replace many Haaretz and Maariv links that were expired and not being archieved under the same name. Expired links are real problem for ongoing events, and I hope you do assume good faith that the links provided were (before expired) a credible reference.
So far, in a short notice this what I could fine best: [1].
This one is about the attacks in Karni Crossing. A temporal solution might be using Google, clicking strings from the description of each event and find a news source with open archieve report about it. I am confident that there are exist some. You are invited to contribute to the effort. MathKnight 21:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does there exist any kind of Hebrew to English language conversion system like babblefish? Perhaps the sources could be linked through there.
I am not a proponent of maintaining these lists of attacks of dubious accuracy and even more dubious relevance. It's an occupation for heaven's sakes, of course the Israeli military is constantly being attacked by the occupied Palestinians. As for your sources, how can one possibly assume good faith when what you offer is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the blatantly Israeli propagandist and virulently anti-Arab "Intelligence and terrorism information center" website??? As for your expired Haaretz and Maaric links, how about non-Israeli references like Reuters, CNN, BBC, AP, etc? --AladdinSE 12:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
1) It's much more than the military that is being "constantly attacked". 2) Ha'artez and Ma'ariv are respected news sources, not particularly known for any sort of bias. And it's quite clear that local press will cover these things more thoroughly than foreign press. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
True, local press does provide more cover. How about Arab press alongside Israeli press? As for Ha'artez and Ma'ariv, these links are unfortunately invalid. Also, I know it's not just the military that are being attacked, but the disputed list is one which details attacks on a border separation installation, a military target. --AladdinSE 08:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
What Arab press would cover it? There's no free press in the Palestinian territories, and what press exists is in Arabic. Maybe Al-Jazeerah or Al-Ahram; though their standards are dismaying low, at least they have English editions. Mind you, they're not local, so the odds of them covering each one is low anyway. As for the list itself, I'm not sure about it. Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the state of the Arab press in the Palestinian Territories, you're sure they are not free? Where can I read up on that? I know that Israel practices censorship too, see Censorship of the Palestinian Press in East Jerusalem. Al Jazeera and Al Ahram dismayingly low? According to whom? They certainly are not local, but I know that Al-Jazeera maintains one of the largest Arab press contingents in Palestine. --AladdinSE 08:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Here are some links describing the state of Palestinian press under the P.A. Note, they are more recent than your 15 year old article.[2][3] Or, you could simply take a look at these rankings by Freedom House: [4] And if you think all those sources are biased, how about a report from the strongly anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. [5] Here's an article about Al Jazeera[6]. As for Al Ahram, it is the official organ of the Egyptian government; reading either source gives you a clue to the issues with their standards. Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what's biased, I asked for links because I wanted to read up on the issue, which I will now do. --AladdinSE 04:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Sources
Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion
Tiamut, I see you've been extremely selective in looking for sources. Rather than defacing articles with tags, be diligent finding sources for both sides. Jayjg (talk)00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
An opinion piece written by an assistant professor of English for Al-Ahram, a publication of the Egyptian government, is not a reliable source for the claims made. Also, and again, don't deface the article with dozens of tags for things which you know, in fact, are true. Jayjg (talk)01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There were no sources at all before I began making additions. All of what you see now in terms of footnotes and the references section were my additions. Note that they are not "selective" and do come from "both sides". In other words, your assessment of my edits is inaccurate. Note too, that this is not the first time you come along and start mass deleting [7] things I have added to an article lacking in sources. Remember List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? Please try not to jump to conclusions that mischaracterize my editing again. Thanks. Tiamut01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please focus on this article. You have found all sorts of information, some from unreliable sources, to bolster the claim that the barrier is "bad", but virtually none to bolster the claim that it is effective in stopping terrorist attacks. This is quite noticeable. Do you really question the fact that the barrier follows the Gaza border? Do you really question the fact that the barrier is less controversial than the West Bank barrier? Please do not disruptively add tags for things you could easily find out, or know is true. Jayjg (talk)01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Tags can be added to things that are known to be true but are unattributed, and I don't know that all those things are true. For example, how can Israel know if the barrier is virtually impervious? (I tagged that assertion) Those it doesn't catch may be just sneaking in to see family or get work and not blow themselves up. And again, you are ignoring the totality of my edits. See: [8]. None of references or footnotes were there. Nothing was sourced at all. I don't think my additions are selective. Some things I tagged, I subsequently found sources for and removed the tag. It's a work in progress Jayjg. Nice to see you have added one reference yourself just recently. But please stop deleting the Andrew Rubin information. [9] It's relevant and attributed to him and provides important information about the barrier and its effects on Palestinians. Tiamut02:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you know something is true, but simply unattributed, then you should not add a tag. As for the Rubin claims, as I've pointed out, he's an assistant professor of English writing an opinion piece in Al-Ahram, a newspaper whose content is controlled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information. In other words, it's not a reliable source for the claims attributed to it. Jayjg (talk)02:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
From WP:ATT: Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:
Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributed.
Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributable.
Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution. If the whole article or an entire section is unsourced, you can use the {{unreferenced}} template. Tiamut02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comment seems mostly irrelevant except for this part: However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found. Jayjg (talk)02:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems you have your blinders on. It says clearly, If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template - that is what I did. What's the problem? Tiamut02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Further, I ask you follow what it is asked in the sentence you bolded above and restore the Rubin material while adding fact tags. I have other sources for this info, like this: [10] and this [11] and I prefer to work on it in situ. Thanks. Tiamut02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The Rubin information is hardly "a harmless statement that lacks attribution", and it's unclear that reliable sources could reasonably be found for it. Please work on it in some temp page of your own, and please remember that this is supposed to be a credible encyclopedia article, not the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Jayjg (talk)02:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this policy only for BLP or not? And if it is, why are you invoking it? And please don't be condescending Jayjg. Try to concede that I actually improved the article, which was totally unsourced, outdated and factually incorrect in many places. It still needs work, but I'm not a magician. Give me more time. And try to remember that Wikipedia is a Wiki for a reason - i.e. it's a tool to be used. Tiamut02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing it twice, despite my requests that you do not, my provision of two other additional sources confirming most of the information there, and its being sourced and properly attributed, while removing fact tags I added to unattributed unsourced material, [12] and accusing me of being selective and going against policy, is disruptive. Further, if you think the sentence on "harmless statements" only applies to BLP, then the sentence you bolded above on causing disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found' which you cited to me (even though I have not deleted anything just added fact tags as per the policy) also applies only to BLP (coming right before the other). So why quote it to me? Just who is being selective and disruptive here exactly Jayjg? I was editing and improving the article before you came along and made the series of untrue accusations permeating this section? Could you just back off? Tiamut03:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to get into a "he said she said" argument with you. The paragraph was dubious and not reliably sourced. The multiple source tags were unhelpful. If you have a specific item you think is untrue, let me know. Jayjg (talk)04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The "list of attacks through Gaza crossing points" is completely irrelevant. If some people are to go from a point A (Gaza) to a point B (Israel), they obviously have to go through the border at some point, but also probably by a road and they may also stop at the local Shawarma to grab a bite - that doesn't make those places worth including in the article. DELETING this part - create a separate page with the list if you wish, possibly with a link from here.157.150.192.237 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've removed the following insertion to Talk: for discussion:
A week after one such set of demolitions affecting 60 homes on 9th and 10th of January 2002, Major-general Yom Tov Samiah told Israeli radio that, "These houses should have been demolished and evacuated a long time ago ... three hundred meters of the Strip along the two sides of the border should be evacuated ... Three hundred meters, no matter how many houses, period." [1]
I'm having trouble seeing what a 2002 quote from Yom Tov Samiah adds to the article. Apparently some Israeli military person was interviewed on the radio and gave his opinion about something several years ago. So what? Is this something that actually happened? Was it enshrined as official policy somewhere? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper; I'm sure we could fill the article up with dozens of off-the-cuff quotes from various people. Instead, let's try to keep the article encyclopedic in tone. Jayjg (talk)17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is lacking in information on the impact of the barrier on the population of Gaza. This is the beginning of one small addition to rectify that situation. Upon reflection though, I think there should be a whole section devoted to that subject. I'll keep that paragraph aside for that purpose, draft something up and put it in soon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Jayjg. Tiamut20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm going to be adding a significant amount of material to the article today in order to bring it up to date with current events. I ask that editors who feel the additions are objectionable, bring their concerns here before reverting or blanking information. Thanks for your patience an cooperation in advance. Tiamuttalk16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This article would benefit greatly from a map showing the extent of the barrier and the nature/type of the barrier at different points along the path. N2e (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Buffer Zone
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is it 500m? One kilometer? And is it on the Gaza side of the demarcation line? Suggest this "no man's land" be represented on the map. RomaC (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Move back to Israel-Gaza Strip barrier or to Gaza Strip barriers?
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It now has a whole section on the Egypt–Gaza barrier and links to that article. (A clarifying mention would help, but that can be done with title emphasizing the main topic of the article, the one between Israel and Gaza.) It is extremely confusing and having just worked a lot on Separation barrier I can vouch for that. Unless someone comes up with some really good reason to keep it with this confusing title, I'll go to Move discussion and ask an admin to move it back - or if people like Gaza Strip barriers better, move it to that. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Israel–Gaza barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Israel–Gaza barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Israel–Gaza barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Israel–Gaza barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The German article contains a much more detailed map of the barrier, especially including the various zones:
Karte Gazastreifen Dez 2012
Unfortunately it's a PNG so the text can't be translated easily, but the added info outweighs that. If anyone wants to actually edit, you'll probably need these words:
(map legend top down:) Bebautes Gelände = built-up area, Flüchtlingslager = refugee camp, nur für Bauern = only for farmers, Gefahrenzone = danger zone, Grenzübergang = [border] checkpoint
(in the brackets for the checkpoints:) geschlossen = closed, offen = open, funktionsuntüchtig = inoperable
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is written entirely from the Israeli perspective and doesn't even make the slightest attempt at including the Palestinian perspective. I don't see how some limited tweaking can fix it, really it needs rewriting from scratch. Zerotalk05:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
