Talk:West Bank barrier/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Archive 3

Delete this article

Wikipedia should take a stance and delete this article. Jews wonder why they are so hated in the world, yet they continue to do things like this. I hope Hamas get them good. -219.88.75.247 22:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What a pathetic comment. At least sign your name, if you have anything to say. --K. Sperling 23:54, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Fence vs. Wall

The word "wall" is a great misnomer. Having recently been in Israel, I can guarantee you that it is a fence for at least 90% of its length. Only in places where major highways run near Palestinian cities, where gunmen have been known to shoot at oncoming traffic, is it a wall. In those places, it is only a wall where it faces the highway, as soon as the barrier turns, it becomes a fence again.

Berlin Wall

I think that we don't need the Berlin Wall here at all and propose to delete both the new material and what was there before. Objections? --Zero 04:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jayjg 16:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the most important issues of the past sixty years was the Berlin Wall, and Israel is building a very similar thing? When I bring up the West Bank Barrier to people who don't know of it, the first thing they say is, "Like the Berlin Wall?" Lose the POV, keep the link to the Berlin Wall. Stargoat 16:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph on the other hand about the Berlin Wall was rambling and POV. I've removed it. Stargoat 16:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Israel is building something that is nothing like the Berlin Wall; the only thing they have in common is that they are barriers. In fact, the Israeli barrier has far more in common with the Great Wall of China than it does with the Berlin Wall. The link goes too. Jayjg 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Berlin Wall is the most recent largescale, worldstage event. It obviously belongs. Stargoat 21:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Most recent largescale world event"? That's meaningless. Lots of largescale world events have happened, many more recently, and (more to the point) lots of big barriers have been built. More relevant recent examples of barriers would be in Saudi Arabia, India/Kashmir, and Morocco. The only thing that the Berlin Wall has in common with the Israeli Security Barrier is that it is a barrier; by practically every other meaningful measure they are un-alike. Well, except for the unspoken assumption here; the "right-thinking" people and countries opposed both the Berlin Wall and the Israeli Security Barrier, and the U.S. and Israel also oppposed the Berlin Wall, therefore the U.S. and Israel are hypocritical for supporting the Barrier. Jayjg 14:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's meaningless is your POV argument. The most politically charged event of the past 60 years, that piece of the Cold War the entire world pointed to, was the Berlin Wall. Now, a new wall is being built, garnering similar attention. What's more, almost everyone who hears of this seperation barrier instantly says, "like the Berlin Wall?" All other references to the Berlin Wall have been removed from the article. The link belongs. Stargoat 15:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The correct answer to the question "Like the Berlin Wall?" (which anyway nobody asks any more) is "no". That's why the link does not belong. --Zero 16:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg 23:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is POV. The link, a single line, is in reference to an event of definite and remarkable similarity and world importance. That this argument is taking place in multiple places in the article, is proof that the two events are linked. That it happens to offend your partisan sensibilities is besides the point. The link belongs. Stargoat 13:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There have been many "politically charged events" in the past 60 years; your claim that the Berlin Wall was "the most" politically charged event is like the claims of Rock and Roll afficionados that a certain song was "the best" Rock and Roll song ever written. Your claim that almost everyone who hears of this seperation barrier instantly says, "like the Berlin Wall?" is unsubstantiated rhetoric, and most likely false. And, as Zero points out, the answer to your question anyway is "No"; the Berlin Wall is nothing like the Israeli Separation Barrier, except that they are both barriers. Finally, your claim that Zero's argument is POV is also unsubstantiated rhetoric; you have yet to provide a single logical explanation of how the Israeli barrier is actually like the Berlin Wall (aside from the obvious points that they are both barriers). Related links should actually be related to the topic at hand, not give links to unrelated and unalike topics that merely reflect a political viewpoint designed to censure one side in a debate. Jayjg 14:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

non-bindingness of UNGA resolutions

I am going to delete the phrase "non-binding" that someone added before each mention of a UNGA resolution. It is misleading for several reasons. One is that it suggests there are several classes of UNGA resolutions and these are in the non-binding class. Actually these were all perfectly ordinary resolutions which were just as binding or non-binding as any others. It is also unclear what "non-binding" means in this context. Everyone agrees that the UNGA has no enforcement procedures, but the degree to which UNGA resolutions influence international law is a very complicated question. I don't understand it, but I have seen long discourses on this point in law books and journals without a firm conclusion. If you read ICJ rulings (not just the recent one) you will see that the court does invoke UNGA resolutions as part (but never the whole, afaik) of its arguments for deciding some point of law. Anyway, this article is not the place to get into legal subtleties like this. If anyone knows about this topic authoritatively, the correct place to write about it is in the UNGA article. In the present case, an unkind person might also note that Israel regularly ignores UNSC resolutions, which are binding according to the UN Charter, so what does it matter if UNGA resolutions are "binding" or not? --Zero 04:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All UNGA resolutions are non-binding, and that is quite clear in International Law. When the U.N. was founded they were intended to have the effect of moral suasion, but the UNGA has long since abandoned all pretense of being a body of moral judgement, and is now just a convenient location for international politicking, posturing, and speech-making. For that matter, most UNSC resolutions are non-binding as well, except those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. In any event, the article gives the impression that Israel's rejection of the resolutions is some sort of "defiance" of International Law, and so the modifier non-binding makes it clear that is it not. Many newspaper articles also include this modifier, in an effort to clarify what is otherwise confusing and often misunderstood. I'm going to restore the non-binding stuff now. Jayjg 05:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now the article has "non-binding" all over it and it looks really silly. --Zero 12:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) Jayjg 16:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Most Israelis believe the barrier, and intensive activity by the Israeli Defence Forces, to be as the main factors in the decrease in successful suicide bomb attacks from the West Bank. They see the barrier as saving lives (as successful Palestinian attacks have only come from places were there is no barrier), and view those who oppose it as having insufficient concern for human life."

And who knows what Most Israelis think? Is there some kind of poll justification for this? If not, its got to go. Stargoat 17:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The sections immediately before this refer to two polls. Jayjg 19:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Map of fence

The map that we currently have represents one possible routing of the wall, one that is not being built. We need to consider replacing it with a map that depicts more accurate the route that is being constructed.

Here is one example: [1] and another [2]

--(that insertion unsigned by 69.138.236.221)

Recently activity of the Israeli Supreme Court makes it appear less likely that an eastern barrier will be built. We should not change the map yet because the government has made recent substantial changes to the route and these are not public yet. The most recent detailed maps that I know of are [3] (all WB) and [4] (Jerusalem area), both dated July 1, 2004. --Zero 05:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent activity makes the existing map inaccurate. The inaccuracy should be removed from wikpedia. Lets fix it. Or should we take it to arbitration? Lance6Wins 01:29, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs quote deleted

Why was this deleted. Foreign Affairs, where the article was published, is considered a rather reputable source.

Although at the beginning the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was hesitant to construct the barrier, it finally embraced the plan as predicted by the previous Prime Minister Ehud Barak referring to suicide bombings in February 2001: "When there are 70 dead Israelis, you can resist the fence, but when there are 700 dead Israelis you will not be able to resist it." [1, p54].

--(that insertion unsigned by 69.138.236.221) -- I think we are entitled to say that unsigned comments here are not atrributed to anyone and can be deleted as we wish. (Zero)

The article already says that Barak supported building a barrier. Otherwise the quote adds nothing at all. If it gives you a good feeling, maybe you can put it on your own page and read it every day. --Zero 05:32, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that Uncle Ed and S. Vertigo disagree with you and prefer that we have quotes from the parties involved rather than make assertions without backup. I will add the quote. Lance6Wins 01:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(1) It presupposes Sharon's reason for building the fence but doesn't assign that opinion to anyone. (2) Nowhere near 700 Israelis (or 700-70 either) died between Barak's comment and Sharon's decision. (3) This is just political bluster that adds no information. (4) You don't seem to realise how precarious your position in Wikipedia is, OneVoice. I'm betting you will be blocked again within a few days and this time nobody will unblock you. --Zero 04:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"fence" vs "wall" vs "security barrier"

We all agree that this barrier is to a large extent a fence and to some extent a wall (see edit history). In the category scheme (they are subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures), these designations are entirely descriptive and not political. It is common for articles to be included in several categories, even if this category only applies to a part of whatever is in question. The same standard should be applied to this article. "Security barrier" on the other hand is POV, because a large number of people believe that the primary purpose of this barrier is not security. I'm being very reasonable here I think. pir 16:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether it is a "fence" vs a "wall" is at the heart of a political debate (though, as you point, we all agree that it is mostly a fence). However, it is more than just a fence or a wall, which is why separation barrier is the preferred neutral terminology for this construction. This completely avoids the issue of whether or not the purpose is "security", and encompasses the fact that it separation barriers are often of mixed materials, and include things like cleared areas, roads, landmines, etc. You may think you're being reasonable, but you're ignoring the highly political nature of language. Jayjg 17:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have no right to impose your particular interpretation of the connotations of "wall" and "fence" on the rest of us, for whom a "wall" is a "solid structure that defines and sometimes protects space, made from solid brick or concrete, blocking vision as well as passage", and a "fence" is a "freestanding structure designed to restrict or prevent movement across a boundary, without blocking view". Thus "wall" and "fence" are perfectly suited to describe the West Bank barrier, and I will continue to use them for this purpose regardless of whatever meaning you may choose to read into these terms. The West Bank barrier is a mixture of wall and fence. Language belongs to all of us, it is publicly owned. The fervour with which you try to control language strikes me as Orwellian. I find your behaviour truly outrageous. Nevertheless I don't have the time to engage in a lengthy edit conflict, and since you changed your category name from [security barriers] to [separation barriers], NPOV is not violated in too extreme a way. - pir 18:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Language is abused in an Orwellian way when a small part of something is used describe the whole in order to promote a political agenda. That is exactly what has been going on with the Israeli West Bank barrier, which is why its critics are so insistent that it be called a Wall (preferably an Apartheid Wall), and why its proponents are so insistent on calling it a fence (preferably a Security fence). The barrier has a lot of "fence" in it, a sprinkling of "wall" as well, and a whole bunch of other stuff too. The article Separation barrier existed long before this particular debate, and its use to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier is both more factually accurate than either "wall" or "fence", and also avoids all the NPOV debate that goes on between partisans on both sides. I find your claim that this NPOV and accurate terminology does not "violate" NPOV "in too extreme a way" to be bizarre, especially in light of your preference to use the POV terms "wall" and "fence" instead. Similarly, I find your description of the attempt to find NPOV language as an attempt to "control language" to be bizarre as well, particularly in the context of Wikipedia's stated goal of NPOV. Jayjg 18:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"a small part of something is used describe the whole in order to promote a political agenda. That is exactly what has been going on with the Israeli West Bank barrier, which is why its critics are so insistent that it be called a Wall (preferably an Apartheid Wall), and why its proponents are so insistent on calling it a fence (preferably a Security fence)". Regardless of what the opposing parties argue, a portion of the barrier is clearly a wall, therefore it is perfectly NPOV to include it in the walls category - this inclusion does not mean the whole barrier is a wall. We do not promote a political agenda with this classification. Will you argue that Earth is flat if the PLO says Earth is round? Will you insist that we must not say 2+2=4 if Israelis say 2+2=4.5 and Palestinians say 2+2=3.9? That is what is Orwellian about your argument here. I can assure you that if I'm making a bit of a fuss here, it's not because I want to push my personal view of the barrier, but because I am concerned about your Orwellian interpretation of the NPOV policy which could potentially spark disaster for Wikipedia. pir 12:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even the small sections of the barrier that contain walls are more complex than just a well. That said, as I said earlier (below) if you want to start specific articles on the portions of the barrier that are walls, delineating their length, starting and finishing points, construction, etc., then an inclusion of those specific sections in the category "wall" might be warranted, though I personally think that might be too much detail for Wikipedia. Jayjg 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have never even explained why "wall" is not a suitable description for the portions that are a wall. The justification can not be that only a small part of the barrier is a wall, since many categories are used for articles that only apply partially. Maybe because there is no justification? pir 18:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I've said above, the barrier is more than a fence or a wall, since it contains many other constructions and features. That said, if you want to start specific articles on the portions of the barrier that are walls, delineating their length, starting and finishing points, construction, etc., then an inclusion of those specific sections in the category "wall" might be warranted, though I personally think that might be too much detail for Wikipedia. Jayjg 18:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I think you misunderstand the category system. It is obvious that this barrier belongs to both the Walls and Fences categories. --Zero 23:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Including this barrier in the category "walls" would be like including The Pentagon in the category "parking lots", simply because the building has a parking lot around it. Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Saying that the "security barrier" isn't a wall because it's only 5% wall is like saying "she's not pregnant, only a little bit". It's currently under construction; who knows how it will end up. Note that the Berlin Wall started as only barbed wire.

If it ends up being a wall, then it can be added to the category. Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, as building continues, what percentage of it needs to be a literal wall for it to be technically considered a wall by Wikipedia? 100%? 50%? -- Style 07:27, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

I would think at least a significant percentage; 40%? Jayjg 15:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, it ignores the traditional usage of the term "wall" to refer to large-scale security barriers between peoples. We call it the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, the Berlin Wall, not the Great Separation Barrier of China, etc, etc. "Wall" here refers to the primary function, rather than specific details of construction.

All those walls were actually walls. As Pir was kind enough to point out above, a "wall" is a "solid structure that defines and sometimes protects space, made from solid brick or concrete, blocking vision as well as passage" Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, there are many possible meanings for the word wall. One usage of wall is to refer to anything that has the same function as a wall. That's why medical textbooks refer to the "abdominal wall" and not the "abdominal separation barrier". -- Style 07:27, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Yes, but the definition used here on Wikipedia that is relevant to this case is the one listed above. Jayjg 15:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, now you lost me. Wikipedia uses a different definition of "wall" than common English? -- style 16:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

The category in question refers to boundary walls, not other kinds of walls. Jayjg 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And can anyone point me to an unbiased site that lists the composition of the barrier in terms of parts that are concrete wall vs parts that are barbed wire. I want to know where this 5% statistic came from.

The number seems to vary; the highest number I've seen is 7%, the lowest 3%. Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Separation barrier" is a completely POV and unacceptable term because, rather than being neutral terminology, it defines the function and effects of the wall as merely the "separation" of the Palestinians from the Israelis. Which is a euphemistic, deceptive and contentious depiction of the real consequences of the wall; which has stranded many Palestinians on the Israeli side, and surrounds many Palestinians towns, making life difficult and utterly dependent on the IDF. Who is being separated here? The Palestinians from the Israelis, or the Palestinians from their land and each other? -- Style 00:05, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Separation barriers "are constructed to prevent the movement of people across the barrier or to separate two populations." That pretty much describes it, and I'm not debating the motivation of the builders, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To suggest that the aim of the wall is the seperation of two populations is POV (although far less extreme than "security barrier") because many people believe the aim is landgrab. Your statement that you don't want to debate "the motivation of the builders, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is an admission that you are not interested in NPOV. pir 01:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Calling it a separation barrier does not even address motivation; rather it is descriptive of its function. My unwillingness to debate the motivations of the builders or debate the conflict itself is, in fact, exactly in line with Wikipedia guidance for Wikipedia:Talk pages which state "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." I am restricting my comments to whether or not the barrier fits in the categories "walls", "fences", or "separation barriers", and not trying to debate why the builders built the barrier, or the degree of hardships they may cause various populations, which while important, are either not relevant to this specific debate, or cannot be determined in any event. Jayjg 15:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You say that separation barrier is "descriptive of its function." But the barrier's function includes it's effects on (and possible hardships imposed upon) the local population. My point was that the barrier does more than just separate, and that "separation" is too narrow a term. "Barrier" by itself would be better, actually. -- style 16:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

The term describes its function, not its effects. The barrier might also make some people feel happy, some feel safe, some feel sad, some feel angry. These are all real effects, yet we would not include the barrier under the category "Things that make people happy/sad/safe/angry". The effects on relevant populations are described in the article itself. As for "barrier", it is too broad a term; lots of physical constructions are barriers in one sense or another. Stairs are a barrier to people in wheelchairs. Jayjg 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayjig, if your reasoning was applied consistently, it would be completely disastrous for the category system. I think we all agree that this barrier is only partially and not wholly a wall, it is more complex. You are saying that something cannot be included in a category unless it fits that category in its entirety. If we applied this consistently, we could not, for example, include Hamas into the category of terrorist organisations because parts of Hamas are political or charity-oriented ; we could not include George W. Bush in the category of governors of Texas, just because he's also (been) a national guardsman, a father, US President, an alcoholic etc.; we couldn't put Halliburton in the category of military contractors just because their main activites are in the energy and engineering sectors. Do you agree that this would be complete non-sense? The comparison with the Pentagon/parking lots fails abysmally, because the Pentagon parking lot is not a distinguishing feature at all, so if we included it in that category it would not provide any additional information whatsoever - however if the Pentagon was one of only a small fraction of builings that had a parking lot, then it would definately belong in that category. - pir 01:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that the item has to fit a category in its entirety, I'm saying that the category must be a significant part of the whole. Analogies using people or social organizations are not valid either, since they tend to be far more complex, and have far more simultaneous roles, than physical constructions. The walled sections of the barrier are not a distinguishing feature, since they constitute such a small percentage of the overall construction (which , when one examines the article, one notes is actually quite complex aside from the fence vs. wall issue). One might as well include the Brooklyn Bridge in the category "fences", since it has a fence on each side of it to stop people from jumping off. Jayjg 15:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly! Jayjg, you don't have a leg to stand on here. --Zero 02:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not conceding yet, Zero. :-) Jayjg 15:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First, your analogy with Brooklyn Bridge fails miserably again, because all bridges above a certain size have a fence on either side, so to include Brooklyn Bridge into the fences category would not add any information. If Brooklyn Bridge were the only bridge in the world with a fence, we would without any doubt include it in that category (and this innovative use of fences would inspire architects everywhere, saving countless lives lost needlessly beause of people falling off fenceless bridges all over the world.... your example here really is grotesque). The same is not true for the West Bank barrier - or can you think of any fence on the planet that is partially a wall and that we would be wrong to include in the walls category? pir 18:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that all separation barriers "above a certain size" have walls as part of them as well, so adding them to the category "walls" adds little value. As for the latter question, how about the Turkish Cyprus barrier? Jayjg 18:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect your suspicion is wrong. Thanks for bringing the Turkish Cyprus barrier to my intention, I put it in the right categories. pir 19:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed. Very cute. How about the United States Mexico barrier? [5] [6] Jayjg 19:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I didn't realise (although I just remembered a documentary on this I saw many years ago).pir 19:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, the 5% figure does not reflect on the significance of the wall. It is obvious that the wall is an essential part for the whole structure - this is also obvious to the builders who would otherwise not have chosen to build the more expensive walls. If there is any honesty in you, you will not hesitate to admit this.pir 18:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The wall portions are intended to stop sniper fire; do you agree with this? Jayjg 18:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like a likely (and probably very significant) function, a bit like the wall on the border between North and South Korea I think. There could be other functions. I'm not an expert on the WB barrier. Does it also stop snipers firing on Palestinians or are there special installations on the Israeli side to allow for such security measures? pir 19:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know there have been no incidents of snipers firing from the Israeli onto Palestinians; the sniper fire has been the other way. Jayjg 19:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also want to add that are still some roads is Israel, mainly in the Golan Heights and the Jordan valley, with segments of concrete walls (called "betondot") from the 1960's and 1970's when Israel, Syria and Jordan were in war and Israeli cars traveling near the borders were often attacked by gunfire. MathKnight 22:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I get the impression you regard the wall portion as significant for the whole structure.pir 19:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is, if we assume that the concrete portions are to protect against sniper fire, then we're taking the Israeli side (as opposed to the Palestinian side, which says it's all just a land grab). That wouldn't be NPOV, would it? The only way I can see of being NPOV is by assuming that the concrete sections have no special significance. Jayjg 20:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope. We need not worry what one side or the other says when we have facts. I disagree with your argument that the-wall-is-a-significant-part stance is incompatible with the Palestinian view, who may well argue that a wall is a permanent structure and therefore better suited for land grab than a fence (and that the fence will be built into a wall with time). But as I said, we need not bother with this. The fact is that the planners and the builders judged the function of the walls part (whatever it may be) as significant enough to build them.pir 20:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The I.C.J. calls it a wall

[another barrier is needed - above: a debate over whether the WB barrier can accurately be classified among walls ; below: a discussion over whether the WB barrier as a whole is a wall. pir 23:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

On Friday, July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled:

• The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.

Further ...

• Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion.

and ...

• Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem

and ...

• All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

and more ...

• The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

regarding the use of the word "wall" in the above statements they said...

• The "wall" in question is a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel ("fence") or by the [UN] Secretary General [Kofi Annan] ("barrier"), are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense. In this opinion, the court has therefore chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly.

• • To clarify the last part they are saying that they will use the term wall which is also used by the United Nations General Assembly.

The detail of this ruling can be found at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm.

So the UN say it is a wall. Therefore it is a wall and belongs in the category wall.

Mintguy (T) 20:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here you go, this is another proof of how the rulong of the ICJ was clearly biased and ignoring all the relevant facts. The UN General Assembly is a political forum, and there is a reason why it is deprived from real power. In paraphrase on the quote of Aba Eban, the UNGA may pass a resolution the earth is flat. Not everything they say is true. The fact is that the barrier is less than 5% percents wall, but that will not disturbed the ICJ and the UNGA to commit another Arab-sponsered bashing of Israel. MathKnight 22:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The UNGA is a political body of demagoguery, and the ICJ is its puppet; why would the nomenclature the ICJ or even the UNGA uses any more valid or relevant than anyone else's? This Appeal to authority is even weaker than most, since neither of these bodies are authorities concerning (or have any authority in) this matter. Jayjg 02:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Berlin Wall was less than 5% wall at one point

• The Berlin Wall was less than 5% wall at one point. also 5% of 450 miles is 22.5 miles. How long does it have to be to call it a wall? Is the Berlin Wall your guide? That was 105 miles long. Mintguy (T)

• • Was it called "the Berlin Wall" when it was less that 5% wall? As for the barrier, it is not yet 450 miles (that may be its total length when complete, though current indications are that it will be shorter). And in any event it is the significance of the wall to the whole structure that matters, not the total length; if a 3000 mile fence was 1% wall, the whole thing wouldn't be a wall, even though 30 miles of it was wall. Jayjg 02:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • • Yes it was called the 'Berlin Wall' or the wall of shame from the day construction began, when East German border guards placed concrete blocks and bardbed wire along the street. It's perhaps not insignificant that the Sovint Union called it a "barrier to Western Imperialism". I will not continue this pointless argument because you will never accept the word wall because the semantic implications displease you. Mintguy (T)

• • • • The issue with the term wall are the fact that it is inaccurate, un-representative, and politically charged. Please do not attribute motive to me, this is Poisoning the well. But if you've lost interest, then feel free to excuse yourself from the disagreement. Jayjg 16:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Three-revert warning/threat

Jayjg, you have reverted this article more than the alotted three times within a 24 hours period. You could be liable for a 24 hours ban if you persist. Mintguy (T)

Mintguy, so have you. Now please stop making threats and join the discussion. Jayjg 18:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is not a threat it is a warning. I have reverted it 3 times which is the maximum. I do not intend to break the 24 hours rule. You have now reverted this page 5 times in the last 24 hours. You are now liable for banning for a cooling off period. Mintguy (T) 19:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"This is not a threat it is a warning"; that's what all the Mafia guys say when the come into your shop and "warn" you that without their "protection" your shop might burn down. Meanwhile, do you have anything to the contribute to the discussion itself, or are you just going to wait the 24 hours and then start reverting again without comment? Jayjg 19:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do not try to insinuate that you are being persecuted or something. I am merely pointing out that you have broken a rule which has been established by the wider Wikipedia community in order for conflicts over the contents of articles to be resolved without continuous revert wars. Mintguy (T) 20:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not being persecuted, you're threatening me. There's a difference. Now, are you planning to contribute? Jayjg 20:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What threat!? I cannot block you or even protect this page because I am involved in reverting the article against you. If I hadn't reverted this page first, I would have protected it. Now kindly withdraw the allegation. Mintguy (T)

Um, you're an admin, of course you can threaten me or block me or any other number of powers you may have; I don't know the ins and outs of Wikiadminhood. And someone who reverts a page three times without commenting on it in Talk: (even after repeated invitations to do so), or even deigning to discuss the reasoning in an Edit summary, should, in my view, be re-reverted as a matter of policy. Now kindly return to the discussion of more substantive issues. Jayjg 02:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could have threatened to shoot your dog, but I didn't, and nor did I threaten to ban you. I was warning you of the potential consequences of your actions. Mintguy (T) 09:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I originally had no intention in being drawn into a pointless tit-for-tat argument over the definition of the word wall. Whatever I say you will come up with a counter-argument, moving the goal posts if necessary. You will never accept that this barrier should be in the category, so there was and is still no reason for me to waste my time arguing about it. As far as you're concerned the fact significant sections of this barrier consist of a 14 foot high concrete wall, and that some parts that are described as a 'fence' consist of a shorter wall topped with a fence, is irrelevant. You will accept no authority's definition of this structure but your own, and the Israeli government's. Mintguy (T)

I'm not sure why you consider a fence to be a "shorter wall topped with a fence"; as you can see from the photographs in the article itself, that is not an accurate description. As for the rest, your opinions concerning me are, hmm, "illuminating". Personally, I prefer to use Talk: pages to discuss Wikipedia articles themselves, rather than giving my opinions of the editors. I believe that is what Wikipedia recommends as well. Jayjg 20:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please note that inclusion in the walls category does not mean that the WB barrier is a wall. I added a note at the end of the article to clarify this.pir 19:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

good idea to build a barrier between this section and the previous one, they might otherwise spill over and attack each other :) pir 19:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In this case we'll probably need a wall, as there has already been sniping from that section into this. ;-) Jayjg 19:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I live in hope that the title scares off the other terrorists. Gosh, I feel so secure in this section, none of those nasty, heated arguments yet :) pir 19:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Un-rest is breaking out here as well. :'-( Jayjg 19:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh no.... I think I'll emigrate to another article as soon as I can :( pir 20:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What does "associated regime" mean here?

"On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that the barrier and its associated regime is a violation of international law."

Inaccurate Map (redux)

The map we show in this page is significantly inaccurate. Four possible routings are shown in the Foreign Affairs article cited on the page. Lets replace the map with a more accurate one or should copyright reasons prevent us from doing that, lets make the link to the Foreign Affairs article more prominent. Please note that this is the second time I am raising this issue which was first raised in August of 2004. Lance6Wins 13:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

an American Holocaust survivor,

JayJG is forcing another issue on this article, over four words. It doesn't agree with his POV, so he's removing it. JayJG, your blatent POV changes to this article have occurred over and over again. You should not be editting it. Stargoat 02:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stargoat, in what way is the insertion of the factoid that Buergenthal is a Holocaust survivor relevant to the article at hand? The article doesn't mention dozens of relevant facts about Buergenthal, like the fact that he received his LL.M. and S.J.D. degrees in international law from the Harvard Law School, or that he is the Presiding Director of the George Washington University Law School International Rule of Law Center, or that he is also the U.S. national member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (the first American to serve on that body), or that he served 12 years as judge and a term as President of the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Court of Human Rights, or that (in 1992-93) he served on the three-member UN Truth Commission for El Salvador (which investigated the large-scale violations of human rights committed in that country during its 12-year civil war), or that he is the author of more than a dozen books and a large number of articles on international law, human rights and comparative law subjects, or many other facts which are actually relevant to any decisions he has made in the area of Human Rights and International law, which is exactly what this court was supposed to be deciding. Perhaps you can explain why you insist that that one solitary fact is the only biographical note given regarding Buergenthal. Perhaps you can also explain why biographical information about all the other justices is not equally important to the article. Oh, and please restrict your comments to article content, rather than discussing your opinions of me. Jayjg 05:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg on this. - pir 12:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had at one point linked to Buergenthal's full bio, but I seem to remember that link was also seen as superfluous. This is a difficult call to make - one doesn't want to poison the well, but at the same time, being aware of a person's background and potential biases is most certainly relevant. Iridium77 18:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not difficult at all; "being aware of a person's background and potential biases" is poisoning the well par excellance. QED. When will you start examining the backgrounds of all the other justices, and pointing out what you imagine might be their own biases? Jayjg 19:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you are somewhat naïve, if you really believe this. There are a couple of different points to address here:

• Awareness of background. To understand any document with a historical perspective, you must know not only what the document contains, but also who wrote it. It's a fact of life that humans all have their own biases - you can't get away from that. Poisoning the well would be "Buergenthal is a holocaust survivor, therefore he is biased in this regard". But it should be up to the reader to determine what biases Buergenthal may or may not have.
• Background of Buergenthal, rather than the others. He was the only dissenter, so if we think it's even worth mentioning his judgement in the detail we do, then surely he's fair game for analysis? Iridium77 21:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, analyzing Buergenthal's judgement is reasonable, and even analyzing his legal background is relevant, but analyzing his personal history is poisoning the well; I again strongly urge you to read and re-read that article. By your reasoning we might as well describe him as "Buergenthal, a Jew". Jayjg 21:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should. I think that in this case, being a Jewish is relevent to his impartiality in deciding this case. Most judges will not hear a case if they have a conflict of interest, but in this situation, the judges' religions are of interest, at the very minimum. When you have "the jewish state" vs, then being jewish is of relevance. If we were discussing the atrocities that Mengele conducted, you wouldn't hesitate to refer to him as "the Nazi Doctor", or whatever, because it's relevant.

My personal view is that his religion is unlikely to have influenced him. But to shout "poisoning the well!" at any suggestion of potential bias is simply not justified. I urge *you* to re-read the article Poisoning the well - note that the intent there is to discredit the author prejudicially, rather than to further inform the reader. Poisoning the well is referring to irrelevant information to discredit somone. Here, a number of people believe that Buergenthal's religion and background are of relevance, and you disagree. Iridium77 22:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mentioning that he is a Holocaust survivor is indeed intended "to discredit the author prejudicially"; "Holocaust survivor" is a code for Jew, and the intent here is to indicate that a Jew cannot judge impartially in the case of Israel; you've implied as much yourself. Have you investigated the religions and backgrounds of the other justices? I've asked this a number of times before, with no response. I've also noted that none of his relevant background, including legal training, expertise in International law, and experience on international courts, was mentioned. Until all justices are put under the same microscope, the inclusion of the phrase was intended to poison the well. Jayjg 03:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust Survivor is no more a code for Jew than it is a code for Slav, Roma, Homosexual, Jehovah's Witness, Communist, Clergy, Common criminal, or any number of others. I think that his background, as a victim of persecution is interesting background to the man. One might expect someone with this background to favour the persecuted side in such a case, but he doesn't.

I think you should read what I say more carefully, before telling me what I've implied. You tell me that I've implied that he's biased, but I specifically say "My personal view is that his religion is unlikely to have influenced him." - how much more direct can I be? I also addressed the question of the other justices - they all agree, so it's more interesting to study the dissenter.

But, in the end, I didn't like the way that the information was presented - that's why I wrote the page for Buergenthal - it lets us share more about him in a more neutral way. The reason I'm commenting here is that I think your rationale for removing it was just as flawed. Iridium77 08:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While many ethnic groups were Holocaust victims, in the minds of most readers the Holocaust is associated with Jews; whether or not you intended that implication is irrelevant. Your view that the Palestinians are "the persecuted side in such a case" merely displays POV bias; this is a near century old conflict between two peoples, with each side giving and getting, not a "persecution" of one by another. The Israelis who are suffering from suicide bombings (which the barrier is a response to) are as persecuted as anyone. As for Buergenthal, you have no idea what his religion is, you only know his ethnic group; he could be an atheist or Scientologist or Mormon for all you know. Focussing on the ethnic origins of the dissenter would never be considered appopriate when examining U.S. Supreme Court decisions; in fact, if, for example, one were to point out that "the 8 justices voted one way, but the African-American justice voted the other" they would rightly be condemned as racist. In general, when people decide that certain facts about individuals in a Wikipedia article are "interesting", it means "irrelevant, but serves to poison the well". The rationale for including the information is irredeemably flawed for all these reasons. That said, your solution was a good one, though the article you created curiously downplayed his relevant experience and expertise in International Law, which is what is actually relevant to the ICJ decision. Jayjg 15:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) How do you know what is in the minds of "most readers"?

2) The conflict has been going on for a century, but terrorism (in the modern sense) and the building of the barrier have not.

3) One of the key points regarding the construction of the barrier is whether it and the regime in place around it (checkpoints etc) do persecute the Palistinian population. My statement was not meant in a wider sense than that.

4) I concede that inferring his religion from his ethnic group was unjustified.

5) I translated the German article (which was a good concise summary) about Buergenthal, then made a few changes. My intent was to revisit it when I have more time. I wouldn't say that I downplayed his experience - I read his full bio as "Human rights, sometimes with an international twist". Note that his recent positions (before the Lobinger professorship and the ICJ) were predominantely Human Rights rather than international studies.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Buergenthal's declaration is well argued and probably balanced. He agrees with much of the final decision of the court. But if you come at it as if it were a historical document, you would try to understand the man who wrote it. The language which had been used "holocaust survivor thomas buergenthal" (or whatever) is probably prejudicial, but the information itself is not. Iridium77 17:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr adds TotallyDisputed

Restore {{TotallyDisputed}}; Facts are still misstated despite evidence provided, and POV is pervasive. User:HistoryBuffEr (copied from History)

Can you point to the misstated facts, please? Lance6Wins 20:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that factual edits were reverted (see history.) In short: the wall route description is contrary to facts, and the Israeli official statement which contradicts what the article says has been removed. HistoryBuffEr 16:47, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

What do you think a factual description of the wall route is, and which "Israeli official statement" are you referring to? Jayjg 17:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, you haven't edited the page in more than 3 months. What do you want us to see in history? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See article (not Talk) edit history. HistoryBuffEr 03:45, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

The article history says all sorts of things; please state your concerns on the Talk: page. What do you think a factual description of the wall route is, and which "Israeli official statement" are you referring to? Jayjg 15:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly what I checked, HistoryBuffEr - your name doesn't appear in the article history for the past 3 months. Please provide proof otherwise. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's all this pretending about? From the Article history:

1. 04:50, 2004 Oct 6 HistoryBuffEr (Restore {npov} notice + Npov intro)
2. 03:59, 2004 Oct 6 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Iridium77)
3. 03:48, 2004 Oct 6 HistoryBuffEr (Add (npov) notice + NPOVify intro)

HistoryBuffEr 06:53, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Remove Totally Disputed till Specific Items are Cited

On October 25th, HistoryBuffEr was asked to provide specific items, that may be addressed by the Wikipedia community, which he believes are factually incorrect. HistoryBuffEr has declined to do so during the intervening two weeks. Remove totallydisputed till specific, addressable items are cited. Lance6Wins 11:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This question was repeatedly asked and repeatedly answered. Read article edit history to see which facts were removed without justification or explanation. HistoryBuffEr 17:55, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

You again failed to present specific terms. No one understand what are you talking about and your refusal to cite the requested data is highly suspicious. You are continuing your bad conduct, and it is not productive for anyone, to say the least. MathKnight 21:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV edit complaints accepted here

Israelis, what are your complaints? Start here. --Alberuni 17:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. I'm not Israeli, but I have complaints. There has been much discussion and consenus was reached to use the NPOV term "barrier" throughout instead of "Wall" as you are pushing. Please revert the article to use the agreed upon term throughout. Jewbacca 17:42, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The Israeli apartheid Wall is a wall the way the Berlin Wall was a wall. It may be a fence for Jews because they are allowed to pass through the fence with ease but it's a wall for non-Jews because the Israelis will kill them for trying to cross. Therefore, it's a wall unless you are a Jew and Wikipedia and the Internet are not owned by Jews. --Alberuni 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Barrier was agreed to in Talk: long ago, precisely because the barrier is over 90% fence. Jayjg 17:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see long disputes with no consensus reached. You are trying to push your usual hasbara POV garbage and I don't accept it. No consensus today. --Alberuni 18:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No consensus? Then the stable version remains. Jayjg 18:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Stable" is in the eye of the Zionut. --Alberuni 18:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stable in the eyes of all those who participated in the discussion. If you'd only bothered to read instead of vandalizing pages on behalf of Hamas... MathKnight 18:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On what date are you claiming this article became stable? I see discussions ongoing and disagreement with no consensus agreement about the pro-Israeli "fence" designation. I editing as neutrally as possible while you are pushing the Israeli perspective. Why do you think that one particular extremist Israeli POV (yours) should have any more precedence than other Israeli perspectives, or Hamas' or the PA's in Wikipedia? --Alberuni 00:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check history and see for how long the term "barrier" has lasted. MathKnight 10:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, The Berlin wall was built to keep East Germans in East Berlin. The Israeli West Bank Barrier is built to keep Arabs/militants/gunmen/terrorists out of Israeli. Keeping people in is characteristic of a prison. Keeping people out is characteristic of many barriers, including the front door of my house. Entering someones home in the United States under cover of night or by force is grounds for killing the person (not murder as defined in US Law). Same deal with the Israeli West Bank Barrier. Lance6Wins 18:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your arguments are irrelevant. Wall, fence, prison, home - it has no bearing on the fact that this is a wall meant to keep Arabs out of their own territory. Your arguments might make sense in Hebrew when you are chatting with other Zionists but they make no sense in Arabic or English where people don't see the world through your extremist pro-Israeli lens. You need to learn some sophistry skills from Jayjg. He's much better at manipulating the truth for the Israeli POV than you are. --Alberuni 18:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is sophistry is to insist that a fence is a wall because it restricts the movements of Arabs. Jayjg 18:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More than 90% of the barrier are a system of trenches and wire fences. Concrete wall consists only small portion of the barrier. Hence, the name "wall" to describe the barrier is wrong. MathKnight 13:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, who are you? You've just popped up here and started talking about "Israelis", "Zionut", "Zionists bullies", "Zionist trash", arabs' territory, "extremist pro-Israeli lens", "manipulating truth", and "POV garbage". In case you didn't notice, this is a serious information site and not some recreational forum. No one will take you serious like that. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 23:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong? Why would you be offended unless you are you a Zionist? --Alberuni 05:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's like asking why anyone would be offended by the term "damned niggers" unless they were black. Sheesh. PenguiN42 18:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Your analogy is false, unless you consider the word "Zionist" a pejorative for "Jew" equivalent to the pejorative "nigger" to "black". Criticism of pro-Israeli bias is only unacceptable to those who harbor that pro-Israeli bias. Sheesh. --Alberuni 19:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that you're using "Zionist" as a rhetoric. Let's pretend you're an arab - then I'll call every edit of yours as "arab edit", "arab bully", "arab trash", "extremist pro-Palestine lens", "manipulating truth" and etc. I don't think anyone is offended. We just see your agenda in the fact that you hate Zionists and will consider everything written by them as "POV garbage". I bet you think that Arafat was poisoned by Mossad or Shabaq and Israelis are just lying. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 21:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your analogy also is false. Arab is not a political POV, it is an ethnicity or ethnic identity (like being Jewish). Zionism is a political ideology, not an ethnicity. I have used the word Zionist "rhetorically" as an adjective to describe a specific type of political bias. There's nothing wrong with that. Zionism is a political ideology of Jewish supremacism and is as deserving of criticism as the apartheid politics of Afrikaaner supremacy or Nazism, the political ideology of "Aryan" supremacy. Attacking editors or edits for being Arab would be as wrong as attacking editors or edits for being Jewish. You may be having trouble distinguishing between Judaism and Zionism. This is a common problem among Zionists (and others) and the root of a great deal of bigotry, strife and violence. --Alberuni 23:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're giving me a serious headache. Did you even read the Zionism article? What you've just said here is full of hatred and false propaganda. Get over yourself; I don't know what some Israelis did to you but you should stop filling up Wikipedia with your kill-all-Zionists hatred. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 22:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History and Purpose

I think this section should include the fact that at least one Israeli government official has stated the barrier's purpose as demographic separation:

Jerusalem barrier meant to boost Jewish majority as well as stop bombers: Israeli minister http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050711-1930-israel-palestinians.html

Barrier will make city ‘more Jewish,’ Israeli official says

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jul/20050711News007.asp

More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050729/GAZA29/TPInternational/Africa

How about this (between the first and second paragraphs):

Some argue that the barrier is designed to maintain the Jewish demographics of Israel as well as to protect Israelis against Palestinian violence; at least one Israeli goverment official has made statements to this effect. Haim Ramon, the cabinet Minister in charge of Jerusalem, has stated that the route of the Jerusalem wall, in addition to protecting against Palestinian violence, "also makes Jerusalem more Jewish."

Any source for this information

Israel had initially announced that the wall would approximately follow the 1949 armistice line

If not let's delete it. Lance6Wins 18:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it now clear what is disputed?

Many Israeli agitprop troopers here whined for days that they saw no dispute and kept removing the "disputed" notice, even though this article was disputed by several editors from the beginning and nothing was ever changed.

When I pointed to the article history, many pretended not to know how to read and kept insisting that everything be laid out for them here on a silver platter.

Now that the article is protected in a more NPOV version, take time to read the article and see some points of dispute (no, I will not read and analyze the article for you). Have a nice day. HistoryBuffEr 06:12, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

No. You said you dispute some facts but never bothered to write what facts, although many has repeatedly ask you. So far, you caused nothing but troubles. I'm sure that vandalizing articles and blaming Wikipedia to be a part of a Zionist conspieracy will serve the Palestinian cause. MathKnight 13:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article disputed?

First of all, I'd like to see an outside wikipedia source where people argue over the semantics of "wall" vs. "barrier" vs. "fence", its seems to me to be such a non issue. I've never ever heard the terms used in a way that wasn't interchangable. That is, I've never heard of any instance in my entire life when there has been any non dictionary connotation associated with those words.

This article is completely NPOV to me, this is an example of wikipedia where both sides of an argument are not listening to each other at all and have a completely bizzare view that the article is biased against them.

What this article does need is cleanup, in particular it goes into far too much detail about the UN resolutions, while not explaining any of the logic behind them which I think is more important. 67.180.61.179 08:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Policy is called Neutral Point of View

The neutral point of view is if some people call the Israel wall a "fence" or some people call occupied territories a "liberated" territories those people points of view should go in the article under their names. "The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Abdel Qadir 03:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right. So what is your specific issue? Jayjg 04:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some want to call occupied some want to call liberated, so we should write both and say who calls it occupied and who says liberated. Abdel Qadir 05:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's fair. Now, when we're writing about the barrier/fence/wall how should we write about it? You don't seriously expect us to write the lead section like this:

The Israeli West Bank barrier (also called the West Bank Security Fence or the West Bank wall) is a physical barrier/wall/fence consisting of a network of fences, walls, and trenches, which is being constructed by Israel. The barrier/wall/fence in part approximately follows the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli armistice line, also known as the "Green Line". In some areas the route diverges from this line, particularly in areas with a high concentration of Jews: Jerusalem, Ariel, Beitar Illit, Efrat, Gush Etzion, and Maale Adumim. These divergences may be as much as 20 kilometers. In many of these areas, the final route of the barrier/wall/fence has not been decided (as of April 2004). Four routes under consideration, as of May 2004, are indicated in [7].

The name of the barrier/wall/fence is itself a political issue. The most common names used by Israel are "separation fence" (gader ha'hafrada in Hebrew) and "security fence" or "anti-terrorist fence" in English, with "seam zone" referring to the land surrounding the fence. Opponents prefer to call it a "wall." Palestinians and their supporters at times refer to the barrier as an Apartheid wall.

A similar barrier/wall/fence, the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier, is parallel to the 1949 armistice line.

I mean, c'mon! We need to call it something! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right. And it was agreed months ago, after long debate on both sides, that barrier was the only reasonable term to describe it in general. Why?

1. Because well over 90% of it is a fence, not a wall.

2. Because it consists of more than a fence or wall in any case, typically having cleared areas on each side and other security features.

3. Because partisans on one side insist on calling it a wall, and partisans on the other insist on calling it a fence, and barrier avoids that particular POV war.

Barrier was agreed on for good reason, and it's tiring to keep having to deal with new entrants to the fray who ignore all previous agreements, insist on inserting POV, and when finally drawn to the Talk: pages insist that previous agreements didn't happen (see above re: picture). Jayjg 18:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the picture of the wall months ago

You removed it November 30, 2004 Herr Jayjg. The discussion about the picture included dissenters to your position which you conveniently ignore, such as Stargoat, Tarek and Zero. Now I am dissenting against your false consensus. So there is no consensus now. You are just tryng to conceal the ugly wall to support your hasbara party line that it is really just a "fence". Your position is clear from this statement: "I'm not sure why you consider a fence to be a "shorter wall topped with a fence"; as you can see from the photographs in the article itself, that is not an accurate description. As for the rest, your opinions concerning me are, hmm, "illuminating". Personally, I prefer to use Talk: pages to discuss Wikipedia articles themselves, rather than giving my opinions of the editors. I believe that is what Wikipedia recommends as well. Jayjg 20:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) " You argue like a propagandist that, "As you can see from the photographs in the article", well, of course, you then want to delete photographs that do not support your partisan bias. It's a WALL, Jayjg. Look at the picture you are deleting. The Nazis in Warsaw and the Communists in Berlin would have been proud to build a WALL like that with watchtowers, gun emplacements, detectors, dogs, and mines. Be proud of how far the Jews have come from the shtetl days that they (you) can now enforce it on others. --Alberuni 05:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User Zero0000 was the one who took one of the alternate pictures, and got permission for the use of the other one. User Stargoat congratulated User Zero0000 when he did that. The article was stable from then until a few days ago, either user could easily have reverted or raised objections in the Talk: page. User Tarek indeed reverted himself to the consensus version and apologized when he noted the discussion in the Talk: page. Someone is conveniently ignoring things, but it is not me, and if you want to add this non-representative picture after many months of consensus not to do so, then you'll have to try to build a new consensus to do so. Jayjg 05:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you point to your alleged "consensus agreement" on this Talk page by section number or link? I don't see it. Anyway, I disagree with your alleged consensus of 4 and insist that the picture is representative. Someone else must have disagreed because you had to delete it again on November 30. So your "consensus" to delete doesn't exist now. --Alberuni 05:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggested New Image. MathKnight 07:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MathKnight had no trouble finding it. The consensus lasted for several months. If you would like to now insert an un-representative picture, you'll have to try to get a consensus to do so. Jayjg 16:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The consensus is un your imagination. You made your usual POV demands and reasonable people tried to ignore them, as usual. That's not a consensus. That's normal editors trying to deal with an agreesive POV pushing bully. There was never an explicit consensus and you haven't been able to show one. There is certainly no consensus now. If you want to establish a Zionist consensus, you will have to work harder to have me and all other reasonable editors banned. --Alberuni 17:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The people who were against moving it actually proposed two alternative pictures and then went and got them, and that lasted at least 4 months. Consensus doesn't get much better than that. Please respect that consensus, or if you wish to add the image get consensus for it now. Jayjg 00:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good article

This appears to be - at least when I dropped by - a good, well-written article with no obvious POV issues. Well done people, keep up the good work :) Dan100 13:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree less. This article reads like a Israeli pamphlet for the wall, confining criticism to the opinions of the World Court and the Palestinians. The Effectiveness section is disgustingly POV, ignoring the implications for the Palestinians and human rights violations. I'll be back to edit soon.--Tedneeman 08:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend proposing any major changes to these kinds of controversial topics on the Talk: page first. The current content in this article has been reached through a long process of NPOVing by many editors from both sides of the topic, please respect that process and consensus. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New route, new map

In February 2005, the Israeli cabinet approved major changes to the route of the barrier. Especially in the south, the route is now closer to the green line. Here is a map; someone please insert it into the article. --Zero 14:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chuck noticed some colors were wrong. I've corrected it hopefully. --Zero 02:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I've inserted the picture into the "effectiveness" part since "structure and timeline" was already filled with pictures. MathKnight 17:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Effects on Palestinians

This section now has more sources then most of the rest of the article. I find it odd that Jayjg deletes anything without sources that probably goes against his viewpoint when most of the article has no sources what so ever.

Also, please don't prepend everything in that section with "Critics claim.." Unless you are willing to prepend "Supporters of the barrier claim.." to most of the rest of the article.--Majestiq 08:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I delete inserted POV without sources; that is Wikpedia policy. Please discuss the article contents, and not me. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The part about "facts on the ground" is properly sourced. It comes directly from the BBC which is probably the best of sources. Furthermore, the phrase "facts on the ground" is of Israeli creation. It was how early settlers described their actions. They wanted to create "facts on the ground" with settlements so make it difficult for their government to withdraw. You should not be the sole judge of what is POV. If we all started taking that approach then there would be nothing in this article since most of the article has no sources. Perhaps discuss it before you delete it.--Majestiq 23:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is a highly biased source with a well-documented anti-Israel bias. "Facts on the ground" refers to the settlers intentions, not the barrier itself; please stop trying to mix up the two. As for POV insertions, unsourced ones can be reverted at any time, and sourced ones need to be attributed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not think its possible for you to provide a source that is less biased then the BBC. I challenge you to put forth a less biased source. And please don't suggest any Israeli newspapers because the fact that they are Israeli and their primary audience is Israeli makes them biased from the start.

Well, there's no point in arguing bias. Suffice it to say, there are many who consider the BBC to be highly biased, and your claim that it is the least biased source only confirms that in my view. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, your argument that the BBC is biased confirms your bias on this subject.--Majestiq 02:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the image clearly shows effects on palestinians by the barrier.

Your insertion about "Parts of" into "The barrier is built on land confiscated by the Israel" is factually wrong. All land in the west bank that is used by Israel, including settlements, military structure, and the barrier, is confiscated by Israel. Unless you can provide which parts of the barrier are west of the 1967 green line, then indeed all of the barrier is build on land confiscated by Israel. The CNN [8] source shows a specific instance of Palestinians receiving confiscation notices, while the BBC [9] source directly quoted says "Palestinian land is confiscated to build the barrier; hundreds of Palestinian farmers and traders are cut off from their land and means of economic survival.".. --Majestiq 23:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since at least 20% of the barrier is built on the "Green line", clearly the implication that all of the barrier is being built on "land confiscated by Israel" is factually wrong. Some of it is, but not all. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Green line is an imaginary line of Zero width. Even though the barrier follows the Green line is some areas, it is still built on the eastern side of the line.

But not all of that land is owned by Palestinians; much of it is government land, particularly on the Green Line. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of progress on this article, I have changed "The barrier is build..." to "Large sections of the barrier are built..." You may argue my use of "Large" but keep in mind that "Large" does not refer to "Most". It is important not to underscore the fact of land confiscation. Throughout history, land has been the most significant dispute between peoples as it is in this conflict, in my opinion.

"Large" is entirely unsupported supposition. Certainly parts of it are, but how much? You need to provide some facts to make this claim.

Lastly, once again about your insertion of "Critics claim". That is not part of the source. You have incorrectly attributed the "Israel's critics say.." in the paragraph before this quote in the BBC article to this quote. The claims of the critics are limited to "Israel's critics say the plan epitomises everything that is wrong with Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and its approach to making peace with its Arab neighbours." This quote is not used in the Wikipedia article.--Majestiq 23:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is the critic in this case. If you like, you can attribute it to them directly. Regardless, it is not an effect on Palestinians, but an opinion about future diplomatic talks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement is about the effects of the Barrier on future diplomatic talks as it relates to Palestinians.

That's a bizarre and nebulous concept; the section should stick to concrete effects. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The barrier obviously has both physical, psychological, and political effects... each of which could and should be discussed in this section.--Majestiq 02:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, sure, but your association of the "facts on the ground" BBC opinion with the settlements is original research, and as such, is forbidden in Wikipedia. The BBC didn't talk about the settlements, so there is no basis to add it and pretend they did. Moreover, it's a rather poor argument; settlements are clearly not "facts on the ground" that preclude their removal, since the Israeli government is about to do just that in the Gaza Strip. And please stop capitalizing Barrier, that is incorrect in English, it is not a proper noun. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop reverting the article. You are in violation of the three revert rule, and may well be blocked if you revert again. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think I have reverted more then three times in one day. The last revert was not because of the "Effects on Palestinians" section. Please check the history. There was a large delete in the "History" section and the revert was for the benifit for all in my opinion. Furthermore, I take it that you will upload your principals and block yourself if you revert more then 3 times in one day? Evidence exists on this page of you, yourself doing the very same thing.--Majestiq 03:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion you have violated the 3RR and I have not. In any event, what is important is that you are aware of the 3RR, so that you do not violate it. Now you are aware of it, and have acknowledged as much. Please conduct yourself accordingly. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some new info has been added. the following: "The proponents of the barrier point out that the barrier route is not set in stone, it was challenged in court and changed in a few cases. They note that the cease-fire line of 1949 was negotiated "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines" (Art. VI.9) [9] (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/arm03.htm). Security experts argue that the topography does not permit putting the barrier along the Green Line in some places, because there would be hills or tall buildings on the Palestinian side, as the barrier is designed to stop Palestinian terrorism. [10]" is better placed in the structure and timeline section. The "Effects on Palestinians" section should not discuss weather or not the structure deviates but rather the effects those deviations have on the palestinians.

Arguments about the barrier stopping terrorist attacks such as "Many Israelis note the danger of terrorist incursions from the area, such as waves of suicide bombings in early 2002. (See Passover massacre)" should be placed in the "effectiveness" section. Terms like "many", "a few", or "some" should be avoided because they do not offer an objective description of what is being described. Further more, please site where Israeli specifically fear attacks from Qalqilya, as you have implied.

Lastly, I do not consider isrealnewsagency.com and mideastweb.org has viable sources. I have left these changes in the article for now to get some discussion about it. However, in the near future, these texts will either have to be moved or deleted.--Majestiq 05:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know this article has an owner. I found that section completely one-sided. Perhaps it should be renamed ("Effects on Palestinians and Israelis"?) because the way some are trying to present it, there's no way for the other side to rebutt the arguments and condemnations thrown at them. Such practice is unacceptable in a court of law, and a serious encyclopedia should not be used as a soapbox either. As for BBC, they have a checkered recent history in the IPC. Since we are talking about views that many Israelis embrace, bringing pro-Israeli sources is completely justifiable. Let me go through some books, it may take some time though. Simply removing (or putting in some hard-to-find corner) hard facts or legitimate opposing view won't work. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason it may seem onesided to you is because as the title reflects.. its talking about the effects on palestinians and those are all, indeed, negative, as one would expect. There does exist another section which talks about the effects on Israelis and that is called "Effectiveness". Perhaps that should be renamed. Furthermore, I would say that bringing in pro-Israeli sources is not justifiable. If I started quoting Al-Jazeera, would that stay in this article? I think not.--Majestiq 07:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any wholesale condemnation of Palestinians in the "Effectiveness" section, while this one paints Israelis as land-grabbing beasts who for no reason prevents poor peasants from getting to the market. The "facts on the ground" allegation is especially ridiculous, since throughout the article there is a plenty of evidence that the route has been changed numerous times. If the structure doesn't allow valid counter-arguments, the article has to be restructured. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no wholesale condemnation in the "Effects on Palestinians" section. It discusses one specific example and I'm sorry but the fact that farms are losing access to their land is fact, not POV opinion. No article on the barrier can or should be complete without discussing its negative aspects. Yes it has negative aspects, get over it. The fact that the route has been changed does not change the fact that people (all be it, less then before) are still seperated from their land. Counter arguments are ok, but please avoid contering something specific with something general and unsourced.--Majestiq 16:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Majestiq's edits to the article are absolutely unacceptable - it now reads like a pro-PLO pamphlet written by the BBC, NRK, or something like that. Unless he/she makes a serious effort to make this into a neutral point of view article, we'll have a full scale edit and rv war here. I don't have time to deal with this right now, but I plan to perform a major clean up of this article. --Leifern 10:56, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I would like this article flagged as POV. If you are an admin reading this, please flag it. It seems one cannot add even three paragraphs that deviate from the offical Israeli line. I guess you were happy when the "Effects on Palestinians" section did not exist. That must have made the article really NPOV. If what I have written sounds like the BBC then thank you for your compliment. Several "pro-Israelis" complain about the BBC on this page but have yet to put forth one non-Israeli source that is better.--Majestiq 16:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current text. 4/11/2005 16:13. I have made several concessions and I think the other side should also.--Majestiq 16:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stating Israeli (or PLO) assertions as facts are one thing; attributing them to that one party is not just acceptable, but essential. Deleting Israeli positions on an issue simply because they are Israeli positions violates any conceivable standard. As for truly objective journalistic sources, there are none. But the BBC, along with Reuters, NTB, and AFP are among the most biased against Israel you could find. Their counterpart on the Israeli side would be Arutz-Sheva. --Leifern 17:17, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Both sides have conceded, but concessions cannot be made on Wikipedia policy, particularly original research. Please stop inserting the original research about the barrier and the settlements. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not add that line but I am satisfied with you edit of that section. I do have some reservations about the mideastweb.org and isrealnewsagency.com sources. I consider these to be highly POV. I would recommend finding better sources or deletion in the future.

I have removed this text "In addition, a number of independent journalists have noted that the barrier has improved conditions for Palestinians in cities like Jenin and Ramallah, since the number of Israel incursions have decreased." I find this to be completely unsourced POV.

This text is very POV and continues to remain in the article. This source (israelnewsagency) is completely POV. Either it needs to be removed, or it opens up precedent for the other side adding info from Abab sources.

What text are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you delete that comment? And please sign your contributions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about In addition, a number of independent journalists have noted that the barrier has improved conditions for Palestinians in cities like Jenin and Ramallah, since the number of Israel incursions have decreased.--Majestiq 19:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought you meant. I haven't been able to find that text in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Majestiq, please don't excise sentences from the article simply because you don't like them. I'm referring to the point that the Israeli government contends that a single barrier reduces the need for checkpoints inside Palestinian areas. --Leifern 20:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

"According to B'Tselem (The Israeli information center for Human Rights), the overall features of the separation barrier and the considerations that led to determination of the route give the impression that Israel is relying on security arguments to unilaterally establish facts on the ground that will affect any future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.[10]"

"Overall features... considerations ... lead to determination... give the impression... that Israel is relying on security arguments..." aside from the horrendous English, these are weasel words. Wouldn't it be better to write: "several groups that oppose the barrier, including Israeli organizations, contend that the barrier is intended to create 'facts on the ground?'" --Leifern 20:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Leifern, both Jayjg and I agreed upon moving that or similar language. I say both.. because he was th one that actually moved it. Anyway, I am currently objecting to the following text: Proponents of the barrier also claim that Palestinians in the territories will benefit from the barrier "because it will reduce the need for Israeli military operations in the territories, and the deployment of troops in Palestinian towns. Onerous security measures, such as curfews and checkpoints, will either be unnecessary or dramatically scaled back."[11] The reason I am objecting is because your source is making generalities about the situation. I do not think the the Israeli government has every claimed this. Perhaps you should find an IDF source. Please keep in mind that people can claim anything. Just because text exists on another website does not mean it should be added to this article. The claim should have atleast some backing or validity.--Majestiq 03:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure I'll find an IDF or a press source, but applying your criterion that only claims that have backing or validity should be included would disqualify pretty much everything you've contributed here. If this article is supposed to have a semblance of balance (a principle you seem to be resisting strenuously to ensure that only your perception of reality gets playtime), this is a critical point to include. --Leifern 11:40, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Statistics

Some of the statistics in the article could be updated for the new route, see this article: [12] --Zero 12:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you specify which statistics in particular you are talking about?--Majestiq 18:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a new total length, and new data about the amount of land and people affected. The changes to the route in the south had significant effects on those things. --Zero 12:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That article pre-dates the actual government decisions, does it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't know why you say that. It refers to the decision in the past tense and shows the new map. --Zero 12:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the timeline wrong. Anyway, you found the source, why don't you update? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Original research about Israeli settlements?

AladdinSE, why do you insist on inserting this Wikipedia:No original research:

much in the same way that Israeli settlements created "facts on the ground" regarding "significant Israeli population centers." American President George W. Bush has gone on record as saying that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements [13].

None of your sources contain the quotes you are supposed to be quoting, nor do any of them make the link you are trying to make. Please either find a source for this argument, or remove it in accordance with clear Wikipedia policy, as your section "introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is in no way original research. It is credibly referenced. Not all quote marks, as you well know, delineate quoted remarks, and in fact provide emphasis for either generalized positions or paraphrased remarks. The source clearly contains quotations by Bush and the American ambassador and is a clear parallel to the point being made about "facts on the ground" vis-à-vis the West Bank Wall. If you disagree, purse Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution all the way to arbitration, I'll be there. If "significant Israeli population centers" does not sit well with you in quotes, there is no problem with removing them. "Facts on the ground" though is a reference to the point made by the preceding point. "Demographic realities" is an actual quotation, however, and is directly from the linked source. --AladdinSE 22:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The link between the two is not "credibly referenced"; in fact, it's not referenced at all. Rather, the "parallel" is an argument you made up. Please re-read the relevant section in the Wikipedia:No original research policy; if it's not an original argument, then someone else will have made it too, and you can quote it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin, this is an example of original research, because you're citing facts to make your own case i.e. your own argument, instead of citing someone else's argument. All the isses you cite may be facts, but by linking them in a certain way, you're making an argument of your own. If it's not an original argument i.e. if the link between the two issues has already been made by a credible publication, then you should cite that publication as your source; if it hasn't, it's OR. Also, it's better to avoid quotation marks for anything other than quotes. To use them for emphasis can create POV problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but consider the edit I just made. Now it is a set of two statements with sources, the parallel is not argued implicitly. --AladdinSE 22:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You mean "explicitly". And, look, how convenient that one follows the other, so that the argument is now "implicit". In any event, now that they're not explicitly "linked", and you're not trying to create an argument, there's no point in having them, since this article is about the Israeli West Bank barrier, not about Israeli settlements. Please remove the now off-topic material. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes the article is not about settlements, but the political impacts of both are similar. That is why the analogy is being made. This is not original research. It is simply taking a quote ("facts on the ground") from the BBC article and expanding on where the phrase came from and why it applied here. See Zionist, Zionism and Israel section. That being said, I am in favor of removing the Bush quote. Perhaps replace it with a quote on the barrier.--Majestiq 23:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, "Israeli settlements created "facts on the ground"" is pure personal POV, even if the claim were true (and it obviously is not, since Israel removed settlements from the Sinai, and is going to do so from the West Bank and Gaza Strip now), you would have to cite a source for that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AladdinSE, the analogy you're trying to make is yours, e.g., original research. You can quote someone making that particular analogy, but otherwise it doesn't belong in the article. Also, the article is about the barrier, not the settlements. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 23:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Since, original research is such a big deal, I will be going through the article as a whole to find instances of "Original Research". This shouldn't be too hard to do since most of the article does not have any sourses. By the way, one potention source for the "facts on the ground" as it relates to settlements is the Zionist article, in the Zionism and Israel section.--Majestiq 23:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed section in bold: "Parts of the barrier are built on land confiscated from Palestinians. [14] The BBC claims hundreds of Palestinian farmers and traders are cut off from their land and means of economic survival. They also claim that the barrier creates "facts on the ground" and imposes unilateral solutions which preclude negotiated agreements in the future[15]. Israeli settlements created "facts on the ground" regarding significant Israeli population centers. American President George W. Bush has gone on record as saying that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements. [16]

Aladdin, if you want to include the bolded section, you'll have to find a reputable published source who has clearly and umambiguously linked the bold and the non-bold issues. If you're the only person linking the two, then by definition, it's your original work designed to build a case for or against an issue, which is not allowed according to Wikipedia:No original research. This page is about the barrier, not about settlements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't the BBC which was making the claim; the BBC reported that Israel's critics were making it, so I've clarified that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect in this assertion. As I have noted before The phrase "Israel's critics say.." in the paragraph before this quote in the BBC article is limited to the paragraph before. Since there is a new paragraph started, what was mentioned in the first can not be applied to the second. The claims of the critics are limited to "Israel's critics say the plan epitomises everything that is wrong with Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and its approach to making peace with its Arab neighbours." Therefore, it is the BBC making the claim.

No, SlimVirgin is right; the entire paragraph is the BBCs presentation of the critics views. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No he is not. The critics view goes with the paragraph that begins with "Israel's critics". The quote about "facts on the ground" is from a different paragraph. What is said is one paragraph cannot be applied to the article as a whole, instead it is limited to its own paragraph.

Your opinion on this is incorrect; it is obvious to a native English speaker. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You must not be a native english speaker.--Majestiq 19:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instead of saying "Israel's critics".. lets actually attribute it to somebody like B'Tselem [17] for example.--Majestiq 19:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the response at the bottom, let's not carry on this coversation in two spots. BTW, are you a native English speaker? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone and sorry for the late reply. I have been having less free time recently and I'm falling behind on Wikipedia. I've just read this Talk section carefully, as well as the policy on Original Research. I completely disagree that it is OR. Consequently I am returning the sentence. However since there is opposition, I will limit any reverts to once daily, to mitigate the effects of a revert war. Editors that still want to disallow this addition, may pursue DR, and if I am proven to be incorrect, I will of course submit to arbitration if they rule against my position, but I am confident that it is this edit is legitimate. Thanks all for your considered input. --AladdinSE 23:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

Guy, I've changed eastern Jerusalem back to East Jerusalem, as it tends to be known internationally as the latter, including by the UN, so that's the name we should use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTCA

I beg to differ. Aside from the period between 1949 and 1967 (18 years), there was no clear division between East and West Jerusalem. And I honestly don't see how referring to Jerusalem as one city is inherently one biased one way or another. It's not as if there is a West Al Quds and East Al Quds. I suppose it would be strictly speaking most accurate to refer to it as "parts of Jerusalem under Jordanian administration between 1949 and 1967," but East Jerusalem is not the right proper noun. --Leifern 00:57, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

This is a mistake. It is akin to referring to a united Berlin by its geographical areas as though they were under different political entities and different cities. Jerusalem was always a united city and Berlin was always a united city. Just because there was an artificial seperation for 15 years doesnt make the eastern side a seperate city. Unless you want to refer to East Berlin and West Berlin as though they were separate entities, even though they were seperated by two political entities for over 50 years, you will not refer to eastern Jerusalem as "East Jerusalem", a ficititious and completely artificial term.

1. Both Berlin and Jerusalem was taken over and seperated. East Berlin by the Soviet Union and eastern Jerusalem by Jordan.
2. Both were artifically labeled as seperate cities even though they were geographically connected and part of the same area before they were occupied.
3. Both had a wall running through them, in Berlin it was the Berlin Wall, in Jerusalem it was the Jordanian constructed wall to seperate the two sides.

Yet now that Berlin is unified it is not refered to by some artificial term but Jerusalem is.

Explain to me this outrageous Orwellian discrepency. Guy Montag 01:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should the term that is used most by the international community and by mainstream academic and journalistic sources, which I understand is East Jerusalem. It gets 1.2 million Google hits, and is widely used by reputable Western newspapers e.g. The Washington Post. [18]. The Security Council does not recognize the annexation of that part of the city, so the comparison with Berlin is not a good one, as no one objected to Berlin's reunification. If I'm wrong about East Jerusalem being the most common term, by all means post your sources here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The most common term is not an acceptable criterion for resolving a semantic issue with political implications. We should strive for accuracy, not popularity. Before the Iron Wall fell, there were indeed lots of objections to Berlin's reunification. A good analogy could be found in the issue of whether to call a particular island Taiwan or the Republic of China. The issue of Jerusalem is not simple, and it's misleading to make it seem like "East Jerusalem" is a separate place. It's more meaningful to distinguish between West Oslo and East Oslo, with Akerselva as a dividing line. Anyone who has actually been there knows that it isn't. --Leifern 12:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

If Jerusalem is United then the "East" can be dropped. However, under the international view, Israeli Jerusalem and East Jerusalem are not united. Thefore "East Jerusalem" should be used.--Majestiq 05:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought that wikipedia aims for accuracy. There has never been a city called East Jerusalem and I have no reason to believe that there will ever be. All I see is a city divided by artificial means. Just as we do not refer to the territories as "occupied" as some in the international community do, I do not think we should refer to eastern Jerusalem as a seperate entity.

Guy Montag 09:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not referring to the territories as occupied is your POV and not neutral. The World referrs to them as occupied. Even Ariel Sharon has referred to them as occupied. If you would like to argue the status of the occupied territories and East Jerusalem, I suggest you do so on your own website or blog.--Majestiq 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The annexation of East Jerusalem has been declared null and void by the United Nations. No country in the world recognizes Israeli sovereignty there. Stop renaming East Jerusalem with "Eastern" Jerusalem, it will not stand. If and when the Palestinians cede the old city to Israel in an internationally endorsed final peace plan, then come back and rename every reference to East Jerusalem with "eastern." --AladdinSE 00:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The most holy site in all of Judaism is in an area "no country in the world" recognizes as Israeli. The Waq'f is busy destroying archeological evidence of the Temple that stood on Mount Moriah. When "East Jerusalem" was last under Arab rule, old synagogues were destroyed; the Jewish gravesite on the Mount of Olives was desecrated. It took tough negotiations for the Jordanian army to even let the remaining Jews out alive from the Old City in 1949, and even then only old people, children, and women weren't taken as prisoners of war. I think we should start insisting that Mecca, or the Vatican, be split in two to accomodate others' claims. If the Jews can put up with it, so should the Christians and Moslems, don't you agree? --Leifern 00:46, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

You an entitled to your opinion. But please keep your personal opinions out of the wikipedia article.--Majestiq 03:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with SlimVirgin here; East Jerusalem is the common term, and the annexation hasn't been recognized by other countries. As well, for at least 19 years East Jerusalem was separate from West Jerusalem. We should go by the common and unambiguous names for places, which in this case is East Jerusalem. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But for 2000 thousand years was it not united?

Guy Montag 05:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Until the late 19th century it was just the Old City anyway; the categories didn't apply. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, for most of the last 2 mellinia, the area which is now called Jerusalem or West Jerusalem wasn't considered as the city of jerusalem itself. It would probably have been known as a suburb. The Old City was Jerusalem proper.--Majestiq 00:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted a logical non political explanation for the terms. Thanks.

Guy Montag 08:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References

Majestiq, if you read the article we link to, the BBC is not making those claims. It is reporting that Israel's critics are making them.

Also, would the editor who added this please supply a reference? "In addition, a number of independent journalists have noted that the barrier has improved conditions for Palestinians in cities like Jenin and Ramallah, since the number of Israel incursions have decreased." Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I continue to dispute these sources. Israelnewsagency.com and mideastweb.com. If these sources are allowed then why shouldn't Abab sources be allowed like Al-Jazeera and Palestinian newspapers.--Majestiq 19:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The source I cited for the improved conditions was Washington Times. Aside from that, I a) don't have a problem citing Al Jazeerah or Palestinian sources, as long as they're cited; b) Israeli news sources turn out to be much more reliable than the sources you're mentioning, and that's something you can verify: If you compare the news coverage in Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, Yediot Aharanot, etc., with any other news sources (including BBC) they're simply more accurate and more complete as far as news is concerned. Of course the editorial pages are likely to be more disagreeable to you (as they tend to disagree with each other as well), but serious newspapers tend to distinguish between the two types of content. --Leifern 19:48, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

The Washington Times article is OK. I do not have a problem with the Israeli newspapers that you mentioned. But isrealnewsagency.com, unlilke what the name suggests, looks like just somebodies personal webpage.--Majestiq 20:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Majestiq, please stop reverting and discuss your changes here first. The BBC article here [19] says: "What are the main objections to the plan? Israel's critics say the plan epitomises everything that is wrong with Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and its approach to making peace with its Arab neighbours. Palestinian land is confiscated to build the barrier; hundreds of Palestinian farmers and traders are cut off from their land and means of economic survival. Most significantly, it creates "facts on the ground" and imposes unilateral solutions which preclude negotiated agreements in the future." This is the BBC giving the Israeli critics side of the story. The BBC does not as a rule make claims like this on its own behalf on regular news sites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is right; the entire paragraph is the BBCs presentation of the critics views. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin and Jayjg, the quote that appears above is incorrect. If this was the quote then I would agree with you. However, there is a parapraph break between "..making peace with its Arab neighbours." and "Palestinian land is confiscated..". Therefore, the vies of Israel's critics end with "...making peach with its Arab neighbours".--Majestiq 19:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel making peach with its Arab neighbors? If only it were so...

The entire paragraph answers the title in bold, "What are the main objections to the plan?" and then gives reasons critics object to the plan. The BBC isn't objecting to the plan, it's just a reporting agency reporting the main objections to the plan by critics. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 19:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see my recent edit. Saying "Israel's critics" is ambigious. I am sourced and attributed the comments to a specific organization. And yes, I am a native english speaker, but perhaps not a spelling bee champion. Typos are also the result of typing too fast.--Majestiq 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Majestiq, I haven't looked at your latest edit yet, but if you're attributing the information to the BBC, you must stick to what they say, and their attribution is to Israel's critics. The paragraph breaks can't be assumed to make any difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

barrier along the Green Line

Majestiq, you just stated something opposite the sources you cite in this edit [20]: You said, "Most of the barrier is sent in the West Bank and not along the Green Line." but the source you cited states, "The West Bank barrier generally runs close to the pre-1967 Mideast war border -- the so-called Green Line -- but dips into the West Bank to include some Jewish settlements". --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 20:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

His B'Tselem source states "Most of the barrier route was set in the West Bank and not along the Green Line". However, it's an old link, and talks about the route set for the barrier, and not the route the barrier eventually has taken. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source that says that most of the barrier is actually on the green line. I have provided one that says it is not. Even looking at the map, you may be able to see that it is not. The parts that zig zag into the west bank to go around the settlements account for more length then parts that go along the green line.--Majestiq 20:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see this source [21]. It states that 20% of the barrier runs along the green line. Therefore, the article should be changed to say that "Most of the barrier in built in the West Bank" or something to that effect.--Majestiq 20:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oops, I made the change to reflect the old source cited and didn't notice the source changed in the mean time, so now of course the text doesn't match the source. Sorry about that. However, we now have these two sources that say conflicting things about the actual route. Which one (or is there a better one) that gives the accurate route, and its proximity to the Green Line? Now I'm running into edit conflict trying to post this. I'll take a look at the new source you just provided above as I'm posting this--MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 20:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a conflict of sources. There is no source that says that most of the west bank is built along the green line. The first source I provided (B'Tselem) said "Most of the barrier is built in the west bank". The second source (UN) says 20% is built along the green line.--Majestiq 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CNN source in your original edit actually does say that, as I quoted above, "The West Bank barrier generally runs close to the pre-1967 Mideast war border -- the so-called Green Line -- but dips into the West Bank to include some Jewish settlements". In looking at the picture, I think its still correct to say that the barrier generally runs close to the Green Line. The 20% you cite is technically accurate (good source, thanks for finding that), but it gives the impression the way it's worded that the barrier confiscates 80% of the West Bank, which is not true. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 21:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Effects on Palestinians vs. Effectiveness

Things that mostly talk about effects on the barrier on Israeli security should go into the effectiveness section. For example, the following: Israeli officials and proponent of the barrier contend that the primary purpose of the fence is to ensure the security of Israelis, and that any hardship is an unfortunate side effect, necessitated by terrorist attacks. The Israel government also contends that greater security will reduce the need for other security measures such as checkpoints inside the West Bank [22].--Majestiq 20:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Majestiq 21:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is redundent. It is saying the same thing that the first paragraph did.--Majestiq 21:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All fixed now. Try not to delete well sourced information, or to reverse agreements reached days ago. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't redundant anymore, since Majestiq deleted both of these. And of course this belongs in effects on Palestinians - the headline says "effects on Palestinians," not "alleged negative effects on Palestinians." This is absolutely unacceptable. --Leifern 23:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Bush's comment April 12 2005

Bush's comment about the future border is indeed noteworthy, but it doesn't belong here, for several reasons:

• It is not clear that the barrier has anything to do with the comment - mostly likely it is the existence of (relatively) large Jewish towns on the West Bank that led to the "demographic reality"
• We can't overdraw conclusions based on Bush's comment - the US has huge influence in the area, but doesn't call the shots (in case anyone hasn't noticed)
• The purpose of the comment is open to interpretation - we can't assume one such interpretation is more correct than the other. --Leifern 10:49, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

I agree. Bush is ambiguous on the statements and we cannot be sure that those population blocks will be covered by the fence. Bush also mentioned that he means that this has to be negotiated with the PA. I do not believe that any additions on his statements at this time would be anything more than conjecture.

Guy Montag 19:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, the sentence you want to add counts as original research because the BBC source you provide [23] does not say what you're arguing, and in fact doesn't even mention the barrier.

You wrote: "American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements, significantly bolstering any potential Israeli plan to force through the inclusion of large swaths of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line by enclosing West Bank settlements by means of the Barrier," (my emphasis).

The first part of the sentence is supported by the source but is not about the barrier. The section in italics, which is about the barrier, is not supported by the source. Therefore, Jayjg is right: the facts have been assembled to produce a novel argument — your own argument — which makes it original research. If you read Wikipedia:No original research, it is explained clearly there. If you want to make this point, you have to find a reputable source that has made that very point already. Then you can quote or paraphrase their argument and provide a citation.

I've looked around and haven't found anything, but there is this Christian Aid report. [24] Chapter Three is called "The Ultimate Fact on the Ground: the Separation Barrier" (if you scroll down you'll see that you can download it separately). There's a chance there might be something in there you can use, though I realize that won't help you with the Bush statement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, thank you for your detailed explanation of your opinion, and the link you provided about the barrier. I think it would have been more appropriate in the subsection above this one, about the April Bush comments. This subsection is about objections to perceived condescension and attitude difficulties in edit summaries. As for the OR argument, I have examined it very very carefully, and I am in complete disagreement. I have stated my position clearly on the matter on more than one occasion. While this dispute lasts, I will continue to limit my reverts to once daily. All editors: Please keep this subsection limited to its stated topic, and place future comments about the OR argument/disputed Bush quotation above in the appropriate section. Thanks. --AladdinSE 06:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Aladdin, actually we had an edit conflict, so I'd written the above before I saw your new section, and just plonked it down at the bottom. Free free to move it (and this) if you prefer: I don't mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wall is enclosing most major settlements (Israeli population centers) in the West Bank. Bush has said a future peace deal needs to acknowledge these (unilaterally) imposed population centers... "demographic realities" as he called them. That directly correlates with the preceding sentence about prejudged borders. How can we disassociate the wall from these comments and call them irrelevant? First, it was called original research. Then when I added a source, it was called irrelevant. Are we sure we're being neutral here? What's sad is that if the shoe were on the other foot and an say Jordan invaded Israel and transferred large numbers of Jordanian palestinians inside Pre-1967 Israeli territory, I doubt very much that Bush would be saying "let's just deal with it"; He'll be hollering at the top of his voice that "aggression will not stand" and "acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and illegal settlements are against the Geneva conventions" etc etc. Anyway that's rather off topic. The inclusion of this Bush quotation is central to the Wall topic and the context of the section Effect on Palestinians. I have not seen any arguments remotely dissuading me. I am willing to pursue an eventual arbitration ruling on the inclusion of this sourced statement where it is. --AladdinSE 06:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The sequence of events is somewhat different. First it was unsourced; then, when sourced, it turned out to be original research, since the source didn't make the argument that you were making. You then re-worded it and claimed you weren't making an explicit linkage between the barrier and the settlements; but if there is no linkage between the two, then talking about the settlements is irrelevant. You seem wedded to this argument, and keep trying to "fix" it in order to avoid transgressing Wikipedia policy; however, all three attempts have suffered from different (and fatal) flaws. Moreover, the argument itself is specious (no doubt this is why no-one besides you has advanced this novel argument): The issue of the "demographic realities" exists regardless of whether or not there is a barrier around them; simply put, it's hard for a democracy to move tens of thousands of citizens of it's own country who don't want to be moved. On the other hand, the barrier itself is easily torn down; it doesn't vote, or set up protests, or need to be compensated and found new land. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly have altered the sentence because I wanted to specifically take into account your concerns about OR. After those alterations there is nothing left to disallow this statement. What is left is you declaring that there is no relevance. I'm willing to take it all the way to arbitration. I very much want to see a group of impartial arbitrators declaring that there is no relevance, as I explained above. --AladdinSE 10:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Condescending editorials in edit summaries

I am getting rather impatient with Jayjg's condescending repetitions in his/her edit summaries regarding these reverts. Please stop telling me to read the Wikipedia:Original research information, I have read it and I utterly disagree with you. Just deal with the fact that we have reached an impasse which may need eventual arbitration and avoid condescension in edit summaries. I have been trying to maintain a civil stance here, and limiting my reverts to once daily while we work through this. Your attitude is not helping. --AladdinSE 06:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just pointing out how clear the Wikipedia:No original research policy is in regards to this. You keep trying to create a link between the settlements and the barrier, to whit, that the settlements are like the barrier in creating "facts on the ground". Yet none of your sources create that linkage; as such, the linkage is clearly a novel argument that you are creating. If you disagree with this, please explain why it is not original research; i.e. please explain why this is not a novel argument, by showing where it has been made elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, you're not trying to be condescending. Now that you know that I have read the policy carefully, you will hopefully stop asking me to read it again and again and again and realize that, GASP, I disagree with your interpretation. I have put my pertinent comments about the comments in the Talk section above, and now I'm going to read the newest additions below. --AladdinSE 10:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Let's stick to the article

AladdinSE, emotions and intentions are notoriously hard to read in things like e-mails, list-serves, and talk pages. I looked over Jayjg's comments and don't see any sign of condesenscion. All that I see that he persists in believing your recent edit violates our NOR policy, and that you persist in disagreeing. Surely you do not consider disagreement to be the same thing as condesenscion? In any event, this page is for talking about how to improve the article. If you have a personal problem with Jayjg I suggest you take it to his own talk page.

There is nothing accusatory about persisting in disagreement. That perceived condescension was Jayjg repeatedly lecturing me to read the OR policy when he/she clearly saw that I read it and disagreed with him. --AladdinSE 10:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Now, as far as the article goes, please correct me if I am wrong but your position in this discussion is that:

The source clearly contains quotations by Bush and the American ambassador and is a clear parallel to the point being made about "facts on the ground" vis-à-vis the West Bank Wall.

and your edit to the article is:

American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements, significantly bolstering any potential Israeli plan to force through the inclusion of large swaths of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line by enclosing West Bank settlements by means of the Barrier [25].

Now, it seems to me that (1) Bush himself is not talking about the wall, he is talking about settlements, and (2) you see a parallel between settlements and the wall, and (3) you believe Bush's comment has the effect of bolstering Israeli territorial expansion.

(2) and (3) are synthetic claims that interpret the meaning and effect of what Bush said. I imagine this is why Jayjg and SlimVirgin believe them to be original research. If my understanding of your claims is correct, then I have to agree with them. No one disputes that Bush made a statement concerning the settlements. To include this (in an appropriate context) is certainly not original research. But claiming that there is a parallel between the function of the wall and the settlements, and that Bush's statement will have a certain effect, seem to be claims that you are making. Have you read in some other source these interpretations or claims? If so, by all means, provide a citation and we can move on. But if this is your analysis/interpretation of the meaning and effect of Bush's words, well — then it cannot go into Wikipedia. One major purpose of policies like NOR, Verifiability, and Cite Sources, and Wikipedia is not a Soapbox is to ensure that editors do not use articles to express their own views even if those views are accurate or logical or reasonable or true ... or "obvious" or "clear". Our policy is not to put our own interpretation of things in articles, it is to provide accounts of interpretations that are out there in primary or secondary sources. It seems to me that you are putting your own interpretation in. And whether I agree with your interpretation, or think it is plausible, or disagree with your interpretation is irrelevant. If it is your interpretation, it constitutes "original research." Do you still think it is not original research? The please, can you explain to me why it is not? And when I say "it" I am not refering to the Bush quote, for which you have provided a source, I am refering only to the claim that that when Bush refers to "demographic realities in the West Bank regarding settlements," he is also referring to the wall, and the claim that his statement will bolster Israel's reliance on the wall in justifying territorial claims. I am not asking you to explain why these may be reasonable inferences, I am asking you to explain why you think these are not your inferences but rather someone else's. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think AlladinSE is trying to show one of the reasons why Palestinians are against the wall. The Phrase "Facts on the ground" is used in the article and many don't know the history of that phrase. Palestinians fear a land grab caused by the wall just as they fear a land grab caused by the original "facts on the ground" (the settlements). AlladinSE's addition shows that this argument has some merrit considering the current position of the Arbitrator (The US) in the conflict about the settlements.

Furthermore, settlements and the barrier are unarguably tied together since large portions of the barrier are meant to protect the settlements. The route of the wall also takes into consideration the expansion of settlements in the future [26]. Therefore, Bush's commments about Jewish population centers is directly related to the barrier because the barrier allows for the expansion of those centers. This goes directly towards point number 3. that you have made above.--Majestiq 22:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My first edits made a direct parallel/conclusion which I removed when objections were made. Now the statements are worded to specifically mention only what is factual: The Wall is enclosing west bank settlements, settlements which Bush says are now demographic realities that Palestinians just have to accept. I also echo Majestiq's position, well said. --AladdinSE 10:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have made a slight alteration to disarm any claims of OR. The edit now reads:

American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements [27]. Most of these settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line are currently being enclosed by means of the Barrier.

Also please see the New York Times article today, April 19, front page: Israel, on Its Own, Reshaping West Bank Borders. Food for thought. --AladdinSE 10:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Now if you could just stop trying to use various wordings to link the settlements with the barrier and "demographic realities", and thus insert your own original research, the article will be fine. BTW, the barriers are not a "demographic reality"; hundreds of thousands of people in homes and communities are. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To make it even clearer; you have been trying for days to create some sort of claim that the barrier, like the settlements, are "facts on the ground" (or, as you now call them, "demographic realities"). The problem with this is that the argument itself is original research; thus no amount of re-wording will ever get around the fact that it is the argument itself which is problematic, not the specific words used. The way to get around this problem is not to continually try to come up with more and more clever wordings in an attempt to skirt the rule, but instead to find a credible source which makes this explicit linkage. Expending your energies there will be a much more fruitful use of your time. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you could just stop using the OR red herring to prevent a perfectly valid, sourced and relevant statement about the barrier, prejudged borders, and "facts on the ground," and thus risk appearing to be trying to preserve Israel from appearing to disadvantage, the article would be stellar. I have repeatedly taken your concerns into account, and if you chose to regard this as "skirting the rules" then that's your choice. I have been and remain, willing to defend this position all the way to arbitration, and after repeatedly compromising to take into account your concerns, I am confident that this edit will stand up to the closest scrutiny. --AladdinSE 12:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Original research is not a red herring, it is an important policy. Several editors have explained to you that it is original research, yet you have become enamored with the novel argument and refuse to stop inserting it. The information you keep including is about the settlements, not the barrier, and if you would stop trying insert this off-topic argument the article would be stellar. You have failed to take the basic concerns with this material into account; that it is a novel argument and thus original research. Instead, you keep trying to "game" the original research rule by re-wording your argument, or claiming that the original research policy is a red herring. I too am willing to take this issue through whatever dispute resolution mechanisms are required to get the issue solved, though I note that arbitration is usually the last, not first, mechanism used. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the original wording was problematic because it applied one interpretation of Bush's remark as a fact. I still think that the link between Bush's remark and the barrier is tenuous at best, though I'm not disputing the premise that Bush opened the door to future borders that would include Jewish communities outside of the green line. I wouldn't take it upon myself to revert this edit, but my feeling is that the point would fit more comfortably in the article on the territories. --Leifern 13:45, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

As one or two other editors pointed out, it's an important quotation that has relevance to other articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I will look into including it elsewhere, in due course. --AladdinSE 14:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is an important quotation, and has relevance to a very specific article: Israeli settlement. You should put it in there, where it belongs, and not here, where it does not. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no argument, novel or otherwise, being inserted into the article. Only two factual statements. Because of OR concerns no argument was made linking them. Pursue dispute resolution if you still believe that it remains OR. --AladdinSE 20:21, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Aladdin has made concessions over this and that the current version is probably okay. Strictly speaking, mention of the settlements could be regarded as original research, in that this article is not about that issue and therefore to mention them could be regarded as an attempt to construct a link. But Aladdin's current version is very factual, with no argument, and I don't see a problem with it. The two versions are below: the original first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements, significantly bolstering any potential Israeli plan to force through the inclusion of large swaths of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line by enclosing West Bank settlements by means of the Barrier.

American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements. Most of the settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line are currently enclosed by the barrier.

The problem now is that when you re-word it enough so that it is no longer Original Research, it becomes irrelevant. What is a paragraph about the settlements, and their "demographic realities" according to GWB, doing in this article? It belongs in the article about settlements, where it actually is. As for what the barrier encloses, the article makes it clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you do not share the consensus reached after several compromises. The information is completely, and centrally relevant. In response to your question, if you cannot see the factual relevance between settlements and the Barrier that is there specifically to "protect" them, then I'm not the one to explain it to you. Yes, it's important information that does also belong elsewhere, but it also certainly belongs here. --AladdinSE 04:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The settlements are a demographic reality. The barrier is simply a physical construct, which can (and has been removed). Your previous attempts at creating original research linking them have been neutralized to the extent that the information has become irrelevant to this article. That has always been the horns of the dilemma that Wikipedia policy has placed in front of you. As I've said earlier, rather than continuing to try to insert original research by any means possibly, prove that is it not original (or alternatively that it is relevant) by finding a source which actually links them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether this article would help, which says: "[Sharon] further strengthened his position at home by building a West Bank wall/barrier that both unilaterally helped to demarcate the route for future Israeli control over huge West Bank settlement blocs and large swathes of West Bank land." Dr. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, Washington, D.C. [28] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nice job, that seems to make the point Aladdin wants to make without being original research, quoting someone else making the point instead of a Wikipedia editor drawing conclusions for the reader. Let's see if Aladdin and Jayjg agree. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Good work, Slim, I'll put that in. We finally have a version that is both relevant and not original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I've also placed it in the correct section, opinions about the barrier. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, without the source it was still a valid, relevant and non-OR addition that was a result of much compromise and consensus. Thanks for looking up the source, in any case. --AladdinSE 22:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Its time for mediation

Jayjg and AladdinSE, it is time for you both to mediate your disputes as you have been having this discussion for over 2 weeks without any progress. This article has been changed too much daily over a trivial matter.

Please resolve this quickly.

Guy Montag 03:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

International Opinion

I've changed this to say what the international opinion actually is. It's pretty clear from the UN votes and what the delegates actually say (government representatives) that the vast majority of countries oppose the wall.

I've also tried to fix the layout which was getting unwieldy. So basically it's like this:

1. History
2. Timeline
3. Effects on both sides
4. International/Legal issues
5. Opinions.

The effects on Palestinians section had a lot of irrelevant information which I moved to the correct places. The comment on opponents of the wall "not respecting human life" was insulting. Think its clearer now. --Tedneeman 06:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

117,000 Google results for "Apartheid Wall"

45,900 for "Separation Barrier", 25,900 for "West Bank barrier", 15,200 for "Israel Security Fence". This article should could be entitled Apartheid Wall. --JuiceLayer 01:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A) that's not exactly how we'd go about finding a title, is it? B) It's a highly perjorative description, the factual basis of which is questionable, to say the least (it only works if you know nothing about apartheid and ignore all the facts about the separation barrier). --Leifern 02:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

A) According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions the title should be the most common name that isn't offensive to large groups of people. B). The name is very common, as the Google results show, but I agree that it may be offensive to large groups of people (on one side of the wall) so maybe it shouldn't be the title but it is a very common name and the page Apartheid wall redirects here so it should be listed in the first line as one of the names that the wall is called. --JuiceLayer 02:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Leifern that this article shouldn't be entitled the Apartheid wall. However, the popularity of the term should be noted, either with inclusion in the first sentence (the modifier clearly mentions its use by opponents) or a separate description about it.Yuber^(talk) 03:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I would favor a section that describes the controversy, with arguments pro and against the use of the term. It'll become apparent that it's an absurd term that is also offensive to victims of apartheid. (Yasser Arafat was no Nelson Mandela) --Leifern 10:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Apartheid Wall" is indeed offensive to large numbers of people all around the world, and in any event is an epithet, not a name. This particular epithet only gets 438 hits (once Google ghosts are removed), and is not the way the barrier is referred to by any particularly reputable or citable sources. The epithet is indeed noted in the second paragraph of the article. Finally, sockpuppets created for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy can be ignored, or simply banned if they get too annoying. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Separate section on "apartheid wall"

Yuber is reverting a section that discusses the use of the term "apartheid wall." Which is to say that he wants an epithet to stand but refuses to discuss whether it is justified. I honestly can't think of a more biased approach. --Leifern 22:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I put it in the first paragraph and made clear that it's an epithet. Now tell me, how is that biased?Yuber^(talk) 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's already discussed quite clearly; why do you feel the need to push this epithet up into the first paragraph? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's immensely popular, it belongs in the first paragraph.Yuber^(talk) 00:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, there is a paragraph in the introduction devoted to the names. That is where a reference to this name belongs. Please do stop this infernal POV-pushing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

How is this POV pushing? By the way, I just put a link in to the section where the name is discussed. Please tell me if you think that's POV as well.Yuber^(talk) 23:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't play games; you know how it's POV pushing. If the name is discussed in a paragraph devoted to the names (and in the intro; not exactly buried), lifting it higher to draw attention to it is introducing a POV. You're introducing the same POV on every article you edit (that I have seen); you constantly revert, no matter how many editors oppose you; you take up a lot of other people's time with often fruitless debate on talk pages; and you frequently violate 3RR, yet don't seem to realize people are being decent toward you by not reporting it. I appeal to you to settle down and try to work within our policies. What this will mean is that sometimes you'll get your POV in, and sometimes you won't. In addition to POV issues, articles have to be well written to encyclopedic, and sometimes scholarly, standards, which means that introductions have to be properly structured with a good narrative flow, and not just a bunch of POVS jostling for the top space. Please do try to find a more cooperative editing style. You clearly have a lot of knowledge and a lot of positive material you could contribute, and we do want it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I changed some controversial parts to neutral language. For any changed, please explain here any reasoning for doing so. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:09, June 20, 2005 (EDT)

From the NPOV article: Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why. Clarify why Palestinians oppose the barrier is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please respond on the talk page before re-reverting. Tedneeman 12:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The more relevant policy is Wikipedia:No original research; I've restored your version for now, but the insertions need to be cited. As it is, they appear to be the personal opinions of one editor with a strong POV on the issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almost everybody who has contributed here has a pretty strong POV - almost nobody has experienced the wall up close and personal as far as I can tell. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:28, June 21, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but opinion needs to be cited, and one shouldn't state claims as facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, instead of constantly following my contributions and deleting everything I write in favor of your POV, why don't you please point out anything that, in your opinion, needs citing, and I'll be happy to follow up. It's no problem. I'm working on that right now actually. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:43, June 21, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't deleted what you've written, I've NPOVd it, and been quite clear about what I objected to both in the edits and in Talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dubious sources include blogs, and opinion pieces from non-notable authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap man - Danny Rubinstein is one of the most notable (though not necessarily beloved) writers in Israel - unless of course you don't recognize Israeli writers as legitimate. As for your comment about NPOVing my entries, I think it's pretty clear that I don't consider you neutral at all, although I'm trying my best to be. It's hard for me to trust the neutrality of somebody who would write:

Lol, now that is a real crock of shit. "Notable" my ass.

Part of the problem is that the P.A. has been such a shoddy, inept, and corrupt government that there is little good one can say about it; kind of like trying to find good stuff to say about the Zanu-PF government of Robert Mugabe. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that's hardly neutral, as true or not as it may be. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we both know it is true, or certainly was when it was written. As for neutral, Wikipedia doesn't expect editors to be neutral themselves (that would be silly), but simply to edit in a neutral way, which is what I do, and what you have (so far) been failing to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You do not Jayjg, you do not. You are accusing me of doing exactly the sort of thing that you have pushed for the opposite POV. You insist on keeping a word like "terrorist" to describe untried and unindicted prisoners, but you call a word like "ghetto" inflammatory. Ramallite ^(talk) 01:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If someone is jailed for terrorist activities, you can't put words in their mouths and say they were jailed for "militant" activities, or no activities at all. I generally don't include the word "terrorist" unless that is the POV of the person being cited. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But they were not jailed for terrorist activities - that's my point!!! The editor of the piece in question (under another topic) is putting words into the mouth of "The Jerusalem Times" because it's not the POV of the source being cited (The Times). Ramallite ^(talk) 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, and once you explained that, I didn't re-add it. I couldn't actually read the Jerusalem Times article because you needed a subscription. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the Rubinstein article, your link is to a blog, which makes it suspect at best, and probably a copyright violation as well. The "non-notable" author was the one who wrote the Herald Tribune piece - the only thing particularly notable about him is his proudly held biases and silly hyperbole "insatiable Zionist appetite for territory and with Israel’s repeated attempts at ethnic cleansing". Sheesh! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the author of the IHT piece is truly as you say, then I apologize and I will remove that citation immediately since I have no desire to associate my editing with anti semites. But as far as proudly held biases go, Jayjg, I really ought to tell you that you exude that yourself as well. Ramallite ^(talk) 01:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't said he was an anti-Semite. I'll look at your new links; meanwhile, it's best to use the Talk: pages for commenting on article content and edits, not on your suppositions about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If your quote of "insatiable Zionist appetite for territory" is true, that does have anti-semitic overtones even if the author is alluding to Zionists per se and not Jews in general. You told me earlier that I have been failing to edit in a neutral way, and am vandalizing, but now are telling me that I shouldn't make suppositions? Ramallite ^(talk) 01:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quote is true and accurate. Regarding the other items, I said that your edits were not neutral; that is not commenting about you, but about your edits. As well, I said that deletion of sourced material is usually considered vandalism; that is quite true, there's even a vandalism template to deal with it. This is in marked contrast to statements like "as far as proudly held biases go, Jayjg, I really ought to tell you that you exude that yourself as well" and "some editors seem to have double standards" which are purely personal statements about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I said that I don't consider your definition of "neutral" to be Wikipedia's definition, at least that's what I meant when I said that you do not edit in a neutral way. Yes I did address you regarding your exudation of bias, just like you addressed me when writing "you can't just delete information because it is negative". If you were offended that I addressed you directly then I apologize, but I was taken aback when you called my deletion of an inflammatory piece as "vandalism" when you've been looking up my previous contributions and reverting them even though you support other more inflammatory posts from the opposing POV. Why don't you take a que from the Wikipedia guidelines and "add" to the posts in order to reach a common NPOV? The "double standards" statements was not directly aimed at you, there are numerous editors who seem to want to delete or rework pieces that may be questionable from a certain POV but will defend equally questionable material from the opposing POV. Ramallite ^(talk) 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Continuing use of statements such as "regarding your exudation of bias" are still personal attacks; please avoid them. I was not "offended" that you addressed me directly; rather, I pointed out what are personal statements about me, and, in fact, are violations of Wikipedia policy. I also note that you have apologized "if I was offended", not for any actions you have taken; thus, you have made a non-apology for a non-admission of wrongdoing.

Then I apologize for any personal attacks that I made, they were not meant to be so and I did not mean to violate policy.

Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not say your deleting of information was vandalism, I said deletion of cited informatin is typically viewed as vandalism. I use words exactly, just as you stated you did earlier, when confronted with the evidence that you had changed "Israel Defense Forces" to "Israel Occupation Forces". NPOV does not support deleting one POV, but rather adding multiple POVs; if you want to "take a que from the Wikipedia guidelines" then, rather than deleting information from a specific POV, you will add properly cited information from a different POV.

So if I were to add a phrase to IDF such as "also referred to as the IOF by the Palestinians" and properly cited it, within appropriate context, you wouldn't delete it?

What, you plan to add that POV to every single article which mentions the IDF? To every reference to the IDF within those articles? Aside from the absurdity of that notion, epithets are non-encyclopedic; we don't add "also referred to as Dubya and Shrub by opponents" to every mention of George W. Bush, or "also referred to as Terrorfat by his opponents" to every mention of Yasser Arafat. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That IOF is an epithet is only your POV, for a significant number of people (and I do mean English speakers) the Israeli army is seen as an occupying power responsible for subjugation and oppression of the Palestinian people. To compare this to real epithets such as "shrub" and "terrorfat" is just vile. Anyway, I was trying to have a civil discussion and resorting to ridicule and sarcasm is not appreciated, especially from an administrator, because I clearly wrote "within appropriate context" meaning where it is called for (most probably in future writings and not in past pieces unless deemed necessary for NPOV). I don't have the time or the desire to look at every reference to IDF and edit it. Ramallite ^(talk) 11:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not using ridicule and sarcasm, I'm using Reductio ad absurdum. The IDF has an official name; IOF is indeed epithet meant to denigrate the IDF; the fact that you consider some epithets "vile" and others not is a personal opinion. Using epithets is never necessary for NPOV, unless it is an article specifically discussing the use of that epithet, in which case it would have to be encyclopedic and notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum could be made with a little more tact and delicacy. Anyway, the point is that it is generally offensive to those who don't believe in Israel's right to occupy and rule another people that the occupying army calls itself IDF (which was, as you know, the name incepted at the founding of Israel - Tsaba' Hahagana L'Yisrael). To many, it is comparable to Egypt's ruling party naming itself the "National Democratic Party" - as absurd as that is. Your point about IOF being an epithet is taken, but IDF is one of those names that can be construed as misleading. IOF is now standard in many English Middle Eastern media outlets, and in pretty much all Arabic media (which I know is not relevant here). Before you intervened, other editors compromised with just "Israeli Army", which can be linked to the IDF Wikipedia page. Your insistance on IDF was taken as POV pushing, but unless you have actually served in the IDF yourself (and I have a friend or two who has), I am pretty sure you don't have enough background in the field to see why it would be POV pushing. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my reductio ad absurdum wasn't more tactful.

Thank you Ramallite ^(talk) 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the IDF, again, the organization has an official name, and a Wikipedia name, and a common English name, "Israel Defense Force", and that's what we use. No serious media outlets use "Israeli Occupation Force"; even strongly anti-Israel ones such as The Guardian refer to it by its official name. Some people consider it neutral and entirely accurate, others do not, but that's not particularly relevant. Wikipedia articles do not call the Conservative Party (UK) "the Tories", even though that is a common nickname, not even an epithet, because the organization has an official name. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point again taken, although I have to disagree with your definition of a 'serious media outlet' since you choose not to recognize English language Palestinian and other anti-occupation outlets as serious. But that's your prerogative. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By "serious" I mean English language media sources which have a wide readership and reputation as being reputable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the "double standards" statement was obviously aimed at me, despite your careful use of English again in using the phrase "directly aimed" to slightly change the meaning of the sentence and thus partly deflect the charge. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even I am not sure what that means - when I said "not directly" that means that there are a number of editors I have read who have double standards, it "obviously" was aimed at no one in particular. One should not read into usage of words more than is necessary. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You were obviously including me in that "number of editors you have read who have double standards"; one should not read into the usage of words any less than is intended by the author. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you denying that you have double standards or are you insisting on being included as an editor who has them? Ramallite ^(talk) 11:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to point out that you shouldn't make personal comments about other editors. I'm hoping and optimistic that we can get along here, but violations of Wikipedia's civility and personal attacks rules will make much that more difficult. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been hard avoiding what you call personal comments when it seems to me that, since you descovered my posts, and reading where I'm from, you have traced many of my other edits and tried to revert them making me feel "hunted". That, plus aluding to my edits as "vandalism" (and you've since accepted they are not), and using reductio ad absurdum inappropriately, and now referring to my lack of civility, remembering that it is I who apologized for any instance I thought I violated rules, are what will make it more difficult on MY part to get along, although I'm cautiously optimistic as well. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking at your edits based on the fact most of the articles you have edited are on my watchlist (and indeed, I've edited them long before you came to Wikipedia), and based on the fact that your initial edits strongly violated Wikipedia policy. As well, I noted that deletion of large sections of sourced text is considered vandalism, particularly without a reasonable explanation. You did this one time, and I pointed it out. You subsequently provided an explanation for the deletion, which I did not consider to be particularly valid, and in fact not in line with the WP:NPOV policy, but at least it was an explanation.

I actually followed your criteria on that one, using your previous guidance of what is "inflammatory" and "factually incorrect", and also what many would agree amounts to incitement, which are things I believe is against the WP:NPOV policy. Furthermore, as I pointed out, that section was not reliably sourced at all, and definitely pushed an aggressive and selective POV of the type you (I venture to say) would have disapproved of yourself. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As well, I have apologized more than once for any insult I might have given. However, I must make one thing clear: Referring to violations of Wikipedia's civility policies is not a personal attack or a violation of those policies; I've seen editors who have tried to make that claim in the past, and they have received little sympathy from anyone.

I'm glad I didn't consider it a "personal attack" then. I just said it would make it more difficult to get along.Ramallite ^(talk) 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is quite common (and completely unsurprising) that new editors are not familiar with Wikipedia policy; it is incumbent on longer-term editors to make them aware of policy, which I have attempted to do. That said, your most recent edits have generally been much more in line with Wikipedia policy; as a result, as you've probably noticed, our disagreements have significantly diminished. I'm hoping that trend continues. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia, I should have said that earlier. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you jayjg, looking forward to it! Ramallite ^(talk) 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like original research to me: "Palestinians are not, nor do they desire to be, citizens of Israel." Are there any places this can be backed up with facts? Particularly the "nor do they desire to be" portion? I assume there are arab citizens of Israel, many of which may still identify themselves as "Palestinian"? Furthermore, how can it be claimed that not a single Palestinian desires to be an Israeli citizen? --MattWright (talk) 07:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel, Palestinians are citizens of the Palestinian Authority. The barrier does not separate Israeli Arabs from Israeli non-Arabs, so the context is clear enough. As for not desiring to be, only a majority in annexed Jerusalem took up citizenship. More to the point, the section you are referring to lists arguments, not "facts", whether or not you consider them to be valid. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I accept your contention that the section is clearly marked as arguments. I don't believe the statement could stand outside of a POV section, however. I further disagree with your definitions of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians as being entirely accurate and the final word on the matter. In fact, even the Wikipedia article on Palestinians makes no mention of citizenry through the Palestinian Authority as the basis for identification as Palestinian. --MattWright (talk) 08:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Approved" route

Please stop adding nonsensical politics into a fairly dry and neutral caption. "Approved" doesn't mean "good" or "right" or "legal in the court of world opinion"; it just means that that is the route the government has currently approved for the barrier. It is a zoning description, not another invitation for you to pointlessly edit-war. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To whoever removed the word "approved": as a Palestinian who lives behind the wall, I agree that it's nothing short of modern racism that is meant to restrict and cage us simply for the reason that we are not Jewish. Having said that, this is the currently "approved" route as voted by Sharon's cabinet in February, and sadly, there are still sections in the eastern West Bank waiting for "approval" to enclose the cage on the other side. However, this is Wikipedia, and although many will understand your frustration, you ought to adhere to the NPOV policy. It simply will not look good for your cause to insist on pushing a POV on this site (on others maybe). Consider signing up, instead of remaining anonymous, and contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. It is a bit funny that, when something is finally declared a NPOV, that is still the POV of declarer! :) Ramallite ^(talk) 22:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He already has a Userid; in fact, he had a half dozen, but they kept getting blocked as sockpuppets used for edit-warring. He still has one left, and I've encouraged him to use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh hi jayjg, are you still following me and others around and censoring people? The barrier can be call "approved" along with many other adjectives too, such as "imposed", "disputed", "decreed" etc. How is "approved" NPOV? I think it's not, so I made my contribution to this page to make it NPOV. Thanks. One does not need a username to make an edit/contribution. I read that on one of Wikipedia's main pages my first day. 69.221.60.181 22:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Approved is simply a statement of fact, that the route has been formally confirmed by the Israeli government; your persistent misunderstanding of that word as implying that it means "good" has led you to continually revert it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

69.221.60.181, it would be simple to describe such concepts as the wall being imposed in the text as an opposing argument, if it's not already. The ultimate goal is for the text to be as neutral as possible so that a reader can easily decide for him/herself the reality of this wall. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word "approved" is not neutral, we should just avoid it altogether. By the way, does anyone have a better, updated map from a more credible source? I found this one from a BBC article in March of 2005, so it's more recent: [[29]] [[30]] Ramallite, can you tell me how to upload images? How does the copyright stuff work in a nutshell? Thanks.69.221.60.181 23:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I have not attempted to upload images yet. From what I understand, you need to be logged on to the Wikipedia and go here -> [31] to upload an image. It is also recommended to use the "Wikipedia Commons" page at -> [32]. You must be logged in to use the site. The copyright rule is simple: If you are prohibited from copying the image, don't upload it. If the image belongs to an organization that lets you use their content for non-commercial use, then you can upload it. In all cases, read the copyright rules from the website you are copying from to see their policy on reproducing their content. Hope this helps. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feb 2005 is the latest. It is done by a reputable and knowledgeable wikipedian (not that I often agree with him). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding unnecessary headaches, would you all agree to "planned" route? Anon is offended by "approved" claiming it is NPOV since only one side "approved" it while the Palestinians did not, "approved" also gives the clueless reader the impression that this is how the wall stands now. It doesn't, it's still being erected, I just saw them working on it recently - made my blood boil but anyway, and "planned" might just avoid revert wars right now. I'm not going to worry too much about a caption of a picture, since much more important aspects of the wall still need to be clarified on Wikipedia. Ramallite ^(talk) 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about your feelings, let's try to keep it cools and encylopedic.Some parts are already built, some are planned. When we say that the route is approved, by whom and when, we list cold hard facts. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the current text that states it is "approved by the Israeli government" is factual and NPOV. Way better than the old caption which just had approved in there without a date or who approved it. --MattWright (talk) 07:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The best way to deal with it is to not call it approved or disputed or imposed or decreed or any of these unecessary adjectives. see my edit. Thanks.69.221.62.82 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The barrier, however, is still under construction, whereas your edit removes the language that hints to the fact that it is a "tentative", "approved", "disputed", ... route. If the picture shows only the barrier as it exists as of February 2005, your edit is fine. However, I do not believe that is the case -- some of it is under construction or being disputed in courts. How about an edit that changes the caption to: "The barrier route as mandated by the Israeli government in February 2005". --MattWright (talk) 19:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Two minor issues (capitalization / external link)

The first sentence of this article reads: The Israeli West Bank barrier (also called the "West Bank Security Fence", or "West Bank wall" by its opponents) is a ... I am wondering if there is some technical/historical reason that "security fence" is capitalized and "wall" is not (I think it might look better if both were lower case to match "barrier")? Furthermore, the external link in the first paragraph http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/542573.html seems to be broken. MattWright (talk) 06:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

No reason that I know of. Go ahead and edit. The only point of contention in the paragraph was that some tried to NPOV the context by stating the fact that the wall is referred to as the "Apartheid Wall" by Palestinians and many of its opponents internationally. However, that reference unfortunately kept getting removed, and there is a discussion to that effect on this page (above). Ramallite ^(talk) 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given the contentious and disputed nature of the barrier, some mention of the term "Apartheid Wall" is appropriate. Almost every single article written in newspapers of record contains the term Apartheid Wall.69.221.62.82 18:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag, please explain yourself:

1. The wall is built inside the occupied West Bank. It is incorrect to state that the wall "approximately follows the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli armistice line".
2. The "seam" area will be between 60 - 100 meters.
3. The occupation of the West Bank is an uncontroversial fact recognized by all parties involved in the conflict. Without this crucial fact the whole article becomes nonsensical, because that is the sole reason people are so very upset about the wall. Noone would have complained if it was built inside Israel for example.

Palestine-info 29 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

I'm not Guy, but

1. Not sure which edit you are referring to here.

2. References I've seen say average 60 meters, but up to 80 meters or more. I've added that.

3. Insertion of unnecessary text for political purposes is not necessary in this already highly politicized article. As for your claims that no-one would be upset if the barrier were in Israel, it is your own speculative opinion and in any event clearly untrue, since the opponents have any number of objections, only some of which relate to where the barrier is located. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

The fact that the wall is built inside occupied territory is an important feature of its question. Both the Israeli Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice takes up this fact in their decisions. This article explains nothing about the occupation which is what is making this wall project possible, and that is laughable.

According to MY source, which is the only original source availible, the walls average width is 60 meters and "in certain cases, the barrier will reach a width of one hundred meters due to topographic conditions" HCJ 7784/02, Sa'al'Awani'Abd al Hadi, Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, sec 23 [33]. I will correct that. Palestine-info 30 June 2005 00:41 (UTC)

I've corrected your correction, as well as correcting a number of other insertions/modifications you have made. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)

I'm not Guy either, but you are correct to assume that had the barrier been constructed inside of Israel, that would make one less objection, to the many already out there.69.209.227.142 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Exactly. If it would have been built within Israeli territory there wouldn't have been very much to complain about IMO. But it is built in occupied territory and that is what the whole world is so angry about. Palestine-info 30 June 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Well, except for all the other things barrier opponents complain about which have nothing to do with the route it follows. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)

As for the "nonsense; prove your claim" [34], I hope the compromise makes you happy. There are quite a few resolutions and reports using the word "wall." Do I need to link to them or are you capable of finding out for yourself? Palestine-info 30 June 2005 00:59 (UTC)

I've made that more accurate as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)

History and Purpose section

The History and Purpose section is misleading and the only hypothesis about Israels purpose with the wall presented, is the one Israel presents - security. However, there are at least four different theories:

1. Security
2. Controlling the Palestinian population.
3. Unilaterally annexing portions of the West Bank.
4. Making life unbearable for Palestinians so that they move out.

Depending on which quotes you select, you can push each one of these theories. The section needs to be splitted up somehow. I suggest the section to be divided up into each of the guessed (and stated) purposes. Palestine-info 30 June 2005 01:26 (UTC)

Articles typically present the thesis first, then criticisms of the thesis. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)

True. In this case there is multiple thesises, all which have been criticised.

Missing source

Israeli officers, including the head of the Shin Bet, quoted in the newspaper Maariv, have claimed that in the areas where the barrier was complete, the number of hostile infiltrations has decreased to almost zero. Maariv also stated that Palestinian militants, including a senior member of Islamic Jihad, had confirmed that the barrier made it much harder to conduct attacks inside Israel. Since the completion of the fence in the area of Tulkarem and Qalqiliya in June 2003, there have been no successful attacks from those areas, all attacks have been intercepted or the suicide bombers have detonated prematurely. [1, p56]

I have excised the above section because the link is a 404. After some googling I still cannot verity it. Who is the "head of the Shin Bet" and the "senior member of Islamic Jihad"? The source seem to be The Washington Institute which quotes Maariv which quotes two unnamed persons. Is there another websource that quotes this Maariv article? Palestine-info 30 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)

It is a abuse of Wikipedia:Assume good faith to delete a longstanding paragraph simply because the link supporting it has gone bad. As for the section about Israeli saying it has already reduced attacks in the areas it has been completed, please stop excising that, as that is exactly what the Israeli government has stated: "Indeed, the fence has proven its effectiveness in reducing the number of successful terrorist attacks in those areas in which it has been already completed." [35] Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

Alright, with the source the statement is ofcourse good. However, I do not think it is any kind of abuse to remove disputed statements that cannot be backed up by references. Even if there is a source, the paragraph is very dubious anyway for reasons detailed above. One Israeli pundit David Makovsky on a right-wing think tank citing an undated article in Maariv citing two unnamed militants. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

According to Lt. Col. Dotan Razili of the Israeli Defense Forces barriers of this type are highly effective as "there have been almost no penetrations through the Gaza fence since 1996". (paraphrase from The Lehrer News Hour of Public Broadcasting System 9 February 2004)

This source is also unverifiable and ungoogleable. What does it mean that it paraphrases from The Lehrer News Hour? Fortunately, the "paraphrase" is entierly redundant since statistics proving a reduction of attacks from the Gaza Strip is already included. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Your difficulties in using search engines is no reason to excise properly sourced information: "LT. COL. DOTAN RAZILI: …but it can see us, yes. The reason for building the fence is we have experience in other borders, Lebanon, Gaza, since 1996 if I'm not mistaken, no suicide bombers went out of the Gaza because we have fenced it."[36] Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

Right. I'll rework the section using this new source. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

Re-work it on Talk: first, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

The full extents of the barrier

palestine-info, your quoted source is not only biased itself, but also quotes dubious and biased sources. Even worse, it dates from early 2003, long before the actual approved barrier route of 2004, and even then you didn't quote it accurately. It is simply not a credible source. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

The quotes source is a chapter of the book "Undermining Peace Israel’s Unilateral Segregation Plans in the Palestinian Territories". Yes the source is from early 2003, but the planned route for the barrier still has not been revealed by the Israeli government as the source notes. The Jordan Valley route is also discussed in the source:

"The full extent of the segregation plans have not been officially published by the Israeli government [this makes it secret] ... This plan will divide the West Bank into several disconnected cantons ... Through the implementation of the eastern segregation zone, Israel will have full control over all West Bank national borders along the Jordan Valley, therefore disconnecting the West Bank borders with Jordan. [this is the plan for the eastern portion of the wall]" [37]

Note also that what I wrote is that some believe that there will be an eastern route of the wall. A huge number of maps showing the Jordan Valley section proves that the belief is widespread. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

The source assumes that there is an "unpublished route"; there is no evidence that this is so, and the source in question is outrageously biased, conspiracy mongering and so out of date as to be useless, as the Israeli government has since published the planned route. Moreover, even if the full extent of the route had not been published (and there is absolutely no indication that this is so), that doesn't make it a secret; a less biased view would simply assume that the full route was not yet known, and would depend on future events. If you want to include a Palestinian belief that there will be an eastern route to the wall, source it, and put it in the Palestinian beliefs section. This kind of silly speculation certainly does not belong in the intro. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

Sigh. In Israel, like in manay other countries, most government documents are published and may be requested by interested parties. Then there are some documents that the government keeps secret for various purpouses. For a famous example, take the evidence that the US government said proved that Usama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. It is documents that the government claimed it had, but they were kept secret. The Israeli government has handled the documents that details the full extents of the wall similarly:

"B’Tselem asked the Ministry of Defense for a copy of the map of the route of the separation barrier. The request was rejected. The spokesperson of the Ministry of Defense responded that that, “Publication of the map has not been authorized.”" (Letter of 2 January 2003 from Defense Ministry Spokesperson Rachel Nidak-Ashkenazi) "In his reply to B’Tselem, the Defense Ministry of cialincharge [sic] of implementation of the Freedom of Information Act stated that, “Information cannot be provided other than what has appeared in the media.”" (Letter of 17 February 2003 from A. Barak, senior assistant for public complaints) [38]

Palestine-info 1 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

January 2003. Irrelevant now, the route has been published, brought to the Supreme Court, and even changed. If you have some evidence that this is an issue in 2005 please bring it forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

And by the way, even this quote does not indicate that there is some secret eastern part of the route. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

If the route has been published, could you please point me to a source in which I can view the full route? The case Supreme Court v. the State did not make the route published as far as I know. Therefore, unless you can produce some compelling evidence that the route actually has been published, there is nothing indicating that it has been published. I have already detailed why many believe there will be a Jordan Valley route, but there is ofcourse more:

"There is considerable ambiguity about what is being planned. Settler leaders in the vast central settlement-town of Maale Adumim, and the smaller ones that line the Jordan valley, say that they have had assurances from the prime minister that they too will be included on the "right side" of a barrier, whether it lies to the east for Maale Adumim. or to the west for the Jordan valley settlements."

"Sharon unrolled maps before me showing that all of the Jordan valley and Judean desert will remain under Israel's control," David Levy, a settler leader from the Jordan valley, told Yediot Ahoronot in September. If he is right, that could mean an Israeli strip of land, 20-30km in width, running west of the Jordan river, the Palestinians' main gateway to the Arab world." [39]

If this doesn't prove to you that there is a belief that there will be a Jordan Valley route I don't know what will. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

There was never a question that there is a belief that there would be an eastern route; I'm surprised you would even suggest there was. But of course, that was never the issue, but rather, with the actual claims you made, the wording used, and the location you placed them. Even the article you linked to (which still dates from 2003) goes on to state "Improbable as this eastern barrier seems...". And indeed it is improbable; regardless, as I've said before, if you want to propose some text about persistent rumours that there will be an eastern barrier as well, here's the place to do so. I'm sure we can work together come up with something neutral and factual. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)

In the edit i used the word "believe," earlier in this discussion I pointed out several times that the paragraph mentions a belief and does not state as a fact. But nevermind that. By the way, I think you are assigning way to much weight to the Israeli Supreme Court decision. The court ordered that "30 km portion of the existing and planned barrier must be rerouted" nothing more, nothing less. Can we now agree that:

1. Many believe there will be a Jordan Valley route.
2. The planned full extents of the barrier is kept secret.

? Palestine-info 1 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

I agree. The question of the entire barrier route is worth addressing, Palestine-info. Many people are confused as to where the barrier will end, and/or whether it will encircle the West Bank. It is worthwhile to note the issue that is in much of the public debate. 69.209.210.198 2 July 2005 13:39 (UTC)

So far we know that in 2003 that some people believed there would be a Jordan Valley route; it is not clear if anyone believes that today, particularly after a route was approved in 2004. And of course there is no agreement that the "full extents of the barrier is kept secret"; if the exact final barrier route is unknown or undecided (and how could it be, given the various court challenges), that is hardly the same as "kept secret". Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

Ground rules for editing

palestine-info, rather than running into the same problems we had before, let's set some reasonable ground rules this time for editing; specifically, as this is a contentious article, let's discuss and agree on all changes to the article in Talk: first, before making them. Quoting from the "Be bold" policy:

But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily...

If you are new to Wikipedia, or unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you are advised to either:

1. Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)
2. List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)

Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

This is exactly how I have proceeded. But since even minor changes like renaming the us-israel.org to the Jewish Virtual Library which is the new name of the site and noting that Thomas Buergenthal is an American is labelled "atrocious pov and censorship of information" by some, editing becomes hard. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

You haven't proceeded that way at all. You have yet to propose a change in Talk: first; rather, you edit, then revert to your edits, all without any Talk: comment, even after being reverted. And if you didn't include non-controversial edits with POV edits, it wouldn't all get taken out. And finally, Buergenthal's citizenship is irrelevant trivia; this is an international court, and the link is there for anyone who wants to know more about Buergenthal. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

This is how I have proceeded and it has worked pretty well so far. Except for the reverts of Guy Montag (who refuses to discuss on the talk page anyway), most of my edits have not been disputed. As for Thomas Buergenthal's nationality, it is highly pertinent and in agreement with Wikipedia customs to name the nationality of a person or NGO:s opinions or actions. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Again, you have yet to propose your changes first; rather, you impose them, then revert to them, then discuss only when dragged to the Talk: page; the recent history of this article is quite clear on that. Regarding Buergenthal, why on earth would his nationality be "highly pertinent", and which specific "Wikipedia customs" are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

Introduction naming issue

Jayjg, you are consistently adding POV to the top of the article. You are correct that supporters of the barrier don't call it a wall. But opponents don't call it a security fence. This is all explained as to who calls it what in the third paragraph of the article, still very near the top. Now we have to have all this redundant information at the very top of the article, even though the way it had been was fine with many people for quite some time. If you were really out to make a better article instead of just slanting it, you would have added a clarification to both alternate names, but instead, you did so only to the wall. That is clearly POV pushing. I feel the article is better if we just leave the clarification to the third paragraph where it can be better explained. Not all supporters call it a security fence (multiple terms) and probably not all opponents call it just a wall either. That's why we have a whole paragraph and there were just two alternate names for common searches at the top of the article. --MattWright (talk) July 5, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't add it at all; rather I objected to its deletion. It had been there for months, perhaps years. Second, English grammar dictates that the opponents phrase applied only to the latter part of the sentence. Third, while supporters call it other things as well (including "anti-terror fence") and opponents call it other things too (including "apartheid wall"), only opponents call it a wall. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

I understand that mainly opponents call it a wall. I don't know of any research done that concludes 100% of people and documents calling it a wall also oppose it. If you can cite a source, that would be great. I am not really disputing that generally opponents call it a wall and proponents call it a security fence, but mainly just pointing out that this is ALREADY discussed in an entire paragraph at the top of this article and seems redundant to me. I'm sorry I accused you of adding it. However, whoever did add it, probably did so as a POV push (since they didn't clarify the other name) and that is why it has been reverted out of there by many other editors. --MattWright (talk) July 5, 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Many other editors? It was removed for the first time today by Tneedman. You're the second person to remove it. From what I can tell, it has been there for 3 months without objection. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

You are correct on the history. Sorry. I had misread the history and hadn't remembered that text in there. --MattWright (talk) July 5, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that "west bank wall" is fairly common on news articles and the like, and plenty of pro-barrier places, like here: [40] [41] Also it reads badly to someone unacquainted with the semantics issues of "wall" and "fence", since, to these ears anyway, "barrier" is more portentous than "wall"... I would suggest, as an alternative, replacing "west bank wall" with "seperation wall, as it is called by opponents"? Tedneeman 6 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

It seems to me that the use of separation/security and fence/wall get mixed around plenty by people on both sides unless they are trying to influence the perception of the barrier one way or another. I think you are right that to an unacquainted reader they won't get the differences trying to be conveyed. That's why I think it would be nice if the first sentence read something like "(also variously referred to as a security fence or separation wall)" and the details of who uses which terms the most can be left to the third paragraph that explains the naming controversy. --MattWright (talk) July 6, 2005 05:28 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

'Apartheid wall' term (re ?) introduced

I've put this term in with a few careful words. It is a common term that is mentioned on virtually every western news channel I've seen. It's derisive yes, but I've included it in a way that is NPOV. It reflects the point of view of the opponents referred to in the article (which is OK on WP), not the editors' point of view (which, as we know, is not OK) - I've made this clear. It also brings out another dimension to the significance of the separation wall, namely, that some opponents regard it as a form of segregation. There is no virtue in hiding facts in an encyclopedia. --Mpatel 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The facts aren't hidden, and the term is referred to in the opening section. Please re-read the long debates about the use of the term above, which finally ended longstanding edit wars, and respect the consensus reached. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dates

In order to avoid an edit war, I thought I'd discuss date formats here. Some places in the article we are using day-first format (example: "12 February"). Other places we are using month-first format (example: "February 12"). That is what I meant by "avoid using multiple date formats in the same article". I don't care which we use, but its sloppy to go back-and-forth within the same article. Only place we shouldn't change is any dates in a quote. Regarding other date issues, I usually err on the side of wikifying more (rather than less) dates, and usually wikify the year if I am wikifying the day/month (example I never do: July 3, 2004). However, that's just me and I certainly won't try to push that on anyone else, only explaining why I did it in my edits. So let's come to some agreement on which date format (day-month of month-day) just so the article doesn't look sloppy. Thanks. Chuck 18:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is definitely consistent with the Manual of Style (links): "In the specific case of dates containing the three components day, month and year e.g., 25 March 2004 , links permit the date preferences of the reader to operate. Both day-month and year must be linked for the preference to work correctly. Other date forms such as year only (e.g., 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance.".

Ok, I updated the dates based on your comment. If I missed anything, please feel free to fix it. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That's hilarious, because I thought you were right about not linking the year, since I didn't find the quote that you did. You convinced me and I've been doing it that way for the last couple edits I've done. Now I've got to go back and fix those too. :) Chuck 16:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Well at least now it clarified for both of us what the MoS recommends regarding date links. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

New section

Some argue that the barrier is designed to maintain the Jewish demographics of Israel as well as to protect Israelis against Palestinian militant attacks; at least one Israeli goverment official has made statements to this effect. Haim Ramon, the cabinet Minister in charge of Jerusalem, has stated that the route of the Jerusalem wall, in addition to protecting against Palestinian violence, "also makes Jerusalem more Jewish."[42]

I don't see how this section can be considered POV. Protecting Israelis against Palestinian militant attacks is a good thing, so why is that biased in one way or another? As for making Jerusalem more Jewish, a cabinet minister has in fact said that.Heraclius 03:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It was POV because it misrepresented the source, and because of its placement. Only one person has argued this, Haim Ramon, and only for the section around Jerusalem. In addition, the article talked about suicide bombings, not "militant attacks". No doubt Guy removed it for these reasons, especially as he has little patience for this kind of thing. I'm feeling rather more patient today, I've made the text match the source, and placed it in the appropriate section (Israeli opinion). Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually it didn't misrepresent the source. Did you read the article? Any misrepresentation of Ramon's statements came from the article(s), not me.

Also, I presume that your statement "only one person has argued this" is some kind of hair-splitting over the "at least" part. That's a ridiculous argument, as "at least one Israeli" is far more accurate than "only one person has argued this," since Palestinians (am I correct in categorizing them as persons?) say it all the time. user:172.208.38.210

I reverted 172.xxx's edit because the information is already elsewhere in the article. Also, could you sign your posts, please? See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

My you have fast little fingers! I barely had time to find out that the info had been incorporated elsewhere before noticing the revert. Keep up the wonderful work. user:172.208.38.210

Well, it's the second time someone's had to revert your edit because the information was already there. Perhaps you could read other people's edits? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the section didn't originally contain the "militant attacks," part Jayjg objects to, someone else added it because he presumably took issue with the term I'd used (something like "Palestinian violence") if memory serves. It might behoove people to investigate further before just deleting entire sections because they don't like them. user:172.208.38.210

The key is to stick to what sources say, and not to elaborate. That tends to cut down on disputes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

We have only one reference to a notable person claiming this, and he is named. As for "Palestinian violence", the article said "suicide bombings", and that was more accurate. Finally, I certainly didn't delete the entire section, I merely made it factual and moved it to the correct location. It might behoove people to investigate further before just re-inserting duplicated sections because they like them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we have more than one such reference, in the same articles. Reading them helps.

It's nice that you didn't delete the entire section, but coming from a tendentious hair-splitter like you it's a bit of a non-sequitur, as it implies I suggested you deleted the entire setion, when I did not.

Personal attacks from anonymous IPs quickly lead to blocking; try to avoid that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

Graffiti section

Currently reads:

"Graffiti on the Wall

Banksy, a popular graffiti artist recently "tagged" the wall. He describes the wall as "the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers." His pictures have created a blogstorm and have raised the awareness of the wall and Palestinine sufferring to new levels."

I was going to edit this and put in the link section, but before I could act it was edited and reads "...the awareness of the wall on local communities" or something. Nice! --24.9.154.109, August 6, 2005

I cleaned this up a little. It seemed like original research to say that it raised awareness to new levels. Also, words like "recently" aren't good to use in an encyclopedia. That won't sound right in a year, or ten years. --MattWright (talk) 03:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

"using WP as an ad for some obscure graffiti artist is highly questionable. Turning WP into a promotion vehicle for his political views is plainly against the policy." -- Humus Sapiens in an edit comment

He's not quite obscure, he's had a WP page since 2003 and garnered major media coverage. According to the WP page, he is quite popular in the UK. As for "Turning WP into a promotion vehicle for his political views", it was in an opinions section and described the motivations for his art. Please explain how it's not appropriate for an opinions section. Thanks. --MattWright (talk) 06:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

A single graffiti artist's opinions are not particularly notable; thousands of people have commented on the barrier. The comments were just a personal political diatribe that were not encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Question claim

The article says: "Since this section was built, incidents of Palestinian snipers from Qalqiliyia shooting at Israeli civilian cars have ceased." However, there was a major shooting incident (7-yr old girl killed) after the Qalqiliya wall was built. I also wonder about the claim of shootings beforehand. The only case I can find is one when workers building the wall were shot at. Can someone document others? --Zero 12:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There being no reply in 12 days, I'm removing the sentence. --Zero 14:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)