Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Article Too Long

The article is long. What about summarizing the legal aspects (Israeli and Int'l) in about two paragrahs with a pointer to something like, Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Aspects? Any other ideas for dividing? -SeattliteTungsten 08:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Much of the history is irrelevant (who cares about the Shahal commision) and the route is covered 3 times (4th if we consider the map). Zeq 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the text to the appropriate section in International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict with a short summary remaining here. The article is still too long. I need to get rid of Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Aspects. SeattliteTungsten 06:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Realities on the ground" revisited

There is a discussion in the archives which debates the inclusion of Bush's April 2004 comments concerning "realities on the ground" and future borders and the relevancy of such comments to the Wall article. Objections relating to original research were raised and caused the edits to be removed. I have now returned them having conducted research which provides direct outside analysis and speculation linking the phrase with the Wall. I know it's an issue from last year but I thought better to expplain my revisiting the matter in Talk rather than just an edit summary, since the issue had been contentious.--AladdinSE 08:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Article too long without these added specualtion. You can describe it 8 words about the route "palestinian fear it will become the defacto border" Zeq 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is sourced analysis about history and purpose of the Wall from analysts and the PNA itself in direct response to the comments of the American President, comments which have been consistently described as "Earth-shattering" and a departure from 40 years of stated US policy. The comments and reaction to them are extremely important, and cannot be distilled. Do not delete sourced material again. --AladdinSE 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me,

• much of AladinSE's paragraph is relevant;
• "do not delete cited material" should generally be upheld;
• The following sentence seems immaterial, not relevant, possibly OR (linking Bush's 'realities on the ground' to the meaning implied by another source, and might be removed: "The American Task Force on Palestine, for example, says "the construction of a wall...";
• this is definitely not "history" and probably not "purpose" and might be better organized in the Effects and Consequences section;
• Yossi Klein HaLevy, correspondent for The New Republic, writes, "Building over the green line, by contrast, reminds Palestinians that every time they've rejected compromise--whether in 1937, 1947, or 2000--the potential map of Palestine shrinks. That message is the exact opposite of the left-wing trajectory of increased concessions under fire--from Camp David to Taba to Geneva. The fence is a warning: If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel, Israel may impose its own map on them. Indeed, the fence is a reminder that the 1967 border isn't sacrosanct. Legally, the West Bank is extraterritorial: The international community didn't recognize Jordan's annexation, and, because Palestine isn't being restored but invented, its borders are negotiable." [1] This could be added to a writeup of "barrier as negotiation tool" section. However, unless there is sufficient reference to this as an original purpose and not an incidental -- or even important -- after effect, it cannot be listed under "purpose" because this represenation is OR.

SeattliteTungsten 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not every so called "relevant" idea should be at line 27 and take 10 lines. The idea in this long paragrpah can be sumerized in 8 words without too much specualtions. Zeq 06:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

These 8 words of yours conveniently exclude all mention of the actual comments Bush made that represented a major policy shift, described as "Earth-shattering" and "the most significant in 40 years". Six sentences for this kind of information isn't excessive in the least. This includes the reaction and analysis that followed, all of which was meticulously sourced. The ATFP material comes directly form the linked source, and is directly connected with the Bush quote, also contained in the source. The material goes directly to analysis and speculation by outside sources of the purpose of the Wall, and it belongs in the History and Purpose section.--AladdinSE 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand what you argue above. Do you want to inclucde 10 lines on what Bush said ? Zeq 08:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Including this as "Purpose" means there should be cited sources that describe (1) intent, and (2) desired causality not a side effect. (For instance, I boil water to make coffee. As a result, my kitchen window becomes foggy. It would be a mistake to claim that the "purpose" of boiling water is to make my window foggy.) Note that there could be sources that provide evidence that the purpose of the barrier was to create facts on the ground but these citations don't really do that. Hence, "Purpose" is not the right place for this.

• George Bush quote: should go in "International Opinions". There is already a paragraph for Bush quotes and policy there.
• "realities on the ground" effecting final status negotiations: should go in "Effects and Consequences". Note: interestingly, this effect can be described as "good" (Yossi Klein HaLevy), "neutral" (Bush), or "bad" (PA) which is consistent with NPOV -- showing all views.

Maybe one idea is to break up "History and Purpose" into "History", "Purpose/Purpose As Security", and "Purpose/Purpose As Negotiation" sections.

On the ATFP statements, I can't really see how their use of "realities on the ground" can be used to support that this is the meaning of Bush using "realities on the ground" which has traditionally used to refer to settlements. (The ATFP statement is still interesting but not, IMHO, related to the Bush statement.) SeattliteTungsten 08:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Oh, first, Zeq: What's so difficult to understand? The 8 words you proposed are radically insufficient for such an important policy shift and reactions to it. There are six sentences by my count. I don't know what measure "10 lines" revers to. SeattliteTungsten: The sources consistently show that "realities on the ground" have been seen as including the Wall. Even though Bush does not mention it specifically, the PNA in their rebuttal said it amounted to a legitimization of the "apartheid Wall" among other things. Causality is described exactly as it appears in the sources, i.e. this type of language is vague and worrying and has been feared to include/legitimize the Wall as a land grab tool as a main intent, not a side effect. I already did put another Bush quote in the opinions section, July 2003 was my addition. This one is in the Purpose section because the reaction and analysis which deals directly with views that the Wall is being referred to and used to leverage an imposed border. This overpowers the reasons, which do exist, of placing it the "international opinions" section, which as you can see, includes mostly quotes without reaction/analysis. As for splitting History and Purpose, that is not a bad organizational edit, perhaps you should start a Talk section and illicit opinions. If this happens, I think there should only be one purpose section, with both claims (security and land grab) being described equally. Regardless, the Bush comments and related comments, reactions and cited sources are where they belong. --AladdinSE 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want to add. If it is about the future borders be accdurate. If it specualtion based on Bush owrds - this is not the place. Zeq 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever Bush says and whatever the PA (rightly or wrongly) interprets the Bush quote as meaning are not central to "purpose" which must be supported by evidence of what the purpose for the Israeli's is.
• I did mean one "Purpose" section with two sections as you describe. My talking about it here is the talk in the talk section.
• These are my ideas... I'm trying to brainstorm here how to best incorporate what the three of us are saying. If I get motivated later in the week, I'll make some changes based on this and whatever other discussion is here. If you disagree, try not to revert but to make/suggest a compromise position consistent with Wikipedia values. Thanks.

SeattliteTungsten 09:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: I added a quotation of a highly pivotal policy speech that Bush made, and the reactions to it as it relates to perceived purpose of the Wall. If you still don't understand, I am not the one to explain it to you.

SeattliteTungsten: The purpose section must, and does, describe opposing views of what the Wall is for, not just the Israeli perspective of what the purpose for them is. As for discussion about splitting the Purpose and History section, please do create a separate Talk section for that. Certainly I look forward to the results of your brainstorming, but as far as I can tell, Zeq wanted wholesale deletion of my edit, he has offered nothing that requires integration. As for Wikipedia values, I think you will find me ready to step up. Before I made this edit I started a Talk section and linked to the archive to facilitate full discussion and debate. If I revert anything, I will explain fully in Talk, and before I revert, I will consider carefully if there is a compromise wording. --AladdinSE 09:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the purpose should describe all POV including POV other than official Israeli government. In fact, I even added the quote (in talk -- looking for a place on page) from YKH suggesting pre-building intent of land-grab, "[t]he fence is a warning: If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel, Israel may impose its own map on them."

The difficulty is that to be included in the "Purpose" section the material must show or strongly suggest some pre-building intent otherwise it must be classified as an "Effect". The Bush quote does not in any way suggest what the intent was. It just say, "OK, here we are now... and this is how it should go based on the situation now." This cannot accurately be construed to be "purpose". Of course, there could be some other material that shows the U.S./Bush believes the purpose is to create a border or negotiating tool. SeattliteTungsten 16:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the reaction and analysis to Bush's comments that is the main reason for inclusion in Purpose. He said "realities on the ground," including Settlements as an example, and not excluding anything else. Those sources clearly speculated that the Wall is part of those realities. The material and sources discuss all of this in the context of purpose of the Wall as a land grab. --AladdinSE 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bush quote, and the reaction to it, are good examples of the effect of the barrier, i.e., actions and responses that follow. To show 'purpose', it must more clearly document the a priori intention of the people building the wall. Probably, it is possible to do this by finding writing and speeches from some right-wing Likud (or other) people. Otherwise such speculation is really not very appropriate in an encyclopedia article. SeattliteTungsten 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose the material be moved if the History and Purpose section no longer reads "and Purpose". This way, "Opinions about future borders" etc becomes an appropriate place for them. However, the deletions and curtailment of the analysis related to the Bush comments are unjustified. --AladdinSE 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? I'm not exactly following. (To be included in "Purpose" section, it much -- in the words of the Purpose page -- show "deliberately thought-through goal-directedness". Neither the Bush quote nor the commentary on it show that the builders of the wall (Israeli government) had intent or ""deliberately thought-through goal-directedness". The Bush quote only says, my paraphrase, "hey, I don't know why this was done but considering now that it is done here's the scoop...") SeattliteTungsten 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I changed the section title to History and stated purpose. This justifies the movement of the material to the recently created "Future Border Opinions" section, as stated purpose now goes directly to the official Israeli government position and does not appear to give preferential treatment to Israeli claims over Palestinian ones. The commentary to the Bush quote does show deliberately thought-through goal-directedness that the PNA and most of the Wall's opponents have attributed to Israel of the Wall being a land-grab ploy. --AladdinSE 11:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, I'm still not exactly following, which may be my fault entirely. The only part of the third paragraph in "future borders opinions" that deals with "purpose", "intention", "deliberate goal-directedness" is the phrase that the IWBB is "meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians", the key word here being "meant". The other parts have to do with the PNA's or the ATFP's opinions on the barrier or the barrier's effects not the Israeli's intention, purpose, or motivation. (Moreover, it is quite tautological to say that the purpose of a barrier is "meant to separate". This seems pretty obvious and is consistent with any POV.) SeattliteTungsten 20:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We are in direct disagreement here. The PNA and ATFP's comments most certainly do deal with, and unambiguously at that, what they consider to be Israel's true intentions regarding the Wall. Also, it is not redundant to say the purpose of the barrier is "meant to separate etc" because separation for purposes of defense, and separation as a unilateral action towards disengagement from the Palestinian population, as well as any number of other separation "reasons" can be applied, and they are all distinct matters. Also, since consensus has agreed to renaming the "History and Purpose" section to "History and stated purpose", I likewise agreed to the movement of the comments to the recently created "Future border opinions" subsection. Ergo, our disagreement about what constitutes "purpose" has become moot. --AladdinSE 06:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Which words from the PNA or ATFP in the citation address Israel's true intentions? SeattliteTungsten 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The PNA reaction to the Bush policy comments says that he is rewarding aggression, illegal settlements, and the "Apartheid Wall". That is, settlements and the Wall were placed there, in their opinion, for exactly the purpose ("the very essence"), Bush was now granting... unilateral imposition of borders. The ATFP's comments directly discusses the context of the Wall as one of those "realities on the ground" being created for the same reason. --AladdinSE 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The PNA reaction to the Bush policy comment is therefore addressing Bush's intention -- not Israeli intention. The ATFP may believe that a result of the barrier is that it is "the very essence" of realities on the ground but, again, this is a statement about the ATFP's opinions of the barrier and not ATFP's opinion of Israeli motives. The ATFP might believe this about Israeli motives but it's not reflected in these statements. The mistaken inference from a sequence of events that earlier ones "cause" later ones or that the purpose of earlier ones is to cause later ones is common. In fact, the mistake is so common that there is a name for it, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Example: I do a rain dance, then it rains. "Seattlite's rain dance caused the rain" is an incorrect inference. Or, I drive to the store because I ran out of milk. As a result, I cause air polution. "SeattliteTungsten drove to the store for the purpose of creating air pollution" would be an improper inference even though "SeattliteTungsten caused air pollution" is true. For this reason, I rewrote the awkward sentence with the word "leverage" and replaced it with "prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines" -- a phrase from the original Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel. SeattliteTungsten 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware if the causal fallacy you speak of, I studied it in my youth. It does not apply here. To put it succinctly, what we have here is either a failure to communicate, or a diametrically opposed understanding of English grammar and sentence structure. The PNA most certainly is addressing Israeli intentions regarding the Wall. What they see as Bush "rewarding" Israel for its "Apartheid Wall" goes directly to Israel's "real secret intentions" as to imposing annexation of West Bank land. It does not deal with "Bush's intentions" regarding the purpose of the wall. As for the ATFP, for goodness sakes, their opinion of the Wall IS that it is a part and parcel of Israeli intentions to impose borders. You cannot divorce the two; in fact there is no "two," They're talking about Israel's intended purpose, period. Your text change was completely unjustified and introduces material wholly unrelated to the quotation and moreover is covered elsewhere and is attached to a Bush quote that actually talks about the armistice lines, and urges temporary nature, etc. The compromises regarding the location of the material and the rewording of the subsection titles removed all cause for this debate some time ago. I sincerely hope that this matter is now closed; we have been repeating ourselves for some time.--AladdinSE 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a different understanding of the meaning of certain words. The PNA, using the word "reward" discusses Bush because Bush is the one doing the rewarding. It is possible for a "rewarder" to "reward" something that is either intentional or incidental (not purposeful). Therefore, it is OR and an inaccurate inference to claim that "reward" means the PNA thinks the behavior being rewarded was purposeful. (Example: I write a poem because I like to write poetry. You submit my poetry to a contest, and it wins. "Seattlite wrote poetry for the purpose of winning the contest" is an inaccurate inference.) I missed the phrase "real secret intentions" in the text. If this was somewhere, it should be included in the article and I agree that this would clearly show the PNA's view of Israel's intentions. On the ATFP, I also missed the word "purpose" which I cannot find in the quote that is cited. This is your interpretation and it would be OR to read this into the quote. The do say that the wall is "meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians on the West Bank" but this could be for any number of purposes which are not stated in the citation.

Instead of just blindly reverting back, if you feel my latest (shortened) version is still not right why don't you try to rewrite it in a way that uses more direct citation of the material? Or, use other primary source material that can be better cited to flow the way you would like? In other words, instead of having an edit war over someone's interpretation of cited material, let's just write a paragraph that uses the cited material more directly and minimizes the non-quoted introductions so that we don't have disagreements about the accuracy or POV-ness of the non-quoted summary text. Thanks, SeattliteTungsten 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no blind revert. Your edit was read carefully, and the revert was discussed in Talk. "Blind reverts" entail no discussion, and revert to the editor's last version, wrecking unrelated edits that might have occurred in the interim. Now, very briefly as we are definitely in rehash mode here: The PNA's focus is unambiguously to make clear that Israel's original intention with the Wall, as they see it, has been validated by this US policy shift. To be OR, we have to be saying as a matter of course that this is in fact Israel's true "secret" intention, but it cannot be plainer that this is merely PNA speculation and POV and stated as such. In any case, the material was moved out of the Purpose of the Barrier section directly as a result of our previous discussion. The ATFP, in the citation, says "the very essence of creating realities on the ground" in direct context of the Bush quote. QED.

Moreover, your version is actually longer, and splices, in a most confused manner, other material into this section that has already been covered, where Bush urges the temporary nature of the Wall, and talks about not prejudicing final borders, etc. Why are you trying to dilute the speculation regarding Bush and reaction to the "realities on the ground" comments? The PNA and ATFP (and other sources) are being quoted, cited, and the material goes directly to their opinions about the Wall as a future border, and is in the "Future Border Opinions" not the History and Stated Purpose section. --AladdinSE 18:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it does seem to be rehash but there is still a problem so let's take a different approach. (Deleting the cited material and non-collaboratively reverting isn't going to help: that's why we should try something else.) First, let's represent all POVs including the POV (a) that the statement isn't any change of policy [see original armistice agreement], as well as the POV (b) that the statement represents a new policy and is referring indirectly to the barrier. If you don't like the way I have incorporated both POVs, why don't you suggest a different way to do this? But, please, don't merely delete.

Second, the sentence with the word "leverage" is not an accurate representation of what the groups said. Let's find another way to introduce these statements. If it's difficult to agree on how to summarize them, perhaps we can just write something that excerpts the exact primary text. (It's difficult to argue that pieces of the primary text are not representative of the primary text -- although still possible if they are grossly out of context.)

[On "shorter", I meant relative to my previous suggestion not relative to your revert. Sorry for the misunderstanding.] SeattliteTungsten 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply, I was not able to get to Wikipedia sooner. Alright. First, I must say that this new approach of yours is indeed much easier for me to follow, and finally presents more for us to go on than a mere difference of interpretation, and rehashing of opinions. I see room for compromise here, principally regarding the rephrasing of what you found to be awkward and/or inaccurate as far as "leverage" goes. I will rephrase your edit somewhat, I hope you will find it acceptable.

As for your point re presenting both POVs, well I think I see where you're coming from here, only it is redundant insofar as it is already stated clearly in the International Opinions sub-section, where Bush is quoted directly for that purpose and the exact same point is made. Therefore, splicing it into this section here serves only to dilute and obfuscate the speculation by the sources cited all of whom are not talking about Bush's reiteration of past policies, but commenting with particular emphasis about how his comments represent a major policy shift. Moreover, your source for your statement about what "Bush reiterates on the one hand" does not support your claim. It is a link to the text of the armistice agreement itself, and has nothing to say at all about what Bush reiterates. Lastly, what I disagree with completely, is that the sentence about the "realities on the ground in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is inaccurate. I have gone over it repeatedly, and triple-checked the source material. It is a fair and neutral statement supported by the sources. I do hope that we can move on now. --AladdinSE 11:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we are making progress. The main sticking point is whether we believe some particilar Wikipedia summaries are accurate representations of cited material. I still believe "include the use of the barrier to prejudice the outcome of border negotiations" is not accurate way to summarize those citations. So, here's my new approach: just report what's actually in the cited material and use actual quotes instead of our rewrites, as much as possible. Then, we won't argue about the rewrites, summaries, and interpretations. "X says, 'Y is Z'" -- if "Y is Z" is really part of the cited material, then we can all agree "X says..." is accurate. We don't need to try to paraphrase what X said.

I took a stab at rearranging into three paragraphs,

P1: "Some people describe the barrier as the de facto future border..."

P1 includes people's opinion of a land grab/barrier-as-border, including the YKH one I added and "evidently intended to redraw Israel's borders" which I extracted from one of the cited articles.

P2: "On April 14, 2004, American President George W. Bush said..."

P2 is about Bush's quote and whether anything is new or rewarding occupation. One POV is that Bush, himself, says "all previous efforts.. have reached the same conclusion", i.e., nothing new. Another POV is that the PNA says he is "rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall", i.e., something new in response to the wall. Both POVs should be included.

P3: "The Foundation for Middle East Peace suggests..."

P3 is about the meaning of "realitites on the ground". Turns out, when I checked the references, two of them don't say that this includes the barrier. One quite clearly says, "[t]hose 'new realities' of course are large Jewish settlements" which is the traditional (pre-barrier) meaning: not the barrier. The ATFP believes the new realities include the barrier so this POV is presented, too. However, the ATFP's statement is not in reference to Bush's statement so it becomes a speculation on top of a speculation to say that the AFTP's meaning should be attributed to Bush's statement.

I believe I kept all of the references except MIFTAH [2]; I couldn't find a direct quote here that worked but feel free to try to incorporate something from this citation into the page. SeattliteTungsten 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like for every step forward, we take 2 steps back. The wording "include the use of the barrier to prejudice the outcome of border negotiations" which you describe as inaccurate are in fact your words which I substituted for mine as a compromise because you objected to my version which used the word "leverage". Editorial summaries are indispensable and common in every corner of Wikipedia. Most of your edits have the effect of diluting the analysis of the sources about the Barrier as a border, relative to the phrase "realities on the ground".

• P1 edit is fine. I have only separated the Guardian material into a separate paragraph.
• P2: "all previous efforts.. have reached the same conclusion" has no correlation to your evaluation "nothing new". At least, it is not nearly that simple. Neither the quotation nor any citation makes the POV you are trying to splice into this paragraph. However I did merge some of the material you introduce in P3, into P2. MIFTAH's citation is perfectly valid, and goes directly to how I phrased the material on how realities on the ground are sometimes interpreted in the context of this conflict. No opinion whatsoever is attributed to Bush that he does not state.
• P3: Merged into P2. I have incorporated your citations here into the POV you insist on mentioning despite my opinion that the point has been made elsewhere. I added: While there is considerable consensus that Bush's comments singled out settlements as the most important factor [3] [4]

I have compromised repeatedly, and found common ground with you on several fronts. If you insist upon deleting references to "realities on the ground in the context of this conflict" despite my having incorporated your material and citations about settlements, then on this point I fear that we are at an impasse.--AladdinSE 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Actually, "the use of the barrier" was not my phrase. I do not think this phrase is supported by the citations. The phrase "[the existence of] the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations", based on the phrasing in the original armistice text, was my addition.
2. If you are accusing me of editing to "have the effect of diluting the analysis", you are correct. Wikipedia should not present original analysis. Accurate summary of cited material, yes; analysis, systhesis, and speculating about the meaning of cited material, no. Here is my challenge: if you are having a hard time using actual excerpts from the cited sources to write the paragraph the way you want it to read, it probably means that the cited sources don't say what you want them to say. Therefore, let's just stick more to the cited sources with less editorial precisely because we are disagreeing about what the cited sources actually say.
3. I'm wondering what the issue is when you write, "'all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion' has no correlation to your evaluation 'nothing new'" The PNC states that Bush's position is "rewarding... the apartheid wall" meaning that the PNC believes there is a cause and effect ("wall" causes "reward"; or "reward" given because of "wall") and that the Bush position would otherwise be different if it weren't a reward or caused by the wall. By contrast, Bush -- himself -- says, "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" which is precisely the opposite meaning of "wall causes reward". Bush says (my paraphrase) there is no reward because "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" -- nothing different this time.
4. I made several edits in succession; if you don't like them, at least you can reference them specifically. Please forgive this one: "23:33, 1 March 2006" because I accidentally move Bush-specific responses out of the Bush paragraph.

SeattliteTungsten 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize once again for the late reply. I've been having less and less time for the articles lately.

1. I beg your pardon but it was. Here is the edit where you replaced my wording with: "some people speculate that "realities on the ground" includes the barrier and that the construction of the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations in favor of the Israelis."
2. There is no original analysis. We have had this point out before. No opinions are being attributed to Bush that he does not state, and the sources clearly articulate the speculation that is backed up by the cited analysts. If you disagree, as I said, it may me we have reached an impasse. However, your last edits are mostly acceptable, as I explain further below:
3. "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" has nothing to do with the perception of the Wall as rewarding illegal Israeli expansion, and you have forwarded noting that supports this position. It's actually irrelevant now, as your latest edits are mostly acceptable to me. The only sticking point is the false declaration that Bush said and meant settlements ONLY by his use of "realities on the ground". He in fact said "including already existing major Israeli population centers". Including does not mean exclusively. There's no question that Settlements were singled out for attention, but we can't say that there is agreement that Bush only meant settlements, as of course several analysts including the PA have stated categorically that they believe Bush is including the Wall as a reality.

--AladdinSE 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The first analyst says, "the Bush letter adds... 'the new realities on the ground'--namely settlements" and the second analyst says, "those 'new realities' of course, are large Jewish settlements" so the summary "analysts interpret 'ROTG' to mean 'settlements'" is accurate whereas reading your interpretation into it is OR and inaccurate. Perhaps there are other analysts who support your view. If you find them and cite them, it would be appropriate to add your interpretation. Until then, the two cited analysts are clear that ROTG = Settlements. (Also, I'm not sure why you think I added the phrase "the use of the barrier" -- this was not my phrase in the diff you found.) SeattliteTungsten 17:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Namely" is not an "equals" (=) sign. It means mainly, principally. Also, you provide 2 analysts and assume a world-wide consensus. I changed it to some, and rephrased accordingly. As for the diff, look I don't know where we're going wrong here. I just checked it again, and the version you inserted in that edit is, and I am cutting and pasting here: "some people speculate that "realities on the ground" includes the barrier and that the construction of the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations in favor of the Israelis." That was your formulation. Mine was "by some analysts to include the use of the barrier as leverage for imposing a future border." Regardless, we've moved on from those edits.--AladdinSE 10:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This section need to be re-written

It looks like a badly writen editorial. Need facts , relvant facts not speculations.

"On April 14, 2004, American President George W. Bush said "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” [5] The phrase "realities on the ground" in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been speculated by some analysts to include the use of the Wall as leverage for imposing a future border. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] The American Task Force on Palestine, for example, says "the construction of a wall meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians on the West Bank is now well under way, walling in a significant amount of territory east of Jerusalem that even moderate Palestinians hope will be a part of a future state someday. It is, to use a well-worn phrase from the region, the essence of 'creating realities on the ground'." [11] Furthermore, in direct reaction to Bush's comments, the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority replied: "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall." [12]"

Who can propose a re-write for this section ?

Zeq 09:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This material, which has been meticulously sourced, deals with analysis and reaction to comments by the US President, which represent a pivotal policy shift. They ARE speculation, and are clearly presented as such, not as facts. There are outside analysts, not Wiki-editorialization, backed up by sources. --AladdinSE 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Analysts / 'realities on the ground'

SeattliteTungsten, you cannot cite two sources and on that basis claim that "analysts generally interpret". I am not changing your formulation of their actual analysis, only that 2 analysts do not a cacophony make. "Some analysts" is more than fair. Also, the PNA most certainly does comment on Bush's phrase Realities On The Ground. Their comments were in direct reaction to the cited Bush quotation, not to some vague mention of "US policy". Specifically, the source says:

Speaking at a press conference beside a beaming Sharon in the White House, Bush publicly stated what his letter said: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949," meaning the Green Line.

The Palestinian leadership reacted vehemently to the outcomes of the Sharon-Bush meeting yesterday warning that the US assurances given to Israel would mean "clearly the complete end of the peace process" as well as security and stability in the region. President Yaser Arafat met with his Prime Minister Ahmad Qurei and representatives of the different Palestinian factions in an emergency session Wednesday afternoon at his battered compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah to discuss the "dangerous escalation". In a statement, Arafat stressed that the pact would prompt a "cycle of violence and end all the signed agreements" between Israel and the Palestinians. "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall," the leadership said.

This is indefatigable evidence of a the direct relationship of the PNA comments to Bush's ROTG quotation from the Sharon meeting.--AladdinSE 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree 100% that there is a direct relationship between the PNA comments and the entirety of Bush's statements. Therefore, the text, "In direct reaction to Bush's comments, the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority replied" is accurate and should be left in. However, the PNA does not actually comment on Bush's specific use of the phrase "realities on the ground" so it is not supported to say that the PNC would be an example of someone interpreting Bush's use of the phrase to include the barrier. Therefore, "whereas others, as well as members of the Palestinian leadership, have interpreted it to include the Barrier." We would be looking for a quote like, "realities on the ground [mentioned by Bush are]... namely settlements" [13] or "Those 'new realities' of course, are large Jewish settlements in the West Bank" [14]. In fact, the citation which you excerpt above mentioned the words "settler", "settlements", or "settle" nine times before the PNC quote but not "fence", "wall", or "barrier" even once so even if they made any reference to "realities on the ground" and to Bush's use of this phrase, which they don't, it might actually be a better inference to say that they are talking about settlements.
2. A quote like "those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them" is not support for the proposition that Tony Eastly (the analyst) believes Bush's use of 'realities on the ground' is meant to include the Barrier. He says very specifically, "[t]hose 'new realities' [mentioned by Bush] of course, are large Jewish settlements in the West Bank". He is clear.
3. I agree 100% that two examples of analysts cannot be generalized to "all analysts"; however, all (both) of the references here of analysts who are commenting specifically on Bush's use of the phrase ROTG in those particular statements by Bush speculate that Bush means "ROTG = settlements". This is the consensus opinion of what Bush means in this instance (not what other people mean in other instances) and there are two examples to support this. Therefore, "All analysts agree Bush means ROTG = settlements" is wrong; "some analysts believe Bush means ROTG = settlements" is misleading because it implies that there is other sourced material showing an analyst who believes that Bush, specifically in this instance, means "ROTG includes barrier"; "Some people use ROTG to include the barrier" is true, e.g., the ATFP quote but this doesn't mean that whenever someone else (not the ATFP) uses the phrase we could assume they also intend to include the barrier. We can't assume this.
4. "namely" really does not mean "principally" but "to wit", "specifically" or "in other words" or "i.e.". The only accurate interpretation of "realities on the ground [mentioned by Bush are]... namely settlements" is "ROTG means settlements". This cannot honestly be cited as a reference to "maybe ROTG includes barrier".
5. (Also, I apologize for writing 'See Talk' with no talk. I got pulled away on other things with my Talk entry open but not sent.)

SeattliteTungsten 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We are now regurgitating settled disputes. Your own repeated edits [15] [16] settled most of our discussion above, leaving only the disagreement as to what the Guardian citation supports. Now you return to gut the past consensus and begin afresh.

• The PNA does actually comment on Bush's specific use of the phrase "realities on the ground", and is presented as such in the source. The source quotes Bush and then, like a film director, cuts directly to the comments about the apartheid wall. No reasonable person can fail to distinguish this direct relationship. There is no question that settlements have been clearly and repeatedly singled out for distinction by Bush and analysts, and I agreed with much of your edits that supported making this more obvious. Nevertheless, the sources and extracts I quoted also leave no room for dissemblance that there is direct and unambiguous speculation that Bush's ROTG directly includes the Barrier.

• Yes the analyst is quite clear, only you are incorrect as to who the analyst is. Eastly is the interviewer, the quoted analysis is provided by Mark Willacy. He mentions the ROTG and specifies settlements just as Bush does, and then talks of the barrier encircling the settlements in direct context of a border. Here is the excerpt, again (bold emphasis added):

GEORGE BUSH: In the light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two state solution have reached the same conclusion.

TONY EASTLEY: President Bush speaking there. Mark Willacy, how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?

MARK WILLACY: Well, it totally redraws the borders of any future Palestinian state. In fact, it threatens to carve large chunks out of it. The settlements which are earmarked for annexation stretch from Ariel in the northern West Bank down to Maale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right down to Kiriat Arba in the southern West Bank. Now, those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them.

Eastly quotes Bush's ROTG comments, asks Willacy what they mean for a Palestinian State, and Willacy responds directly by fingering settlements and the Barrier! It's black and white.

• The "some analysts" qualifier is applicable and in no way misleads as to what else is or is not speculated by other analysts. You are overcomplicating a simple sentence that limits itself to what is explicitly stated. The sentence says some analysts say such and such and provides the links for it. It makes no mention, direct or implied, about what others say or think. You cannot pretend that "analysts" is better than "some analysts" and that it is somehow distinct from "all analysts".

• No problem about forgetting to include a Talk entry which you cited in an edit summary. I used to be too apt to doing the same myself when I first joined, so now I try to always make my discussion entry before my article edit. --AladdinSE 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, your interpretation is just your point of view of what you think the citation means but does not actually say. Politicians everywhere (American, Israeli, European, Palestinian, etc.) are expert as saying vague things that each interest group interprets to believe what they want. The actual text here could be interpreted to mean any number of things that it does not actually say. Two examples, among many, are "The US assurances THAT THE FINAL BORDER WILL NOT BE ON THE ARMISTICE LINES... WE REMIND THE WORLD AGAIN THAT They are rewarding A COUNTRY WHICH HAS ENGAGED IN illegal occupation, settlement -- NAMELY 'REALITIES ON THE GROUND' -- and the apartheid wall WHEN THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHING SUCH A COUNTRY FOR THESE BAD ACTIONS" or "The US assurances THAT THE BARRIER AND SETTLEMENTS HAVE PREJUDICED BORDER NEGOTIATIONS IN FAVOR OF THE ISRAELIS... They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall AS REFERENCED BY THE PHRASE 'REALITIES ON THE GROUND' -- NAMELY SETTLEMENTS AND THE BARRIER." We don't actually know which of these meanings, or some other meaning, was the intent of this statement by the PNA. It would be OR to ascribe your belief of the meaning of the PNA phrase to one possible meaning and not the other. Therefore, to say the PNA has "interpreted [the phrease 'realities on the ground' to include the Barrier" is not appropriate. The PNA statement does not even use the phrase 'realities on the ground' so it is a very weak case to claim that in the statement the PNA is interpreting this phrase. How can they interpret the phrase when they don't even mention it? It is very ambiguous so we should omit OR and POV introductory comments.

• (I think they both can be called analysts.) Notice that Willacy is answering the question 'how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?' and not 'what did Bush mean by ROTG?' In this exchange, Eastley says that 'Those new realities of course, are large Jewish settlements' and Willacy agrees that 'Those new realities of course, are these large Jewish settlements' so the black-and-white inference would be that this is a conversation between two people who state clearly that they both believe Bush's use of ROTG means "settlements".

• I believe "analysts generally" (the text) is different from "all analysts". How about "two analysts"? I will make this change.

• Good idea. Actually, I didn't forget; I just got pulled away by other unexpected things; I remembered. Thanks for the suggestion. I will do this.-SeattliteTungsten 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologize for removing your comments from where you placed them. It has been my experience that in a protracted discussion, interspersing comments paragraph per paragraph can lead to extreme confusion and difficulty in following and replying to a particular fork . Please do not disrupt the contiguity of my posts, and let us keep to the earlier format. Bullet points should be sufficient to help us reply on a point by point basis.

• It is not my point of view. We simply have to disagree about this. The PNA does not use the ROTG phrase but the source has it replying directly to that phrase. Your analogical mock quotations are superfluous because you've done them before, and I've replied to those arguments. Note that the source quotes the PNA's reaction right after they quote the Bush ROTG comment. Splitting hairs will not obfuscate the clear connection. Your own edits [17] [18] left this format in tact. For the life of me I can't understand why you want to gut the consensus (and my many compromises due to your input) that we achieved after exhaustive discussion. I would summarize my position thus: The PNA statement said "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall,". NO WHERE in any of those US assurances quoted by the source is the Wall explicitly mentioned, only "Realities on the ground", including but not limited to, Settlements. Therefore, saying that the PNA speculates that the Barrier is included and thus rewarded, since they replied to those Bush comments with references to the Barrier, is perfectly valid, unambiguous and entirely supported by the source.

• Of course Willacy is answering the question 'how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?' And what is the "this" that he is asking about? You are misrepresenting the sequence of the quotations and responses. The previous line clearly quotes the Bush ROTG line and asks what it means for a Palestinian state. His reply is: "Well, it totally redraws the borders of any future Palestinian state. In fact, it threatens to carve large chunks out of it. The settlements which are earmarked for annexation stretch from Ariel in the northern West Bank down to Maale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right down to Kiriat Arba in the southern West Bank. Now, those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them." The settlements quotations you bold-faced are from elsewhere not from this exchange which I have used to illustrate that the speculated link is in fact made between ROTG and the Wall. The parts you referenced certainly mean ROTG includes settlements, that has never been disputed. Settlements are the clearest and most oft-mentioned "reality" by both Bush, Palestinians and analysts.

• This brings me to your suggestion that we use "two analysts" instead of "some analysts generally". This would only be necessary if I were disputing that more than 2 analysts believe this. I have said before that Settlements are often and repeatedly singled out in this manner. I don't need more sources actually cited for me to accept that more analysts think this way. My objection only goes as far as removing the false premise that all analysts think this to the exclusion of the other POV that ROTG includes the Barrier. This is why I prefer "some" to "two". I will agree to the removal of the word "generally" as a further qualifier though, to illustrate that some analysts do see ROTG exclusively as settlements, or at the very least make no connection with the Barrier.

--AladdinSE 13:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

Does anyone here know if East Jerusalem will be divided from the West Bank by the separation barrier? I ask this question because the figures given for the number of Palestinians left on the Israeli side of the barrier vary from about 10,000 to 49,400, but these figures obviously don’t include the approximately 250,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, the majority of whom do not have Israeli citizenship, if I understand correctly. Can anyone explain this to me? Perhaps I misunderstand the barrier route. In any case, the article could be more clear on this issue. Gregor Samsa 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They have Israeli "green-card" and most of them would be on the "Israeli" side of the barrier. (excpet those in Kfar Akeb and Shuafat camp) Zeq 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

why did you remove this: [19] Zeq 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is POV, not least in using the terms "fence", "judea and samaria". It is also a history and propangada piece for a little-known pro-barrier group: if we include every pro/anti barrier group in this article, well, what's the point of that? It almost certainly does not belong in such an extended format in the history section between Rabin's decisions and the Israeli Supreme Court's decision. Why not just include a link to it in references? Lokiloki 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a history of how the barrirer came about. "Fence" is part of their name. Zeq 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am undecided about the prominent exposure of this one group in the article. There must be several organizations advocating the same thing. Are there any reliable sources that cite this organization's work or influence? If it is not very influential, I think it would only beong in the external links section. If it is shown to be rather influential, it should stay, with a possible reconsideration of the heading title.--AladdinSE 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Fence for Life", Dani Atar [20] and Uzi Dayan [21] were instrumental in pushing the Sharon goverment to build the barrier. FFL was the biggest among these groups. It was really te Israeli public that demanded it. Sharon used the public outcry for security fence to set the route in an outragous political way. Zeq 05:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS settler groups mostly objected any fence because they knew it will lead to removal of settlments beyond the fence. Indeed this is Kadima party platform now. Zeq 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, neither of those links you provided even mentions the organization "Fence for Life". Furthermore, Hayom Hashvie is not a recognized reliable source. You have to cite the actual influence of the organizxation itself, not the activities or influence of individuals who happen be members. If you have no other reputable sources that show a consistent view that this is as influential an organization as you say t is, it belongs in the external links section only. Note that deletion of the section does not invalidate the arguments made by that particular organization. Indeed, such arguments are fully articulated elsewhere in the article.--AladdinSE 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

if you delete ffl maybe you dont have the information that they conceived the security fence they started the struggle for the security fence as they do untill now here are only a few of the links that you asked that mentions this organization and shows it's big influence. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] i think you also better read this: (wait untill it goes up): [37] there are lots more if you didn't convinced yet, i will give you more i hope that you will be an objective and that you will decide to put back the section of ffl i hope that you dont have something personal against ffl ffl 18.4.2006 0008

84.229.1.208, this is the English language Wikipedia. Every one of your links is in Hebrew! How are English-speaking editors supposed to read them? How can I have something personal against an organization so obscure, I never heard of it in international news coverage (And I watch and read a lot of news)? There must be some minimum level of acknowledged influence attributed to an organization in order to build an entire section on it. --AladdinSE 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

it looks like you don't have an information about the civil struggle to built the security fence and how was the public pressure on the government- you can see again what zeq wrote to you - it look that he knows about this- you can also give me your phone no or I give you mine. we can talk and give you all the information. here are the international news coverage that you have asked for [The Washington post [38] and the same at [39] [40] The Jerusalem post [41] [42] [43] [44] cnsnews [45] [46] katifnet [47] arutz sheva [48] Associated Press [49] And the same at fox news [50] And ctv news [51]

if still needed I can pass you scanned articles from haaretz in English and from Ney york times and I can try to get the full 2 of the articles from jpost not just the summary. there were also at the cnn and others that I cant find you can see - everyone wrote about fence for life in Israel in and abroad. as it is written in the first article- the idea of fence for life- security fence the only way - was security fence without connection to withdrawal the same which is now being implemented -and ffl began with the civil struggle to built it and made a big pressure on the government in many ways- contrary to other organizations that were talking about fence with withdrawal. you can also see the story of the sf in fence for life web site. Waiting for your answer. sincerely yours ffl 22.4.06 18:51 barouh@zahav.net.il

Some of those Washington Post and other links look a bit dodgy, as they are not links to the paper itself. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Post and some other links like Fox News seem like verifiable English-language reliable sources to me, therefore I have returned the section.--AladdinSE 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks. i deleted the end of the section and i am asking for your permission for the deletion, because otherwise if you want to put it back i can try to rephrase it to be more accurate because this specific campaign of building a fence by self means at the gilboa was led by dani atar. 23.4.06 07:30 ffl

WP:Point

To Loki : I suggest you read the above policy.

If indeed you have a source that show what you claim (that the effort is not succesfull) or you think that not enough facts about how succefull the grassroots effort was - than, please feel free to change the headline to a more approrpriate one.

Instead you choose to disruopt and delted the whole section. Well you made your point but now you will need to fix it and restore the section you un justifaiably deleted. Zeq 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Important links

Tasc, not having been a part of a very exhaustive discussion about the links of analysts speculating about the Barrier, you perhaps underestimate the meaning of the 2 links you removed. They illustrate the breadth ad range of the existence of this kind of analysis. Please stop deleting these two links. Thanks.--AladdinSE 06:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Links removed

This wall is also commonly known as "Wall of Shame". Some users are deleting the link to the term without explanations. Please stop. Boninho 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible impersonator

Please check this edit and other edits by 65J7 (talk · contribs), a suspected impersonator of 6SJ7 (talk · contribs). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Change "with little common ground between supporters and opponents"

I was thinking it would be a good idea to change this statement, "The barrier is a very controversial project, with little common ground between supporters and opponents" because in many ways there is a great deal of common ground but people have different values and different emphasis. For instance supporters claim the intention was for security and opponents claim the effect is a land-grab. However, these are not inconsistent. They could both be true. Or, supporters claim a major effect is to save lives while opponents claim a major effect is to create hardships. Again, both of these could be true. Does anyone else agree with this and is there a better phrasing that could capture this idea that there is some common ground but different perspectives? SeattliteTungsten 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are both true, in both cases. My feeling is, on this and a number of other related articles, we are doing too much telling and not enough showing.Timothy Usher 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've commented out the section stating:

The International Solidarity Movement describes the barrier as part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a feature of Israeli apartheid, a term used as an analogy for South African apartheid.

To begin with, it's not about the phrase "Apartheid wall" itself, but actually an opinion about the barrier. Even worse, it's from a highly partisan unreliable source, known for controversy. Apparently the book is also self-published. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The International Solidarity Movement may well be an unreliable source for facts about barrier, but Peace Under Fire, published by Verso, is reliable as a source documenting their opinions, which are generally representative of those activists who use the "apartheid wall" epithet. Gregor Samsa 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Economic Effects

We had a long debate above that ended with what I assumed was compromise after you stated that

"If you are no longer arguing for any changes in this section, seems like we're all set. SeattliteTungsten 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"

You have taken advantage of the passage of time to re-introduce the exact original research that you tried to do before, namely your hypothesis that the barrier has caused an improvement in the Palestinian economy. If you insist on stating this, you must use a reliable source to back you up. Otherwise, as I explained at length above, you are pushing a malicious POV. I don't agree with most of your past edits, but I didn't fight your Excel figure, and didn't argue with all the info you wanted to add to the paragraph. I was content with providing all the information you'd like, just not tying them together because no publication that I can find has even suggested the hypothesis that you are pushing. Quite the opposite, in fact. So I hope you will either stick to what I thought was a compromise, or we can request arbitration because, while I'm not in favor of censorship on Wikipedia, I'm also not in favor of disseminating false or deliberately misleading information. Thank you. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is problematic for a few reasons,

1. the section is "Economic Effects" of the WBB so the most relevent facts about GDP are real growth numbers after the start of the WBB, not before. "Effects" are things that happen after.
2. the absolute GDP numbers comparing 1999 and 2002 are not very useful here because they are before major construction which only started in late 2002.
3. we somehow lost the footnote for "it is not know if these numbers are nominal or inflation-adjusted" so the numbers for 1999 and 2002 are not very useful, anyway. I think they should be removed.
4. there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period. Certainly, in a section on "Economic Effects" of X, you would want to start with "what was the economy before X?" and "what was the economy after X?" This is only a basic starting point- not establishment of causality.

[Kindly refrain from ad hominem attacks- just stick to the topic at hand. I am editing in good faith. I took another look at this and it still has problems so I'm trying to fix them.]

SeattliteTungsten 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph to start with the economic changes after the barrier because this makes more sense for "effects" or "possible effects". For instance, if someone said "I think the steak we had for dinner Tuesday night was bad. Were you sick?" you wouldn't say "I was sick all day Tuesday." You might say "I was fine Tuesday night and Wednesday" or "I was sick Tuesday night and Wednesday." You might also say, "I was sick Tuesday night and Wednesday but I have had the flu since Monday." In other words, the most logical arrangement to "possible economic effects [of WBB]" is to study how the economy changed after the WBB. Like this example, the structure might be "The GDP changed [like this] after but also [changed like this] before." SeattliteTungsten 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry but I don't follow the steak analogy at all, especially that I prefer shrimp. Accusing me of ad hominem attacks may itself be an attack on me because I'm don't like being accused of something unless there is merit for it. From my point of view, I do see merit in questioning your good faith because you discarded everything we seemingly agreed to above and re-established the same ideas that we had argued over in the past and re-introduced a direct link between the barrier and the GDP. So yet again, I'm going to have to present my arguments:

1. the section is about "Economic Effects" of the WBB so the most relevant facts about GDP... STOP. Economic effects do NOT only mean GDP (read my old entries above). It is you who have introduced what could be considered a strawman's argument, i.e. the economic effects automatically refer to the GDP and GDP only, and then proceeded to argue against it. In fact, the Palestinians said "economic activity" which could mean anything from unemployment, poverty, per capita GDP, transportation costs, inflation, cost of living, etc. If you want to argue that everything about the wall and the economy is just real GDP, source it please. Find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP. That's all I ask. If you can't, then just let it be. There are more important things in life.
2. the absolute GDP numbers comparing 1999 and 2002 are not very useful here. The GDP numbers for 1999, 1889, or 2009, are not relevant at all from my perspective. Remember it is you who started the GDP business. I would have focused on the other aspects that are based on verifiable sources. But if you want to keep GDP, we can certainly incorporate more recent numbers and projections.
3. we somehow lost the footnote for "it is not know if these numbers are nominal or inflation-adjusted". I saw that, I don't know who did it but I can reinsert it.
4. there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period. Who determined the "relevant time period" here? You are referring to a time when less than a third (anywhere from 2% to 15%?) of the barrier was completed. Your last GDP entry is 2004, a full year before the barrier even reached 33% construction. As far as I'm concerned, even I am being ridiculous here, because we don't have a source for any of the assertions we're trying to make, except you seem to want to add them to the article anyway.
5. Believe me, I am very much sticking to the topic at hand. You took another look at this, you find it still has "problems", then you should have come back here and discuss them before re-stating the same original research statements that got us into this debate in the first place. That is good faith editing. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1. You are correct that Economic Effects/Changes/Consequences can be reflected in things other than GDP like unemployment, poverty, etc. Feel free to add how these metrics changed, too, if you think they are useful. (If you want a source that GDP is considered important by economists to determine economic well-being (or whatever), look in any Econ textbook. Mansfield, 4th Ed., says GDP "is important... [because it] indicates how prosperous we are", and GDP is "one of the most closely watched numbers in existence.") There is no need to "find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP" because the article text does not say this. The article text says, "Real GDP growth in the West Bank increased modestly in 2003 and 2004" which is sourced and that the World Bank calls economic activity since 2003 a "modest economic recovery" which is also sourced.
2. I am not sure what you are suggesting. Soon, some reliable GDP numbers for 2005 should be available. We can add them.
3. Rather than (i) reinserting a footnote saying the data about absolute GDP is not useful to compare, it would be better to (ii) find the correct data about absolute GDP that can be compared or (iii) remove the absolute GDP data. I vote for (iii) but if someone else wants to do (ii), they should go for it, but (i) is not a good solution, IMHO.
4. I am not sure that you are suggesting. As I mentioned, when 2005 numbers are available we can add them.
5. Let's just talk about the article.

SeattliteTungsten 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It's frightfully simple: You say There is no need to "find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP" because the article text does not say this. The article text says, "Real GDP growth in the West Bank increased modestly in 2003 and 2004". Good. This is something you added, not something that miraculously appeared in the article, but the point remains What does that have to do with the barrier? Is there any relationship between this and the barrier? If so, source it. If not, it shouldn't be in this article, it should be in another article about Palestinian economy. Full stop. A vague statement referring to a "suppressed economy" by the Palestinian ministry of finance in which several factors were pointed out, with the barrier being last on the list, just doesn't suffice. I could also cite statistics about infant mortality rates between '99 and '01, and compare them to the rates from '02 to '05. But unless it has something to do with the barrier, it just doesn't belong here. Secondly, you say Feel free to add how these metrics changed. I will only do that when I use a verifiable source that explicitly or even implicitly blames or gives credit to the barrier for any such changes. Otherwise, I'd be a hypocrite wouldn't I?
2. What I am suggesting is that stating GDP numbers without any reason or verifiable source to tie their existence in this article to the barrier itself, is original research.
3. But I assume you'd be okay with comparing GDP numbers from '01-'02 with numbers from '04-'06? (Before barrier, after barrier?) Of course, again, unless there is a publication out there that is blaming the barrier in whole or in part for such numbers, I am not going to copy your style of introducing unsourced concepts.
4. What I am suggesting is extremely simple: You wrote above "there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period", and I am simply disagreeing that the time period between '02 and '04 is relevant, because first (I re-re-re-reiterate) the relevance of any of this to the barrier is unsourced, and second, '04 cannot be the "after X" in your argument where you say: "you would want to start with "what was the economy before X?" and "what was the economy after X?" ", because 2004 is no where near "after X", it's not even in the vicinity of "after X", because 2004 is a whole year BEFORE the barrier was... only 33% complete?. So at the end of 2004 maybe it was, I don't know, 19% complete? Would 19% qualify as "after X"???? If so, according to who? You? That's original research. So again, instead of arbitrarily setting your own "before" and "after" dates, find a source for the claims you're trying to make, or at least find a source that states that the commencement of barrier construction caused in increase in GDP (which is the POV you are trying to push as I understand from your January comments).
5. You're right, I will cease discussing the natural habitat of the Australian outback, the personal philosophy behind Ehud Olmert's bowel movement habits, and my great aunt's ingrown toenail and focus only on the barrier. And excuse me, I don't see how you can call my assertion that you 'reneged' on a compromise a personal attack (ad hominem, ad absurdum, ad popsiclum or otherwise), especially when you did it so blatantly and unapologetically. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point WRT to the time period. It's improper to use 2003-2005 GDP figures to show improvement in the economy because only 33% of the barrier had been completed by then, but it's ok to use 2001-2002 figures which show a decline in the economy, when even less of the barrier was complete? Isarig 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I already wrote above: "The GDP numbers for 1999, 1889, or 2009, are not relevant at all from my perspective." This should answer your question of what I think is ok and what is not. If you read the debate that occurred several months ago you will see that none of this belongs in this article in my opinion, because there is no source whatsoever (that I can find) that links GDP to the construction of the barrier per se. Unless there is a source, the initials "GDP" do not belong here at all, at least not in the way presented now. The writings were an attempt at compromise with an editor who in my opinion is performing original research and adding misleading snippets of information out of context. This all will be moot anyway if the GDP turns negative again this year and the next as the World Bank predicts. And even then, it wouldn't belong here, this is an article about the barrier not the Palestinian economy. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This whole section needs to go. Isarig 16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between GDP growth and the barrier is that the PNA Finance Minister specifically states that "[r]eal GDP growth in 2004 is estimated to have remained weak" and attributes causal factors to this including that "[e]conomic activity in Palestine continued to suffer in 2004 as a result of ...the construction of the separation wall." This citation is included in the text. Here (as elsewhere) "economic activity" is measured in GDP. These terms are pretty much interchangeable because it is definitional, i.e., GDP is defined as the sum of all economic activity. The World Bank has a different take on the economy since 2003 namely that it is an "economic recovery" albeit a "modest" one. SeattliteTungsten 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Realities on the ground"

There seems to be some obsession with the phrase "realities on the ground", to the extent that some poorly written irrelevant material laden with original research is being pushed into the article. I've retained the main point of the section, that some people assert the barrier is creating "realities on the ground", while removing the irrelevant discussion about what "realities on the ground" might or might not mean in various contexts. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

it's better now- before it was awkward. there was also a problem of clarity and meaning because it implied that there was "one meaning" of the term, or that when one analyst interprettted the meaning in some context, that meaning could be applied to or inferred from another context. it cannot. certainly, before there ever was a barrier the meaning did not include the barrier so one never knows what it means in any context unless the speaker, who is using the term, says 'i mean this phrase to be settlements' or 'i mean this phrase to include barrier'

POV/NPOV Intro: "Supporters argue...", "Opponents argue..."

It seems to me that the sentence starting "Supporters argue..." should use the phrasing, or defer to the phrasing, of the supporters like "terrorist attacks", or whatever. And, "Opponents argue..." should use the phrasing of the opponents like "illegal settlements", or whatever. Obviously, a single sentence ("Supporters argue..." or "Opponents argue...") is going to be POV. The whole paragraph should have all POVs summarized and will, therefore, be NPOV. HailMaryFullOfGrace 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but have observed that edits by Rudyab have now made the intro very POV. It now says that opponents of the barrier "note" and "understand" certain things, but supporters "argue." Give me a break. I almost reverted the whole thing back to Bibigon's last edit, but there are probably a few words of Rudyab's edits that are ok, and I don't have time to go through it word for word right this second. Instead I put a POV tag on the article. In addition to POV, the intro is now just a mess. At least one sentence is now repeated in the same paragraph, and the last paragraph of the intro has been changed from grammatical to ungrammatical. 6SJ7 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

7% vs 5%

hi folks - just wanted to point out that the article contradicts itself - mentioning 5% as the figure for concreted sections, then reverting to 7% in section "4.5.1 Opponents of the term" - i have no idea which is correct, so just thought i'd point it out here so someone can fix it as appropriate! cheers.

Apartheid Opinions

1. removed "The barrier is called the 'apartheid wall' by some of those who oppose it" which is redundant with earlier text "some opponents of the barrier refer to it in English by the epithet, 'Apartheid Wall'"
2. change subsection title to "Apartheid opinions" more parallel with previous subsections; nomenclature is already covered earlier in the article. SeattliteTungsten 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing renaming and moving this section to the top of the opinions section, and expanding it to summarize the opinions which follow. It's a little odd to give all the opinions on the controversy first, and then explain what the controversy is at the end, right? Kendrick7 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel News Agency

There has been protracted discussion of this as part of several AfDs and DRVs; the consensus is that whether or not it is notable, it is not a reliable source. It is also the subject of sustained SEO spamming by its creator. And given his opinion of Wikipedia I'm sure he would not want his blog agency associated with us anyway :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No probelm. I had them confused with a different agency Isarig 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Names of the barrier

"Names of the barrier" is a succinct, simple, neutral heading. There is no need for a long extended phrase especially in the heading since "names" is neutral. An epithet is a type of name. When kids say, "she/he called me a name" they are not talking about a compliment :-) so I think "names" covers both positive and negative. Also, "the naming of the barrier is itself controversial" seems like a relevant point that someone unfamiliar with the topic should know. SeattliteTungsten 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think a distinction needs to be maintained between the "name" (or names) given to it by its builder and owner (Israel) and the "name-calling" names. I also don't agree that an "epithet" is equivalent to a "name." However, as of yet I have not changed it back. 6SJ7 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a distinction needs to be maintained between the "name" (or names) given to it by its builder and owner (Israel) and the "name-calling" names. This distinction is important and is clearly explained in the text. However, it need not be explained in the heading. The heading should just be a simple, well,... heading. The previous longer phrasing was unusual and awkward. SeattliteTungsten 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of CNN citation

Someone removed this citation: "U.N. court rules West Bank barrier illegal" (CNN). That was inappropriate. It's a ruling from the International Court of Justice reported by CNN. --John Nagle 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I added a brief description of what the article says. The article says that the ICJ issued an advisory opinion, which was non-binding, and that Israel did not participate in the hearings, so I put that all in. I did not put in that Israel does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of that court, although arguably that should be in there as well. 6SJ7 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. --John Nagle 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Article summary paragraphs

The summary paragraphs to this article should be short, concise summaries. To this end, I am moving some details about the ICJ to the ICJ section instead of the top summary. The current version (before the edits I am about to make) has about 55 words for 'Supporters argue...' and about 110 words for 'Opponents argue...' It should be realistic to get both of these to nice, short, concise summaries of about 50 words each. The format I propose is, simply, "Supporters argue A, B, and C. Opponents argue D, E, and F." There is no need to rebut A-C or D-F in these summary paragraphs. SeattliteTungsten 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question - can we use this picture?

The Israel Defense Forces have a nice picture of the fence system. [52]. Can this be used in Wikipedia? Not sure about copyright in Israel government output. --John Nagle 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

StandWithUs

I am thinking of taking out the recent addition of source from StandWithUs. While well-meaning, this is not the best addition to this article for the following reasons:

1. the article is long and since there are serveral volumes of material that could be written about the barrier, we need to be careful about what goes in.
2. most of these points are already made elsewhere in the article -- very little is new
3. some of the points are out-of-date (e.g. percentage wall/fence)
4. the organization is based in LA and is probably not a valid "Israeli Opinion"
5. this source is not the ideal, preferred source according to Wikipedia guidelines; while it could be used (especially if it contributed something different), better sources would not have a stated agenda; would be academic, government, or recognized publications; have PhDs; etc.

Comments? SeattliteTungsten 05:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

StandWithUs is probably not a reliable source. It's not clear who they really are. They don't give the names of their officers on their web site, and their domain registration info (123 Street, Los Angeles, CA 12345 Phone:+1.3335556666) is phony. --John Nagle 02:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call adding propaganda sites like StandWithUs "well-meaning", although rarely are edits on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "well-meaning" these days. I would most definitely agree that using it as a source is against policy. Sites such as StopTheWall.org, which though partisan (they call it the apartheid wall), are actually much more informative given that they include first-hand accounts from Palestine and can be sourced as such, but nevertheless have been refused on WP. If third-hand account propaganda sites like StandWithUs are allowed to stay, then that will open the door to other partisan sites as well. That's as far as StandWithUs goes. Now as for the specific material added here, it's terribly redundant, and thus not really helpful. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Conflict" vs. "Peace Process"

Somebody changed "Conflict" to "Peace Process". That was a bit too much happy-face, even for us in California. --John Nagle 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, its important to understand context. We did create a template on the conflict but after a while it seemed to be more focused on the peace process. Thus we moved that template from "Conflict" to "Peace Process". We are now in the process of making a second template that deals with the conflict aspects. I was fixing all the double redirects that were created by the move. Please join in the discussion here Template_talk:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process -- see especially the bottom, more recent section. Best. --Ben 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid wall

Call me crazy, but am I the only one that thinks Apartheid wall should redirect here? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly do you wish to change the redirect page?Bless sins 04:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the redirect at Apartheid Wall per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall. --John Nagle 05:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the loaded term "apartheid wall" and think it should be deleted, it obviously refers to the Israeli West Bank barrier, so it should redirect there if it must exist. Abe Froman 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article Apartheid Wall should not redirect here. We have already determined that the term "apartheid wall" is a biased term and flagrant propoganda. Furthermore, calling this wall an apartheid wall is an insult to everyone who suffered during the apartheid in South Africa. If Apartheid Wall were redirected here, it would supply readers with false and misleading information, for they would assume that the practices of the Israelis are the same as the practices of the Apartheid government of South Africa. User: Notecardforfree 18:58, 15 Jan 2007

External Links

I was thinking of reorganizing the external links section. The new categories would be Israeli government and courts, United Nations, Resources in favor of the barrier, Resources against the barrier, and General News Resources. Any thoughts on this?Oneworld25 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

POV of image

the second image in this article here is POV for the previous sectionhere, which talks about the dispute of the name, i mean for the reader who actually never saw the "fence/wall", he/she wouldn't see more than a harmless fence beside a road! i believe this image is the one that sticks into his/her mind ... a fence(a name i dispute, just like many other Palestinians and israili and international organizations ) ... the word fence fits more for a garden (with a fence), on the other hand an image like this() would leave the reader with a totally diffrent POV. i suggest putting both images, a fence ... and a wall.--Mayz 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

two different length-declarations in article

In beginning of article is said that 90% of the wall consists of multilayer fence system and 10% of 8m wall. Down in the 'structure' part the numbers are 95% to 5%. Don't have the time to search and correct. Thanx, Mistar 82.82.92.124 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

links

I removed the tiles "links in favor" and "links opposed" to the barrier and combined the two lists to allow the reader to decide. Hank Chapot 67.101.149.249 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the changes made in the link section because with so many links they need to be organized. Furthermore, it is not violating NPOV to organize the links in a way that tells what is already blatantly obvious. Oneworld25 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just searched Wikipedia for "apartheid" and was pointed to this site. I am too technophobic to even begin to contemplate changing this (note my entry of this mistake to presumably the wrong place on this page), but might someone else take that banner up? Brandon.hendrickson@gmail.com (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

While the article states that only 10% of the barrier is made up of concrete walls, all three photographs are of them. Could we include a visual of what the other 90% looks like? TravellingJew 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonviolent resistance

"Some Palestinian organizations and the International Solidarity Movement have organized nonviolent resistance to the construction of the barrier." - While some were indeed nonviolent, there is plenty of proof that many protests turned violent, the media is full of those images and descriptions. So we can either leave this out or we can change it to "violent resistance", supported by refs of course. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WorldBank funding of barrier

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#9 --64.230.120.186 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Error in edit summary

Sorry about that last edit summary. I've written "restoring material deleted by Jayjg" so many times now that it came out this last time when it wasn't even the case. Anyhow, I replaced your fact tag with the source that was already there in the middle of the sentence. Thanks for adopting the suggestion (here anyway) to fact tag instead of delete. Much appreciated. Tiamut 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summaries

Tiamut, why do you claim you are restoring material deleted by Jayjg? As is clear, I didn't delete any material I merely added a fact tag: [53] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, why are you not reading the talk page? See my comments directly above. Tiamut 19:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. Thank you. Now, regarding your edit, it makes little sense. The EU upheld the subsequent GA resolution, which is mentioned in the next sentence, not the court ruling. Why are you putting the material in the wrong place? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. With all the back and forth, I got confused. I will correct that now. Tiamut 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A note about referencing

I noticed a lot of the refs are simply URLs, with no author information etc. For the GAC (and for anything in the future) it would be good to fix this up. Giggy _U^CP 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Concerns

Someone should add the environmental concerns that come with the wall. Habitat of critically endangered animals, such as the the ibex and leopards, is being slashed by this wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.154.118 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GA

Hello FA!

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some observations.

• "Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to change the route of the barrier in this area to ease movement of Palestinians between Qalqilyah and 5 surrounding villages." - reword the word "recently"
• No source in "Effects on Palestinians"
• In "Opinions on the barrier", Mr Bush's opinion should not be under international opinions, as his opinions represent a country; as oppose to Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch which represent the views of these organizations.
• Reference date needs to be modified, particularly reference #74 to 78

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Banksy Image should be removed from article

Wikipedia tries to limit the amount of non-free material. The Banksy image is posted by means of a fair use rationale. However, since there are plenty of "free images" already in the article and I see nothing so special about the Banksy Graffiti on the wall that it must be posted to this article I feel it should be removed. Oneworld25 15:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Bush Opinions

It seems this article has contradicting statements from Bush. In the Palestinian Opinions section it has Bush supporting the barrier but in the international opinions section it has Bush criticizing it. Does anyone know what we should do about this? Oneworld25 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should anything be done about it? // Liftarn

Mainly because it's confusing.Oneworld25 10:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a politician so it shouldn't be suprising he says differet things on different occations. // Liftarn

Politicians can be confusing about their loyalties. Although, I am pretty sure Bush only disapproved so he wouldn't look like the cruel bad guy, since most of the world was disapproving too. Then, he probably approved because he wanted to tell the world that he completely agreed with Israel....saying and showing one thing part time and another thing part time......it's confusing.~A~

Newer route

The barrier's route has been updated numerous times, and I have created a map to show the July 2006 update. You can also see it here and here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Wall or 'Barrier'?

I say wall,

• Wall Reaper7 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• So? The article already explains that different people say different things. A question is whether these alternate names should be given in bold in the first sentence. Itsmejudith 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is a Wall--Ezzex 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article clearly states that most of the barrier is a fence. I support the use of barrier for the name, as it is the most objective term. Oneworld25 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Barrier is the better choice. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's a wall in some places, it's a fence in others. In all cases it's a barrier -so barrier. <<-armon->> 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Barrier Rudy Breteler (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Both, "barrier" is used by supporters, "wall" by opponents. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• fence,more than 90% of it is a fence..

Reduced freedoms example

Current text goes thus:

An often-quoted example of the effects of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, a city of around 45,000, where an 8 meter-high concrete section is built on the Green Line between the city and the nearby Trans-Israel Highway. The wall in this section, referred to as an "anti-sniper wall," has been claimed to prevent gun attacks against Israeli motorists and the Israeli town of Kfar Saba, which runs for more than 3 kilometers to the west of the city along the Green Line. The barrier, in the form of a series of razor wire fences and trenches, also dips beyond the Green Line to encircle Qalqilyah from northern and southern sides. The city is accessible through a main road from the east, and an underground tunnel built in September 2004 on the south side connects Qalqilyah with the adjacent village of Habla which has been cut off by another barrier. Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to change the route of the barrier in this area to ease movement of Palestinians between Qalqilyah and 5 surrounding villages. In the same ruling, the court rejected the arguments that the fence must be built only on the Green Line. The ruling cited the topography of the terrain, security considerations, and sections 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations 1907 and Article 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention as reasons for this rejection.

I find this example, given under the title of Reduced freedoms, fails at being a clear illustration. It should help understand the reduction of freedoms resulting from the construction of the barrier but in actuality is a lengthily discussion about the legitimacy of this portion of the barrier. E.g.:

1. The barrier being "claimed to prevent gun attacks";
2. Hinting that the barrier is unlikely to actually protect Kfar Saba (some 3 kilometers away);
3. The barrier "dips beyond the Green Line".
4. Coverage of Israeli court's considerations when allowing the divergence from the Green Line.

All of these are given in order to push a POV rather than out of actual relevance in this section. (1, 4 pro-Israel; 2, 3 pro-Palestinian).

I should like to rephrase it thus (leaving only core relevant coverage):

An often-quoted example of the effects of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, a city of around 45,000, having an 8 meter-high concrete barrier and a series of razor wire fences and trenches encircling it from three sides. The city is accessible through a main road from the east and an underground tunnel built in September 2004 on the south side connecting to the adjacent village of Habla.

If no one objects, I'll be affecting this change within 72 hours :-). --_{$^{Jonathan}$ $^{Sch}$^ä$^{fer}$}. 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood point 2 as pro-Palestinian, when it is just saying that the barrier runs for 3 km along the Green Line, which is Qalqilya's western border. The point about that section being anti-sniper I think you also misunderstood, as it is just saying that that is the stated function of that part. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New developments

"Palestinians Destroy Wall, Flood Egypt."[54] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeceevoice (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Deceevoice. Thanks for the reminding me of that. It should probably go in the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier article though, since the wall destroyed was the one separating Gaza from Egypt. I'll do my best to add it soon. Tiamut^talk 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians' bias showing graphically...

Three of the current six images are of the <10% of the barrier that is even remotely describable as a "wall", giving the appearance that, instead, at least half of the barrier is a "wall". Fix it. Tomer^talk 06:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find though, that most of the coverage in the western media includes images of the "wall" in built up areas rather than the more fence-like barriers. Perhaps the BBC, Reuters, Le Monde, and others should all change their images, too? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

journalists will always go for the most graphic image, hence the wall pictures… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.60.177 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates

I believe that more of the sources should list the dates in which they were published. For example, the UN statement regarding the wall was published in 2005 but we are now in 2008! So the situation might be the same, but the date of publication needs to be there Canking (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Leading Map

I am just wondering why the leading map has been changed? The 2006 court ruling is hardly recent, and the previous map included a lot more geographic information. I dont remember it mentioning 'Judea' and 'Samaria' either, and im not sure why this geographic information would be more important than some of present-day geographic information which is no longer present? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

When was it changed? Can you link to the previous map, or an alternate one? I agree a more recent map would be better, anyway. okedem (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose that this page be moved to Israel-West Bank barrier to rreflect a position less ambiguous and less biased toward the Israeli side. The current title is confusing as it may refer to the barrier built by Israel, or "owned" by Israel (the Israeli...barrier), or may imply that the West Bank is owned by Israel (the Israeli West Bank...). The Israel-West Bank barrier title will reflect the position that it is propsed to section off West Bank from Israel. It is my opinion that the barrier is an injustice and I detest the (proposed) division. However, this is not supposed to reflect my point of view, or anyone else's. The current title is very confusing. This also goes for Israeli Gaza Strip barrier. –PlatanusOccidentalis 06:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. It's a barrier built and operated by Israel, around the West Bank. The name seems very logical to me. I don't think the interpretation "Israeli West Bank" would really make sense to anyone.

I don't really understand why you'd think the barrier is "an injustice". Do you not accept Israel's sovereignty as a state, to regulate movement in and out of it? Are you not aware of the masses of suicide bombers entering Israel before the barrier? Are you opposed to the internationally recognized "two state solution"? okedem (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from calling you out for overt soapboxing, I'm going to have to say your series of questions demonstrates that you misunderstand -- or don't know -- the main problem critics of the wall have. -- tariqabjotu 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit much. I wasn't the one who brought it up though, so that's my excuse...

Actually, I do understand the main criticism of the barrier, and share it - the route is, sometimes, used to annex land for settlements, and not just as a security measure. But what PlatanusOccidentalis wrote ("I detest the (proposed) division") seems to be different, opposing the whole concept, and not just the current/planned route of the barrier. okedem (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the title. It's Israel's wall and it's built in and around the West Bank. Someone could just as easily see something wrong with "Israel-West Bank barrier". -- tariqabjotu 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any name change would have to be on the basis of which term is more widely used.Bless sins (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The move sounds like a good idea, so I support it. YahelGuhan (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that "Israel-West Bank barrier" is a more commonly used term?Bless sins (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Top importance

I don't think this article should be rated 'top' on WP Israel. Top is reserved for subjects eternally and importantly linked with Israel, while the fence is just a contemporary political problem. It should be rated high, at the most. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

POV?

I don't really find the article all that neutral. You seem to be avoiding any independent support for the wall, instead just focusing on various international bodied condemning the immediate humanitarian impact. In fact, there is considerable historical precedent for using these sorts of barriers, and they are often effective. An effective barrier is likely beneficial to most everyone involved. It's also worth pointing out that Sharon originally opposed the wall. 128.6.168.245 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Got any sources? // Liftarn (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wall is in areas where the people live and the fence is in areas with no population

Some point out that most of barrier are a fence, but are there any fence in large population areas in the west bank - or a wall. Seams to me that the fence are place in areas with no or little population. People have problem with the wall not the fence ?

If this is right, maybe it should be called The wast bank wall instead. --Ezzex (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, calling something that's 90% fence "wall" would be gravely misleading. We're not discussing the barrier only in heavily populated areas, but all over. Also, People live all over the West Bank, so your distinction is incorrect. There's a wall usually close to Israeli cities/towns or main roads, to prevent possibility of shooting attacks at Israelis. okedem (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim

In the "Route" section, it is said:

Following a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, the route was again revised by a cabinet decision on April 30, 2006.[23] The route[24][25] now leaves fewer Palestinians and less West Bank land on the Israeli side of the barrier.

The second sentence of this has been unreferenced for half a year. So unless someone can add a reference to it in the next few days, I will remove it completely. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

There are too many links in the article. There's like 8 links to Gaza.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've removed exactly two Gaza links, and broken dozens of others that as far as I can see have only been linked once. Care to explain? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We all know the meaning of "concrete" and "fence."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you broke the links to Israeli government, separation barrier, exclusion area, West Bank, Palestinian terrorism, suicide bombing, terror attack, terrorism, crimes against humanity, annexation, Israeli settlement, International Court of Justice, international law, Israeli-occupied territories, confiscation, Palestinian Authority, Jamal Juma, Jew, Bible, God of Israel, Arabs, Judea, Samaria, Egypt, apartheid, Second Intifada and Israeli Supreme Court. Can you restore them, please? I won't mind if you leave the links to concrete and fence broken. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to put links in direct quotes, unless they're completely uncontentious - doing so might mislead the reader about the meaning of the author. In addition, the linking was not well thought through, in that it linked in many cases to re-directs: for example, you linked to terrorist and terrorist act, both of which are re-directs to terrorism. Also, while it is possible to link every word in an article, it is not a good idea to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Jay. What do you think of the twenty-odd other links I mentioned? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of them made sense, some of them were re-directs, some of them were in quotations. In addition, a number of them were controversial content edits, not just re-direct. A mixed bag. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I see you simply reverted to your previous version, ignoring all the issue raised here, and, indeed, all intervening edits. That kind of tendentious editing makes a mockery of the Talk: page process. The next time you edit, please make sure you add only completely uncontroversial, non-redirect links to the article. Do not make any other edits without prior discussion. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When you say "Some of them made sense", you mean most of them, but that coyness is coming out again. I hope Brewcrewer heeds your advice; he certainly doesn't seem to be passing much heed on mine. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I said "some of them", I meant "some of them". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't say a lot for your maths. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist's latest edits

It appears that Lapsed Pacifict is trying to contradict the sources that appear in the article by saying that only suicide bombings decreased after the construction of the barrier, even though both sources provided say that attacks decreased in general. The edit summary provided is lackluster at best. I am going to revert if there is no other objection, per WP:V, WP:RS. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Small point but shouldn't the view be directly attributed to the source of the view (i.e. the IDF) rather than "There is general agreement" ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I just noticed your comment now. There are other sources in the article that basically say the same things. I'm not sure how we would go about attributing them all. Just the other day Lapsed Pacifist removed another couple words in completely contradiction with the source presented, which in this case is qualified. If you have specific suggestions about qualifying other sources, I am willing to try to work with those suggestions to improve the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Up to date map??

New here. All the maps of the existing wall are very old. Can somebody find the latest version of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.227.81 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon of a suicide bomber climbing a West Bank Barrier

Images need to add value to articles. Does this one do that and if so, how ? Someone needs to make a case for inclusion of this image by discussing it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That cartoon clearly adds value. It describes the reasoning behind the fence from the Israeli perspective. The barrier after all was built by the Israelis for a reason. Something there is that doesn't love a wall indeed, but after all, Frost's neighbor was right, and good fences make good neighbors. Stellarkid (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll provide a counter-argument (which doesn't necessarily represent my opinion). A description of the reasoning behind the fence from the Israeli perspective is already presented in the article. The cartoon isn't communicating new information or the existing information any more effectively than the words therefore it is not adding value (in this particular article). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Until we decide if we are to have carttons or not I added another cartoon giving a different perspective. // Liftarn (talk)

I think there is value in both cartoons because they vividly capture the opposing opinions about the barrier. Michael Glass (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the photo-montage . On the left hand side of this montage there is an image of the Holocaust. On the right hand side there's an image of West Bank security fence (Farmer and his animals alongside the security wall in Qalqilya). Only brainless antisemite could ever compare the two. In the middle of the montage is that brainless antisemite latuff caring his hate propaganda, antisemitic entry to the Holocaust denial cartoons competition. That [....] is listed on page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. No respectful site, no respectful publisher will ever publish that [....] with a purpose any other than to show how hateful and antisemitic it is. That cartoon does not belong to the article, if of course Wikipedia is a respectful site.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The suicide bomber scaling the wall is just as offensive to me as the other cartoon is to you. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORed. Tiamut^talk 20:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about the censorship here. The cartoon is antisemitic, Holocaust denial [....], which does not represent the truth. It is displayed Holocaust denial cartoons competition, and this is enough. It does not belong to this article. The suicide bomber cartoon is the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth, and besides it is the only image from Israeli point of view.Yes, I saw some called it racist. I wish you or other could explain to me what exactly is racist about this cartoon. Are there never was a suicide bomber in Israel, was West Bank security fence built because Israel has no better way to spend the money at? It was built to prevent homicide attacks, and it is what it is doing.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:TRUTH and then WP:NPOV. The latter is a policy here. While it is your opinion that the cartoon making parallels to the holocaust is a form of holocaust denial, others find it to be a valid comparison. And while it is your opinion that the cartoon depicting a suicide bomber scaling the wall isn't offensive/racist, others find to to be very much so. Please also read WP:3RR. You have twice reverted out the cartoon you dislike despite the comments of other editors here supporting its inclusion to balance out the other cartoon. I'd appreciate it if you self-revert and gain consensus for that cartoons removal or for an alternate solution (such as the removal of both). Imposing your own will without regard to WP:CONSENSUS, isn't how Wikipedia works. Tiamut^talk 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could suggest you'd read WP:3RR too. Now let's talk about the issue itself. Yes, it is my opinion that cartoon is the Holocaust denial, but I proved my opinion with a reliable source, which is page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I will appreciate, if you could explain to me or provide a reliable source how suicide bomber cartoon is racist. Besides, as I mentioned above there's quite a few images from Palestinian point of view, and only one of Israel point of view, which is highly unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I reverted once Mbz and then came to talk. After you again reverted, I haven't touched the article. As to how the cartoon may be seen as racist, please see my comments to Stellarkid below. Tiamut^talk 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a fact that Israel built the security fence because of murderous suicide bombers. That is something that doesn't need sources since it is a well known common fact. That said, it is clear that the cartoon Mbz1 referred to depicts it correctly. It is nobody's fault but Hamas (and his minions from other organizations) that Israel decided to do this. As to balancing: I'm quite sure that there are much better images/cartoons/etc. that depicts the Palestinian opinion on this matter. Surely there is no implication that it is comparable to the Death Camps of the Nazi's MGDTS. Broccoli (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't WP:soapbox. Using words like "minions" makes it hard to take your comments seriously and does little to foster a collaborative editing environment. Tiamut^talk 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are quite of few images of Palestinian point of view that are already in the article, like this one File:Palestinian children and Israeli wall.jpg for example. Besides I did not just removed antisemitic cartoon, I replaced with another image from Palestinian side.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) I agree with the logic (backed by RS) of Mbz1 and Broccoli with respect to this cartoon. Perhaps a less offensive cartoon could be found, one that does not belittle the Holocaust in its attempt to create sympathy for another group. Nor do I understand the objection that the cartoon depicting the suicide bomber climbing the fence is "racist." I too find suicide bombers offensive, whatever race they might belong to. There is zero implication that all suicide bombers everywhere are Palestinian, only the ones that Israel is trying to keep out with the use of the fence. Stellarkid (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The practical effects of the wall are that it keeps out everyone, not just suicide bombers. Hence the racist implication some read in the cartoon, as it seems to imply that all Palestinians are bombers. As I said above, Wikipedia is not censored. Just because some people (even reliable sources) find something to be offensive, doesn't mean we should shy away from including it. And its hard to take the Wiesenthal center's claim seriously in any case given that someone denying the Holocaust wouldn't be using its symbology to draw parallels between it and what is happening to the Palestinians. The comparison may be difficult for some to hear, but that's not a reason to deny our readers access to that viewpoint. Per NPOV, we are obliged to represent all significant viewpoints. Tiamut^talk 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a story told about 6-days Arab-Israel war. Here's the story: One hundred Arabs are running away from a single Israeli, who is running after them. UN observer stops Arabs and says: "Why are you running? There are a hundred of you and only one Israeli. He cannot run after all of you, he runs only after one." Arabs responded: "That's truth, he cannot run after all of us, he runs only after one of us, but we are not sure which one in particular." After that they continued to run. End of the story. The situation with West Bank security fence is kind of the same. Of course most Palestinians are good people, but there are quite of few terrorists too. Israelis do not know who are the terrorists, so they built the security fence to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. Innocent people on both sides are suffering from that fence, but I am afraid Palestinians look in the wrong direction to find the ones responsible for their misfortunes. So, I hope I established the purpose of West Bank as a security fence - it was built to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. On the other hand the wires of concentration camps were built to prevent absolutely innocent victims of getting out.@Tiamut, I am afraid that, if you do no take Wiesenthal center's claim seriously you are not qualified to discuss the subject of the Holocaust denial. That cartoon offends not only Zionists, not only Israelis, but each and every Jew around the world.I would also suggest Tiamut and the ones, who supports her to read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One more point. At least some Palestinians benefited from the security fence. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the implication of the cartoon is that all Palestinians are suicide bombers in the least. It is merely saying why the Israelis built the fence. They did not build the fence to wall in a people and starve them or gas them. They build the fence to protect themselves from (some) people who wanted to kill them. This is a legitimate reason and deserves to be made clear. Just as anyone would want to protect themselves by building a fence around their property if there were some people who wanted them dead. The Latuff cartoon is Holocaust denial that fits the definition of Holocaust denial and should be "taken seriously". WP: " Holocaust denial consists of claims that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized."(my emphasis) By equating the situation of a defensive wall with a concentration camp, it is de facto Holocaust denial and antisemitic in nature. Therefore inappropriate in WP. Stellarkid (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Other words probably should be used to describe the above reasoning, but I'll leave it at "nonsense". nableezy - 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe the Holocaust to be noncense? I had a slightly better opinion about you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How in the world do you take that from what I said? The cartoon does not in any way claim the either the Holocaust did not occur or that it did not occur as historically recognized. To say otherwise is nonsense. To take that comment to then say that I am a Holocaust denier just shows how incredibly irrational you are being here. nableezy - 01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Stellarkid talked about the Holocaust in his edit before yours, and then you said it was nonsenses. Now I understand that you do not deny the Holocaust, but you deny that the Holocaust denial garbage by latuff is the Holocaust denial. Sorry for misunderstanding. Yet I hope you'd agree with me that your opinion on the matter cannot be even closely compared with that of page 64 in appendix C ("Examples of Denial") of this report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. I also hope that a reasonable user you are you'd agree that your claim of that Holocaust denial .... being a reliable source should have any prove, and until you come up with the prove the garbage should not be in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The report you provided does not actually say that this specific cartoon is an example of Holocaut denial, it says that the Iranian competition used many classic antisemitc motifs and images to "deny the Holocaust and vilify Jews". It then lists each of the award winners without making a comment on whether a specific cartoon is an example of Holocaust denial. This is a cartoon, it is meant to provide an artistic rendering of a persons view. If this was supposed to be an actual picture it would not be a cartoon, it would be a drawing. This cartoon uses the same methods in the suicide bomber cartoon, it makes exaggerations to make a point. In my opinion neither belongs in an encyclopedia article about the barrier, which if everyone would try to remember, is what this article is supposed to be. nableezy - 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'd like to make few more points, please. You said in your summary "this picture has nothing to do with the effects on palestinians, which that section is about" referring to the image I added. The article has quite a few images from Palestinian side, but of course, if you could find any other reliable source image, or a cartoon for that matter, please do add it to the article, but please stop adding non reliable source, POV images. You should know better than that. Now about the Holocaust denial. The report I provided refers to that very cartoon. Now, could you please be so kind, and explain to me, where do you see the exaggerations in the suicide bomber cartoon? Were there not enough suicide bombers in Israel in your opinion, or you believe that no suicide bomber ever climbed West Bank security fence? BTW have you ever watched Palestinian Film that is looking at Suicide Bombers? They have that very situation. Two suicide bombers climbed over West Bank security fence. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The source you added to the suicide bomber cartoon does not mention the cartoon at all and the cartoon is not from a RS. I dont plan on engaging in the type of soapboxing that you have been so no I will not answer your questions. nableezy - 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(intended) One more point. Nableezy you said: "This is a cartoon, it is meant to provide an artistic rendering of a persons view." That says it all "artistic rendering of a persons view". The use of that [....] in an article as the one, which is being discussed is a violation of WP:NPOV.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV means showing all significant viewpoints, and if it is "NPOV" for the other cartoon to be displayed then it is "NPOV" for this one as well.

Cannot agree. You used a typical tactic, took one point out of contest and argued it. Please read everything: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." I provided a reference for the suicide bomber cartoon, and I could provide quite a few more. Could you please provide a reverence for the other one. Besides it is the only image from Israeli point of view. According to you own NPOv definition it must stay --Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

<- Mbz1, there is no consensus for the inclusion of either cartoon at this point. I think that is clear from this discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland, the cartoon was added to the article on January 6, and stayed there up to now. Only, when I removed the other POV cartoon, that has no reliable source, somebody started talking about removing the other one as well. It is silly. Don't you think that it rather should be consensus for the removal image from the article? Besides according to wp:NPOV (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." --Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. I think the inclusion of the cartoons should be conditional upon them adding value to the article. There should be consensus that they do add value and there should be a common understanding of how they do that. The asymmetry in your application of NPOV is puzzling. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Article about an Israeli-Palestinian barrier, if content from one "side" -- such as a cartoon with obvious Israeli POV -- is to be included; then a cartoon with a Palestinian POV probably belongs there as well. But, since when do articles need cartoons? This is an encyclopedia not a manga. So I support keep both cartoons out. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you on your point about cartoons, but there are two things that are preventing me from doing so. First of all suicide bombers are not Israeli POV, it is a fact that was proven over and over again by suicide bombers themselves. Second, there's no single image from Israeli side in the article. It is understandable. Suicide bombers, who claimb the security fence do not like to be photographed you know. That's why the cartoon was the only option to show the purpose of the security fence. On the other hand there are quite a few images, some of them with gratify that represent Palestinian view. Please add any other image, and I promise I will not object it, but please do not add the Holocaust denial POV cartoon. Respectfully--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, now you are interpreting the cartoons, which is original research that I don't care to participate in; and you are in violation of the three-revert rule, so if reported you'll be a blocked, but there is paperwork to do so can you please pull it together and self-revert~ thanks. Anyway let's grow up and leave cartoons out of the article altogether do you really think that only what you object to is objectionable? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What original research are you talking about? Maybe that one? About cartoons in general, may I please suggest you go ahead and remove POV and original research cartoon from here. I mean, let's grow up together, shall we? Respectfully, --Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

<- The article would, in my view, benefit from a graph showing the reduction in the number of attacks by Palestinian militants. This would be far better than using the cartoon to illustrate the "Effects on Israeli security". I assume there is a graph out there somewhere or someone could put one together based on MFA stats. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, if you could please find such a graph, I would appreciate it very much, and of course in this case cartoon should be removed. BTW about consensus. May I please ask you to take a look at the world's map and Demography, and try to understand why it is hard to impossible to get a consensus on any inclusion showing Israeli point of view. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a graph from the MFA or here for the graph by itself but it's not clear to me where they have put the statistical source data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, why did you post the image above? Is that one of the cartoons at issue? I looked through the history and it seems that cartoon was not brought forward by anyone but you. Am I wrong? Would prefer to focus on the cartoons that are actually being discussed. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, I posted the image above for the visual comparison (which is absolutely not comparable) between the Holocaust and West Bank security fence. Some people here said latuff's [....] is an exaggeration. No, it is not an exaggeration at all. It is propaganda of hate, antisemitism and the Holocaust denial. According to the definition of antisemitism by European Union "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis and Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel" is antisemitism. Here are the links: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has, as its working definition for antisemitism. I did not understand the second part of your question, where you said "I looked through the history and it seems that cartoon was not brought forward by anyone but you" What cartoon are you talking about here?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)