Jump to content

Talk:West Bank barrier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alberuni (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 11 December 2004 (→There was no consensus to remove the picture of the wall months ago). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Name

Of article

As far as I know, there is not yet an article describing the Israel security wall. I was going to add something to Wikipedia:Requested articles, but I don't know what to call the article...

Should it be Israel or Israeli in the title?
Is it a wall? partition? fence? barrier?

Suggestions? Kingturtle 08:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would suggest Israel-Palestine Barrier, because all of wall, partition and fence are also barriers. CGS 08:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC).
What's wrong with Israel security wall? The current events page already has a missing link to it. My general feeling on article naming is that if it's the first thing that comes to mind then it's proabably the best name. We can make all kinds of redirects and discuss the "proper" name later, but start it with a "good enough" name and at least the article will get started instead of being stalled in committee. -- Merphant 08:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I love trying. I wrote a perl script to find most common 2 and 3 word combinations on news.google.com and google.com using the top 100 hits using the search terms Israel and wall OR fence OR barrier OR partition OR divider OR enclosure OR fortification OR palisade.

  • Most common 1 word terms in title:
    • 132 barrier
    • 117 wall
    • 107 fence (next only had 3 hits)

"Apartheid Wall"

"The Israeli West Bank barrier (also called West Bank Security Fence, West Bank wall, or the Apartheid Wall by critics" Proposterous! So, why don't we mention that Palestinians are commonly called ragheads in the opening lines of that entry. It's certainly every bit as true. Wetman 00:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Most common 1 word terms anywhere:
    • 98 wall
    • 61 fence
    • 58 barrier (next only had 8 hits)

Based on that, I'd say "wall", "fence", or "barrier".

  • Most common 2 word terms in title:
    • 22 security fence
    • 18 security barrier (next only had 12 hits)
  • Most common 2 word terms anywhere:
    • 11 security fence
    • 8 israel wall
    • 7 israel's wall
    • 7 berlin wall
    • 6 security wall
    • 5 security barrier
    • 5 israel's barrier


"Israel security fence" looks good. "Israel security wall" might be best by single word frequency. I guess "Israel-Palestine" wall might be okay for the first part, but I don't see that often. Palestine ain't building the wall, so tht would not be my inclination. Daniel Quinlan 08:46, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Great stats.
I'd say Israel security wall or Israel security wall. Wall gives me a concrete or earth feeling, but fence has hole in them, like in prison. I'm not sure what's the material of the Israeli one. --Menchi 08:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'd go for "Israel security fence". From the pictures I've see of it, it's a few block on the ground with a chain link fence about 10-15 ft high ... here's some pic of it [1] [2] ... reddi
Some bits are wall and some bits are fence. The more contested the area the stronger the barrier. From what I can tell the Israelis call it a fence and the Palestianians call it a wall. One lot of spin is that it is a security fence, the other that it is a partitioning wall akin to the Berlin wall. Have fun with your article. :) Secretlondon 13:37, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Of course both sides will produce appropriate pictures ;) Secretlondon 13:39, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Heres the isreali's site on it Israel security fence. reddi
I'd say "barrier". In some places it's a fence, in some places a concrete wall. And there's more to it than just the physical wall - it's a system, with some depth - there are gates (which are a bit like airport security checkpoints married to bus terminii) and in many places a levelled strip. "Barrier" seems to me to capture that a bit better than either wall or fence (but then all the same things could be said about the Berlin Wall, and no-one called it the Berlin Barrier.) -- Finlay McWalter 13:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yea, barrier may be better ... "Israel security barrier" with redirect of Israel security wall and Israel security fence ... it's officially (by the il.gov) called the "Seam Zone project". reddi
Israelis tend to call it "security fence", whereas Palestinians call it a seperation wall (note: seperation, not "security wall") or, in some cases, apartheid wall. I don't think there's any way to use either term without seeming POV. Better would be to redirect, then to explain the different names in the first sentence. "barrier" is a good fudge, but I wouldn't even mind using the official name, because nobody actually uses it. DanKeshet

My stats were of news sites via news.google.com, and that included a good number of (English web) Arabic news sites. I still think Israel security wall or Israel security fence are best, but I could live with Israel security barrier since barrier was also a relatively common word used to describe the structure. Daniel Quinlan 21:32, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Well I started an article at Israel security fence since it doesn't seem like anyone else has yet. -- Merphant 00:57, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The word security is POV. I mean, one can argue that the wall is for Israel's security, but one can also argue that the wall is to nullify Palestine. Maybe it should be called West Bank wall....like the Berlin wall is so named. Kingturtle 01:01, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The BBC call it a "barrier", so we wouldn't be alone in using that fudge. I think that's the best option, given Finaly and Reddi's points above. Martin 01:08, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As an FYI, Aljazeera call it the apartheid wall while Al-Ahram calls it a seperation wall. "Security" is more of an NPOV problem than "fence" or "wall" IMHO; nobody pretends that it's going to offer security for Palestinians, with IDF posted on both sides. DanKeshet
"Seperation" would be equally bad, because some seem to be claiming that there won't be any significant seperation. Israeli West Bank barrier would be one option - which would also have the advantage of distinguishing it from similar undertakings in the Gaza Strip. Martin 01:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, in truth, it is not completely a wall. Parts are just barbed-wire. Parts are just fence. So barrier the best word to use. However, security is POV. I'd like the name of this article to be Israeli barrier or West Bank barrier (to differentiate it with the possible Gaza Strip barrier of the future). Kingturtle 01:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Regardless of all the PsOV here, the 'fence' is only one component of a structure which also contains earth mounds, ditches, concrete slabs, barbed wire, lighting, CCTV, listening devices, no-mans-land, roadway, etc. The function of the structure as a whole can accurately be described as 'barrier'. The title of this page seems fair enough to me. Moriori 01:40, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC).

Official name

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses the name: "anti-terrorist fence" and "security fence" in its official punlications, as well as the headlines. Check for example:

MathKnight 11:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The barrier comes under the Ministry of Defence, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the official site in Hebrew [3], I can find only "security fence" (but I didn't follow every link). --Zero 13:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which United Nations body?

The article mentions the fence was condemned by "A United Nations report" as a "blatant grab for land." That doesn't sound like terminology someone like, say, Kofi Annan would use, so perhaps we should qualify this by saying who exactly issued the report. --Delirium 03:52, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

I've no idea myself, I was summarising from news articles. Delirium's right, of course. Martin 18:07, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My gut says it was probably one of the, er...I have no idea what to call them. The strange "lobbying groups" funded and inside the UN to lobby the UN, like the "Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People". No firm evidence, though. -Penta 11:07, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ha'aretz calls it the separation fence, so perhaps Israeli separation fence is the most NPOV title. Opinions? -- 213.73.231.245 23:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue. Basically, those who argue it is for security call it a security barrier or security fence, those who argue it is for separation call it a separation barrier or separation fence, and those who argue it is for apartheid-style separation call it an apartheid wall. None of the terms is perfectly NPOV, really. I'd lean vaguely towards putting it at Israeli security barrier (its current location), as that's somewhat closer to its official title (and those who oppose it could take it as a wryly sarcastic name). We should mention the other names up-front though. Basically, put it at security barrier, and say "Israel calls it a security barrier but some opponents argue its real underlying purpose is [blah]". --Delirium 22:05, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Zero deleted my side-remark that the Israelis deny Palestinian claims that the barrier will have various ill effects on the Palestinian population. here is the Israeli Defence Ministry website at which they specifically deny these claims. Adam 07:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No they don't. I don't think you understand the language used on that page. What they claim is that "the route reflects a balance between the operational and humanitarian concerns". That's Israeli for "our security needs override your quality of life needs". Not the same thing at all. --Zero 11:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK so you don't accept the sincerity of their denials, and neither do I. That doesn't alter the fact that they deny that the wall will divide Palestinian communities, cut farmers off from their land etc. They do deny it. If you want to refute their denials, fine. But you can't just delete the statement that they deny it. Adam 11:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please read it more carefully. It does not deny that any farmers are cut off from their land. It only claims that efforts are made to reduce it: "attempts are being made to avoid separating owners from their lands. In circumstances where such a separation is unavoidable...". So they admit it happens, the case is only based on the frequency and the necessity. They are hardly going to claim more than that when the Israeli press is full of stories about farmers separated from their lands. That page does not deny that any communities are divided, either. --Zero 11:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, the picture is of a section of temporary barrier and not what the final product looks like. If it's the temporary barrier between East Jerusalem and Abu Dis, it is currently being replaced by a 8-9m concrete wall. --Zero 11:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fine, fine, fine, I dare say you are right. I am a little distracted today and sick of arguing with people. It's not my article anyway. Incidentally I am surprised no-one has bitten at Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990. Obviously I need to be more provocative. Adam 11:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The official name of the Berlin Wall was obviously "The Antifascist Wall of Protection"... // Liftarn


If Gush-Shalom link have place, so does the link to the terror victims.


Security Aspects of the Barrier

Too many addition have been deleted by Zero without good reason.

Such as:

Maariv also queted Palestinian terrorists (January 23, 2004) claiming that the barrier have thwarted their suicide bombings attempts.
Some sections of the barrier, near Qalqiliya and Jerusalem, consist of a high concrete wall in order to protect Israeli car travelings on the nearby highways from gunfire.

The barrier has security functions that cannot be denied or be ignored.

The gunfire claim is now in the proper place and I also moved some other things. please try to preserve the article structure (description in one place, official opinions in another place, legal stuff in another, etc). The reason I keep removing the Maariv "quote" is that I don't trust your report of it. Bring us a link to the article, or an equivalent one. --Zero 22:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here is the quete (article itself in Hebrew): http://images.maariv.co.il/cache/cachearchive/23012004/ART634947.html - the article is by Amir Rapoport. A quote from it: "The fence is making it difficult to commit a suicide bombing (orginal word: PIGUA פיגוע) inside Israel".

Here is a translation of the entire article. I did it quickly, and rather than fix it up to conform to English style, I tried to be as literal as possible so that there is no confusion. It is my translation.

In a series of recently conducted investigations of active Palestinian terrorists, the bottom line was identical. "The fence makes it very difficult for us to get terrorist attacks out," those being investigated admitted. The people being investigated were arrested over the past few weeks in different regions of Samaria. One of them, a senior member of Islamic Jihad, said over the past few days that he was personally involved in attempts to get suicide bomber into Israel, but the fence prevented him from doing this.
"The things that the Palestinians are saying in the investigations are further proof of the efficiency of the fence," say senior official in the defense system [i.e., military, secret service, and Ministry of Defense, Danny]. In internal discussions conducted over the past few days in the Central Command, General Moshe Kaplinsky, Chief of Central Command, said that "The fence is even more effective in preventing terrorist attacks than I had estimated." The Central Command recently completed initial summaries of the effectiveness of the fence. These summaries show that in the first half-year since the fence was created, the section of fence stretching from Jenin in the north to Elkana in the center of the country [it is actually a settlement, but who is counting, Danny], the fence has prevented dozens of terrorist attacks. The summaries also found that in most areas, terrorists even had difficulty reaching the fence, since the surrounding area was defined as a special security zone where movement (or traffic, Danny) is forbidden. At the same time, the IDF has begun this week to collect testimonies and photographed materials from those areas in which the fence was erected, in preparation for the hearing on the fence in the International Court in the Hague next month. The materials being collected are intended to prove the effectiveness of the fence in preventing terror.

Hope this helps. Danny 00:33, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Anon and Danny. I added a sentence to the article. --Zero 00:46, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Israel's Security Fence

I would like to suggest that we change the current URL <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_wall> for one more neutral. -- ANON.

It's not the current article name, it's only a redirect. The main name is "Israeli security barrier", which I don't like either. I think "Israeli separation barrier" would be more NPOV, or if necessary just "Israeli barrier". --Zero 10:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vote for title

I think a vote for the name is in order here. I think the ideal solution is to do a separate (Condorcet) vote on every part:

  • First adjective: Israeli, Israel, Israel-Palestine, West Bank
  • Second adjective (if any): security, partitioning, separation, apartheid, anti-terrorism, [none]
  • Noun: barrier, wall, partition, fence, applicance

Dissident 02:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

added to Oasis, please join us there for further discussion, Zero0000

The reason why I made the title change was because the vote seemed to be going nowhere. I think that the current name is the most neutral one can think of; the Palestinians can say that the wall separates them from their own people and land, while Israel can say that it separates them from the terrorists. -- Dissident 02:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is terrible, but nevertheless "separation" is better than "security". To those who think it is an anti-Israeli name I'll say that in Israel the most common name (used by government spokespeople as well) is GADER HA'HAFRADA, "the separation fence". --Zero 07:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What happened with the pictures? Some trouble with the server? // Liftarn

  • Dunno. The images won't come up for me either. Kingturtle 06:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero, this barrier is a barrier to separate two groups of people and to control the movement of people across the barrier. In this way it is similar to a number of other barriers and walls, some constructed along borders, some on political boundaries, some on armistice lines, some whereever the builders wished to place the barrier. Examples in order: US-Mixico barrier, Berlin Wall, North-South Korea, Great Wall of China (and Hadrians Wall, etc). OneVoice 14:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For each of those examples one can say how it is dissimilar. It is certainly unique in the modern world in the flouting of international law. Mintguy (T)

??? evidently people were saying the same things about the Saudi Yemen barrier...that would damage a claim regarding uniqueness OneVoice 15:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have an IRCR source for the statement "The IRCR said that it would have many fewer objections if the barrier followed the Green Line,"??? If not, it should be removed. It seems to contradict this quote: "The ICRC's opinion is that the West Bank Barrier, in as far as its route deviates from the "Green Line" into occupied territory, is contrary to IHL."[4] (emphasis added) OneVoice 15:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After reading the ICRC statement...its seems undeniable that the location is the issue....changed to page to be and exact quote OneVoice 16:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note this item from the page regarding the UN resolution: "The construction by Israel, the occupying power, of a wall in the Occupied Territories departing from the armistice line of 1949 is illegal under relevant provisions of international law and must be ceased and reversed." (emphasis added.) OneVoice 16:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with the quotation now in the article, which agrees with what I had partly in paraphrase before. The comment about having less problems if the fence was on the Green Line was from Ha'aretz; exact text: ICRC official Balthasar Staehelin said that if the barrier were moved back to the Green Line - the boundary before Israel seized the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East War - "that would solve many of the problems as far as we are concerned." [5]


Shouldn't we have a photograph that reflects better the reality that this Security Barrier is about 97% chain-link and not concrete walls? This site has some photographs we might be able to use:

http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/default.htm

Orbis Tertius 07:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The barrier is not in fact a fence -- to call it that is highly misleading, as are narrow focus photos that show a fence but not the surrounding environs. While a photo of a pillbox is not representative, neither is a photo that doesn't show the ditches, razor wire, etc. that accompany the "chain-link fence". The site you mention does have photos of work in progress, e.g., http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/operational.htm. It's worth noting the description there: "a multi layered composite obstacle comprised of several elements ...". The full description looks accurate, and is of far more than a "chain-link fence". As this is an official Israeli site, the description is probably worth quoting in full, and I think it would pass NPOV muster.

ICJ Ruling

If Israeli government decided to ignore the court and not to protect itself, who did then? Who represented the Israeli side? Or does the court make all investigations by itself? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My understanding was that the Israeli government declared that the court had no jurisdiction over plans for defense. They are also not one of the nations that signed up to be bound to the courts rulings. - Tεxτurε 20:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nobody really represented the Israeli side. At the hearings, only pro-Palestinian speakers showed up. Israel decided not to send anybody, nor did anybody who supported the Israeli position (which was, basically, that it wasn't an issue the court had any right to rule on). Supporters of that POV included the US and several major European countries.

And, to top it off, nobody really can enforce the ICJ's rulings. It has no enforcement powers. It can only ask the UN to do something.

Given that the chances of the UN doing anything are slim to none, this is mostly a PR victory for the Palestinians. How much of one? Nobody knows. Even the idea of it setting a precedent could be questioned, if it just gets ignored....Which seems quite likely, as neither the US nor many major countries wanted the court to even rule.

Why did nobody want them to rule? Because: A. The Israelis already see Europe and the UN as biased, and adding fuel to the fire is unlikely to help anybody; B. It creates a nasty headache, in that Israel is probably likely to take any attempt to enforce said ruling as an attack against their sovereignty, given that they never signed up to jurisdiction by the ICJ for ANYTHING; C. The UN is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If it does, any hope of the UN ever having any impact on the Middle East is gone. If it doesn't, Palestinian propaganda will say the UN is an Israeli puppet. --Penta 22:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your summary is highly misleading. The oral arguments are a trivial part of the process. Most submissions to the court are done on paper and Israel submitted one of the largest documents. Other countries supporting all or part of the Israeli position (eg the USA) also made lengthy submissions. So to say that the Israeli side was not represented is simply false. --Zero 02:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your summary is also misleading. The ICJ is (I understand it) a court of arbitration; i.e. two sides agree to arbitration and present their cases. Israel did not agree to arbitration, nor did it present its case to the court. Moreover, the ICJ simply has no jurisdiction in this area, a point affirmed by Israel, and I believe by the United States, Canada, the E.U., and even Russia. As for the actual court "case" being "trivial", and the submissions of various interested parties being the "meat" of the trial, I find this idea to be wildly at odds with norms of jurisprudence. Jayjg 14:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry but you are wrong on all counts. This was an advisory opinion, not an arbitration. Advisory opinions do not require the agreement of the parties involved in them. The UN Charter (Article 96) clearly gives the UNGA the right to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on legal issues of its choosing, so you are wrong about jurisdiction. In any case, the ICJ itself is the highest authority to decide on its jurisdiction and you can find this discussed in the judgment. Next, of the countries/groups you give none denied the ICJ's jurisdiction except for Israel. The others argued that the ICJ had the power to not give an opinion even if the UNGA asked for one and further argued that it should not give an opinion (not for legal reasons but on the grounds that it would complicate the peace process, or similar). Israel argued that the UNGA acted improperly in various ways when it asked for the advisory opinion but the court ruled against that (see the judgement for a lengthy discussion on it). The submissions are all visible at the ICJ web site. Your last sentence makes little sense to me. Most submissions to the ICJ are done in writing and some are briefly summarised verbally to the court. This is normal for that court. I don't believe there was anything said verbally to the court that was not also put in writing, but there was lots in writing not said verbally. Moroever, the legal arguments made by Israel in its written submission are considered at length in the court ruling, so it is simply wrong to claim that they weren't heard. --Zero 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


The UN Charter may give the ICJ the right to ask for an advisory opinion, but not in this case for a number of reasons. From the Israeli position paper: The request for the Advisory Opinion was outside the competence of the Emergency Special Session which made it. This Emergency Special Session was convened under the “Uniting for Peace” procedure. Under its own rules, this procedure is available only where “the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security”. In the current case there has been no such failure by the Security Council. To the contrary, less than 19 days before the Emergency Special Session adopted the Advisory Opinion resolution, the Security Council exercised this responsibility by endorsing the Roadmap in resolution 1515 and declaring itself to be “seized of the matter”. The issue of requesting an Advisory Opinion, it should be noted, was never raised before the Security Council.
Additionally, the Uniting for Peace procedure provides that it is only applicable when the General Assembly is “not in session at the time”. On this occasion, however, the General Assembly was meeting in regular session at the very time the Emergency Special Session was convened to consider the advisory opinion request. Moreover, the “Resumed” nature of the Emergency Special Session - convened on 12 separate occasions since April 1997 is clearly at odds with the intent of a procedure which envisages the convening of an emergency session to address a specific issue of immediate concern.
As regards the jurisdiction of the Court, its Statute as well as the UN Charter provide that an Advisory Opinion can only be given on a “legal question”. The question posed in this case is so vague and uncertain as to be incapable of being considered a “legal question”. It gives no indication whether the Court is being asked to find that a given situation is unlawful, or merely to assume its illegality. Further, it asks the Court to ascertain “legal consequences” without indicating for whom, even though legal consequences cannot exist in a vacuum.
In other words, UNGA does have a right to ask for an advisory opinion, but not under these circumstances. There are many other reasons why the ICJ should have realized that it should not have attempted to arbitrate in this matter, and would indeed have realized that, were it not a political (rather than judicial) body. Jayjg 16:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know why you bothered to copy all this stuff from the Israeli position. Not even the US supported these arguments. They are all discussed and dismissed in pages 14-21 of the ICJ ruling. --Zero 04:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The US did resist the ICJ to rule on the case as well as for what it ruled, a verdict which Powell called "illegitimate". And honestly, the ICJ ruling is whether a poor legal document, clearly noticed it is biased. MathKnight 10:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
'This was an advisory opinion, not an arbitration.' So it wasn't really a judgement but merely an advice? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Correct, though this is usually glossed over in the press, and attempts are often made to gloss over it here as well. Jayjg 02:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about the cost?

I've seen wildly varying estimates of the barrier's cost per mile and en toto, shouldn't the article contain a paragraph about the projected cost, actual cost, rising cost, etc? Svigor

The IDF won't have enough troops to properly patrol even 1/2 of the fence when completed. The fact is is that the IDF wants the wall to cut off more settlements (along with the popular majority in Israel), but cannot say so because the military is an arm of the government.

Do you think it is about time to start categorize the links? (such as "official Israeli position" , "official UN position" , news-press and pro-fence and con-fence)? MathKnight 10:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instead of that, how about just dividing them by source, such as "Israeli government", "Other governments", "United Nations", "Press", and so on? --Zero 13:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fine with me. MathKnight 14:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opinions

Guys, quit it with adding yet more identical comments on the ICJ ruling. Currently there are far more negative than positive reactions in the article, which is a bias and a distortion. It would be easy to add dozens of positive comments from different governments, NGOs, etc etc. There isn't even a quotation from a Palestinian leader. --Zero 01:36, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In relation to the latest revert-skirmish concerning the interview: Zero gives this reason for deleting Schily's opinion "delete unoriginal remarks from unimportant politician who has neither special expertise nor special involvement in this issue". I agree that he has no special involvement but he has expertise regarding the Berlin Wall (which has been a source of quite an argument below). Also, how is he less important than ICRC? Right now at the general Opinions section we have a number of Israeli opinions, a number of Palestinian, and 1 negative 3rd party opinion. I think we should include 1 positive opinion from a 3rd party so not to give the impression that those are the opinions of all "outsiders". --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 05:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The ICRC is eminently qualified in the matter, and it fits squarely into the ICRC mandate to comment on it. The German interior minister has no special mandate for it. Moreover, he did not say anything that is not already mentioned as an opinon in the article. Another reason he should not be quoted is that it misleadingly suggests his opinion is representative of German government opinion, when the opposite is true. As for numerical balance, everyone knows that world opinion on the barrier is overwhelmingly negative so the balance is actually a bit the other way. --Zero 07:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't accept this argument. Let's leave the "world opinion" (on the Jews!) or the ICRC's supposed "netrality" out of this. The barrier is constantly being compared to Berlin Wall and the German minister's opinion is very relevant here. If not to affect the fate of the barrier, then at least to show that not all Germans are jerks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The nature of your response clearly indicates your motivations and simply reinforces my view on my this irrelevant quotation does not belong here. --Zero 12:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since when ICRC is qualified in security issues? Also, what did ICRC mention in the quote which wasn't said before in the article? About balance from NPOV: "Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view;" And regarding the last comment, Zero you should know that avoiding the argument by criticizing the opponent's POV presence is not very wise. In summary, I don't care who will provide the balanced (possibly security based) quote. In other words, if you don't like putting the opinion of that particular minister, then we should put someone else's --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 18:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The ICRC is the most experienced organization on earth when it comes to human rights issues, and also has standing on international law due to its special status in the administration of the Geneva Conventions. As for adding opinions, there are heaps of them out there that would just love to be added and the great majority are negative. If you want a quote-adding war, you will lose. You should cut your losses. --Zero 23:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"The ICRC is the most experienced organization on earth when it comes to human rights issues". Agreed. But that's not the problem. Read my post again. "If you want a quote-adding war". No that's not what I want. I want this article to be as balanced and NPOV as possible. Do you agree or not that by not balancing 3rd party opinions you damage NPOV of the article? If not, please read my quote from Wikipedia's policy again. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy. picture

Since the barrier is a fence for over 95% of its length, "fences" should come before "walls". As well, "a very small part" is imprecise, "under 5%" is more accurate.

As for the picture, why is an un-representative picture being shown? Hardly accurate or NPOV. Jayjg 03:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On the picture: we should have one of the wire barrier and one of the wall (preferably the Jerusalem portion, which is more significant both demographically and politically). Can you agree to two pictures? I can provide one of the Jerusalem wall taken by myself. Do we have one of the wire barrier? --Zero 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would agree to a picture of the concrete portions of the barrier if there were a similarly prominent picture of the wire portions. Jayjg 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
On the value 5%: the reason I removed it is that I don't believe it. I understand that the total constructed length of the barrier at the moment is about 250 km, so 5% would be only 13 km. There must be at least half that much at Qalqiliyia, and more than that much in the Abu Dis area and Bethlehem areas combined. I suspect that the 5% was calculated by dividing the existing length of concrete wall (existing when the calculation was made some time ago) by the projected final length of the barrier. Apples versus oranges. Or maybe it fails to include the long stretches of temporary concrete wall (2m high) in the Jerusalem area that are being progressively replaced by tall concrete wall. Either way, I can't see how it can possibly be true, but I can't find up-to-date statistics. Can you? --Zero 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The numbers I've seen recently range 97% being fence to (today) seeing a claim that 93% is fence. I've never seen any numbers outside that range. Simply disbelieving those numbers isn't enough, one must have concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they are incorrect. I'll look for some numbers today, but your own personal skepticism is not reason enough to keep them out. Jayjg 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not "simply disbelieving them", I'm making a judgment based on seeing the concrete wall in all of the places I mentioned. Anyway, isn't it people putting numbers in the article who have to prove them? Can you find a source for the 5% that does not originate with the Israeli government? Where did your 7% come from? --Zero 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Have you measured the lengths you've seen? The figures I have been able to find so far say that the barrier is planned to run 400 miles 15 miles of that would be concrete, or 3.75%. The 7% number (actually, "over 93%" I believe) came from an op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer this morning. Phase A was 137km from Salim to Elqana, and 20km north and south of Jerusalem, of which 8km was concrete. Phase B was 80 km from Salim to Tirat Tzvi, none of which was concrete. The other phases are still under construction, and I can't get numbers for how much of the concrete sections have been built. As for a number which does not originate with the Israeli government, it may be fashionable in some circles to dismiss everything the Israeli government says out of hand as a lie, but that is neither reasonable nor NPOV. If I provide a link from an Israeli government (or any other) source, and you have a link that disputes that, then you are free to provide that. Jayjg 16:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually I think that the question of fence versus wall is overblown. The wall looks more severe and must have a greater psychological effect on the people living near it, but the effect on the lives of the local population is the same in both cases. --Zero 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If it's "overblown", then would you be willing to have the article talk only of a fence, and only include pictures of a fence? Jayjg 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, because it is not true. --Zero 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ah. I guess the question isn't "overblown" after all. Jayjg 15:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So where's the more representative picture? This non-representative (and thus misleading) picture can't last much longer. Jayjg 15:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's remarkable that you declare a picture to be non-Point of View. How can a picture be POV? Does that section of wall exist along the barrier? Yes. If a problem exists, it is the context that the picture is in. If you think there are other pictures that belong, then you should add them. But you should not be deleting documentation that exists, particularly something as potent as that picture, which will be the part of the "wall" that people will remember and Palestinians point to. Stargoat 16:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of course pictures are POV, and that is why they are so often used for propaganda purposes; what is remarkable is that you would suggest they are not. Subject matter, framing, choice of shots, are all choices the photographer makes, often with a specific agenda in mind. In fact, you yourself admit as much, pointing out how "potent" the image in question is, and that "people will remember and Palestinians point to [it]." Pro-Israel propaganda shows pictures of dead Israeli children; pro-Palestinian propaganda show pictures of dead Palestinian children. Yet an article which described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and which had as its only image a picture of a dead Palestinian child could hardly be called NPOV.
There is no question that the inclusion of only this highly non-representative picture is POV; the only question is, how best to restore NPOV. A suggestion was made to add a more representantive picture of the barrier, which seemed reasonable; however, if no representative picture can be found, then other mitigation will be required, and removing this picture is the simplest method. Regardless of the method, mitigation needs to be done quickly, this POV situation has remained for quite some time and needs to be fixed. Jayjg 17:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Original Source material is not POV. The interpretation and use of the material is. In this case, the photograph is not POV. The photograph alone, suggesting that this is the entire construction of the wall is. If you don't like it, add some more photographs. Removing the photograph alone would be removing documentation, and that is unacceptable. Stargoat 18:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I can only re-iterate that pictures are POV, and good photographers are good precisely because (among other things) they can communicate their POV in the picture. As it stands, the picture is non-representative and thus POV. As for removing "documentation", everything is "documentation". Hundreds of pro-Israel, or anti-Palestinian quotes are also documentation, and they are regularly removed from these kinds of articles (usually to cries of "censorship"). The articles here are not intended to be exhaustive, they are intended to be accurate and NPOV; the vast majority of "documentation" relating to any topic is not included in the articles. Jayjg 19:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The picture is not POV in the least. Even though (probably) less than 10% of the barrier is concrete, that concrete appears disproportionately in the vacinity of population areas. Tall concrete wall is what a large fraction of Palestinians who live near the barrier see every day. The only unusual thing about this picture is the pillbox, as much of the concrete wall does not have pillboxes. I will replace it by a picture of the Abu Dis concrete wall. AND (Jayjg, this means you) it is not my sole responsibility to find a suitable picture of the wire portion of the barrier. --Zero 23:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, now you're getting into statistical arguments of rather dubious provenance. The percentage of the total length which is concrete can be verified; the "disproportionate" percentage which Palestinians "see every day" cannot be verified, and is a highly subjective measure of "representativeness" in any event. If you look at my talk page, you'll see I've found a number of more representative pictures, but I can't tell if they can be used on Wikipedia. Maybe you can. Jayjg 01:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what statistical arguments you are referring to. It is a well-known fact that all of the concrete portions of the barrier have a populated area either on one side or on both sides. (It makes sense: if there was no populated area there, why would they make a high concrete wall anyway?) Therefore, the concrete wall impacts people in greater proportion than its fraction of the total length. That's mathematics rather than statistics. --Zero 11:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Statistical, mathematical, whatever; more to the point, you brought up the issue of "disproportionate" impact, as if the "impact" difference between a wire fence and a concrete wall could be measured in any meaningful way. And indeed, in a comment you made a couple of days ago, you basically said that the impact on their lives was more or less the same, but that the "psychological" impact would be greater (again, something that cannot be measured in any meaningful way). The bottom line is that it's a fence for 95% of its length, and this is both meaningful and measurable. If the picture used only shows what 5% of it looks like (and in this case, with the pillbox, what far less than 1% of it looks like), simply because it is the most fortified/intimidating/permanent/militaristic looking section, then it is propagandistic and POV. It would be similar to having an article on Palestinians, and having as the only picture of a Palestinian a fully armed terrorist/militant. One way or another, NPOV needs to be adhered to in this matter. Jayjg 16:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As a timely compromise, until a better picture will be obtained, I suggest to add the caption of the ppicture a remark that says only 5% of the barrier is concrete wall. MathKnight 17:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't read every single bit of this talk page, but I do not see any apparent consensus on removing the Qalqilya wall image.. So, could somebody point me to where the apparent agreement is? Speaking separately, I am deeply in favour of keeping the image. From my readings and conversations, Qalqilyah is one of the very important, heavily cited and well-discussed sections of the wall. In terms of symbolism, I would like to point out that the Berlin wall was only a very small part of the iron curtain (107km; not even 5%), and yet it played heavily into discussions and the psyches of both peoples. Tarek 17:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note the long debate about it here, mostly between me (wanting to delete the un-representative image) and Zero (wanting to keep it). Then, per the agreement here, Zero is nice enough to go out and find two more representative pictures, and on August 1 creates the current version [6]. Jayjg 19:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No agreement here. Only some people against a good picture of Wall. Abdel Qadir 05:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there was agreement long ago until you showed up. The people who objected agreed to change the picture months ago, and even put in the representative pictures. I would also note that violating the Three Revert Rule is grounds for a 24 hour block. Jayjg 05:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also do not see any overt agreement. To be clear, I reverted the image though I strongly disagree with Jayjg's POV edit because I did not want to commit the same offence that I perceived Jayjg to be committing. I think this can be done simply: What is the wording of the agreement, and who made it? If this cannot be presented, then Jayjg should revert the picture and we can gain consensus now. Tarek 17:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please look a couple of sections down at the Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#suggested_new_image section. The debate here was me, who wanted to get rid of the un-representative picture, vs. Zero0000 and Stargoat, who wanted to keep it. Zero0000 proposed two new more representative pictures to replace the existing one. Zero0000 then went and took a new picture, I found a second picture and Zero0000 got copyright release for it. I congratulated him, Stargoat congratulated him, consensus was reached, and the issue was resolved for over 4 months. Jayjg 17:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I apologize if I am being unclear. I know all of the 'relevant' sections, as I have by now read them all and followed this discussion. However, I have not found any specific agreement on removing that one specific picture. Obviously, agreeing on such a potentially contentious issue includes clearly stating what the agreement is, so please quote that clear statement for our benefit, or revert the image and (re?)start the consensus process here. Tarek 02:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On July 16 Zero0000 said (above) "On the picture: we should have one of the wire barrier and one of the wall (preferably the Jerusalem portion, which is more significant both demographically and politically). Can you agree to two pictures? I can provide one of the Jerusalem wall taken by myself. Do we have one of the wire barrier?" Two pictures, one of the Jerusalem portion of the wall, and one of the wire fence. The pillbox version is neither of those. Agreement was reached, the pictures were procured, and the old picture replaced with the two new pictures agreed to. Everyone was happy, and the status quo lasted for the next 4 months. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this agreement. Jayjg 15:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You incorrectly infer from the agreement to include other pictures that all editors have agreed to delete the photo you propose to delete. There was no consensus to delete the photo. There was your demand that that the photo was unrepresentative and there were other editors acting to find photos to assuage your demands by providing other photos that would meet your demands. That doesn't imply agreement with your demand to delete a factual photo. It is not an explicit expression of consensus. At least on other editor involved in the discussion at that time - Tareq - is disputing your assertion of consensus and I am disputing your claims that the photo is "unrepresentative", the basis for deleting it, and the existence of your alleged consensus now. The picture of the Wall that you want to delete is very significant. It shows the ugliness of the Israeli wall. There is no rule that says photos must be representative. A photo is a factual representation of the facts. This is aone part of the wall. Deleting it is a form of cesorship of the reality of the Wall in at least some places. In any case, how is representativeness determined? Your opinion does not suffice. What percentage of the wall is fence and what percent is wall? What is the representative appearance in populated areas? What is considered a representative portion? What are the future final plans for the wall's appearance? The photo will be returned top the article without deleting any other photo. Adding information is preferable to deleting information. --Alberuni 17:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quotation Game

The "game" of quotations has become totally ridiculous and the article is a mess. The main fault lies with those who started it (you know who you are). Now Buergenthal has more space than the ICJ ruling itself, and what the f**k is Kerry doing there? When he gets to be president we can quote him. Meanwhile he is nobody. I propose that the quotations section be cut to a fraction of its current size with equal space to both sides. Since the overwhelming reaction of the world to the ICJ ruling was positive, this is a major concession. --Zero 23:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the "game" is ridiculous, and your proposed solution is much better. Jayjg 01:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, the ruling itself is a fiasco and legally defected, not to say very one sided. It clearly not honors the ICJ. The reaction for ICJ ruling from democrat countries is been negative - a specially in Israel and the US, when they both reject the ICJ's ruling as illegitimate and even accused that the ruling denies Israel the right to self defense (it is a serious accusition, you know). It is obviously clear that international reaction is much more interesting than the ruling itself - as the ruling itself is only advisory (i.e. non-binding) and until the UN Security Council decides to do something (and probably will trash it away due to US veto) with that it is null and void and worth no more than a publicity stunt. If the Palestinians think they can promote peace by bashing Israel in international forums they are wrong. The ICJ's affair only increased hatred to Palestinians and UN institues - which are considered to be anti-Israeli biased and therefore morally irrelevant in Israeli public opinion. MathKnight 10:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've edited the quote for Buergenthal again. I think it's important to explain why one member of the panel has dissented, and I think this is best done using his own words. I have not paraphrased him this time, just taken his explanation in his opening paragraph. Jayjg - your attempts to cast Buergenthal as believing that the opinon of the court is totally false are misguided. If you read his whole opinion, rather than just looking for soundbites, you'll see that his argument is more of a procedural one rather than a factual one. For example, you quoted him as saying that Israel has a right to self-defence, note para 9 of his declaration, where he feels that the wall would not qualify for this along much of it's length. But hey. I'd be happy if we drop the Buergenthal comments alltogether. Iridium77 17:38, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In fact, it's best to summarize Buergenthal's views, as I have done, rather than putting big globs of quotes into the text. What you have actually done taken one carefully chosen quotation theoretically supporting part of the ruling out of a larger body of text which is mostly quite negative on the ruling, thus changing the whole thrust and import of his dissenting opinion. As for your claim that the Buergenthal "feels that the wall would not qualify for this along much of it's length", this is quite untrue, and only your careful choice of quotations makes it even appear this way. Buergenthal thinks that the barrier "raises serious questions" in international law, but is quite clear that some or even all of it may be perfectly justified. His main point was that the court couldn't come to its conclusion because it simply did not have the proper evidence to reach a conclusion.
Regarding Powell, you can't keep editing his statements to what you think he should have said as NPOV, but rather need to accept that he said what he did. Jayjg 18:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I believe that you have mis-read Buergenthal's statement. His view is, to paraphrase, "We didn't consider all the evidence, so we can't draw any worthwhile conclusions". Therefore, to present him as having drawn conclusions from the material - which he does not - is fundamentally flawed. Note especially that he says that "there is much in the Opinion with which [he] agree[s]". His arguments against the opinion all come from the fact that the court should have looked at the right of israel to self defense more closely. He does not disagree with the opinions as given.
Regarding my "careful choice of quotations," try this:
"It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self‑defence."
and since the stated aim of the wall is to protect israeli settlements, I think this is hard to disagree with. I'm not sure how you consider my analysis to be based on limited quotations - he states this view very clearly.
I propose that we remove discussions of Buergenthal's analysis, rather just say that he felt that "the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings; it should therefore have declined to hear the case." and provide a link to his declaration. This okay with you? Iridium77 19:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about this:
Thomas Buergenthal was the sole dissenting member of the 15 judges on this ICJ panel. In his declaration [3] (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwp_advisory_opinion/imwp_advisory_opinion_declaration_buergenthal.htm) he concluded that the court should have declined to hear the case since the it did not have before it "relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel's legitimate right of self-defense."
This statement captures the key reason for his dissent, and also one of the key reasons other critics object to the ruling. Jayjg 19:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll make that edit now. Iridium77 19:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Regarding Powell. I did *not* change what he said. We are reporting what he said, so how we wrap his quotes up is rather up to us. In german, we'd use a subjunctive, which makes it clear that what is being quoted is that person's opinion. In english, for the article to remain NPOV whilst reporting somebody's point of view, we must make extra efforts to use neutral language. Therefore, I'm changing that back again, for the moment. Iridium77 19:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We're not speaking German here, and in English you are changing Powell to saying things he did not say, and which do not coincide with fact either. No-one sees the Court's ruling as binding, certainly not in International Law, and Powell said the ruling is non-binding, not that he or the U.S. "sees it that way". And Powell said the barrier has "cut down the number of people crossing over to conduct terrorist attacks"; whether or not this it true, or false, or speculation is irrelevant. He didn't say it is "said to have" cut down on attacks, he said it had done so. In English it is clear that this is Powell's opinion, and once you change the way you "wrap up his quotes", you falsify what he has said. Jayjg 19:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That said, I've changed the text around the quotes to be more neutral, and to make it even clearer that this is Powell's opinion. Jayjg 19:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The facts don't matter when you're quoting someone, especially Powell ;-) Either way, I'm happy with your edits now. Iridium77 19:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've had to modify one. Since the ICJ ruling is non-binding (as the article itself points out), I've made it clear that Powell noted the ruling is non-binding, since this is not his opinion, but merely a statement of fact. Jayjg 02:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Powell

I believe Powell was mis-quoted. The original source for this quotation seems to be [7], or somewhere that has syndicated it. Note that Powell is not quoted as saying "As Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states, every sovereign nation has the right of self-defense. That includes Israel, despite the illegitimate effort of the ICJ’s to infringe on that right.", rahter that is commentary by AIPAC. As such, I have modified the article again. Iridium77 19:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, this was the orginal source: [8]. Secondly, Powell year-earlier statement is pretty irrelevant, since: a) he probably related to a certain route (I assume he related the Eastern Barrier, which is out of plans for the near future) , b) It is not a recation to the verdict itself. MathKnight 20:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The israelinn site has mis-quoted it.
Regarding the other quotation snippets here, this is the interview that is being quoted [9]. There seems to be mixed-up quotations from his testimony and this interview here. Thus, I have changed the year-earlier quote to one from the same interview, which seems more appropriate, as you point out. Iridium77 20:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I had not noticed that the source was Arutz Sheva (aka israelinn), else I would have killed it immediately. Let's get our quotations from reputable sources, folks. --Zero 06:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good news, Zero0000;between the two of us I think we've managed to clean out most of the crud (for now). Jayjg 02:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

suggested new image

The barrier at Abu Dis, east of Jerusalem, June 2004

Here is my photo of the barrier at Abu Dis, near the eastern boundary of Jerusalem. This is the most common appearance of the concrete portion of the barrier, except for the older temporary parts (2m high) that are being replaced by a high wall as in this picture. Now we need a good photo of the wire fence portion of the barrier and we can feature both of them in the article. We can discuss placement and size when we have both images. --Zero 06:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you know how Copy Rights issue can found of pictures searched in Google?
There isn't a way to do it in general unless the owner is apparent. I am going to write to the owner of these: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], to see if we can permission to use one of them. --Zero 11:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No luck, he won't agree. --Zero 12:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Zero. The new image seems fine. Are any of these images available?

--Jayjg 15:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, we have permission to use the third image. I reduced it to the same width as the wall picture. These two pictures together give a reasonable overview of most of the barrier.

File:JeninFence.jpg
The barrier near Jenin, northern West Bank, July 2003

Great work! Thank you! Jayjg 16:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Way to go. Stargoat 17:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to get these pictures into the main body of the article? Jayjg 05:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I can do it, maybe tomorrow. --Zero 09:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be good if somebody who knows Hebrew could update the link number 8 in the references section ( http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2944632,00.html ) to have a meaningful link text, e.g. giving a translation of the linked page's title. --K. Sperling 22:01, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

A one-to-one translation of title would be:
"President Katsav calls to complete the building of the seperation fence"
though in the body of the article he say "security fence". However, I decided to title it as:
"Reaction of Israeli leaders and politicians"
since it is more informative and truely describe the content of the article. There are reactions there from Yossef Lapid, Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid, Muhammed Barakhe (Arab MK), Uri Luplianski (Jerusalem's mayor), Yuri Stern, Ahmed Tibi (Arab MK), Ehud Yatom, Yossi Beilin, Jamal Khazalke and Roman Bronfman. I could translate some of the reaction if you want. MathKnight 22:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete this article

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

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

Fence vs. Wall

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

Berlin Wall

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

Sounds good to me. Jayjg 16:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One of the most important issues of the past sixty years was the Berlin Wall, and Israel is building a very similar thing? When I bring up the West Bank Barrier to people who don't know of it, the first thing they say is, "Like the Berlin Wall?" Lose the POV, keep the link to the Berlin Wall. Stargoat 16:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The paragraph on the other hand about the Berlin Wall was rambling and POV. I've removed it. Stargoat 16:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Israel is building something that is nothing like the Berlin Wall; the only thing they have in common is that they are barriers. In fact, the Israeli barrier has far more in common with the Great Wall of China than it does with the Berlin Wall. The link goes too. Jayjg 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Berlin Wall is the most recent largescale, worldstage event. It obviously belongs. Stargoat 21:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Most recent largescale world event"? That's meaningless. Lots of largescale world events have happened, many more recently, and (more to the point) lots of big barriers have been built. More relevant recent examples of barriers would be in Saudi Arabia, India/Kashmir, and Morocco. The only thing that the Berlin Wall has in common with the Israeli Security Barrier is that it is a barrier; by practically every other meaningful measure they are un-alike. Well, except for the unspoken assumption here; the "right-thinking" people and countries opposed both the Berlin Wall and the Israeli Security Barrier, and the U.S. and Israel also oppposed the Berlin Wall, therefore the U.S. and Israel are hypocritical for supporting the Barrier. Jayjg 14:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What's meaningless is your POV argument. The most politically charged event of the past 60 years, that piece of the Cold War the entire world pointed to, was the Berlin Wall. Now, a new wall is being built, garnering similar attention. What's more, almost everyone who hears of this seperation barrier instantly says, "like the Berlin Wall?" All other references to the Berlin Wall have been removed from the article. The link belongs. Stargoat 15:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The correct answer to the question "Like the Berlin Wall?" (which anyway nobody asks any more) is "no". That's why the link does not belong. --Zero 16:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. Jayjg 23:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your argument is POV. The link, a single line, is in reference to an event of definite and remarkable similarity and world importance. That this argument is taking place in multiple places in the article, is proof that the two events are linked. That it happens to offend your partisan sensibilities is besides the point. The link belongs. Stargoat 13:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There have been many "politically charged events" in the past 60 years; your claim that the Berlin Wall was "the most" politically charged event is like the claims of Rock and Roll afficionados that a certain song was "the best" Rock and Roll song ever written. Your claim that almost everyone who hears of this seperation barrier instantly says, "like the Berlin Wall?" is unsubstantiated rhetoric, and most likely false. And, as Zero points out, the answer to your question anyway is "No"; the Berlin Wall is nothing like the Israeli Separation Barrier, except that they are both barriers. Finally, your claim that Zero's argument is POV is also unsubstantiated rhetoric; you have yet to provide a single logical explanation of how the Israeli barrier is actually like the Berlin Wall (aside from the obvious points that they are both barriers). Related links should actually be related to the topic at hand, not give links to unrelated and unalike topics that merely reflect a political viewpoint designed to censure one side in a debate. Jayjg 14:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

non-bindingness of UNGA resolutions

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

All UNGA resolutions are non-binding, and that is quite clear in International Law. When the U.N. was founded they were intended to have the effect of moral suasion, but the UNGA has long since abandoned all pretense of being a body of moral judgement, and is now just a convenient location for international politicking, posturing, and speech-making. For that matter, most UNSC resolutions are non-binding as well, except those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. In any event, the article gives the impression that Israel's rejection of the resolutions is some sort of "defiance" of International Law, and so the modifier non-binding makes it clear that is it not. Many newspaper articles also include this modifier, in an effort to clarify what is otherwise confusing and often misunderstood. I'm going to restore the non-binding stuff now. Jayjg 05:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now the article has "non-binding" all over it and it looks really silly. --Zero 12:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) Jayjg 16:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weasel Words

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

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

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

Map of fence

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

Here is one example: [17] and another [18]

--(that insertion unsigned by 69.138.236.221)

Recently activity of the Israeli Supreme Court makes it appear less likely that an eastern barrier will be built. We should not change the map yet because the government has made recent substantial changes to the route and these are not public yet. The most recent detailed maps that I know of are [19] (all WB) and [20] (Jerusalem area), both dated July 1, 2004. --Zero 05:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

Foreign Affairs quote deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Whether it is a "fence" vs a "wall" is at the heart of a political debate (though, as you point, we all agree that it is mostly a fence). However, it is more than just a fence or a wall, which is why separation barrier is the preferred neutral terminology for this construction. This completely avoids the issue of whether or not the purpose is "security", and encompasses the fact that it separation barriers are often of mixed materials, and include things like cleared areas, roads, landmines, etc. You may think you're being reasonable, but you're ignoring the highly political nature of language. Jayjg 17:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You have no right to impose your particular interpretation of the connotations of "wall" and "fence" on the rest of us, for whom a "wall" is a "solid structure that defines and sometimes protects space, made from solid brick or concrete, blocking vision as well as passage", and a "fence" is a "freestanding structure designed to restrict or prevent movement across a boundary, without blocking view". Thus "wall" and "fence" are perfectly suited to describe the West Bank barrier, and I will continue to use them for this purpose regardless of whatever meaning you may choose to read into these terms. The West Bank barrier is a mixture of wall and fence. Language belongs to all of us, it is publicly owned. The fervour with which you try to control language strikes me as Orwellian. I find your behaviour truly outrageous. Nevertheless I don't have the time to engage in a lengthy edit conflict, and since you changed your category name from [security barriers] to [separation barriers], NPOV is not violated in too extreme a way. - pir 18:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Language is abused in an Orwellian way when a small part of something is used describe the whole in order to promote a political agenda. That is exactly what has been going on with the Israeli West Bank barrier, which is why its critics are so insistent that it be called a Wall (preferably an Apartheid Wall), and why its proponents are so insistent on calling it a fence (preferably a Security fence). The barrier has a lot of "fence" in it, a sprinkling of "wall" as well, and a whole bunch of other stuff too. The article Separation barrier existed long before this particular debate, and its use to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier is both more factually accurate than either "wall" or "fence", and also avoids all the NPOV debate that goes on between partisans on both sides. I find your claim that this NPOV and accurate terminology does not "violate" NPOV "in too extreme a way" to be bizarre, especially in light of your preference to use the POV terms "wall" and "fence" instead. Similarly, I find your description of the attempt to find NPOV language as an attempt to "control language" to be bizarre as well, particularly in the context of Wikipedia's stated goal of NPOV. Jayjg 18:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"a small part of something is used describe the whole in order to promote a political agenda. That is exactly what has been going on with the Israeli West Bank barrier, which is why its critics are so insistent that it be called a Wall (preferably an Apartheid Wall), and why its proponents are so insistent on calling it a fence (preferably a Security fence)". Regardless of what the opposing parties argue, a portion of the barrier is clearly a wall, therefore it is perfectly NPOV to include it in the walls category - this inclusion does not mean the whole barrier is a wall. We do not promote a political agenda with this classification. Will you argue that Earth is flat if the PLO says Earth is round? Will you insist that we must not say 2+2=4 if Israelis say 2+2=4.5 and Palestinians say 2+2=3.9? That is what is Orwellian about your argument here. I can assure you that if I'm making a bit of a fuss here, it's not because I want to push my personal view of the barrier, but because I am concerned about your Orwellian interpretation of the NPOV policy which could potentially spark disaster for Wikipedia. pir 12:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Even the small sections of the barrier that contain walls are more complex than just a well. That said, as I said earlier (below) if you want to start specific articles on the portions of the barrier that are walls, delineating their length, starting and finishing points, construction, etc., then an inclusion of those specific sections in the category "wall" might be warranted, though I personally think that might be too much detail for Wikipedia. Jayjg 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You have never even explained why "wall" is not a suitable description for the portions that are a wall. The justification can not be that only a small part of the barrier is a wall, since many categories are used for articles that only apply partially. Maybe because there is no justification? pir 18:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As I've said above, the barrier is more than a fence or a wall, since it contains many other constructions and features. That said, if you want to start specific articles on the portions of the barrier that are walls, delineating their length, starting and finishing points, construction, etc., then an inclusion of those specific sections in the category "wall" might be warranted, though I personally think that might be too much detail for Wikipedia. Jayjg 18:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

If it ends up being a wall, then it can be added to the category. Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So, as building continues, what percentage of it needs to be a literal wall for it to be technically considered a wall by Wikipedia? 100%? 50%? -- Style 07:27, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
I would think at least a significant percentage; 40%? Jayjg 15:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

All those walls were actually walls. As Pir was kind enough to point out above, a "wall" is a "solid structure that defines and sometimes protects space, made from solid brick or concrete, blocking vision as well as passage" Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, there are many possible meanings for the word wall. One usage of wall is to refer to anything that has the same function as a wall. That's why medical textbooks refer to the "abdominal wall" and not the "abdominal separation barrier". -- Style 07:27, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
Yes, but the definition used here on Wikipedia that is relevant to this case is the one listed above. Jayjg 15:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, now you lost me. Wikipedia uses a different definition of "wall" than common English? -- style 16:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
The category in question refers to boundary walls, not other kinds of walls. Jayjg 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Separation barriers "are constructed to prevent the movement of people across the barrier or to separate two populations." That pretty much describes it, and I'm not debating the motivation of the builders, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 00:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To suggest that the aim of the wall is the seperation of two populations is POV (although far less extreme than "security barrier") because many people believe the aim is landgrab. Your statement that you don't want to debate "the motivation of the builders, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is an admission that you are not interested in NPOV. pir 01:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Calling it a separation barrier does not even address motivation; rather it is descriptive of its function. My unwillingness to debate the motivations of the builders or debate the conflict itself is, in fact, exactly in line with Wikipedia guidance for Wikipedia:Talk pages which state "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." I am restricting my comments to whether or not the barrier fits in the categories "walls", "fences", or "separation barriers", and not trying to debate why the builders built the barrier, or the degree of hardships they may cause various populations, which while important, are either not relevant to this specific debate, or cannot be determined in any event. Jayjg 15:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You say that separation barrier is "descriptive of its function." But the barrier's function includes it's effects on (and possible hardships imposed upon) the local population. My point was that the barrier does more than just separate, and that "separation" is too narrow a term. "Barrier" by itself would be better, actually. -- style 16:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
The term describes its function, not its effects. The barrier might also make some people feel happy, some feel safe, some feel sad, some feel angry. These are all real effects, yet we would not include the barrier under the category "Things that make people happy/sad/safe/angry". The effects on relevant populations are described in the article itself. As for "barrier", it is too broad a term; lots of physical constructions are barriers in one sense or another. Stairs are a barrier to people in wheelchairs. Jayjg 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jayjig, if your reasoning was applied consistently, it would be completely disastrous for the category system. I think we all agree that this barrier is only partially and not wholly a wall, it is more complex. You are saying that something cannot be included in a category unless it fits that category in its entirety. If we applied this consistently, we could not, for example, include Hamas into the category of terrorist organisations because parts of Hamas are political or charity-oriented ; we could not include George W. Bush in the category of governors of Texas, just because he's also (been) a national guardsman, a father, US President, an alcoholic etc.; we couldn't put Halliburton in the category of military contractors just because their main activites are in the energy and engineering sectors. Do you agree that this would be complete non-sense? The comparison with the Pentagon/parking lots fails abysmally, because the Pentagon parking lot is not a distinguishing feature at all, so if we included it in that category it would not provide any additional information whatsoever - however if the Pentagon was one of only a small fraction of builings that had a parking lot, then it would definately belong in that category. - pir 01:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that the item has to fit a category in its entirety, I'm saying that the category must be a significant part of the whole. Analogies using people or social organizations are not valid either, since they tend to be far more complex, and have far more simultaneous roles, than physical constructions. The walled sections of the barrier are not a distinguishing feature, since they constitute such a small percentage of the overall construction (which , when one examines the article, one notes is actually quite complex aside from the fence vs. wall issue). One might as well include the Brooklyn Bridge in the category "fences", since it has a fence on each side of it to stop people from jumping off. Jayjg 15:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Exactly! Jayjg, you don't have a leg to stand on here. --Zero 02:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not conceding yet, Zero. :-) Jayjg 15:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First, your analogy with Brooklyn Bridge fails miserably again, because all bridges above a certain size have a fence on either side, so to include Brooklyn Bridge into the fences category would not add any information. If Brooklyn Bridge were the only bridge in the world with a fence, we would without any doubt include it in that category (and this innovative use of fences would inspire architects everywhere, saving countless lives lost needlessly beause of people falling off fenceless bridges all over the world.... your example here really is grotesque). The same is not true for the West Bank barrier - or can you think of any fence on the planet that is partially a wall and that we would be wrong to include in the walls category? pir 18:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that all separation barriers "above a certain size" have walls as part of them as well, so adding them to the category "walls" adds little value. As for the latter question, how about the Turkish Cyprus barrier? Jayjg 18:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I suspect your suspicion is wrong. Thanks for bringing the Turkish Cyprus barrier to my intention, I put it in the right categories. pir 19:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I noticed. Very cute. How about the United States Mexico barrier? [21] [22] Jayjg 19:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I didn't realise (although I just remembered a documentary on this I saw many years ago).pir 19:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Secondly, the 5% figure does not reflect on the significance of the wall. It is obvious that the wall is an essential part for the whole structure - this is also obvious to the builders who would otherwise not have chosen to build the more expensive walls. If there is any honesty in you, you will not hesitate to admit this.pir 18:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The wall portions are intended to stop sniper fire; do you agree with this? Jayjg 18:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This sounds like a likely (and probably very significant) function, a bit like the wall on the border between North and South Korea I think. There could be other functions. I'm not an expert on the WB barrier. Does it also stop snipers firing on Palestinians or are there special installations on the Israeli side to allow for such security measures? pir 19:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know there have been no incidents of snipers firing from the Israeli onto Palestinians; the sniper fire has been the other way. Jayjg 19:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I also want to add that are still some roads is Israel, mainly in the Golan Heights and the Jordan valley, with segments of concrete walls (called "betondot") from the 1960's and 1970's when Israel, Syria and Jordan were in war and Israeli cars traveling near the borders were often attacked by gunfire. MathKnight 22:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I get the impression you regard the wall portion as significant for the whole structure.pir 19:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The problem is, if we assume that the concrete portions are to protect against sniper fire, then we're taking the Israeli side (as opposed to the Palestinian side, which says it's all just a land grab). That wouldn't be NPOV, would it? The only way I can see of being NPOV is by assuming that the concrete sections have no special significance. Jayjg 20:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nope. We need not worry what one side or the other says when we have facts. I disagree with your argument that the-wall-is-a-significant-part stance is incompatible with the Palestinian view, who may well argue that a wall is a permanent structure and therefore better suited for land grab than a fence (and that the fence will be built into a wall with time). But as I said, we need not bother with this. The fact is that the planners and the builders judged the function of the walls part (whatever it may be) as significant enough to build them.pir 20:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The I.C.J. calls it a wall

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

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

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

Further ...

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

and ...

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

and ...

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

and more ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UNGA is a political body of demagoguery, and the ICJ is its puppet; why would the nomenclature the ICJ or even the UNGA uses any more valid or relevant than anyone else's? This Appeal to authority is even weaker than most, since neither of these bodies are authorities concerning (or have any authority in) this matter. Jayjg 02:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
File:Conrad Schumann.jpg
The Berlin Wall was less than 5% wall at one point
  • The Berlin Wall was less than 5% wall at one point. also 5% of 450 miles is 22.5 miles. How long does it have to be to call it a wall? Is the Berlin Wall your guide? That was 105 miles long. Mintguy (T)
    • Was it called "the Berlin Wall" when it was less that 5% wall? As for the barrier, it is not yet 450 miles (that may be its total length when complete, though current indications are that it will be shorter). And in any event it is the significance of the wall to the whole structure that matters, not the total length; if a 3000 mile fence was 1% wall, the whole thing wouldn't be a wall, even though 30 miles of it was wall. Jayjg 02:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes it was called the 'Berlin Wall' or the wall of shame from the day construction began, when East German border guards placed concrete blocks and bardbed wire along the street. It's perhaps not insignificant that the Sovint Union called it a "barrier to Western Imperialism". I will not continue this pointless argument because you will never accept the word wall because the semantic implications displease you. Mintguy (T)
        • The issue with the term wall are the fact that it is inaccurate, un-representative, and politically charged. Please do not attribute motive to me, this is Poisoning the well. But if you've lost interest, then feel free to excuse yourself from the disagreement. Jayjg 16:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Three-revert warning/threat

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

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

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

"This is not a threat it is a warning"; that's what all the Mafia guys say when the come into your shop and "warn" you that without their "protection" your shop might burn down. Meanwhile, do you have anything to the contribute to the discussion itself, or are you just going to wait the 24 hours and then start reverting again without comment? Jayjg 19:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please do not try to insinuate that you are being persecuted or something. I am merely pointing out that you have broken a rule which has been established by the wider Wikipedia community in order for conflicts over the contents of articles to be resolved without continuous revert wars. Mintguy (T) 20:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not being persecuted, you're threatening me. There's a difference. Now, are you planning to contribute? Jayjg 20:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What threat!? I cannot block you or even protect this page because I am involved in reverting the article against you. If I hadn't reverted this page first, I would have protected it. Now kindly withdraw the allegation. Mintguy (T)
Um, you're an admin, of course you can threaten me or block me or any other number of powers you may have; I don't know the ins and outs of Wikiadminhood. And someone who reverts a page three times without commenting on it in Talk: (even after repeated invitations to do so), or even deigning to discuss the reasoning in an Edit summary, should, in my view, be re-reverted as a matter of policy. Now kindly return to the discussion of more substantive issues. Jayjg 02:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I could have threatened to shoot your dog, but I didn't, and nor did I threaten to ban you. I was warning you of the potential consequences of your actions. Mintguy (T) 09:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I originally had no intention in being drawn into a pointless tit-for-tat argument over the definition of the word wall. Whatever I say you will come up with a counter-argument, moving the goal posts if necessary. You will never accept that this barrier should be in the category, so there was and is still no reason for me to waste my time arguing about it. As far as you're concerned the fact significant sections of this barrier consist of a 14 foot high concrete wall, and that some parts that are described as a 'fence' consist of a shorter wall topped with a fence, is irrelevant. You will accept no authority's definition of this structure but your own, and the Israeli government's. Mintguy (T)
I'm not sure why you consider a fence to be a "shorter wall topped with a fence"; as you can see from the photographs in the article itself, that is not an accurate description. As for the rest, your opinions concerning me are, hmm, "illuminating". Personally, I prefer to use Talk: pages to discuss Wikipedia articles themselves, rather than giving my opinions of the editors. I believe that is what Wikipedia recommends as well. Jayjg 20:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please note that inclusion in the walls category does not mean that the WB barrier is a wall. I added a note at the end of the article to clarify this.pir 19:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
good idea to build a barrier between this section and the previous one, they might otherwise spill over and attack each other :) pir 19:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In this case we'll probably need a wall, as there has already been sniping from that section into this. ;-) Jayjg 19:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I live in hope that the title scares off the other terrorists. Gosh, I feel so secure in this section, none of those nasty, heated arguments yet :) pir 19:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Un-rest is breaking out here as well. :'-( Jayjg 19:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh no.... I think I'll emigrate to another article as soon as I can :( pir 20:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What does "associated regime" mean here?

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

Inaccurate Map (redux)

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

an American Holocaust survivor,

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

Stargoat, in what way is the insertion of the factoid that Buergenthal is a Holocaust survivor relevant to the article at hand? The article doesn't mention dozens of relevant facts about Buergenthal, like the fact that he received his LL.M. and S.J.D. degrees in international law from the Harvard Law School, or that he is the Presiding Director of the George Washington University Law School International Rule of Law Center, or that he is also the U.S. national member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (the first American to serve on that body), or that he served 12 years as judge and a term as President of the Costa Rica-based Inter-American Court of Human Rights, or that (in 1992-93) he served on the three-member UN Truth Commission for El Salvador (which investigated the large-scale violations of human rights committed in that country during its 12-year civil war), or that he is the author of more than a dozen books and a large number of articles on international law, human rights and comparative law subjects, or many other facts which are actually relevant to any decisions he has made in the area of Human Rights and International law, which is exactly what this court was supposed to be deciding. Perhaps you can explain why you insist that that one solitary fact is the only biographical note given regarding Buergenthal. Perhaps you can also explain why biographical information about all the other justices is not equally important to the article. Oh, and please restrict your comments to article content, rather than discussing your opinions of me. Jayjg 05:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg on this. - pir 12:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I had at one point linked to Buergenthal's full bio, but I seem to remember that link was also seen as superfluous. This is a difficult call to make - one doesn't want to poison the well, but at the same time, being aware of a person's background and potential biases is most certainly relevant. Iridium77 18:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's not difficult at all; "being aware of a person's background and potential biases" is poisoning the well par excellance. QED. When will you start examining the backgrounds of all the other justices, and pointing out what you imagine might be their own biases? Jayjg 19:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I think you are somewhat naïve, if you really believe this. There are a couple of different points to address here:
  • Awareness of background. To understand any document with a historical perspective, you must know not only what the document contains, but also who wrote it. It's a fact of life that humans all have their own biases - you can't get away from that. Poisoning the well would be "Buergenthal is a holocaust survivor, therefore he is biased in this regard". But it should be up to the reader to determine what biases Buergenthal may or may not have.
  • Background of Buergenthal, rather than the others. He was the only dissenter, so if we think it's even worth mentioning his judgement in the detail we do, then surely he's fair game for analysis? Iridium77 21:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, analyzing Buergenthal's judgement is reasonable, and even analyzing his legal background is relevant, but analyzing his personal history is poisoning the well; I again strongly urge you to read and re-read that article. By your reasoning we might as well describe him as "Buergenthal, a Jew". Jayjg 21:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we should. I think that in this case, being a Jewish is relevent to his impartiality in deciding this case. Most judges will not hear a case if they have a conflict of interest, but in this situation, the judges' religions are of interest, at the very minimum. When you have "the jewish state" vs, then being jewish is of relevance. If we were discussing the atrocities that Mengele conducted, you wouldn't hesitate to refer to him as "the Nazi Doctor", or whatever, because it's relevant.
My personal view is that his religion is unlikely to have influenced him. But to shout "poisoning the well!" at any suggestion of potential bias is simply not justified. I urge *you* to re-read the article Poisoning the well - note that the intent there is to discredit the author prejudicially, rather than to further inform the reader. Poisoning the well is referring to irrelevant information to discredit somone. Here, a number of people believe that Buergenthal's religion and background are of relevance, and you disagree. Iridium77 22:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mentioning that he is a Holocaust survivor is indeed intended "to discredit the author prejudicially"; "Holocaust survivor" is a code for Jew, and the intent here is to indicate that a Jew cannot judge impartially in the case of Israel; you've implied as much yourself. Have you investigated the religions and backgrounds of the other justices? I've asked this a number of times before, with no response. I've also noted that none of his relevant background, including legal training, expertise in International law, and experience on international courts, was mentioned. Until all justices are put under the same microscope, the inclusion of the phrase was intended to poison the well. Jayjg 03:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Holocaust Survivor is no more a code for Jew than it is a code for Slav, Roma, Homosexual, Jehovah's Witness, Communist, Clergy, Common criminal, or any number of others. I think that his background, as a victim of persecution is interesting background to the man. One might expect someone with this background to favour the persecuted side in such a case, but he doesn't.
I think you should read what I say more carefully, before telling me what I've implied. You tell me that I've implied that he's biased, but I specifically say "My personal view is that his religion is unlikely to have influenced him." - how much more direct can I be? I also addressed the question of the other justices - they all agree, so it's more interesting to study the dissenter.
But, in the end, I didn't like the way that the information was presented - that's why I wrote the page for Buergenthal - it lets us share more about him in a more neutral way. The reason I'm commenting here is that I think your rationale for removing it was just as flawed. Iridium77 08:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While many ethnic groups were Holocaust victims, in the minds of most readers the Holocaust is associated with Jews; whether or not you intended that implication is irrelevant. Your view that the Palestinians are "the persecuted side in such a case" merely displays POV bias; this is a near century old conflict between two peoples, with each side giving and getting, not a "persecution" of one by another. The Israelis who are suffering from suicide bombings (which the barrier is a response to) are as persecuted as anyone. As for Buergenthal, you have no idea what his religion is, you only know his ethnic group; he could be an atheist or Scientologist or Mormon for all you know. Focussing on the ethnic origins of the dissenter would never be considered appopriate when examining U.S. Supreme Court decisions; in fact, if, for example, one were to point out that "the 8 justices voted one way, but the African-American justice voted the other" they would rightly be condemned as racist. In general, when people decide that certain facts about individuals in a Wikipedia article are "interesting", it means "irrelevant, but serves to poison the well". The rationale for including the information is irredeemably flawed for all these reasons. That said, your solution was a good one, though the article you created curiously downplayed his relevant experience and expertise in International Law, which is what is actually relevant to the ICJ decision. Jayjg 15:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1) How do you know what is in the minds of "most readers"?
2) The conflict has been going on for a century, but terrorism (in the modern sense) and the building of the barrier have not.
3) One of the key points regarding the construction of the barrier is whether it and the regime in place around it (checkpoints etc) do persecute the Palistinian population. My statement was not meant in a wider sense than that.
4) I concede that inferring his religion from his ethnic group was unjustified.
5) I translated the German article (which was a good concise summary) about Buergenthal, then made a few changes. My intent was to revisit it when I have more time. I wouldn't say that I downplayed his experience - I read his full bio as "Human rights, sometimes with an international twist". Note that his recent positions (before the Lobinger professorship and the ICJ) were predominantely Human Rights rather than international studies.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. Buergenthal's declaration is well argued and probably balanced. He agrees with much of the final decision of the court. But if you come at it as if it were a historical document, you would try to understand the man who wrote it. The language which had been used "holocaust survivor thomas buergenthal" (or whatever) is probably prejudicial, but the information itself is not. Iridium77 17:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr adds TotallyDisputed

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

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

I have already pointed out that factual edits were reverted (see history.) In short: the wall route description is contrary to facts, and the Israeli official statement which contradicts what the article says has been removed. HistoryBuffEr 16:47, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
What do you think a factual description of the wall route is, and which "Israeli official statement" are you referring to? Jayjg 17:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
HistoryBuffEr, you haven't edited the page in more than 3 months. What do you want us to see in history? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See article (not Talk) edit history. HistoryBuffEr 03:45, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
The article history says all sorts of things; please state your concerns on the Talk: page. What do you think a factual description of the wall route is, and which "Israeli official statement" are you referring to? Jayjg 15:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly what I checked, HistoryBuffEr - your name doesn't appear in the article history for the past 3 months. Please provide proof otherwise. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

HistoryBuffEr 06:53, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Remove Totally Disputed till Specific Items are Cited

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

This question was repeatedly asked and repeatedly answered. Read article edit history to see which facts were removed without justification or explanation. HistoryBuffEr 17:55, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
You again failed to present specific terms. No one understand what are you talking about and your refusal to cite the requested data is highly suspicious. You are continuing your bad conduct, and it is not productive for anyone, to say the least. MathKnight 21:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV edit complaints accepted here

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

1. I'm not Israeli, but I have complaints. There has been much discussion and consenus was reached to use the NPOV term "barrier" throughout instead of "Wall" as you are pushing. Please revert the article to use the agreed upon term throughout. Jewbacca 17:42, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
The Israeli apartheid Wall is a wall the way the Berlin Wall was a wall. It may be a fence for Jews because they are allowed to pass through the fence with ease but it's a wall for non-Jews because the Israelis will kill them for trying to cross. Therefore, it's a wall unless you are a Jew and Wikipedia and the Internet are not owned by Jews. --Alberuni 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Barrier was agreed to in Talk: long ago, precisely because the barrier is over 90% fence. Jayjg 17:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see long disputes with no consensus reached. You are trying to push your usual hasbara POV garbage and I don't accept it. No consensus today. --Alberuni 18:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No consensus? Then the stable version remains. Jayjg 18:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Stable" is in the eye of the Zionut. --Alberuni 18:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Stable in the eyes of all those who participated in the discussion. If you'd only bothered to read instead of vandalizing pages on behalf of Hamas... MathKnight 18:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On what date are you claiming this article became stable? I see discussions ongoing and disagreement with no consensus agreement about the pro-Israeli "fence" designation. I editing as neutrally as possible while you are pushing the Israeli perspective. Why do you think that one particular extremist Israeli POV (yours) should have any more precedence than other Israeli perspectives, or Hamas' or the PA's in Wikipedia? --Alberuni 00:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Check history and see for how long the term "barrier" has lasted. MathKnight 10:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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

Your arguments are irrelevant. Wall, fence, prison, home - it has no bearing on the fact that this is a wall meant to keep Arabs out of their own territory. Your arguments might make sense in Hebrew when you are chatting with other Zionists but they make no sense in Arabic or English where people don't see the world through your extremist pro-Israeli lens. You need to learn some sophistry skills from Jayjg. He's much better at manipulating the truth for the Israeli POV than you are. --Alberuni 18:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What is sophistry is to insist that a fence is a wall because it restricts the movements of Arabs. Jayjg 18:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
More than 90% of the barrier are a system of trenches and wire fences. Concrete wall consists only small portion of the barrier. Hence, the name "wall" to describe the barrier is wrong. MathKnight 13:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, who are you? You've just popped up here and started talking about "Israelis", "Zionut", "Zionists bullies", "Zionist trash", arabs' territory, "extremist pro-Israeli lens", "manipulating truth", and "POV garbage". In case you didn't notice, this is a serious information site and not some recreational forum. No one will take you serious like that. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 23:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's wrong? Why would you be offended unless you are you a Zionist? --Alberuni 05:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's like asking why anyone would be offended by the term "damned niggers" unless they were black. Sheesh. PenguiN42 18:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Your analogy is false, unless you consider the word "Zionist" a pejorative for "Jew" equivalent to the pejorative "nigger" to "black". Criticism of pro-Israeli bias is only unacceptable to those who harbor that pro-Israeli bias. Sheesh. --Alberuni 19:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that you're using "Zionist" as a rhetoric. Let's pretend you're an arab - then I'll call every edit of yours as "arab edit", "arab bully", "arab trash", "extremist pro-Palestine lens", "manipulating truth" and etc. I don't think anyone is offended. We just see your agenda in the fact that you hate Zionists and will consider everything written by them as "POV garbage". I bet you think that Arafat was poisoned by Mossad or Shabaq and Israelis are just lying. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 21:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your analogy also is false. Arab is not a political POV, it is an ethnicity or ethnic identity (like being Jewish). Zionism is a political ideology, not an ethnicity. I have used the word Zionist "rhetorically" as an adjective to describe a specific type of political bias. There's nothing wrong with that. Zionism is a political ideology of Jewish supremacism and is as deserving of criticism as the apartheid politics of Afrikaaner supremacy or Nazism, the political ideology of "Aryan" supremacy. Attacking editors or edits for being Arab would be as wrong as attacking editors or edits for being Jewish. You may be having trouble distinguishing between Judaism and Zionism. This is a common problem among Zionists (and others) and the root of a great deal of bigotry, strife and violence. --Alberuni 23:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're giving me a serious headache. Did you even read the Zionism article? What you've just said here is full of hatred and false propaganda. Get over yourself; I don't know what some Israelis did to you but you should stop filling up Wikipedia with your kill-all-Zionists hatred. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 22:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any source for this information

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

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

Is it now clear what is disputed?

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

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

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

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

Why is this article disputed?

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

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

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

The Wikipedia Policy is called Neutral Point of View

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

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

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

That's fair. Now, when we're writing about the barrier/fence/wall how should we write about it? You don't seriously expect us to write the lead section like this:
The Israeli West Bank barrier (also called the West Bank Security Fence or the West Bank wall) is a physical barrier/wall/fence consisting of a network of fences, walls, and trenches, which is being constructed by Israel. The barrier/wall/fence in part approximately follows the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli armistice line, also known as the "Green Line". In some areas the route diverges from this line, particularly in areas with a high concentration of Jews: Jerusalem, Ariel, Beitar Illit, Efrat, Gush Etzion, and Maale Adumim. These divergences may be as much as 20 kilometers. In many of these areas, the final route of the barrier/wall/fence has not been decided (as of April 2004). Four routes under consideration, as of May 2004, are indicated in [23].
The name of the barrier/wall/fence is itself a political issue. The most common names used by Israel are "separation fence" (gader ha'hafrada in Hebrew) and "security fence" or "anti-terrorist fence" in English, with "seam zone" referring to the land surrounding the fence. Opponents prefer to call it a "wall." Palestinians and their supporters at times refer to the barrier as an Apartheid wall.
A similar barrier/wall/fence, the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier, is parallel to the 1949 armistice line.
I mean, c'mon! We need to call it something! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right. And it was agreed months ago, after long debate on both sides, that barrier was the only reasonable term to describe it in general. Why?
1. Because well over 90% of it is a fence, not a wall.
2. Because it consists of more than a fence or wall in any case, typically having cleared areas on each side and other security features.
3. Because partisans on one side insist on calling it a wall, and partisans on the other insist on calling it a fence, and barrier avoids that particular POV war.
Barrier was agreed on for good reason, and it's tiring to keep having to deal with new entrants to the fray who ignore all previous agreements, insist on inserting POV, and when finally drawn to the Talk: pages insist that previous agreements didn't happen (see above re: picture). Jayjg 18:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

User Zero0000 was the one who took one of the alternate pictures, and got permission for the use of the other one. User Stargoat congratulated User Zero0000 when he did that. The article was stable from then until a few days ago, either user could easily have reverted or raised objections in the Talk: page. User Tarek indeed reverted himself to the consensus version and apologized when he noted the discussion in the Talk: page. Someone is conveniently ignoring things, but it is not me, and if you want to add this non-representative picture after many months of consensus not to do so, then you'll have to try to build a new consensus to do so. Jayjg 05:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could you point to your alleged "consensus agreement" on this Talk page by section number or link? I don't see it. Anyway, I disagree with your alleged consensus of 4 and insist that the picture is representative. Someone else must have disagreed because you had to delete it again on November 30. So your "consensus" to delete doesn't exist now. --Alberuni 05:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Suggested New Image. MathKnight 07:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MathKnight had no trouble finding it. The consensus lasted for several months. If you would like to now insert an un-representative picture, you'll have to try to get a consensus to do so. Jayjg 16:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The consensus is un your imagination. You made your usual POV demands and reasonable people tried to ignore them, as usual. That's not a consensus. That's normal editors trying to deal with an agreesive POV pushing bully. There was never an explicit consensus and you haven't been able to show one. There is certainly no consensus now. If you want to establish a Zionist consensus, you will have to work harder to have me and all other reasonable editors banned. --Alberuni 17:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Bank_barrier&oldid=8347684"