Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Israeli West Bank barrier has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Israel Portal
Israeli West Bank barrier is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Israeli West Bank barrier is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing attention.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5


Contents

[edit] links

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

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

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

[edit] Pictures

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

[edit] Nonviolent resistance

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

[edit] WorldBank funding of barrier

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

[edit] Error in edit summary

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

[edit] Inaccurate edit summaries

Tiamut, why do you claim you are restoring material deleted by Jayjg? As is clear, I didn't delete any material I merely added a fact tag: [1] Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Ah, yes, I see. Thank you. Now, regarding your edit, it makes little sense. The EU upheld the subsequent GA resolution, which is mentioned in the next sentence, not the court ruling. Why are you putting the material in the wrong place? Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. With all the back and forth, I got confused. I will correct that now. Tiamut 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note about referencing

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

[edit] GA

Hello FA!

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

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

Some observations.
  • "Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to change the route of the barrier in this area to ease movement of Palestinians between Qalqilyah and 5 surrounding villages." - reword the word "recently"
  • No source in "Effects on Palestinians"
  • In "Opinions on the barrier", Mr Bush's opinion should not be under international opinions, as his opinions represent a country; as oppose to Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch which represent the views of these organizations.
  • Reference date needs to be modified, particularly reference #74 to 78
OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banksy Image should be removed from article

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

[edit] Conflicting Bush Opinions

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

Why should anything be done about it? // Liftarn
Mainly because it's confusing.Oneworld25 10:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
He's a politician so it shouldn't be suprising he says differet things on different occations. // Liftarn

[edit] Newer route

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

[edit] Poll: Wall or 'Barrier'?

I say wall,

  • Wall Reaper7 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So? The article already explains that different people say different things. A question is whether these alternate names should be given in bold in the first sentence. Itsmejudith 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a Wall--Ezzex 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The article clearly states that most of the barrier is a fence. I support the use of barrier for the name, as it is the most objective term. Oneworld25 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a wall in some places, it's a fence in others. In all cases it's a barrier -so barrier. <<-armon->> 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reduced freedoms example

Current text goes thus:

An often-quoted example of the effects of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, a city of around 45,000, where an 8 meter-high concrete section is built on the Green Line between the city and the nearby Trans-Israel Highway. The wall in this section, referred to as an "anti-sniper wall," has been claimed to prevent gun attacks against Israeli motorists and the Israeli town of Kfar Saba,[1] which runs for more than 3 kilometers to the west of the city along the Green Line. The barrier, in the form of a series of razor wire fences and trenches, also dips beyond the Green Line to encircle Qalqilyah from northern and southern sides.[2][3][4] The city is accessible through a main road from the east, and an underground tunnel built in September 2004 on the south side connects Qalqilyah with the adjacent village of Habla which has been cut off by another barrier. Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to change the route of the barrier in this area to ease movement of Palestinians between Qalqilyah and 5 surrounding villages. In the same ruling, the court rejected the arguments that the fence must be built only on the Green Line. The ruling cited the topography of the terrain, security considerations, and sections 43 and 52 of The Hague Regulations 1907 and Article 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention as reasons for this rejection.[5]

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

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

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

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

An often-quoted example of the effects of the barrier is the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah, a city of around 45,000, having an 8 meter-high concrete barrier and a series of razor wire fences and trenches encircling it from three sides.[6][7][8] The city is accessible through a main road from the east and an underground tunnel built in September 2004 on the south side connecting to the adjacent village of Habla.

If no one objects, I'll be affecting this change within 72 hours :-). --Jonathan Schäfer. 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] New developments

"Palestinians Destroy Wall, Flood Egypt."[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeceevoice (talk • contribs) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wikipedians' bias showing graphically...

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

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

[edit] Dates

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

[edit] Leading Map

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

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

[edit] Proposed move

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

I don't see the problem. It's a barrier built and operated by Israel, around the West Bank. The name seems very logical to me. I don't think the interpretation "Israeli West Bank" would really make sense to anyone.
I don't really understand why you'd think the barrier is "an injustice". Do you not accept Israel's sovereignty as a state, to regulate movement in and out of it? Are you not aware of the masses of suicide bombers entering Israel before the barrier? Are you opposed to the internationally recognized "two state solution"? okedem (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)