Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.221.60.181 (talk) at 23:35, 24 June 2005 (→"Approved" route). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3;

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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." Misplaced Pages: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 .

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 Misplaced Pages articles themselves, rather than giving my opinions of the editors. I believe that is what Misplaced Pages recommends as well. Jayjg 20:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) " You argue like a propagandist that, "As you can see from the photographs in the article", well, of course, you then want to delete photographs that do not support your partisan bias. It's a WALL, Jayjg. Look at the picture you are deleting. The Nazis in Warsaw and the Communists in Berlin would have been proud to build a WALL like that with watchtowers, gun emplacements, detectors, dogs, and mines. Be proud of how far the Jews have come from the shtetl days that they (you) can now enforce it on others. --Alberuni 05:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article

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

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

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

New route, new map

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

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

Effects on Palestinians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research about Israeli settlements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But for 2000 thousand years was it not united?

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

barrier along the Green Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects on Palestinians vs. Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

Bush's comment April 12 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condescending editorials in edit summaries

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

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

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

Let's stick to the article

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

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

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

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

and your edit to the article is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its time for mediation

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

Please resolve this quickly.

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

International Opinion

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

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

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

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

117,000 Google results for "Apartheid Wall"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separate section on "apartheid wall"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Approved" route

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

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

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

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

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

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

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