Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier
 |
This article is the subject of an arbitration ruling. It is expected that editors abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling. Those editors who violate the ruling, but are unaware of it, will be informed of the details before any sanctions are invoked. |
 |
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article Israeli West Bank barrier, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:
|
 |
This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details. |
 |
Israeli West Bank barrier was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Palestine | (Rated B-class, Top-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 |
Discussions often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 Archives |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| Threads older than 60 days may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Contents |
[edit] POV tag added September 2010
All relevant subsections should be balanced between the pro and anti barrier opinions. The lead should position prominently the consensus intl law position.Haberstr (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- What? the article is balanced fine, all relevant positions are stated clearly. If anything the article is too big. tag-spamming is not okay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ftsw blocked as a sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasK. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction comments
In the introduction, paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 seems both misplaced and not neutral. Supporters and opponents personal opinions and reasons for their standpoints should not be part of that section, or in the article at all in the current form. Statistics and relevant numbers should be placed in sections relevant to what they provide, such as sub sections of Effects and consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadahl (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Rv
I reverted the edit by the LibiBamizrach account as its a blocked account that has been blocked because its either a sock and/or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for his actions with several accounts = abusing multiple accounts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Bard
A couple of users have been reinserting a piece by Mitchell Bard from the JVL into the article. The things that JVL hosts from other reliable sources are reliable, however the things that Bard himself puts together are not. There is no editorial board at JVL, there is no known process of fact-checking, there are none of the things that make a source reliable. If this material is accurate you should have no trouble finding a better source for it. nableezy - 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Better source added (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and prose re-written to reflect source (e.g. 90% statistic removed). -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Avi, though I would prefer that when we cite the MFA that we give an explicit attribution. nableezy - 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? I thought I did attribute it in the citation? -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that level of detail belongs in the body of the article, not in the lede. See WP:LEDE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Likely so, I was just trying to ensure proper sourcing; if a better construction can be found that keeps the spirit in the lede and moves the stats to the body, I have no issues with that. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid the use of this source may be WP:SYNTH, because it discusses the number of deaths (page 4), but it doesn't mention the security barrier. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've always found JVL to be quite reliable and accessible. A lot of the pages do include secondary citations. Here is the lead prior to Avi's additions link.
Two things wrong IMO:
- A) No mention of the start of the construction. The lead should mention when the barrier was put in place. One could infer such a barrier existed since 1948. The date of construction isn't mentioned until a dozen paragraphs later.
- B) And naturally the lead should include the motivation behind the barrier. The link between the second intifada and the violence was the rationale. That should be emphasized. Opposition should then follow, etc..etc. WikifanBe nice 23:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy?
This article is so full of weasel expressions it is not even funny. "Some say this while others say that" is pointless if it is not mentioned who says what and out of which motivation. ♆ CUSH ♆ 05:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why the index of this discussion page is called "West_Bank_barrier" while the end tag of the address of the article is "Apartheid_wall"? The very name of the file proclaims bias. The file should be renamed in accordance with the title.
And note that this suggests a bias at Wikipedia itself rather than by a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.72.12 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you search for "apartheid wall", or follow a link to that phrase? If so, you got redirected here automatically, but the URL at the top would show ".../Apartheid_wall", and the article title would show
-
- "Israeli West Bank barrier
(Redirected from Apartheid wall)"
- "Israeli West Bank barrier
- It's letting you know how you got here, (and giving you a link to the redirect page, in case the redirect should be changed).
- —WWoods (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Too much ideology and technical details are missing
It seems to me that the article contains too much propaganda and the factual description of the wall is missing. I opened it because I wanted to know how much of the barrier is already constructed and what is the expected deadline. However, I cannot see such basic facts here. 88.102.95.151 (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
