Talk:West Bank

Distinction between opinions within Israel

I think it is worth distinguishing between opinions of different parties in Israel, rather than referring to "Israel's position". Currently, when the right wing is in power, it is clear that "Israel's positions" are determined by the Likud and Israel Beytenu. But only five years ago, these positions were very different. It doesn't make sense to rewrite the entire article whenever the government changes in Israel... Wabbit73 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense article

Pmurnion (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC) This article is of such a poor standard that it damages the whole wikipedia project; at a time when wikipedia is seeking donations? The section "Settlements and International Law" puts forward as equal and opposite views, on the one hand "the United Nations and others" (what others: martians?) and on the other hand an Autralian academic! This is nonsense. We could all find obscure academics to support any position. The puropse of an encyclopedia is to describe the consensus. This article fails miserably on this criterion. The solution is simple. Describe the international consensus, the if you must list the individual detractors.

Balance

The history section reads like a press release from the Israeli ministry of propaganda. They did everything they could to prevent conflict - before launching an unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression. Reads rather like Von Ribbentrop's missives in 1939/40. A little more balance and objectivity would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire article is biased... It's funny how it says that the West Bank was called Judea and Samaria during the 400 years prior to the fall of the ottoman empire... The truth is people from Nablus, Jericho, Ramallah never used these artificial names to describe themselves.... This is pure distortion of history...

Almost all articles that talk about any thing that has to do with Arabs or Muslims are biased and based on Jewish/ Western anti-arab sources..... Arabic sources are never used although you are talking about Arabs!!! This is like writing about London and describing London from a French perspective without allowing any British sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.238.186 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting some particular edit? --Dailycare (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Population of the World Bank not clear

Trying to figure out the population of the West Bank from this article is confusing.

It says: Its population is 1,714,845 (June 2010)[10] according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).

but the only citation leads to the CIA World Factbook which actually says:

2,568,555 (July 2010 est.) country comparison to the world: 141 note: approximately 296,700 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank (2009 est.); approximately 192,800 Israeli settlers live in East Jerusalem (2008 est.) (July 2011 est.)

Later the article says under ==Demographics==

In December 2007, an official Census conducted by the Palestinian Authority found that the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) was 2,345,000

and it also says

These data sets suggest that the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank in 2007 was approximately 1.5 million

Perhaps the article should give a range of figures rather than multiple conflicting figures. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Israel/JNF owns land in West Bank

Someone should add information because it is missing from the article but very relevant. Specifically, page 8: http://www.iasps.org/policystudies/ps49.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.156.152 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

explain deletion

I deleted "The legal status of the 'West Bank' is derived from the definition of Israel that originates from the 1897 Basle Program" and so on for a paragraph of pure rubbish cited to the extremist Howard Grief. A Zionist convention in 1897 determined the legal status of the West Bank now??? This is extreme even for the most fanatical of commentators. I don't think this sort of WP:FRINGE material belongs in the article at all, and absolutely not as if it is factual. Zero^talk 07:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted a chunk of text as well, there were several issues the most important being that claims by the Israeli right wing were presented in a neutral tone. That view is now included in the text, along with what consensus opinion thinks of it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

inventions

I have no idea how this was put in the article to begin with, but nothing in David Newman, The Renaissance of a Border That Never Died: The Green Line between Israel and the West Bank, in Alexander C. Diener and Joshua Hagen, eds., Borderlines and borderlands : political oddities at the edge of the nation-state, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010, p.92 comes anywhere close to supporting any part of the text it is citing. The article says

The creation of the segregation area on the West bank of the Jordan river by the Trans-Jordanian negotiators commenced with the Armistice Demarcation Line separating the State of Israel and the territory occupied by the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan through the Rhodes 1949 Armistice Agreements and the modus vivendi in which it placed Israeli-Jordanian diplomatic relations, and therefore having the status of a "disputed territory".

The source never mentions the words disputed territory (a different chapter in the book says the words disputed territory between Argentina and Brazil). The rest of the paragraph is similarly invented. Later, the article now says that the dispute over the West Bank of the Jordan is one between Israel and Jordan and that this "dispute" has been "settled" through force of arms. The one part of this that even pretends to be sourced is completely invented as the source supports none of it, and the rest is an unsourced POV polemic. nableezy - 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)