Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier

Construction

Any information on the companies that are fabricating it?

SYNTH edits

Data showing a GNP increase is inadmissible in this article without a reliable source that connects it to the West Bank barrier. The World Bank source does not do that, so it's appearance here is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. The choice of GNP is also clearly biased when other measures show a different trend. A much better measure of the economic lot of individuals is the GNI/capita (roughly, purchasing power per person) which lags even far behind the rest of the Arab world and in 2012 was less than 1/6 of that in Israel. But that is ineligible too, for the same reason. Zero^talk 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This was debated years ago and resolved as non-synthesized information. It is purely factual and tied into the barrier discussion for the same reason that the speculative comments about the barrier's negative effects are included -- except that the GDP data is not speculative; it is actual data about the GDP of the West Bank. The resolution years ago when the previous citation of GDP data was shown (and has been part of this page for several years without any futher controversy after being discussed and resolved) was to adopt the NPOV approach and show all points of view. One point of view is to speculate that the barrier will coincide with lower GDP. Another point of view is to show that it, in fact, does not coincide with lower GDP. Thus, the resolution from years ago was to include both points of view: the speculation of lower GDP and the actual GDP. It is not a biased choice of GDP: it was simply the most accessible GDP measurement available. It's two clicks away on the World Bank site. (The reference was deleted.) The CIA Factbook does not have as many years of historical data easily available (as far as I could see.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the United Nations example given at WP:SYNTH. It is very similar to this example. You are trying to imply that the barrier didn't adversely affect the economy, but your source does not state that. How do you know that the GDP wouldn't have risen even faster if it wasn't for the barrier? It needs expert judgement, for which we need sources. Also, the text in the article only refers to the economic effect on people living near the barrier and does not make a claim about the WB&G economy as a whole as far as I can see, so your data on the whole region doesn't address the issue anyway. Zero^talk 06:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source relating the GDP data to the barrier? Did you look at the example on WP:SYNTH that I asked you to look at? The fact that you made the same false arguments in 2006, with no support from any other editor as far as I can see, has no bearing on this case whatever. Zero^talk 04:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not SYNTH. The World Bank report estimates the GDP loss due to the barrier (actually cites two studies which are close due to "barrier" and "checkpoints and movement permits so it is an upper bound.) The World Bank has estimated for the West Bank both the total aggregate GDP and the total aggregate GDP loss due to "barriers, checkpoints and movement permits" -- a subset of which is "barriers" so the World Bank has calculated an upper bound on the aggregate loss due to "barriers". The upper bound is about $185m or $229m (according to the two studies used/cited by the World Bank, respectively). It seems to be OK with Zero0000 to show outdated GDP growth on the chart that has been on this page since 2006 until now but to update the chart with more recent World Bank data is not okay?!? Arguably, without the World Bank report citation which is the first reference for the first sentence, there is a feasible argument that it could be SYNTH but the World Bank report added recently specifically discusses and estimates the economic effect of the barrier (and checkpoints and other restrictions -- unfortunately, it does not break them out.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sentence "It seems to be OK..." is complete bollocks; please restrict yourself to your own opinions and let me state mine. Looking at this more closely, the OR problem is even worse than I thought. The WB report refers to "barriers, checkpoints and movement permit" but doesn't attempt to distinguish the effects of each. Then it cites two studies. One of them considers the effects on the labor market and says "These lower bound estimates suggest therefore that the overall cost of the checkpoints on the West Bank labor market amount to around USD 229 million, which is mainly determined by the reduction in the wages. This cost is far from being negligible, equivalent to 6% of the West Bank GDP in 2007." Not only is it primarily attributed to checkpoints, not the separation barrier, the value of 6% it gives contradicts your value. That's because you divided a cost estimate for one year by the GDP for a different year; exactly why we don't allow OR. The other source estimates extra car costs (petrol, oil, maintenance, etc) caused by having to drive greater distances to avoid checkpoints when going from one West Bank location to another. The cost is attributed to the lack of permits to cross checkpoints, especially Qalandiya checkpoint, not to the separation barrier. So these two estimates (1) are not attributed to the barrier, (2) are for completely different things so should be added not compared, (3) refer to only specific types of cost and omit many other types. They would be appropriate for West Bank, but the lack of sourced connection to the separation barrier makes them not usable here. And of course the GDP pictures are 100% synth as you still did not find any source connecting them to the article topic. Zero^talk 11:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally your images say "West Bank" but their source says "West Bank and Gaza". There is also the question of whether they include East Jerusalem. Zero^talk 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Organization of Introduction section

This is support for a brief summary in the Introduction section and its proposed format. This is not an argument for excluding facts from the article, but only for placing the inclusion of all relevant facts in the appropriate sections.

The current (my last) edit kept the Introduction format as,

1. Paragraph 1: briefly describe Who? What? Where? (but not Why? because Why? is disputed and is covered in Paragraphs 2 and 3).
2. Paragraph 2: "Barrier proponents..." topic sentence with 73 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary)
3. Paragraph 3: "Barrier opponents..." topic sentence with 77 words of summary (Yes, there is more that *could* go here but it is a summary)

Also, there is a section on "names" which is prominently located as the first section in the article. This covers the different names so "(or Wall)" need not be in the Introduction.

Also, technically the 1949 Armistice line is not recognized (by anyone?) as a border (See: "without prejudice to future borders...") so the term "border" should probably be replaced with only the more accurate and neutral "1949 Armistice Line" (optional: "('Green Line')" SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Short and incomplete response:

the wordings "Barrier proponents/opponents" should be removed anyway. This is not an opinion poll.

Section "Names" is no reason to omit names from the lede. I question why the section "Names" needs to exist in the first place.

In this article the green line need not be discussed. If that line is under discussion, any first article link can solve that.

What I miss is clear clean fact listing. Areas and people affected. That's simple numbers. I already added some sourced figures.

And while we are at it: why is the page named like this, while it does not represent any of the names in play?. (Since it is across (throughout) the West Bank, I'll propose the Palestinian name by first option). -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Before continuing here, please undo the 1RR breach. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: introduction section organized as Paragraph 1 (one or two sentences summarizing Who? What? Where?), Paragraph 2 (Barrier proponents say...), Paragraph 3 (Barrier opponents say...), this seems to be a fairly standard way to present controversial issues on Wikipedia with NPOV... to acknowledge outright that the issue is controversial and to present the different views. To save space, text such as "The barrier is very controversial" is omitted but clearly implied. To ignore this would seem to be a disservice to the reader. Consider how to present, "The purpose of the barrier is..." without using some sort of literary device that presents a dichotomy ("Some say... On the other hand..."). The 73- and 77-word paragraphs seem to summarize these perspectives fairly.

Re: "simple numbers", it is not so simple. Consider the conclusion of the first paragraph with, "The ICJ has stated that the barrier as constructed is illegal" vs. "The Israeli Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the barrier." Not so simple... not just numbers.

Re: the "names" section, the reason for having this section is to organize similar points in a single section which is referenced by a Table of Contents. The four paragraphs discussing four common/authoritative/used naming conventions are all relevant and should be included in the article. (A rhetorical question might be, "Why not get rid of all sections and just put all of the text in the introduction?"... well... the answer is: sections organize the article.) (I do not know why the article is named IWBB.)

Re: the Green Line, I do not understand the reference to "discussing" it. I suggested that the term "border" is not the most accurate because (I believe... not sure) nobody (Israel? PA? UN?) recognizes this as a border in the sense of being a recognized, permanent, political border. To the contrary, the phrase from the 1949 Israel-Jordanian Armistice agreement is often quoted, "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines" to emphasize that it is NOT a border. Rather than the term, "border" and its political connotations, I suggest using the term "1949 Armistice Line" with an optional "("Green Line")" to recognize the very widely used term, Green Line. The 1949 Armistice Line need not be discussed -- it can be linked. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I can dive into this, please first revert the WP:1RR edit I mentioned ( [1] and [2]). -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your promise not to continue is accepted. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting sneaky? -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(Your promise not to continue remains accepted)

Re: Paragraph 1, I propose, "The Israeli West Bank barrier is an Israeli-built barrier throughout the West Bank or along the [1949 Armistice Agreements|1949 Armistice line ('Green Line')]REF.../REF Upon completion, its total length from ((northern end)) to ((southern end)) will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi).REF.../REF"

• the removal of "wall" from the introduction is only for summary purposes. There is a good discussion of the names of the IWBB prominently in the first section below the introduction. (Rhetorical question: "Why not include everything in the introduction?" Answer: "Because it's a summary.")
• the opinion of the ICJ is already in the ICJ section and was/is in the third paragraph of the introduction. Again, "Why not include everything?" Answer: "Because this is a brief summary. The other relevant parts are in the article." E.g., NOT "The IWBB is... and the ICJ opined it is illegal... and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled it is legal... and some people believe it has reduced terrorist bombings... and some people believe it has increased unemployment... and... etc.")— Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattliteTungsten (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I restored the situation into before you broke the 1RR rule. From this point, I can read comments. I repeat the you (@SeattliteTungsten:) are not allowed to write on my talkpage any more, because you called me a 'terrorist', twice. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed the Introduction to cite the 2004 Israeli Supreme Court case which upheld the legality of building the barrier for security reasons.

I do not actually expect this change to last for more than 100 seconds and I am doing this to encourage discussion of the issue on the Talk page, as I have previously encouraged, but which you have so far refused to do.

I am trying to suggest that putting *any* reference to controversial opinions in the leading paragraph is not the best format. The legality is a very complicated issue and is difficult to summarize in the introduction. I am suggesting that the Introduction be kept to a brief summary of a short description of What? Who? Where? When? with (again, brief) summaries of various points which are then covered in detail, in the article, organized by a ToC into logical sections with all POVs.

My suggested format for the introduction is three paragraphs: P1 (very brief What? Where? Who?), P2 (Supporters argue...) and P3 (Opponents argue...) where P2 and P3 are approximately equal in size.

...Comments? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

100 seconds you can have. Why did you call me a terrorist, twice? And: that Israeli High Court, what were they High on? Thanks -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very surprised the reference to the Israeli Supreme Court decision has lasted more than 100 seconds. I agree to remove the reference to the Israeli Supreme Court if there is a process of discussion and solicitation of opinions on this Talk page about a structure for the Introduction page. I have tried to initiate such a discussion (above) but so far nobody has commented on a proposed design of introduction that is NPOV or suggested the rationale behind any other structure for the introduction. I am again asking you and others for comments on the proposed P1, P2, P3 structure described above.

(I propose moving forward as best we can. If you really, really, really, really want to have a discussion about my use of the word terrorist and your use of the word "high" we can have that on your talk page. I prefer just to try moving forward. I spent about 1/2 hour reading the English version of the Israeli Supreme Court decision and I recommend you do the same. It is very well-considered and explains the nuances of international law which make this issue complicated.)

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. I remain surprised that the reference to the Israeli Supreme Court decision has remained as long as it has. Nobody has commented here about the proposed three paragraph format: P1 = extremely brief, facts that both sides agree on, Who? What? Where?; P2 = Proponents claim...; P3 = Opponents claim. IMHO, references to either the ICJ or the ISC decisions are too much detail for the introduction but if someone disagrees they can be put, respectively, in either P2 or P3. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the lede. Illegal by Isreal. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you eloborate on this? It seems that one POV is, "In 2004, the ICJ ruled that... illegal" and another POV would be, "In 2004, the ISC ruled that... legal." The ISC ruling was by the highest court having jurisdiction. The ICJ ruling was a non-binding advisory opinion lacking consent to jurisdiction so it seems the ISC ruling is more relevant -- at least, both rulings have similar relevance. So, then there is a situation where to be NPOV both rulings should be mentioned... but then they have to be explained... and then there is a situation where the introduction devotes (maybe) 1/5 or 1/4 or 1/3 of the introductory text explaining the legal issues, jurisdiction, and potentially the inclusion of comparing/contrasting the two rulings. Then, it begs the question, "Why is this much detail in the introduction?" It seems to me that the introduction should only cover a very brief overview of the IWBB. Comments/explanation/reasoning about why you are proposing the structure you propose? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to 'elaborate'. Your scheme of "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" (or whatever opinions you gather) says it all: you sweep newspapers and higher courts into the same section. I maintain that a statement by a court this important should be in the lede. More so because the Israeli state court contradicts Israeli state behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that there is no need for you to elaborate on this talk page. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have only watched this from afar. I am not against this division into "barrier proponents" and "opponents". However, there should be WP:DUE weight given, and there should not be any false balance. The opponents include the ICJ, and it should be mentioned in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that WP:DUE is an issue here. My addition (and subsequent removal) of, "In 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that building a barrier for security reasons is legal under international law" to the first paragraph of the introduction was meant to demonstrate that putting either of these two citations (ICJ, ISC) in the first paragraph is problematic because the two rulings, with explanation, with context is simply more detail than is appropriate for the first paragraph of this article. The first paragraph should simply answer What? Who? Where? etc. as simply and noncontroversially as possible. The other information is not removed from the article but simply put in the appropriate section.

I suggest that this is a WP:DUE problem, (AAA)

P1: "The barrier is... and the ICJ ruled it violated international law."

P2: "Barrier proponents argue..."

P3: "Barrier opponents argue..."

as is this likewise/similarly a WP:DUE problem, (BBB)

P1: "The barrier is... and the ISC ruled the barrier is legal under international law."

P2: "Barrier proponents argue..."

P3: "Barrier opponents argue..."

but this is too cumbersome, (CCC)

P1: (long winded... could exceed 250 words) "The barrier is... and the ISC ruled the barrier is legal under international law and the ICJ ruled it violates international law and you have to understand that the ICJ opinion was advisory based on a UN General Assembly resolution but has not been ratified by the Security Council and you have to understand that the ISC is the highest court having jurisdiction because Israel did not consent to ISC jurisdiction but you also have to understand that while Israel did not appear for oral arguments Israel did submit a written document to the ICJ in which Israel addressed the lack of jurisdiction and you have to understand that under the 1949 Armistice agreements... and this is the end of the first paragraph of this article."

P2: "Barrier proponents argue..."

P3: "Barrier opponents argue..."

so I am suggesting that this might be the most sensible way that does not violate WP:DUE, (DDD)

P1: "The barrier is... [very short and noncontroversial paragraph] <= 75 words"

P2: "Barrier proponents argue... [optional: include brief summary to ISC ruling and link to details] <= 100 words"

P3: "Barrier opponents argue... [optional: include brief summary to ICJ ruling and link to details] <= 100 words"

From the AAA supporters, I ask, "If you suggest AAA is best, why not BBB?" The reason I ask this question should be obvious. I think both AAA and BBB are too POV which leaves CCC or DDD (or EEE... TBD!) but CCC is too cumbersome, ergo, DDD. Comments? Thanks and have a wonderful day. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to figure out what what is happening in this section, but I'll make some comments. The ICJ is the highest judicial authority in international law according to the UN Charter which Israel signed. Although the ISC is free to disagree with it, to claim that the two are somehow equal is absurd. It is also misleading as well as an NPOV violation to write as now "The Security Council has yet to accept the ICJ's ruling". Why not write "The Security Council has yet to reject the ICJ's ruling", which is just as true? Despite the implication, and ST's even stronger "has not been ratified by the Security Council", there is no need for the SC to approve ICJ opinions and no ratification procedure exists. The SC has enforcement powers that no other UN organ has, but it is not superior to the ICJ in judicial matters. It is the other way around, as is clear in the UN Charter (Article 92, and Article 1 of the ICJ statute, also see Article 36). This advisory opinion was requested by and provided to the GA, not the SC, anyway. Also, advisory opinions are non-binding because that is the rule for advisory opinions, not because Israel didn't consent to it. There is in fact no concept of consent that applies to advisory opinions so the question is not even meaningful. Zero^talk 05:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your comments. There might be other things happening in this section but one thing that is happening is an attempted discussion of AAA vs. BBB vs. CCC vs. DDD structures (see above for these references). I have suggested DDD is best and tried to explain why.

Assuming you are suggesting that either AAA or CCC is better, you (perhaps inadvertently) have very well demonstrated why AAA tends to morph into CCC which then becomes very unmanagable for the introduction. Remember, I am not suggesting that any of the points you raise should not be included in the article: I am only suggesting that a fair presentation with all of the details becomes too much for the introduction.

I might illustrate this by inserting text taken directly from another Wikipedia page:

"In October 2003, United Nations Security Council (which has enforcement powers that no other UN organ has) rejected a resolution stating, "The construction by Israel, the occupying power, of a wall in the Occupied Territories departing from the armistice line of 1949 is illegal under relevant provisions of international law and must be ceased and reversed." However, in December 2003, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to make a non-binding advisory opinion on the "legal consequences arising" from the construction of the barrier. The ICJ is the highest judicial authority in international law according to the UN Charter which Israel signed. The hearings began in February 2004. However, Israel made a written submission to the court rejecting the authority of the court to rule on the case, announced it would not appear at the court to make oral submissions, noted that advisory rulings of the ICJ are not binding, and on January 30, 2004, announced officially it did not recognize ICJ authority to rule over the barrier issue. However, Wikipedia editors such as Zero agree advisory opinions are non-binding but state this is the rule for advisory opinions. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell also noted that the ICJ ruling was not binding and on July 13, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution HR 713 deploring "the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)... for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations between the parties." [16] The Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case." However, the ISC (which is the highest court of the government controlling the West Bank and whose opinions are binding and non-advisory) ruled that building a barrier for security reasons was legal under international law."

The point of the above gobbldygook is to suggest that the issue is complicated and should be addressed in detail... in the appropriate sections. It requires too much detail to include in the introductory paragraph. (Please don't argue with the substance of the above paragraph. The point is to illustrate that it is a complicated subject -- not to suggest that the above text is final, ready copy.)

(To editors: please explicitly argue in favor or against AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (or EEE (TBD!)).

Thanks and have a wonderful day. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@SeattliteTungsten: I am afraid you have yet to grasp the most important rule of WP discussions: WP:TLDR. Please address the problem in bite-sized chunks. Nobody reads walls of text. The Israeli supreme court is Israel's own judicial body, and it governs Israel's domestic actions. To compare it with the ICJ which is an independent international body is absurd. You can mention that ISC has rendered opinion, but to avoid false balance, one must give due weight to the opinion outside Israel, which considers the barrier illegal. Kingsindian (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For the ADHD-challenged: "Please explicitly argue in favor or against AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (or EEE (TBD!))." These four structures -- describing where ICJ and ISC are mentioned in the introduction -- are defined above. I am arguing in favor of DDD. Three of the descriptions are each three lines, which is bite-sized. (If "or EEE (TBD!)" is not clear, this means "you may define another proposed structure for discussion and the next structure after the ones proposed could be referred to as EEE." The differences between AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD are the placement of references to ICJ and ISC, if any, in the introduction and how detailed they are.)

I fully appreciate WP:TLDR which is why I am arguing for having a short introduction with details presented in bite-sized sections in the same article or in different articles. The purpose of my inclusion of the paragraph I referred to as "gobbldygook" was to illustrate that too much information in the introduction will make it useless because people will gloss over it and not read it. (The "gobbldygook" is only illustrative of my argument that too much text is "becomes very unmanagable for the introduction." The substance of my previous comment without the gobbldygook was only 225 words. I am sorry if this was too long.)

I concur that in the present context comparing the ICJ and the ISC is absurd. The ISC is the supreme judicial authority having opinions regarding the barrier that are binding, will be enforced, and will ultimately and finally control the future of the barrier. By contrast, the ICJ's opinions are almost completely irrelevent. (Barrier route changes result from ISC rulings not ICJ rulings. I am not expressing a POV about whether I believe this description of the world is good or bad: I am only expressing a POV that if you believe the opposite, you live in La-la-Fairy-Wiki-Land not reality.)

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Might makes right" is not a rule we follow here on Wikipedia. The ICJ ruling is authoritative, regardless of whether it is implemented or not. In the barrier opponents section, we should indicated that it includes the rest of the world, the ICJ, human rights orgs, the Red Cross and international law specialists. In the proponents, we can add the ISC and Israeli govt. Due weight should be given and the respective weight made clear. How exactly this is done can be discussed. Kingsindian (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose "might makes right" and the use of physical force on Wikipedia. I officially retract any previous statements I made suggesting that "might makes right" is a rule we follow here on Wikipedia. To the extent that "might makes reality" regarding the legal and administrative control of a geographical area, i.e., German control of Paris, Allied control of Paris, Polish control of Danzig, U.S. control of Texas and California, Jordanian control of the West Bank, Israeli control of the West Bank... reporting the reality NPOV is a rule we follow here on Wikipedia.

Due weight should be given to, "Twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had 'submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case.'" in addition to due weight being given to the nature of the ICJ's ruling being advisory and non-binding in addition to due weight being given to the ISC ruling.

It would be helpful to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD. (I posted and subsequently removed an example of BBB to try to illustrate that BBB (and AAA) are both not NPOV.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You continue to claim NPOV status for items that are not. Consider your 23 countries claim. First, you don't have a source for it except some US politician, but let's assume it is correct. That's less than half the submissions and even a smaller fraction if the European Union submission is counted according to all its countries (which is what a US politician would do). Why aren't the majority of the submissions getting a mention? It's also misleading since many of the submissions asking the ICJ to not issue an opinion do not deny the jurisdiction of the court and make strong statements against the wall. For example the European Union submission says that "the proposed request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice is inappropriate. It will not help the efforts of the two parties to relaunch a political dialogue." but then it goes on to emphasise the EU's own resolution "that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law”. Including this as if it somehow supports Israel's case is unacceptable. Zero^talk 00:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And, incidentally, the statements of G8 members Japan and Russia do not request the ICJ to decline the case. Zero^talk 00:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This continues to well illustrate that the issue is complicated -- more complicated than the appropriate amount of space in the introduction can provide. This is why I have suggested that the DDD structure is best with a very brief mention, if any, (and a link to the section providing lots of detail). I am not suggesting any information be deleted. I am only suggesting that the text should be well organized into logical sections and not all (largely, mostly) reiterated in the introduction.

It would be helpful to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (see above) or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This well illustrates that the issue is complicated and requires a lot of information -- more detail that can be provided in an introduction. Again, I am not suggesting that any information be deleted from the article. I am only suggesting that it be well organized into logical sections and not all (largely, mostly) reiterated in the introduction.

It would be helpful to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (see above) or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD. If you are not arguing in favor of a proposed structure for the introductory text and are simply arguing with me, that is okay but let us know. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

After weeks of editing, here and elsewhere, the lede is still not encyclopedic. Nothing has been done with my original points. It still needs an overhaul. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful to identify what you propose. One way to do this is to identify whether you are arguing in favor of a structure like AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD (see above) or something else. I am arguing in favor of DDD by process of elimination: AAA has POV/WP:DUE problems ("If you favor AAA, why not BBB?"); BBB has POV/WP:DUE problems ("If you favor BBB, why not AAA?"); CCC is unwieldy and inappropriately long for the introduction. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing, SeattliteTungsten? First you call me a terrorist, and now you changed your own post to make me look like a fool [3]? What "Help" do you need? -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(What I am trying to do is: inquire and seek consensus -- or compromise -- regarding a format for the introduction. I did move a lot of my own text from my own postings to footnotes (to be deleted?) because another editor complained there was too much to read. It think it is okay to subordinate one's own comments. I did not modify any of your comments. You wrote that your own comments make you "look like a fool" (your words, not mine). Please do not blame me for this.)

It would be helpful for you to identify what you are advocating, and why it is better than other alternatives. To help facilitate this, I have outlined four paragraph structures for the introduction (AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD: see above) for ease of reference. If you don't like any of mine and want to suggest your own, feel free to do so (start with EEE). I am arguing in favor of DDD which has (optionally) only a short reference to ICJ and ISC rulings and a links to full details. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Basic talkpage behaviour: don't edit earlier posts, not even your own. Whatever you intended, my responses to your original post now may look inconsistant. I request you restore the original talk flow situation (and of course you can always withdraw explicitly the 'terrorist' accusations you made). -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(You wrote that your posts "make me look like a fool" and you wrote that your responses may look inconsistent. IMHO, you do not "look like a fool" nor do your responses "look inconsistent" so relax... no need to be so hard on yourself.)

It would be helpful for you to identify what you are advocating, and why it is better than other alternatives. Are you advocating AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD or something else? If something else, it might be convenient to label it (e.g. EEE) for referential purposes. For the reasons stated above, I am arguing in favor of DDD which has (optionally) only a short reference to ICJ and ISC rulings and a links to full details. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have said this before, but I will repeat. The precise form of AAA, BBB etc. is not important. What is important is that due weight be given. It should be made clear that outside Israel, the rest of international bodies, the ICJ, human rights orgs, the Red Cross and so on, consider it illegal, and the effects of cutting up the West Bank is mentioned. As long as there is no false balance, the precise form is not important. Kingsindian (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough but it still needs to be clear what we're talking about... hence AAA, BBB, etc. (Feel free to add your own.) I have a strong bias (which is part of DDD -- see above). This is a not a political bias but a literary bias: no more than three paragraphs each with word counts not exceeding, respectively, 75, 100, and 100 -- or 275 total. I do not intend to be a structure-Nazi but I need to be able to refer to something concrete so here goes: it sounds like you are proposing either EEE or GGG. EEE is like AAA with the first paragraph ending with text such as, "The barrier has been criticized as illegal by many organizations such as [LINK] ICJ, [LINK] Red Cross, [LINK] <another>, [LINK] <another>." GGG is like DDD with the third paragraph ending with text similarly. I do not want to put words in your mouth but is this a concrete example of what you propose?

In response to EEE, I counter rhetorically: why not FFF which is like BBB but ends with the text that I added and removed, "The ISC ruled the barrier was legal under international law..." or something like that. Of course, I am countering to show that AAA and BBB are both biased and DDD or GGG are reasonable compromises. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding, "...designed to create physical separation..." to the introduction?

[This section is intended to exclude ISC/ICJ discussion which is (currently) on another section of this talk page.]

The introductory paragraph currently reads,

"The Israeli West Bank barrier is a barrier built by Israel in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line"). Upon completion, its total length will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi), laying 9.4% of the West Bank and 23,000 Palestinians apart to the 'Israeli' (Western) side."

I am soliciting comments to determine whether it is possible or recommended to include text about the purpose of the barrier perhaps along the lines,

(rough draft proposed) "The Israeli West Bank barrier is a barrier built by Israel in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line") designed to create physical separation between Israelis?/Jews? west of the barrier and Palestinians?/Arabs? east of the barrier. Upon completion, its total length will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi), laying 9.4% of the West Bank and 23,000 Palestinians apart to the 'Israeli' (Western) side."

(optional draft text) "...separation between large populations of..."?

Is there a way of writing text along these lines that is NPOV and makes sense from many POVs, e.g., could be read as "separates large populations of Israelis?/Jews? to steal West Bank land by including settlements in the West Bank on the western side of the barrier" and also could be read as "separates large populations of Palestinians?/Arabs? from which many suicide bombers and terrorist have come". (Note: I am not saying I agree with either of these and I have written this text in the extreme for illustrative purposes to ask whether there is some common text that is mutually agreed.) I believe there are many references that could be cited from many POVs to support something like this.

Currently, the first paragraph does not address "Why?" because the answer is controversial and may require more detail than is appropriate for an introductory paragraph... but maybe there is a way (at least partially) to answer "Why?" in the first paragraph. Comments? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

change "History" to "Timeline" and add "Appendix: Detailed Timeline"

I propose something along the lines of,

1. rename "History" to "Timeline"
2. move all text verbatim preserving "In[/on] DATE, ..." paragraph format in "Timeline" to "Appendix: Detailed Timeline"
3. write one paragraph not to exceed seven sentences in "Timeline" summarizing "Appendix Detailed Timeline"
4. prepend to "Timeline" (was "History") the indented link, ":see Appendix: Detailed Timeline"
5. some other day in the future: potentially create a separate article, "Israeli West Bank Barrier Timeline."

Comments? (Helpful comments include, "Go for it" or "Bad idea" or "Bad idea because..." or "I propose ...") SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. ("Detailed Timeline" at the end, not "Appendix: Detailed Timeline"). Humuskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just Another Brick in the Wall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

Just Another Brick in the Wall

Israel in the process of building a wall, that when completed, will be approximately 3% of the length of the Great Wall of China. The idea of building walls to protect borders or ideologies is not a new concept for humanity (Berlin Wall), so why is this wall the subject of such contention? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_barrier

“Maybe because it is part of one of the oldest recognized armed conflicts in the world” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppsala_Conflict_Data_Program), or pehaps is it because of the contant spotlight the media shines on this conflict?

It would be irresponsible to give a definitive answer any of these questions, however the wall is still being being built. As a defense mechanism against incursions it has shown its value for Israel for defensive purposes, on the other hand it has demonstrated an adverse impact on the Palestinian livelihood, limiting access to education, health, water, etc.

Does anyone have the moral authority to determine if this is the best collaborative solution? As the UN has done its best to productively address the situation, as its Charter addresses, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml), hence the implementation of UN’s recommendations is left up to the states, and is still currently a subject of debate.

Albert Einstein has been quoted as having said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results”; maybe the answer to this is not the option that humanity has used since time immemorial but looking at the situation from another angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.78.29 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

There are two parts of the article where the following statistics are claimed. This version is in the intro:

Between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 people and injuring over 1,900. However, from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out, killing 64 Israelis and wounding 445.

Citations are to this obsolete government web page and this newspaper article. Comments:

• I cannot find these statistics in either source. Where are they from?
• I question the reliability of deleted government web pages. We often use archives as courtesy links for sources that are still current, but governments remove material for a variety of reasons that include party politics, change of policy, replacement by different claims, etc.. So a deleted government web page can't be taken as a reflection of the claims of the current government.
• Quite besides the sourcing problem, the fact that this is just "lying by statistics" is obvious from the chart on that page. Here is a direct link. One can see that the largest decrease in attacks occurred before construction of the wall even started. The picture just shows the growth and decline of the Second Intifada. Of course we are allowed to say that proponents of the wall claim these statistics in their support (but where is the source for that claim?), but we aren't allowed to state them in Wikipedia's voice as if their relevance is obvious. Zero^talk 12:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for checking sources. Verification of sources is (always?) helpful.

Re: sourcing, a very quick search brings up this current MFA page which includes a large pdf called "Saving Lives: Israel's Anti-Terrorist Fence, Answers to Questions" which appears to have some (updated?) (partial?) information cited. I have edited some of the quoted text (e.g., for brevity) but I was not the originator of the statements and do not vouch for them. I do not know whether the assertions were or are supported by the sources. They should be.

Re: correlations, causality, and attributions, I think the "Results" section fairly attributes the alleged connection between constructing the barrier and a decline in terrorism: The first sentence reads, "Suicide bombings have decreased since the construction of the barrier." which I likely wrote or touched and is well-supported by the external sources. There are two footnotes on this sentence alone. The following three paragraphs respectively begin with, "The Israeli MFA and Israel SA report...", "The MFA predicts..." and "[Israel officers quoted in Ma'ariv...]". I understand the point about making statements in Wikipedia's voice and in this case should be very clear to the reader from these paragraphs who is making the statements and where they come from. IMHO, this seems okay because there is sufficient, clear, and obvious attribution. Not every statement on Wikipedia must be qualified by its source.

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

References or notes

CAN WHOEVER is misusing <ref> tags please desist?? Zero^talk 12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. (That was me, obviously.) I believe it is now in the appropriate state. If not, please let me know. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok now. Feel free to delete this whole section including my comments. Zero^talk 06:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

ST's suggested text

ST, please do not use comments in the article to suggest new text. Most editors won't notice them. Here is what I found as a suggestion by you. I've added temporary markers like (A), (B), ... so that we can refer to the parts in our comments.

(A) Israel states that the topography does not permit putting the barrier along the Green Line in some places because hills or tall buildings on the Palestinian side would make the barrier ineffective against terrorism.<ref>[http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence.htm ''Map of Israel Security Barrier ("Wall")- Current Status (2006)''] MidEastWeb, June 2006</ref>

(B) The use of the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line") as a primary determinant of the barrier's route is contentious. (C) The International Court of Justice has stated that the route must follow, or run west of, the Green Line. (D) By contrast, Israel maintains that the Green Line was negotiated "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines"<ref>Article V(9), http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/arm03.htm ''Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949'']. The Avalon Project</ref> and that because the "sole purpose" of the fence is security, the route is determined "wherever this is needed" based exclusively on security concerns; consequently, Israel argues that using the Green Line as the basis for the barrier's route would be "a political statement only having nothing to do with... security needs."<ref>Saving Lives: Israel's Anti-Terrorist Fence, Answers to Questions, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/Documents/savinglives.pdf</ref>

(E) The barrier route has been challenged in court and changed several times.

My comments: (A) The web site MidEastWeb seems to not exist any more. In any case, it was a private operation and thus failed WP:V by the "self-published source" rule. This text needs a source that actually states this as the Israeli claim. (D) The PDF file given here is a fine source for the Israeli opinion. However that file says that the Green Line "ceased to exist following the Arab threat to Israel's existence in the spring of 1967 which led to the Six Day War in June of that year", which is an even stronger statement than what is here. Zero^talk 07:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some further comments about this: It is not true (as you wrote in an edit summary) that the ISC ruled that building the barrier on the Green Line would be inappropriate or illegal. What they ruled is that the military commander of the occupied territories can decide where it goes based (only) on security considerations. They accepted two reasons proposed by the IDF as valid security considerations: (1) topography, (2) the presence of Israeli settlements. The most controversial part was (2), as here the court ruled that the IDF was entitled to build the barrier so as to protect Israeli citizens in the West Bank even if those citizens were present illegally. This formulation saved them from having to rule on whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the territories (a question they have ducked multiple times for rather obvious reasons). Finally, to be pedantic it wasn't the Supreme Court but the High Court of Justice (even though it is the same set of judges they have multiple roles). The main ruling where the HCJ answered the ICJ is here. Zero^talk 08:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)