Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier

Fence for Life

The Fence for Life stuff repeatedly added by User:Gilsrafnorn was first introduced by the long-banned Zeq in 2006. Gilsrafnorn's failure to even check if the URL is still active is not reassuring as to intent to build an encyclopedia. Incidentally, exactly the same text appears in a book here, but it may have been plagiarised from here rather than the other way around. In any case, the text is unacceptably hagiographic and the organization is almost absent from English publications. To see what this non-notable organization actually proposed, see here; as well as the huge land-grab from the fence itself, all of the Jordan Valley is an additional "Israeli control zone". Zero^talk 14:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As you can see here, the organization was not absent in English publications before Israel started to build the fence (other sources are dead links, unfortunately), while the reliable book of Gabriel Tabarani shows the civil organization was a considerable factor in pressuring the government to build the fence, especially after the Dolphinarium attack (barrier route is a different issue). Other less notable events are included in the timeline, so Fence for Life at least deserves a mention. At the same time, the report of Israel's state comptroller's in July 2002 was removed by Qualitatis without explanation or discussion.--Gilsrafnorn (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet.

I didn't say it was absent, I said it was almost absent. However, it is completely absent from the article you linked to. This organization deserves maybe one sentence in the article. The two mentions you added including the long paragraph which you edit-warred back in that still contains the same dead link you obviously didn't bother to check is utterly unacceptable. As far as I can see your mentions of "Fence for Life" are entirely unsourced. Zero^talk 23:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Misleading

"Opponents object to a route that in some places substantially deviates eastward from the Green Line"--this sounds like a white wash. In fact most of the wall (85%) is on Palestinian Land eastward of the Green Line---not just in "some places." Tell the truth, fellow editors! 2601:645:8300:2BB7:5906:1F70:C28F:68F8 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A length of 700km ["separation barrier"] that displaces an area of 77,000 ha (770 km^2) ["seam zone"] has an average displacement width of 1.1 km relative to a base length ["Green Line"], or about 0.15% or 1/636th of the length.

One length (e.g., "separation barrier") can be said to "mostly follow" another length (e.g., "Green Line") if the average displacement area between the lengths is 0.15% or 1/636th of the length, under any normal, common, consistent and rational use of the words "mostly" and "follow" or the phrase "mostly follow."

The barrier "mostly follows" the Green Line is accurate just like a river is "mostly shallow" if it is, on average, one foot deep. Both are, simply, true. Just because a person can still drown in a river that is "mostly shallow" and, on average, 1 foot deep, the barrier could diverge significantly from the Green Line in "some places" yet still "mostly follow" it.

I concur that editors should tell the truth: the barrier "mostly follows" the Green Line; "partly follows" is misleading. Intent Latte Guests (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sepsis II (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

My comment was about the subject matter. Your response was about the editorial permission policies. I was not making a comment about editorial permission policies: I was making a comment about the subject matter. This thread is agnostic w.r.t. the editorial permission policies. Intent Latte Guests (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You arent allowed to edit this article or its talk page per the link above. nableezy - 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You also aren't allowed to use multiple accounts. Sepsis II (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Lede edits

@Galatz:, I fail to understand your characterization of my edits as POV. Can you explain? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure.

Firstly by adding that was unilaterally you are implying Israel has no right to do this. There is a huge section on legality within the article, and by putting one POV in the lead only, its a violation of WP:POV.

Second you replaced The Israeli government argues that it protects civilians from suicide bombings and other terror attacks that increased significantly during the Second Intifada with The wall was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000, and was presented by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it. The wording "was presented as" implies its not true and its just what they are saying. - Galatz^Talk 20:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You understood "unilateral" as implying "illegality", but that is NOT the meaning the word. Unilaterally is calling it the way it is. A one-sided move. Unless you want to claim that the other side did in fact agree to it? Similarly, you reject "presented" because it "implies its not true and its just what they are saying". I find your objection ironic considering that WP:POV, the policy which you cited as your reason for your revert, precisely states that opinions should be attributed and not presented as true facts. Now, are you going to self-revert? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't even understand your argument. Thats nothing like what I said - Galatz^Talk 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats exactly what you said. You wrote unilaterally implies Israel has no right to do this. No, it implies they did it without agreement from the Palestinians, as that would be bilaterally. Unilateral just means they did it themselves (oh and whether they have a right to do it seems kind of settled law). nableezy - 21:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

By specifically stating that it was unilateral though implies that it should have been bilateral, which is not the case. - Galatz^Talk 00:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it absolutely does not, that makes no sense. It does not give any indication of what should happen, only what did happen. And as far as not the case, again thats kind of settled legally speaking, it was found to be a war crime. And that, upon reviewing the lead, is conspicuously absent from it. Ill be adding material on its legality to the lead shortly per WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV. nableezy - 00:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Galatz, I think you're 100% wrong about "unilaterally". When something happens along an international border, it typically happens by agreement of the two parties or it happens by action of one party (unilaterally). The wall was built unilaterally. I don't see how stating that implies it should have been done differently or that the party acting had no right to do so. I wonder if you may be projecting.

The change in the second paragraph (from "The Israeli government argues that it protects civilians from suicide bombings and other terror attacks that increased significantly during the Second Intifada." to "The wall was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000, and was presented by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it.") seems to me to put the wall in better historical context by putting the intifada before the wall. I don't see how "presented" makes Israel seem any more or less trustworthy than "argues". If you do, please explain. I recommend reading the guideline WP:SAY. Please keep in mind that we can wordsmith the sentence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If you read the section in the article about the Security Council it clearly states their only issue with it is where it deviates from the green line. Their issue isnt that they did it unilaterally not bilaterally. The barrier along the Gaza border, which follows the line there, was also done unilaterally and no one complains about it. When Israel said they were going to build a barrier along the Egypt border they also didn't ask Egypt for permission. Why is this barrier different?

For your second point, I understand they might fall under WP:SAY but you also must consider the WP:IMPARTIAL tone. One read in a way that they are presenting it but its not true, the other one read in a way that its only stating their argument. There is a difference between wordsmith and changing the meaning. I dont have a problem with adding historical context, that wasn't where my issue was. - Galatz^Talk 13:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Although other editors and myself don't see the issue with "presented", I will restore the wording with "defended" instead. I think it is important that the article say this was seen as a temporary measure at the time. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Galatz, it is just you arguing against this, and there isnt any dispute about what the word unilaterally means and that it unquestionably applies here. Your argument doesnt make any sense, it depends on supposed implications that do not exist. nableezy - 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Unilateral" is a simple uncontested fact and one of the more notable characteristics of this structure. I don't see the case against the word. Zero^talk 00:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there are two more editors against the word "unilaterally", Kamel Tebaast in Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#unilaterally_built and me in User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#POV_accusations. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am also against it. I don't think it was meant to be POV, but it may be interprated as POV and does not really include important information in the sentence. If we say it was built by the Israeli government, that's enough.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Youre against it, but you dont have any actual reasons for it. Unilaterally means without agreement from other parties, you know the party to whom much of the land that this barrier is built on legally belongs. Israel built does not mean Israel built without the agreement of the Palestinians, which is what Israel did. You can read into it whatever you like, but the words do not mean anything besides Israel built this barrier without the Palestinians agreement. That is factually true. Yall dislike the facts ok, but that isnt Wikipedia's problem. nableezy - 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

OR

Regarding

but as Israel chose not to accept ICJ jurisdiction nor make oral statements, the opinion was advisory rather than binding.

that is both OR and complete nonsense. The opinion of the ICJ was advising the General Assembly on the legality of the wall under international law. It being an "advisory opinon" isnt due to Israel not making oral statements. It was an advisory opinion because it came in response to a request from the UN General Assembly. nableezy - 01:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Security vs. Separation

The Security wall, barrier, fence, was built to stop suicide bombings. Period. Pro-Palestinian nationalist propagandist POV pushing to turn this into an apartheid-type barrier separating people based on religion or ethnicity, won't succeed. KamelTebaast 04:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed several times in the archives, and despite your belief that is not a factual statement but a contested POV. nableezy - 04:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

nableezy beat me to reverting you, but don't try a blatant POV push like that again. A separation barrier is a specific type of barrier that has its own Wikipedia article; security barrier is a redirect to barrier, which is essentially a list of types of barriers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

To the point on calling it a "separation barrier", reliable sources do so routinely, eg BBC, Guardian, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, and my understanding is that it is likewise often called that in Hebrew. Is there a reason besides your own political beliefs you feel we should not include a common term used in English reliable sources? nableezy - 04:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You know what? Insteed of doing it in English, I"ll show you how the Israeli POV calls it (ctrl+F is your friend), there is a tendency of news media sites to have a different tone when writing in English, so this is how Israelis and Israeli media honestly call it in their native tongue (a proof this is not "Palestinian propaganda"):

• Hebrew Wikipedia - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• Walla! - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• Dror Levi, the man who initiated the fence (via Walla! interview) "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• News1 - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• Haaretz - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• Arutz Sheva - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• HaAyin HaShevi'it - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• Maariv - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• Globes - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• "Commenders for Israeli Security", a movement of IDF commenders - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• Hakol Hayehudi (possibly the most ultra-nationalist news media in Israel) - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"
• 0404 News - - "גדר ההפרדה" - "Seperation Fence"

So "Seperation" is no Palestinian propaganda. This discussion is over.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Israeli news services (English)

• Arutz Sheva: Security barrier
• Haaretz: Security barrier
• The Times of Israel: Security barrier
• Ynet News: Security barrier
• The Jerusalem Post: Security barrier

International news services (English)

• Newsweek: Security barrier
• The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/09/what-stands-out-from-terror-attack-at-tel-aviv-market/
• The New York Times: “…what Israelis call a security barrier.”
• The New York Times: MAP, Source B’Tselem Security barrier
• The Los Angeles Times: Security barrier
• The Washington Post: Security barrier
• Daily Mail: Security barrier
• The Globe and Mail: Security barrier
• The Washington Post: Security barrier
• Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Security fence
• The Telegraph: Security barrier
• NBC News: Security barrier
• FOX News: Security barrier
• ABC News: Security barrier
• CBS News: Security barrier
• The Atlantic: Security barrier
• NPR: Barrier and Security barrier

Government of Israel

• Security fence

I guess this discussion isn't over. KamelTebaast 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Can add also referred to as a security barrier. That however doesnt negate that it is a separation barrier. And the sources above disproves your rather foolish assertion that it is Pro-Palestinian nationalist propagand[a] that calls it a separation barrier. nableezy - 19:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Kamel, you said this is Arab propaganda, I showed you it isn't. My point was not to say this is not a security barrier (this security barrier has been protecting my life for the last 13 years), my point was that "seperation barrier" is not an Arab propaganda, some of the sources you brought also regard the Israeli usage of the term "security" as a single sided view, like the New York Times, while the majority of the others use both terms. There is already a "Names" section with the name "security fence". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a valid source for this matter and if you want you can add a link to Defensive wall, but not in place of Separation Barrier.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And if we're gonna go counting news organizations, several of yours also call it a separation barrier:

• NY Times, 2, and 681 results (compared to 271 for security barrier)
• LA Times (and 183 results compared to 107 for security barrier
• (Your ABC is actually Australia, not America, but) Australian Broadcasting and 127 for separation against 185 (huray you got one finally!)
• Washington Post and 244 results for separation vs 94 for security (aww that only lasted a little while for you, Im sorry)

Please dont pretend like calling it a separation barrier is some anti-Israel POV, it is definitionally a separation barrier and all these sources have no problem calling it that and generally do more often than they call it a "security barrier" (which actually is a POV, an opposing one being that it is a land grab and not a security measure). I got tired of going through those google searches as it is fairly clear that you arent interested in giving an objective portrayal of how sources describe it and are instead just looking for things to back up your own personal POV. If you had been even a little bit interested in making this article NPOV you would have examined how often sources use each phrase instead of dropping a collection of links to prove that security is the common term when sources you cite in fact use separation barrier more often. nableezy - 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• nableezy My examples of the term "security" barrier were based on news, not OP-EDs within news services, which your thorough search I'm sure did not differentiate between.
• There is generally a difference when Israelis use "separation" barrier in Hebrew from how it is used in the English speaking world, with a connotation to Apartheid.
• Bolter21 I never used the word Arabs, rather "Pro-Palestinian nationalists"

This was first built by the Government of Israel as a Security fence. I'm okay with referring to it as security fence, wall, or barrier, with an addition that it is also referred to as "separation barrier." KamelTebaast 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Were any of the links I posted an op-ed within the news service? Or was each of them a news article? As far as what you are okay with, no, that wont do, as it appears that separation barrier is both more often used in reliable sources (by several times from the search results above in fact) and the article that we have that describes the type of barrier here is separation barrier. As far as what you claim was the intention of Israel, again that is not undisputed fact. That is a contested POV, please do not continue asserting POVs as though they were fact. Yes, you said pro-Palestinian nationalists, something that is factually wrong as saying Arabs, or is the Jerusalem Post now a pro-Palestinian Arab news organization? How about the NY Times, or the LA Times, or the Guardian? As far as the new line that separation in English carries a connotation of Apartheid, unsupported assertion. One that the liberal use of "separation barrier" by a large number of reliable sources across the English speaking world demonstrates is again a foolishly made factually incorrect claim. Oh, and separation barrier does not once say "apartheid" in that article. Try to stop making factually wrong claims in your zeal to fight the good fight, k? nableezy - 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Kamel, when you are regarding to something as "pro-Palestinian propagandits..."aparthid"...blah blah", don't expect to have a serious discussion. The fence is a fence, on this we all agree. The fence is also a seperation fence, becuase it seperates Israel from the "savages" that lie behind , this is not a pro-Palestinian view and this does not contridict the security factor of the fence and actually used by a large variaty of sources, including the most ultra-nationalist ones, even the sources you provided used the term "separation". Sure there is not enough wording about the fact this is de-facto, regardless of what analysists are saying, a security fence, but also "separation fence" can relate to this purpose. "Separation" is not a bad word (like "apartheid", "aggression", "colonialism" or any other word that will be an actual WP:POV), but just a word used by both Israelis of all the edges of the political spectrum and the rest of the world. The reason why there's the use of the word "barrier" is simply becuase this is a bit more than a fence and a wall, so "barrier" is good, this is why the article is called "Israeli West Bank barrier". I"ll make a bold edit to try and resolve this conflict, revert it if you disagree.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

nableezy for clarity:

• My reference to news vs. OP-EDs was with regard to your numbers comparisons, not your linked articles.

• Those comparisons cannot be used to determine, as you tried, more usages, therefore it should be adopted.

• You wrote: "Oh, and separation barrier does not once say "apartheid" in that article."

Explain this in the article: "In Arabic, it is called wall of apartheid جدار الفصل العنصري^ⓘ, jidar al-fasl al-'unsuri".

Because the term "separation" is highly controversial, and because the article is named Israeli West Bank barrier, the term "separation" should not be placed in front of the word barrier in any of the uses within the article; WP:POVPUSH. However, because other names are offered, even though some are highly offensive, such as "Apartheid", I am willing to forego placing "security" in front of "barrier" and I'll accept the following opening sentence:

The Israeli West Bank barrier (for further names see here) is a contested barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line".

KamelTebaast 21:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Kamel, you have to accept that "separation" is not controversial, this is all in your head. I have gave you a list of Israeli sources, including the most ultra-nationalist ones (namely Arutz Sheva, HaKol HaYehudi and 0404 News). And a word being "offensive" to you is not an argument. I think the existance of the article State of Palestine is deeply offensive, but I am not going to try and delete it now just because I don't like it. Your offer is unacceptable, because barrier links to a disambiguation page and simply "barrier" doesn't explain the topic well. Separation is not POV of anyone, "separation fence" is a name used by IDF officials and the man who initiated the barrier.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolter21, as I've stated, there is a different connotation between Hebrew usage and English. That said, it is enough that the Government of Israel does not officially use the term "separation" barrier which makes it controversial. (As far a "offensive", that was for this page's discussion, not as an attempt to remove Apartheid.) Enough of this argument. Your WP:BOLD edit is unacceptable. "Security" or nothing. KamelTebaast 22:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Explain to me why "separation" is POV and I"ll try to refute it. Should I fail to refute it, we will have to have a broader involvment here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Separation isnt highly controversial. Thats the unsupported opinion of a random person on the internet. Reliable sources routinely use "separation barrier" to describe the subject of this article, and our article does the same. Explain what to you? That isnt the article I linked to. Separation barrier, which you claimed has a connotation of "Apartheid", does not once have that word in the article. What else is there to explain? And lets be clear on something here, Kamel Tebaast, it was your bold edit, and that was reverted. You do not determine what happens on this page, so your ultimatum is noted and ignored. nableezy - 22:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolter, I object to the addition of "defensive barrier". That is not appropriate in the lead in Wikipedia's voice, it says as fact what is disputed, namely that the purpose of the barrier is security and not to effectively annex occupied territory. Security barrier and apartheid wall are opposite sides of the same coin, and including one in Wikipedia's voice is POV. nableezy - 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, (it was an argument so) I"ll self-revert and come up with an improved version tommorow. But I will not self revert my changes from "wall" to "barrier", calling the entire thing a "wall" is both wrong and misleading.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with most of the changes, where it describes the barrier in Wikipedia's voice it should use barrier unless its specifically talking about the portions of the barrier that are in fact a wall. But "West Bank wall" is a common term for the barrier as a whole, and for that reason I think it should be retained in the lead. Im not overly concerned with it, but I rather it be included until there is further outside discussion on it to get other views. nableezy - 23:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Guys, it is really very simple. Since it is both, since sources call it both, since there are opinions it is either, we on Wikipedia must use both names. Bolter21 was right with his first edit "WP:BOLD, trying to resolve conflict", and I have restored it as the obvious and only correct path of action according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.[1] Debresser (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not that simple. Where Wikipedia describes POVs they must be described as POVs, and whether or not the purpose of this barrier was security or a land grab are very much contested POVs. What is not a POV, what is undisputed fact, is that this barrier separates two populations. And to the point, that edit is challenged, and should not be restored absent a consensus here on this talk page for it. nableezy - 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

nableezy, your "undisputed fact" that this barrier separates two populations is no more factual than the fact that the security barrier has drastically reduced suicide bombings in Israel and saved Israeli lives.

"Between 2000 and 2006, there were 4,000 terrorist attacks in Israel, resulting in the deaths of 1,639 Israelis. In stark contrast to those statistics, from 2007 through the present in 2015, there have only been 32 suicide-bomb attacks, and only 20 Israelis have died."

As I already stated prior, there is a section for everyone's names, including the Arabic "Aparthied Wall". Therefore, you adding the one name that you want while excluding all others is POV. Other than "barrier", Bolter21's original solution, both separation and security, (followed by Debresser recent edit and reverted by you), is the only acceptable solution. KamelTebaast 19:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

The article says that. Per WP:CON and WP:EW this new addition should not be edit-warred in, as you and Debresser are doing. nableezy - 20:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and not violated WP:1RR, so why are your reverts of mine and Debresser's not an edit war? KamelTebaast 23:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is dead (Kamel lost), but anyway here are some examples of Israeli official bodies using "separation": the title for a Knesset debate, and the words of some of the speakers, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs page that calls it "separation fence" repeatedly and even gives an argument for that name ("The fence was not meant to separate the two peoples by religion or race but to separate terrorists from their victims."), a High Court ruling that calls it "separation fence" throughout. Zero^talk 05:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wall

Thats a fairly common term, and its use in such things as the ICJ case should allow its inclusion in the first line. As it is long-standing material, Bolter21 could you self-revert your removal and bring the reasons for removal here? nableezy - 21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A common term, but a joke for a lead section. Per WP:UNDUE, there is no reason to say "The Israeli West Bank barrier, or that 8% of it that pro-Palestinians like to cry about". There is enough people that regard this as an "Aparthied Wall" and using this term in the very first sentence of the article continues this myth that "there is a wall between Israel and Palestine" while in reality the absolute majority of it is a fence.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolter, the title of the ICJ case was Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This isnt about "apartheid" or "Palestinians crying". This is about a term used in official documents about the topic of this article. This is long-standing material and should be returned. nableezy - 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The "West Bank barrier" is not a wall, 6% of it is a wall (Just like Israel is not the Galilee, but 10% of it it). The ICJ talks about the wall part I assume.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesnt, the decision deals with the entire barrier. Wall is the term they used to describe it. Youre arguing about the truth of the description, and that really isnt relevant. My point is that "wall" is a significant alternative title for it, as evidenced by its use in UN organs. nableezy - 22:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. It is commonly called "wall", and in all the areas I know what it looks like, it looks like a wall. Even if the article says it is a "fence", that is not a contradiction, because that fence includes a wall among other things. In addition, sources also use "wall" at times, so "wall" must be able to stay, at least in places. I see no reason to ask Bolter to undo his edit, we can do this for him, with all respect, of course. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Than I am sorry we have such people in the UN. Calling a 700km fence a "wall" is clearly POV, even coming from the UN (OCHAoPt have already made things like lowering the number of Israeli deaths in their statistics and including uncertain Palestinian deaths) and therefore shouldn't be in the lead. The most NPOV thing to do is to refer it as a "barrier" in short. We have enough sources in the discussion above that people call it "Separation Fence" and "Security Barrier" so giving weight to a single term, that is highly misleading and in this case actually advocate propaganda, this can't be there. A wall is a wall, not a "90-95% fence and the rest a concrete wall up to 8 meters high".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

With some exceptions it is a wall when adjacent to Palestinian population centers and a double wire fence in other places. So, while it should not be called a wall in summary, it is also missing an important point to call it only a fence or mostly a fence. Zero^talk 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the ICJ, "wall" is the word used by the General Assembly in its request for an opinion from the ICJ. The ICJ commented on the terminology like this:

"the 'wall; in question is a complex construction, so that that term cannot be understood in a limited physical sense. However, the other terms used, either by Israel ('fence') or by the Secretary-General ('barrier'), are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense. In this Opinion, the Court has therefore chosen to use the terminology employed by the General Assembly." (Para. 67 of ICJ Ruling) Zero^talk 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I never understood some Wikipedians rush to accept every word that comes out of the UN, as if everything the UN says is gold.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not that everything they say is gold or undisputed fact or anything like that, its that it generally represents a fairly significant POV and as such merits inclusion. nableezy - 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it quite weird to have a point of view about what is a physical thing? Like, there is a pineapple, but the UN calls it a melon, so is there a significance to it?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a response to your comment on rushing to accept every word, not about whether or not what is called a wall is actually a wall. nableezy - 21:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed the UN is a significant POV, but in this matter it isn't, especially when they are representing nonsense.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem fairly convinced that wall is not an acceptable term to use. However, it is a term that is often used, by involved parties (most quotes from Palestinian officials Ive seen refer to it as the wall), outside groups such as the UN and the ICJ, and reliable sources. Thats what matters here. nableezy - 21:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the name "wall", just not as a secondary name to the article and not as a word to describe the entire thing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not it should be in the first sentence is determined by the criteria in WP:ALTNAME, namely whether or not West Bank wall is a significant alternative name. My position is its usage indicates that it is in fact a significant alternative name. nableezy - 21:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not more significant than "separation fence/barrier", "security fence/batter" or "apartheid wall".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

unilaterally built

The present opening sentence is:

The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a contested separation and security barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line".

The term unilaterally is both redundant and POV pushing, therefore, it needs to be deleted. Just stating that it is a "contested separation and security barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government" means exactly the same thing. It states that the Israeli government built it. That is unilaterally built! KamelTebaast 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above, titled "Lede edits". You're late to this party. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Better late than never. I'll be joining it tomorrow. KamelTebaast 07:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)