Jump to content

Talk:West Bank/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Regavim behind the news. On EU buildings

All the newspaper reports on this stem from a denunciation made by not-for-profit (cui bono?) Regavim, Rona Moran and Miryam Wijler,'One rightist group's creeping state influence, on both sides of Green Line,'+972 magazine 4 September, 2012. Unfortunately, we have no article on it: it is not an NGO of any repute, but a settler lobby that systematically trawls for evidence, and makes court cases, against any Palestinian constructions in Area C of the West Bank, Bedouin constructions in the Negev, and even militates against Galilee Palestinians. Wherever it finds evidence of a lack of permit, it mobilizes to get the army to demolish it, or the High Court to authorize its destruction. It does not say a word about the numerous illegal settlements, land encroachments, and unauthorized building by Jewish settlers. The Daily Mail was the vehicle for its exposition. It's the only self-defined NGO I know which is dedicated to enforcing the systematic dispossession of a people, rather than, as is the classical case for NGOs, defending a people from abuse and dispossession.

That said, the matter is newsworthy, and might be included. The EU is accused of infringing Israeli law. Probably true. Israeli is infringing on its obligations as a military administrator of occupied foreign land in (a) both transferring its population there and (b) Articles 47-78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and esp. here of Art. 53.

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

The legal issue not mentioned is encapsulated by the bolded terms. Technically, Israel is asserting no external cooperative organization has a right to provide accommodation to homeless people in the foreign territory it occupies, esp. when the homelessless is a result of Israel's violation of its own obligations to that people under international law. Therefore, the news can be reported, but in context, with the balance you do not get in breaking news reporting only one side of the issue. It is not very relevant to this article, except to Area C. The best thing would be to await until some outlet like the New York nTimes reports the matter (if it ever does).Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any reason for deletion this info & RS from article. There is the standard procedure to place {{reliable source}} tl and to open discussion before (as you did), but deletion itself should be made after discussion's result only. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, as I see it's another reason for Jeppiz's last edit:
  • "(Please discuss first. This recent edition (today) is poorly written and poorly sourced. It's entirely possible we could use it and mention it, but then in proper format if not WP:UNDUE. Remember that Wikipedia is NOT NEWS)" for

The daily mail published a story on 5'th of February 2015 titled "European Union ‘is breaking international law’ by funding illegal West Bank building projects" [1], The folowing day NRG News had reported that the construction had been probaby funded by the EHCO organization [2] and published EU east jerusalem office response for the alegations. I24News stated that [James Carver] sent a slamming letter to it's peers.[3] The Jerualem post had published COGAT response for the story stating "The civil administration acts against illegal construction, and no organization is exempt from enforcement.COGAT has sent official letters to embassies and international organizations cautioning them against building illegally in Judea and Samaria.". [4] The times of Israel reported on the 6'th that a demolishen order had been requested by the (Israeli) PM [5].

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874883/EU-funding-illegal-building-West-Bank-says-report.html#comments
  2. ^ http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/674/637.html
  3. ^ http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/60208-150206-eu-reportedly-building-palestinian-settlements-in-israeli-controlled-west-bank
  4. ^ http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Report-EU-building-hundreds-of-illegal-structures-for-Palestinians-in-Area-C-of-West-Bank-390184
  5. ^ http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-orders-demolition-of-eu-funded-palestinian-settlements-in-west-bank/
You're wrong Igorp_lj, please read WP:BRD. It's fine to make bold edit, but it's also fine for others to revert said edit, and then is the time to discuss. Furthermore, and no offence intended, this is English Wikipedia and the articles have to be written in correct and readable English. Your proposed edit is filled with spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes and unencyclopedic language. Both the content and the format is problematic, but the format is at least easy to change. The more relevant question is whether a report from a non-notable and strongly partial organization is due here or not.Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: It seems me that a sequence with {{reliable source}} is more correct, but let's check.
Any way my first reply was about Nishidani's reasons for deletion in this, not obvious case.
Regarding to "correct and readable English": I am no going to revert this version, I've copied its text & RS to let us see what is the issue and (may be) to correct it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "report from a non-notable and strongly partial organization".
It's not the issue now how much Regavim differs from other NGOs.
What one may see, is that different RS+ do consider its info and use it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "it is not an NGO of any reput" (@Nishidani)
What about this sourth?

מספר תאגיד 580460319
שם תאגיד בעברית רגבים (ע"ר)
שם תאגיד באנגלית
סוג תאגיד עמותה
תאריך רישום התאגיד 10/05/2006
מלל סטטוס תאגיד רשומה
כתובת ת.ד 44439, ירושלים, 91443
סטטוס ניהול תקין לשנת 2015 יש אישור
תאריך סטטוס ניהול תקין לשנת 2015 18/09/2014

? --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an article on Regavim is needed. A sample of their great humanitarian work: IDF confiscates 8 tarps meant to shelter Bedouin from winter storms. By the way, all this talk about Israeli law is bizarre. Israel does not apply its laws to demolish Palestinian structures in the West Bank, it applies the "emergency regulations" questionably inherited from the British Mandate, with modifications at the whim of the local IDF Commander, and before the High Court it claims to follow international law on Belligerent Occupation. Zerotalk 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Zero, sarcasm serves no useful purpose whatsoever on Wikipedia. I happen to agree with you concerning both Regavim and the application of the law, but the tone of your message is entirely unhelpful. As for the actual content, I would prefer seeing this in some reliable media. The Daily Mail is not what I would call a respected newspaper, it's almost entirely devoted to juicy gossip about celebrities. Can a better source be found, and is this due in the article?Jeppiz (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There's probably a story behind this, I think. Unless I'm mistaken the Regevim report came out last October, and did not make a splash. All of a sudden, it pops up before the elections, after William Schabas, perhaps the most authoritative scholar in his field, resigned after Israel managed to dig up innocuous 'dirt', and get him replaced on the investigatory panel for the war crimes etc at Gaza. The EU, once highly critical of the devastation of the West bank, is now distracted by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo incident, and, of all the organs in the world, the Daily Mail suddenly discovers this obscure stuff (which is actually simply about sheltering people made homeless by dispossession), and then, only then, do conservative newespapers with a POV in Israel jump at it. Of course, this is neither here nor there to editors, but we are, as editors, obliged to be very careful about what appears to be 'breaking' news, which is often manipulative. I concur with Jeppiz's call, and would add we should await serious EU official responses, rather than allow the encyclopedia to be sucked into what looks like a 'placed' piece of rather ugly purport. If the issue is a serious one for the EU it will probably be on the agenda today and when the outcome of that is reported, we may have an official response. Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The report had been published just few days ago http://regavim.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TheLastColony.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.57.59 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Regavim is not a reliable source. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
??? As I see it was reply to your:
  • "the Regevim report came out last October, and did not make a splash. All of a sudden, it pops up before the elections..."
--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria

Not saying that the land is officially called 'Judea and Samaria' is a bold bias towards the Palestinian POV. I added that it 'also referred to as Judea and Samaria'. it lasted 3 days, until User:JDiala reverted it.

I suggest something along 'also referred to as Judea and Samaria' or even 'officially referred by Israel as Judea and Samaria'.

Notes

  • It is the official Israeli name.[1][2]
  • It is the most common name of the land in Israel and in the Israeli political discussion (I can cite many articles in Hebrew if you want).
  • Jordan named the land the 'West Bank', contrary to South Bank of the Jordan River (this is actually a name that represents the Jordanian POV, historically). It used only when Jordan annexed the land between 1948-1967. It is a modern name, that officially used only 19 years.
  • The land was called Samaria under the British Mandate.[3]
  • "Judea is the biblical, Roman, and modern name of the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel, also known since 1948 as the West Bank"[4]
  1. ^ Judea and Samaria, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  2. ^ Judea and Samaria, IDF News
  3. ^ Mandatory_Palestine#By_district
  4. ^ Judea
Read the archives, and the article. That it is known in Israel by that recent joint moniker is in the lead. That all around the world, it is known as the West Bank, and that this is the default term used in wiki's neutral narrative voice, was established by consensus years ago, following arbitration. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani is right. See WP:WESTBANK, this issue has been settled already. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Why do not we see any image on which the prosperity that Israeli Localities in the West Bank?

I do not have good English ... Will not go into here the question of whether Jews are occupiers in the West Bank (in their original country), or not. But Israeli Localities in Judea and Samaria are part of the very center of the view. And therefore mandatory to put pictures of the prosperity that have - agriculture, homes, factories and much more... And page not found even one picture from what I wrote! Yair9a (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them. Debresser (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I do not know good English, so a little hard for me to read the whole page, and see where you can add. So therefore, I would be happy if someone adds them ... thanks!Yair9a (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There would be no flag!

Why put Palestinian flag map directions at the bottom ?? If anything, then put the Israeli flag! There are currently no Palestinian government in the West Bank. If you do not agree to put the Israeli flag, then do not put a flag there! Yair9a (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There is one led by Fatah. The area is seen as part of the Palestinian territories or State of Palestine so the flag belongs there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
So maybe you put the Turkish flag there, because in the past there were Turkish rule! Or maybe even put an eagle as the symbol of Rome! Once there were Palestinians, and today there are Jews! Yair9a (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No comments? I can fix what I asked? Yair9a (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that the area is still Palestinian. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No! Who lives there? I or you ?! Israeli area completely (except for Area C)Yair9a (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yair9a, please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX --Huldra (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not know much English, and I can not read all of this page. Can you summarize for me please?Yair9a (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If your English is that lacking, I would suggest that you try editing in your native language Wikipedia instead of English Wikipedia, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I really started in my mother tongue, but I saw the English Wikipedia has distorted many things that do not correspond to reality, and I come to fix them. But it's not about our discussion ... Yair9a (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Ideally, editors should be attempting to represent neutrally the contents of sources, preferably English-language ones, not their own opinions of what reality is, here.     ←   ZScarpia   07:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
And ...Yair9a (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A weasel term

“Significant portions of the Israeli public similarly oppose the continuing presence of Jewish Israelis in the West Bank and have supported the 2005 settlement relocation.” What is significant to some is not significant to others. What is the figure? I am not involved in the conflict at all and I know nothing of it; the reason I wrote this was that I found the formulation confusing. - 92.100.173.103 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Two alike images

File:Settlements2006.jpg and File:Westbankjan06.jpg are very much alike. I think we can do with only one of them. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Demonyms

MarkavaSniper, you are correct that "West Banker" redirects to "Palestinians". However, that is only a reason to remove the link, not the word as it is the name for the inhabitants who live there. I actually think that is the only thing that belongs there while the rest could be under another parameter mentioned at Template:Infobox settlement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now readded it and placed it first as "West Banker" is the the denonym. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is "West Banker" am actual term? In a reasonable state of active use, I mean? Debresser (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes and a Google search will show that. It is used widely, though not as much as "Gazan(s"). --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Roads

A good report by UN. I will try to rewrite some of the text. A lot is out-of-date. Settleman (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I would propose here to add in the opening paragraph the following addition (here highlighted only for easy reference): "The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎ aḍ-Ḍiffah l-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit or Cisjordan[2][3] is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, so-called in that it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories." Davidbena (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. The lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article. Right now, the first section of the article, "Etymology," doesn't seem to have any corresponding content in the lede, so the inclusion of at least that much would seem reasonable. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
So, if there are no further objections, I will make the addition tomorrow. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I dont think thats worded correctly, it is a political title that separated what Jordan claimed as its territory. It isnt simply a geographical name, and I dont think it is accurate to say it lies on the west bank of the river and I dont think the wording so-called is appropriate for an encyclopedia. nableezy - 21:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, even though the name today has "political significance," its name is a reflection of its location, geographically speaking: viz., the lands on the west-bank of the Jordan River. This is important, as it places the name in its first proper context, later to be associated with its "political context." The English words "so-called" are often used in encyclopedic language when defining meanings of words in their ordinary and less-convoluted language.Davidbena (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In the context of the Jordanian division of Cisjordan and Transjordan yes its name was a reflection of its location. Beyond that it isnt. I understand what the English words so-called mean, Im saying it isnt good writing in that context. nableezy - 05:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Other writers, more notably User:John Carter, thinks that "so-called" is appropriate language in this particular case. So, that makes you the lone dissenter. Still, to please you, I'll try to find a better word. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The article here, which seems to be from a fairly good reference source, says the name only came into common usage after the 1967 war. It might be better to roughly follow it. The Britannica article here doesn't seem to have any discussion of the term, although it is comparatively short. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, the Etymology section and History section can be merged. A new "early history" section of the history section might be able to describe the historical scope and name of the area, and indicate that the term WB became common only recently. If that were done, maybe the lede might be revised to have a section or paragraph describing the history and historical names of the region. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
In English usage, West Bank is understood to be the geographic area occupied by Israel in 1967, and earlier by Jordan. It doesn't 'lie on the West Bank of the Jordan River' David, and that formulation would imply an even thinner 'West Bank' than the one we have, in connotatively restricting its dimension to the uninhabited area contiguous to the River. A third of the West Bank runs contiguous to the Dead Sea, not the Jordan, furthermore. I always think overrefinement of a definition, esp. in this area, just opens a can of worms. Of course, one can experiment with various modulations. So far, though open-minded, I can't see an improvement. I was told as a child 'don't touch a cow pat', because they don't stink if left untouched. (Of course I touched one, because one just had to learn how to scoop them up and use them as ammunition in our endless skirmishes. And covering an enemy in the other gangs with cow shit was more civil than shying a stone at them!, though that too was par for the course, and not subject to retaliatory threats of being shot dead, though of course we did also use air-rifles at times!) Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your statement that the "West Bank" doesn't lie on the west-bank of the Jordan River is blatantly incorrect. Everyone knows that the political entity known as the "West Bank" lies, geographically, on the west-bank of the Jordan River, and the words do not restrict or give limits to that domain. Therefore, the edit is indeed relevant as it explains the origins of the word.Davidbena (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh come now, David. My point is one of visual and topographgical accuracy. Not 'all of the West Bank runs along the western bank of the Jordan. The parts where I like to take a dip as others think of baptism do. But when I am looking West from the northern Dead Sea, floating on salt, I am not looking over the western bank of the Jordan River towards the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Everybody knows? I didnt know that, and I think I have done more reading than what would be considered normal on this topic. A river bank extends how far? Because the West Bank extends further than what I think most people would call the end of the west bank of the Jordan. nableezy - 17:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That is just an anomaly that comes with "etymological names," and is still relevant to its description, as far as the bulk of territories west of the Jordan River are concerned. If we wanted to be precise we could say "most of the West Bank's territory lying to west-bank of the Jordan River."Davidbena (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That is anb example of what I tried to hint at about 'opening a can of worms' when you tinker, Shakespeare would have said, when you 'think too precisely on th'event,' to get precision where the general sense is quite obvious.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
No "can of worms" has been opened. It's as simple as "apple-pie," and, what's more important, it adds more clarity to the subject matter.Davidbena (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
David, reread the objections. You think I am playing a game? I'm extremely serious about language and points of usage, and your proposal is problematical for its referential imprecision.Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Except it doesnt, it ignores the historical reason for the name and in its place says it simply lies on the bank of the river and that is why it is called what it is called. The story is not that simple, and using that simplified and inaccurate story is misleading. Im not opposed to including why it is called what it is called in the lead, just not there where it, in my view, disrupts the flow, and not in a way that is inaccurate. nableezy - 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Nishidani, how would you phrase the question regarding the etymology of the phrase, and also, I guess, I would be curious about whether you think maybe revising the etymology section into the history section, maybe in reference to early pre-1947 usage of the term and pre-1947 terms for the area. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The term is generally thought to be used in its modern acceptance after Jordan announced it would or had 'annexed' it after 1949. The term itself was used, as one part of the dyad 'East Bank (=Transjordan)" - "West Bank" (West Bank) emblazoned on stamp issues by the Jordanian government about 1951 onwards. The 'West' here thus meant, the 'Western' part of the Kingdom of Jordan in that country's usage. You can find 'the western bank of the Jordan' in early travelers' accounts, and even in war books from WW1 (F. M. Cutlack, The Australian Flying Corps in the Western and Eastern Theatres of War 1914-1918, Angus & Robertson, 1923 p.108. But these are just geographic indications, and lack the integral territorial sense of the phrase we now use.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The name etymology is in the article and per WP:LEAD may be included. The origins of the name seems to be important enough to be included quite early in the lead. Settleman (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Im not arguing that, Im arguing where and how. Im saying what was added is inadequate to the point of being inaccurate, and it didnt belong there. nableezy - 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
According to Hebrew wiki, prior to 48, Israel as a whole was called 'the West Bank' which was then reduced after 1948 to what we currently know as WB. This makes the proposal inaccurate and should be mentioned in the etymology part (based on RS). Settleman (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so let me ask all of our dissenters, "WHY is the 'West Bank' called the 'West-Bank,' and, let's say, not the 'East Bank,' or 'North Bank,' or 'South Bank.'????" I think that I've made my point. The reference here is to the country that lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River, and which, by nature, stretches also a little ways to the south of that geological place. This is important as far as etymology is concerned, and it does not take away from its new political connotation.Davidbena (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The country that lies on the West Bank of the Jordan river is Israel/Palestine, since both Israel and the residual Palestine that is the West Bank have their boundaries on the Jordan river. Look at a map.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Davidbena have a point in that it should be quite early in the lead but at the moment, even the text in the section isn't right and should be updated. Then, we should have this discussion again. Settleman (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I found several sources saying the term was coined by the Jordanians ((RS?), same, ynet). Hebrew wiki basically says it was used by the brits for the area between the jorddan and sea and relating the two is probably WP:OR. IMO, it should be integrated into the lead throught the jordanian part should be emphasized. I'll try and get the body right. Settleman (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Does the Hebrew wiki provide any examples of pre-1948 British use of "West Bank" as a name? My memory is not what it used to be (so far as I can recall) but I can't think of an example of that anywhere in the large amount of British documentation I have read. Of course the descriptive phrase "west bank of <something>" occurs but that is just English narrative and not a name being used; also in common English the "bank" of a river refers only to land quite close to the river and not everything in that direction. (OED: "The shelving or sloping margin of a river or stream; the ground bordering upon a river.") There are some (but quite few) uses of "Western Palestine" in the 1920-ish period. As far as I know, "West Bank" as the name of a region arose after the Jordanian annexation. Afaik (correct me if I'm wrong), Jordan in Arabic called it "West Jordan" and the part east of the river "East Jordan". There is a problem with writing "on the west bank of the Jordan River" as it violates the normal meaning of "bank", but that's an easy problem: just write "to the west of the Jordan River". Zerotalk 00:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there's confusion going on with the term 'Cisjordan'? Serving as an example contradicting what the Hebrew Wiki is claimed above to say, near the top of the Mandatory Palestine:Transjordan FAQ created by Oncenawhile, there's a quotation from a British Colonial Office note written just prior to the 1921 Cairo Conference in which the areas to the west and east of a line running down the Jordan River are referred to as Palestine and Trans-Jordan.     ←   ZScarpia   02:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: it gives an example for the whole land between river and Mediterranean being called West Bank but does not give an example. My research always showed it was first used by the Jordanians. I believe the difference is in hebrew the term cisjordan (עבר-הנהר) would refers to Jordan. With the sources we have, I think it would be best for now to attribute the name to the Jordanians. Settleman (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice math there in the opening paragraph

"It has an estimated population of 2,676,740 (July 2013).[6] More than 80%, about 2,800,000,[2] are Palestinians, and approximately 500,000 are Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank" I guess that's what happens when you combine numbers from different sources TFighterPilot (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is what you get when you don't read correctly. It said 2,676,740 + about 300,000 Israeli settlers, and that was not counting East Jerusalem. So the sources are in agreement, since 2,676,740 is almost the same as 2,800,000 and 300,000 + East Jerusalem is almost the same as 500,000.
In any case, I replaced all the sources by information from only one source, to keep it simple. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lead Paragraph and the Need for Balance

It is hereby argued which paragraph gives the greater balance in a disputed issue; a lead paragraph that reads:

  • (a) The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎‎ aḍ-Ḍiffah l-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit) or Cisjordan is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. In contrast, the State of Israel has officially declared the same territories "disputed territory," and that the people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there, being the cradle of Jewish civilization.[source] The West Bank shares boundaries (demarcated by the Jordanian-Israeli armistice of 1949) to the west, north, and south with the state of Israel, and to the east, across the Jordan River, with Jordan. The West Bank also contains a significant section of the western Dead Sea shore.

Or a lead paragraph that reads:

  • (b) The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎‎ aḍ-Ḍiffah l-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit) or Cisjordan is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. The West Bank shares boundaries (demarcated by the Jordanian-Israeli armistice of 1949) to the west, north, and south with the state of Israel, and to the east, across the Jordan River, with Jordan. The West Bank also contains a significant section of the western Dead Sea shore.

Any opinions here, fellow editors? Of course, all statements will be backed-up by sources. In the case of Israeli claims, we have cited an Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs document, seen here, whereas in the second paragraph its citation will be deleted.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Israel's view on this is a bit more complex. The Israeli High Court has repeatedly said the West Bank, excepting East Jerusalem, is held under belligerent occupation and that Israel's authority for its various orders and regulations in the West Bank come from the law of occupation. Regardless of that, the main issue here is one of due weight. The view that the West Bank is anything other than Palestinian territory held under Israeli occupation is a minority view and it cannot be given the same weight as the super majority view. Your version does that. nableezy - 21:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
David. I reverted you more or less for the reasons given above. Politics documents are one thing: they express a state interest. Legal documents, both internal and international, have another order of reality - they express an international consensus, Israel accepting more or less in this regard the international determination. To state that one party's political view, when the world overwhelmingly accepts that it is occupied in legal terms, is way undue. In all these leads we by customary practice state the international view, and add that this is disputed by Israel, and this is what we have. Put in an expansion:

that the people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there, being the cradle of Jewish civilization.[source]

and you will set off a larger expansion of the fact that the Palestinian authority have ancient ties to their land, with a millennial old majoritarian presence there, etc. etc. Not to add that adjunctive phrasing for balance would be to insinuate that the indigenous majority did not have an ancient claim as well.(Personally, I expect if Greece were to filch that logic it would with equal force demand that Turkey cede all of its littoral from the Black Sea to the Bosphorus down to the Mediterranean border with Syria, because all of the cities there are rife with the archaeological bedrock of ancient Greek settlement, since at least 1,200 BCE. The only breakdown in the analogy that Zeus had rivals, while Yahweh's were buried in the interstices of the Tanakh:)

Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nableezy and User:Nishidani for your replies. I appreciate it. It is true that even amongst Israelis the subject is disputed, but even dissenting Israelis make-up the minority view amongst Israelis. The larger question involves world public opinion. The object of this edit is not to dispute the fact that the territories are disputed, when, in fact, they are. But to say in the lead that this contended issue known as the "West Bank" dispute has already been resolved and that it is now called the Palestinian State - in spite of what is known to the contrary that even the Palestinian Authority in these regions coordinates its activities with COGAT (the Israeli defense ministry unit which manages civilian affairs for Palestinians in the West Bank and liaises with Gaza) - does great disservice to this issue, besides being inaccurate. Our edit only seeks to obviate a distorted image of the "West Bank," and it is still in keeping with WP:Due weight, albeit, a disputed issue.Davidbena (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the editors above, that the issue does not need to be in the very first paragraph. It is mention at the end of the lead in the most appropriate place. Which is why I, just like Nishidani, reverted to the previous version, which is IMHO more balanced. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Debresser. But what will you say about the lead's use of the words Palestinian State? In reality, the State of Israel (whether occupier or not) decides what happens in the so-called West Bank territories. Isn't it pushing the issue just a little bit too much to call the West Bank a "Palestinian State," at the exclusion of its current administrators, and so as to prejudice a resolution of this dispute? This is why, in my humble opinion, we're still in need of changing this current edit, either by omitting "Palestinian State," or by adding the edit that I have suggested. Can we get an opinion from User:Zero0000 who is usually vociferous on these kinds of issues?Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not Zero, but my view is it should not say State of Palestine except that the state claims the territory. I am emphatically not a fan of the changes in a number of articles to supposedly upgrade in the Palestinian territories to in the State of Palestine. The state exists, that can't be disputed with the recognition it has gained, but it does not control any territory and it shouldn't have anything listed as being 'in' it. But it should say Palestinian territories, because that is unquestionably a super majority view. nableezy - 00:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Your view is a good view, User:Nableezy.Davidbena (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I always read with full force the and in PT and the State of Palestine as adjunctive in a disjunctive sense, i.e., the Palestinian territories are one thing - there is also the additional 'thing' called the State of Palestine, whether it be the autonomous entity in Area A which a bipartisan agreement underwrote complete Palestinian control of (not really autonomous: Israel went back on its agreements re Area A, and enters and exits at will, without prior permission) or the statutory reality recognized by most of the world except for the usual diehard big shots. In any case, as someone who has never favoured plunking round 'State of Palestine' all over articles, Nab and David are correct. Wait a day, David, but if there are no substantial objections from other editors, you can take out the 'State of Palestine'. Debresser's remark also is commonsensical. As a general principle, where a POV clash is at stake in a conflicted area of wiki, we should go for minimalist synthesis, a sentence in two parts, or a short line for both views, and leave it to the read to go down to the relevant subsections where the details can be thrashed out.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Nishidani, I'll wait a day or two and suggest a better edit according to your directives.Davidbena (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
(b) is fine, (a) would not be acceptable as it is for it states the fringe view of Israel without ever mentioning the mainstream view that the WB is occupied by Israel. I don't see a problem with the wording in regards to Palestine but if we must change it, it could be changed to "and widely recognized as being part of Palestine". Sepsis II (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with this diff: now we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to mfa.gov.il-sourced material, IMO. (For a start: large parts of the world blocs access to mfa.gov.il-sources, IMO they should be avoided ), Huldra (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
We really shouldn't write about Israel's claims to the land while deleting all information about Palestine, the nation which most nations recognize the WB as actually belonging to, in the lead. Sepsis II (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the diff from the last stable version. Ill take out the mfa bit as disputed, but the state of Palestine bit is covered above. I am not aware of any state that says that Palestine the state has any territory. If there are sources that say otherwise then please bring them forward. nableezy - 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I´m ok with the present version, Huldra (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
As am I. Especially since this is what we had for a long time, and what we have on most West Bank-related articles. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sepsis II: could you please explain why you say the article should say that the West Bank is widely recognized as being part of Palestine? I havent seen any sources supporting that, whereas I have seen many that say it is occupied Palestinian territory. Those two things are not equivalent. nableezy - 03:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

They most certainly are not equivalent which is why both should be presented. As I've stated, many nations recognize the WB as a part of Palestine and I want this recognition to continue to be mentioned in the lead. Sepsis II (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you've stated, but you haven't brought any sources. You're arguing against everybody else here, so there seems to be consensus for the removal of state of Palestine. As such I'm removing the hysteric overreaction of tagging the whole frickin article because 3 words you want aren't in the lead. If you want that in the lead bring some sources. Or is that request not civil? nableezy - 15:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You think its appropriate to tag an article because it doesnt say something for which there are no sources? When there is unanimous agreement on the talk page, with a range of views from Huldra, Nishidani, myself to Davidbena and Debresser? But you dont get what you want so the whole article gets tagged? Somebody else revert that foolishness please. nableezy - 15:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy, relax, I work 80 hours a week, I don't always have time to source basic info, but your behaviour so far does make it hard to imagine working with you again. The complete removal of any mention of the State of Palestine from the lead of one of the two areas sought to makeup the state is not acceptable for me. No one with any knowledge of the conflict could even think for a second that SoP does not claim the WB and that nations have recognized the state on 1967 borders, and numerous passed UN resolutions have also joined the SoP with the oPT such as A/RES/67/19; "1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;", "Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,". It just can't be argued that the WB and the SoP are so weakly related that they shouldn't be mentioned together. Sepsis II (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
My behavior? Seriously? Im the one that ignored multiple days of talk page discussion, made a vague wave to some unnamed source and then proceeded to tag an entire article over one phrase in the lead? Yeah, Im the problem here.

To the point. Yes, the state of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories, but the state of Palestine exercises no control over that territory, and it remains under belligerent occupation of another state. The West Bank cannot reasonably be said to be in a state called Palestine. You wrote [n]o one with any knowledge of the conflict could even think for a second that SoP does not claim the WB. I know that, I wrote above the most that can be said is that it is claimed by Palestine. As far as the UN resolutions, they dont say anything about the WB currently being in the state. It says that the state has a right to the Palestinian territories, it says they support a state that has that territory. They do not say that the West Bank is in Palestine. If there are sources that flat out say that the WB and the rest of the Palestinian territories are in a state called Palestine then fine, we should say that. But we should not be changing every instance of in the [occupied] Palestinian territories to in Palestine as a number of users have done over the last couple of years. A state is a political entity, not a place, and until it actually controls its territory it isnt a country and places are not in it. nableezy - 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sepsis. You are making a moral argument. Parity of moral rights between Israel and Palestine is obvious, even though most editors on one side don't care to admit it. Parity of facts is another discourse. You cannot use an argument of moral parity to overwhelm the factual reality. Israel is a universally recognized state with recognized legitimate borders, whereas Palestine is a state whose borders, institutions, autonomy is blocked by a superpower and its Middle Eastern colonial ally. No one can pin it down One may not like that (I think it despicable), but using a strategy of saying whatever is denied Palestine must, by mechanical parity, be denied Israel is rhetorical, and we keep it off the wiki record. In the forseeable future, statehood in the full sense will be denied Palestine, though its right to act as though it were a state is almost universally recognized, except for the usual megalomaniac strongarming suspects and a few islets in Micronesia.
Let's get back to a working compromise. The objections above were to the phrasing:

' is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine.

The consensus was to remove the last bit. So one can propose writing a sentence such as :

'the West Bank is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories. Together with the Gaza Strip, it is designated by the Palestinian National Authority as the area claimed by the State of Palestine. (René Backmann, A Wall in Palestine, Macmillan, 2010 p.209) while contended by some political parties in Israel as the object of either partial or total annexation.(Ilan Peleg, Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: Legacy and Politics, Syracuse University Press, 1995 p.29;Hassan A. Barari, Israeli Politics and the Middle East Peace Process, 1988-2002, Routledge, 2004 pp.20-24;Helena Lindholm Schulz, The Reconstruction of Palestinian Nationalism: Between Revolution and Statehood:New Approaches to Conflict Analysis, Manchester University Press, 1999 pp.52ff.)Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Change as the area where they aspire to establish a future State of Palestine to as the area claimed by the State of Palestine or something to that effect. We dont need to say "future" for the state. nableezy - 17:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite correct, adjusted. There is no doubt whatsoever that a state of Palestine formally exists, it just has a virtual humpty-dumpty existence (mostly as a Quisling government).Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the addition of both Palestinian and Israeli claims to the first sentence, and propose to keep the consensus version. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We have a consensus that goes out of the first line. There is no consensus about just a proposal that an accurate statement regarding both the State of Palestine claim and that of Israel's dominant majority go into the lead, somewhere. Another matter altogether. This incidentally is what is behind David's original proposal, combined with Sepsis's proposal . The only difference is that the two are neutrally worded as to claims, and set forth the respective intentions.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Im fine with your text Nish. nableezy - 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Cisjordan

I dont think that should be in bold or even in the lead at all. If it is to be included then perhaps formerly known as, but it isnt currently known as Cisjordan, at least as far as I know. Thoughts on removing that? nableezy - 03:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As an alternative name, it should be precisely where it is. Even if the name is not in current spoken use, it is still found in numerous written sources as a term that used to be in active use less than a century ago. Debresser (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Alternative name for what? That is the former name for roughly the same area. The current name is West Bank. Nobody calls it Cisjordan now. Is one going to call Pakistan "British India" because a century ago it used to be part of it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I take back my opinion. Upon closer inspection, the territories referred to when saying Cisjordan are larger than the region currently referred to as the West Bank. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed Cisjordan as an alternate name. Feel free to edit/revert/discuss etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It is used in many European languages for the West Bank since 1949/1950. See the French article, the Spanish article and the Italian article for example. So this meaning creeps into English a tiny bit, but not enough to mention in the lead imho. I don't think it was ever a common word in English for the West Bank. More commonly, it appears in works of right-wing writers as a name for everything between the Jordan River and the Sea; they can't use "Palestine" for that since "Palestine includes Jordan". Zerotalk 02:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

What's the need to have the term "rabbinic Judaism" in the infobox? Is there any other type of Judaism today? Could somebody please change it to simply 'Judaism'?--Yschilov (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done.Davidbena (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

westbank

Until 1948 this area was also called by it's historical names Judea and Samaria, and we can find these names also on the maps of the British Mandate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.172.9 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) says that name can be used in connection with the Mandate period. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The name "Judea" does not appear on maps of the British mandate, and there was no defined region whose boundaries approximated the present boundaries of the West Bank. Zerotalk 23:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Zero, take that up with the people who wrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). Debresser (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is being asked here as far as the article is concerned? nableezy - 01:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Water supply - my edit

How can we solve the problem of writing about this topic without extremistic positions? And I would be happy to hear more opinions than this offered by Debresser. Informationskampagne (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: do you really think, that Amnesty International is providing propaganda? Informationskampagne (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I see no reason why Amnesty International shouldn't write propaganda. Its whole existence is fighting for certain causes, so that entails a great deal of propaganda.
I said that the paragraph reads like Palestinian propaganda. In simpler words, it is written not neutrally. See WP:NPOV. Take a sentence like "Mekorot is as well the water supplier of the illegal settlers." Mekorot is the governmental water company. Of course it provides water to Israeli settlers. By the way, why add the word "illegal" here. It is not needed, if not to make a point. Later in the paragraph they are again called illegal. Etcetera, etcetera.
In general, the style of the paragraph is unencyclopedical. For example "It is remarkable", is a WP:PEACOCK violation. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Editing the paragraph may be a more constructive approach than deleting it. It appears to be reliably sourced (prima facie) and the water issue is quite central to the occupation, indeed I was surprised just now that it isn't covered very well in this article. Concerning the settlements, they are illegal as everybody agrees so referring to them as such shouldn't be a problem. One mention of "illegal" is enough, IMO, and it should refer to illegal settlements, rather than the settlers, since that's how reliable sources describe that issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the fact that Amnesty International represents an International organization with a good reputation, I think the best solution is to extract some informations of the correspondent report and write them into the article. Informationskampagne (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on West Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Km² to Mi² Conversion

It would be helpful for American readers at a glance to include the square mile figures in parentheses after square kilometers. The numbers, if anyone with editing privileges cares to add them, are: land area = 5,640 km² (2,178 mi²) and water area = 220 km² (85 mi²). Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Settler counts is wrong

Since it is impossible for me to edit this article, I'll just list what is wrong with the intro paragraph here:

As of July 2015 it has an estimated population of 2,785,366 Palestinians,[3] and approximately 371,000 Israeli settlers,[3] and approximately another 212,000 Jewish Israelis in East Jerusalem.[3]

Israel is the only country that makes the distinction between settlers in West Bank that doesn't live in East Jerusalem and settlers that do live in East Jerusalem in the West Bank. It is therefore wrong of Wikipedia to make that distinction, since it is the fringe view. Please reword the sentence to:

As of July 2015 it has an estimated population of 2,785,366 Palestinians,[3] and approximately 583,000 Israeli settlers. About 260,800 Palestinians and 212,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem which is the West Bank's largest city.

Since the count of Israelis living in East Jerusalem is given, the count of Palestinians should also be given. ImTheIP (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed change is an improvement, because it adds information and presents it more clearly. I do not think that fringe views or fairness have anything to do with it though. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes you are right that it doesn't have to do with fairness. I also see that in the infobox the population is given at 2,862,485. But that doesn't include the settlers which I don't understand. The count should instead be about 3,461,000. ImTheIP (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
So since this proposal was almost a year ago, and no one objected, can the article be updated? It is (obviously) protected, so I can't do it. ImTheIP (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

cis-jordan

'Cis', the Latin prefix meaning 'this side of', was used in a geographical sense in Republican Rome, for example, to mean the side nearer to Rome (as in Cisalpine). It is a 'deictic' prefix with a strong geo-political resonance. For obvious reasons it survives with this meaning in languages derived in one way or another from Latin. Its use in Hungarian presumably shows how that language (or the users of it) wishes to align itself, but the mention of Hungarian in this context seems irrlevant and unnecessary.Pamour (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Maps and borders is incomplete and biased. Please cite a neutral source.

Thenerdypengwin (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC) I have spoken first hand to an Israeli resident of West Bank - but the geopolitical borders is still very confusing to me and I wonder how often city control shifts. Bethlehem used to be under Christian/Israeli control, but is now Arab/Palestinian controlled. The West Bank is carved up into 3 areas - A, B, and C. Israeli tourist visas from the US allow visitation to any area. Otherwise, A is Arab only. C areas are under Israeli/Jewish State control. B are shared spaces. These areas include roadways and businesses. One published account of this can be found on HuffPost from 2013. [1]

  1. ^ Steves, Rick. "Palestine's Complicated Borders: Complex as ABC". Huff Post. Oath Inc. Retrieved 18 September 2017.
Thats covered in depth at West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord, but the areas are for who is in charge of administration and security. But all of the West Bank, including Area C and East Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory. nableezy - 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It would help if you could straighten out the misperception in your remark that there is an implicit opposition between Christian/(Israeli?) and Arab/Palestinians. There ain't. Christian means a faith, Arab a ethno-cultural identity. Most Christians there are Arabs. And in Bethlehem large numbers of Muslim/Arabs have their children go to Christian schools, just as you will find a large number of Muslim children in Christian hospitals there. They are Arabs/Palestinians before anything else, as Manuel Musallam put it.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
West Bank, including East Jerusalem is a Palestinian Occupied Territory according to the Security Council Resolutions so according to International Law. More, several States recognized de jure the State of Palestine in these territories. This (wide) recognition was acted by Unesco. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for adding a source: ADVISORY OPINION OF 9 JULY 2004 "LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCCrPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY"

Please add the following source to a footnote/reference in the LEAD: ADVISORY OPINION OF 9 JULY 2004 "LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY" Ty --79.210.108.59 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

Request that the ungrammatical opening sentence be fixed; e.g. change to:

"... or else under joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority control. The final status of the entire area is yet to be determined by the parties concerned."

or whatever you prefer. 86.190.171.142 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

I would like to add a reliable citation in a place which a citation is said to be needed. Shaaaaaaaaaay (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, 1: list the place with a citation needed tag 2: List the reliable citation, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Per above. ToThAc (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on West Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Map error - Mount Scopus

The current map image - [1] - incorrectly states that Mount Scopus was/is a no man's land (the other two arrows to no-man lands (Latrun and Government House are correct) - this is not accurate. This was an Israeli demilitarized exclave (with Israeli "police" presence). Some of the area surrounding Mount Scopus was a no-man's land - but the university campus and hospital were not.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree. The map is supposed to indicate the situation now, so the enclave should be shown with the same status as West Jerusalem. The borders of the enclave have been disputed since 1948 but the map is too small to show the difference. Zerotalk 11:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Israel's waste processed by treatment facilities in the West Bank

I added the following paragraph with the above title and it was removed. Please post below objections, if any.

Waste treatment facilities in the West Bank were built for processing waste generated inside Israeli sovereign territory.[1] At least 15 waste treatment plants operate in the West Bank and most of the waste they process is brought over from within the Green line inside Israel proper. Of these 15 facilities, six process hazardous waste, including infectious medical waste, used oils and solvents, metals, batteries and electronic industry byproducts, and one facility that processes sewage sludge. The Israel government requires no reporting by these West Bank facilities of the amount of waste they process or the risks they pose to the local population, and applies less rigorous regulatory standards to these facilities than it does to waste treatment facilities in Israel. B'Tselem, Israel's leading independent human rights organization for monitoring human rights in the West Bank, has observed that "any transfer of waste to the West Bank is a breach of international law which Israel is dutybound to uphold" because according to international law "an occupied territory or its resources may not be used for the benefit of the occupying power’s own needs."[2]
Regarding the objection that B'Tselem is not RS, please provide any information.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved comment It's rather poorly written and relies on one single source for the whole paragraph. WP:DUE is a relevant policy to keep in mind. Not saying it's automatically undue, but no effort made to establish why it's due here. Most of all, I'm troubled by the lack of neutral, encyclopaedic language. The purpose of the whole paragraph seems more editorial with the aim of blaming Israel. Again, there may be reason for blame, but not written in such a one-sided way. Many users seem to treat WP as a forum for their own views, not as a neutral encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Jeppiz. Please provide proposed edits to remove "poorly written" and non-neutral wording. Comprehensive information on this topic is not common, since, as this proposed contribution states, Israel requires no reporting on these facilities. So one RS should be sufficient. Here is another source https://972mag.com/how-israel-turned-the-west-bank-into-its-garbage-dump/131206/ --NYCJosh (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If all you have is B'Tselem (which should be attributed if used) and a blog - it is definitely UNDUE in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing UNDUE with the RS rule. As far as RS, all we need is one RS to fully support a contribution. B'Tselem is a RS. Also, 972 is an on-line magazine, not a blog. It, too is a RS. Here is a third RS for the same story. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/israel-turns-west-bank-garbage-dump-171205052610633.html --NYCJosh (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
972 is a collection of blogs per their 972mag about. B'Tselem is not a RS, you could attribute to B'Tselem. AJ is better - however they are merely stating B'Tselem released a report + interviewed B'Tselem personnel - so it still should be attributed to B'Tselem. Furthermore - you are misrepresenting what B'Tselem has said. The 15 Israeli-owned recycling/waste-processing plants in the West Bank may (per B'Tselem) mainly process Israeli waste. This does not, however, mean that most Israeli waste is processed in the West Bank (much of the more hazardous stuff goes to Ne'ot Hovav in pre-1967 Israel). Nor does it mean that most waste processing in the West Bank is of Israeli waste (there is quite a bit of Palestinian waste). You also fail to address benefits to Palestinians from these plants (e.g. processing of Palestinian waste and employment), as you rely on a source that is focused on pointing out the negatives.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, 1. the piece I added states: "most of the waste they process is brought over from within the Green line inside Israel." That's exactly what you seem to be saying. It doesn't say most of Israel's waste is processed in these 15 sites. 2. I do attribute to B'Tselem--right in the first sentence. 3. If you have sources that support the rosier picture for the local residents feel free to add. You can't delete a well-supported contribution--supported fully by two journalistic sources and in part by two books by Israeli authors just because you speculate that there may be an upside. If you've got the upside based on RS, add it.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, "Made in Israel: Exploiting Palestinian Land for Treatment of Israeli Waste," December 2017, https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/201712_made_in_israel
  2. ^ B'tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, "Made in Israel: Exploiting Palestinian Land for Treatment of Israeli Waste," December 2017, https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/201712_made_in_israel

The matter of waste dumping has been covered in other sources, such as

The topic is treated in the context of the occupation, so such discussion does not appear to be undue for this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, K.e.coffman. We should add these sources to the piece to be added.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE is often a matter of opinion. I suggest that you attribute (see WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) the conclusions to B'Tselem and shorten the paragraph a bit. If there is any Israeli response, it can be included as well. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian. 1. The piece I added yesterday, which now has been deleted in its entirety, is attributed to B'Tselem--please see the first sentence. 2. I am aware of no Israeli response and in fact the cited sources said that Israeli officials in charge of waste did not comment. I agree that if someone finds such response supported by RS, etc., they should be added as appropriate. But my contribution should not have been deleted because of speculation that there may be an Israeli response sometime. --NYCJosh (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz's revert edit summary is totally subjective, and his responses above ('B'Tselem is not a RS') patent nonsense, defioed both by the RSN board results and our own practice on Wikipedia articles. B'tselem is RS on hundreds if not thousands of articles here, and is distinguished for its close technical verification of claims by both parties. I see no difficulties with the passage as written that would warrant its removal. For an overview on ecology as warfare here see M. Mason, 'The Application of Warfare Ecoloogy to Belligerent Occupations,' in

Gary E. Machlis, ‎Thor Hanson, ‎Zdravko Špirić, Jean McKendry Warfare Ecology: A New Synthesis for Peace and Security, Springer 2011 pp155-176 p.164 Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The following sentence, and continuation afterward, "At least 15 waste treatment plants operate in the West Bank and most of the waste they process is brought over from within the Green line inside Israel proper" refers to these 15 as the sole waste processing plants and misrepresents what B'Tselem is claiming by making a total claim for all West Bank waste processing and not the specific, and rather small, segment of waste processing plants in Israeli industrial zones in the West Bank - which is a rather significant distinction. The title of "Israeli garbage disposal" is incorrect as B'Tselem is mostly describing processing, not disposal. The final sentence is SYNTH - taking an unrelated paragraph from a book (on an old quarry that was filled in 2005) - and applying it to the 15, different, sites claimed by B'Tselem (which is not a RS). The first sentence of "Many waste treatment facilities..." is not needed and is somewhat inaccurate regarding the report - which says 15.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, 1. This is a cut and paste from the B'Tselem summary:
B’Tselem research has found that there are at least fifteen Israeli waste treatment facilities in the West Bank. Most of the waste they process is produced in Israel. Six of the facilities handle hazardous waste which requires special processes and regulatory supervision due to the dangers it poses.
How is this any different from the contribution you deleted?
2. My final sentence does not refer to all of the 15 facilities. It specifically qualifies: "Experts have also warned that some of these facilities are garbage dumps that endanger the purity of the mountain aquafer, which is one of the largest sources of water in the region." (I added bold here to illustrate my point.)
3. The first sentence is a topic sentence. It is quite accurate. There are many facilities.
4. In the title, we can change "disposal" to "transfer."
5. Even if you were correct on each of these points, editing the section may have been appropriate, but deleting the entire section was not. It makes me start to question gf when editors who should know better delete wholesale.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Source:'B’Tselem research has found that there are at least fifteen waste treatment facilities in the West Bank. Most of the waste they process is produced in Israel.' Adam Aloni,'Made in Israel: Exploiting Palestinian Land for Treatment of Israeli Waste,' B'tselem December 2017 p.17
NYCJosh's Text.
"At least 15 waste treatment plants operate in the West Bank and most of the waste they process is brought over from within the Green line inside Israel proper"
So, Icewhiz, (a) drop your first complaint. The editor has paraphrased the original correctly, and your objections are to B'tselem.
(b)Drop the routine crap message that B'tselem is not RS. Unless you can point to some decisive RSN board decision stating that (which doesn't exist), you are simply, once more, making a personal issue of distaste for the NGO out to be a policy result.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(a) There is a rather important missing Israeli owned in the sentence which turns a limited sub-sector (Israeli plants) into the entire West Bank waste processing industry (Israeli and Palestinian). (b) B'Tselem does not meet the requirements of a WP:RS. Their opinion often is notable, but should be clearly atributed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I.e., you are unhappy the source, and its paraphrase, do not make a distinction you personally wish to make. 'Israeli-owned' is neither in the source nor the paraphrase. Your inference is reading far too much into the text. Again, for the nth time, stop droning the lie that ' B'Tselem does not meet the requirements of a WP:RS.' It is, and is indeed a far stronger source than most of the newspapers we cite for I/P articles. Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

In order to avoid WP:Sandwich, the first image of the separation wall in this section should be moved right above the paragraph that starts "The barrier generally runs along or near the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli...", like this:

Extended text

West Bank barrier

Main article: Israeli West Bank barrier
Qalandiya Checkpoint between Ramallah and Jerusalem

The Israeli West Bank barrier is a physical barrier ordered for construction by the Israeli Government, consisting of a network of fences with vehicle-barrier trenches surrounded by an on average 60 meters (197 ft) wide exclusion area (90%) and up to 8 meters (26 ft) high concrete walls (10%) (although in most areas the wall is not nearly that high).[1] It is located mainly within the West Bank, partly along the 1949 Armistice line, or "Green Line" between the West Bank and Israel. As of April 2006 the length of the barrier as approved by the Israeli government is 703 kilometers (437 mi) long.[needs update] Approximately 58.4% has been constructed, 8.96% is under construction, and construction has not yet begun on 33% of the barrier.[2] The space between the barrier and the green line is a closed military zone known as the Seam Zone, cutting off 8.5% of the West Bank and encompassing dozens of villages and tens of thousands of Palestinians.[3][4][5]

West Bank barrier (Separating Wall)

The barrier generally runs along or near the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli armistice/Green Line, but diverges in many places to include on the Israeli side several of the highly populated areas of Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as East Jerusalem, Ariel, Gush Etzion, Immanuel, Karnei Shomron, Givat Ze'ev, Oranit, and Maale Adumim.

Supporters of the barrier claim it is necessary for protecting Israeli civilians from Palestinian attacks, which increased significantly during the Al-Aqsa Intifada;[6][7] it has helped reduce incidents of terrorism by 90% from 2002 to 2005; over a 96% reduction in terror attacks in the six years ending in 2007,[8] though Israel's State Comptroller has acknowledged that most of the suicide bombers crossed into Israel through existing checkpoints.[9] Its supporters claim that the onus is now on the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism.[10]

Opponents claim the barrier is an illegal attempt to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security,[11] violates international law,[12] has the intent or effect to pre-empt final status negotiations,[13] and severely restricts Palestinian livelihoods, particularly limiting their freedom of movement within and from the West Bank thereby undermining their economy.[14]

Thanks in advance--יניב הורון (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! It looks much better--יניב הורון (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "HCJ 7957/04 Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel" (PDF). Supreme Court of Israeli (High Court of Justice). Retrieved 17 December 2012.
  2. ^ "B'Tselem – The Separation Barrier – Statistics". Btselem.org. Archived from the original on 20 November 2003. Retrieved 9 October 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "Separation Barrier: 9 July 2006: Two Years after the ICJ's Decision on the Separation Barrier". B'tselem. 9 July 2006. Retrieved 11 May 2007.
  4. ^ Margarat Evans (6 January 2006). "Indepth Middle East:Israel's Barrier". CBC. Retrieved 5 November 2007.
  5. ^ "Israel's Separation Barrier:Challenges to the Rule of Law and Human Rights: Executive Summary Part I and II". International Commission of Jurists. 6 July 2004. Retrieved 11 May 2007.
  6. ^ "Israel Security Fence – Ministry of Defense". Securityfence.mod.gov.il. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013. Retrieved 9 October 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Map of Palestine – Land of Israel, 1845". Zionism-israel.com. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
  8. ^ Wall Street Journal, "After Sharon", 6 January 2006.
  9. ^ "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (PDF). 30 January 2004.
  10. ^ Sen. Clinton: I support W. Bank fence, PA must fight terrorism. Haaretz, 13 November 2005
  11. ^ "Under the Guise of Security". Btselem.org. Archived from the original on 5 April 2007. Retrieved 22 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ "U.N. court rules West Bank barrier illegal". CNN. 9 July 2004. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
  13. ^ Set in stone, The Guardian, 15 June 2003
  14. ^ "Settlements and separation in the West Bank: future implications for health. Patrick Bogue, Richard Sullivan, Anonymous and Guglielmo Chelazzi Grandinetti". Medicine, Conflict and Survival. 30: 4–10. February 2014. doi:10.1080/13623699.2013.873643.

Just the usual biased BBC propaganda

about the 'illegal settlements'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.123.33 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Bank/Archive_5&oldid=1134243515"