Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 3

message: I think that we don't need the Berlin Wall here at all and propose to delete both the new material and what was there before. Objections? --Zero 04:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Jayjg 16:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: One of the most important issues of the past sixty years was the Berlin Wall, and Israel is building a very similar thing?  When I bring up the West Bank Barrier to people who don't know of it, the first thing they say is, "Like the Berlin Wall?"  Lose the POV, keep the link to the Berlin Wall.  Stargoat 16:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph on the other hand about the Berlin Wall was rambling and POV. I've removed it.  Stargoat 16:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Israel is building something that is nothing like the Berlin Wall; the only thing they have in common is that they are barriers.  In fact, the Israeli barrier has far more in common with the Great Wall of China than it does with the Berlin Wall.  The link goes too. Jayjg 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Berlin Wall is the most recent largescale, worldstage event.  It obviously belongs. Stargoat 21:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most recent largescale world event"?  That's meaningless.  Lots of largescale world events have happened, many more recently, and (more to the point) lots of big barriers have been built.  More relevant recent examples of barriers would be in Saudi Arabia, India/Kashmir, and Morocco.  The only thing that the Berlin Wall has in common with the Israeli Security Barrier is that it is a barrier; by practically every other meaningful measure they are un-alike.  Well, except for the unspoken assumption here; the "right-thinking" people and countries opposed both the Berlin Wall and the Israeli Security Barrier, and the U.S. and Israel also oppposed the Berlin Wall, therefore the U.S. and Israel are hypocritical for supporting the Barrier. Jayjg 14:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's meaningless is your POV argument.  The most politically charged event of the past 60 years, that piece of the Cold War the entire world pointed to, was the Berlin Wall.  Now, a new wall is being built, garnering similar attention.  What's more, almost everyone who hears of this seperation barrier instantly says, "like the Berlin Wall?"  All other references to the Berlin Wall have been removed from the article.  The link belongs. Stargoat 15:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct answer to the question "Like the Berlin Wall?" (which anyway nobody asks any more) is "no".  That's why the link does not belong. --Zero 16:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Jayjg 23:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Your argument is POV.  The link, a single line, is in reference to an event of definite and remarkable similarity and world importance.  That this argument is taking place in multiple places in the article, is proof that the two events are linked.  That it happens to offend your partisan sensibilities is besides the point.  The link belongs. Stargoat 13:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been many "politically charged events" in the past 60 years; your claim that the Berlin Wall was "the most" politically charged event is like the claims of Rock and Roll afficionados that a certain song was "the best" Rock and Roll song ever written.  Your claim that almost everyone who hears of this seperation barrier instantly says, "like the Berlin Wall?" is unsubstantiated rhetoric, and most likely false.  And, as Zero points out, the answer to your question anyway is "No"; the Berlin Wall is nothing like the Israeli Separation Barrier, except that they are both barriers.  Finally, your claim that Zero's argument is POV is also unsubstantiated rhetoric; you have yet to provide a single logical explanation of how the Israeli barrier is actually like the Berlin Wall (aside from the obvious points that they are both barriers).  Related links should actually be related to the topic at hand, not give links to unrelated and unalike topics that merely reflect a political viewpoint designed to censure one side in a debate. Jayjg 14:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin Wall 

message: I am going to delete the phrase "non-binding" that someone added before each mention of a UNGA resolution.  It is misleading for several reasons.  One is that it suggests there are several classes of UNGA resolutions and these are in the non-binding class.  Actually these were all perfectly ordinary resolutions which were just as binding or non-binding as any others.  It is also unclear what "non-binding" means in this context.  Everyone agrees that the UNGA has no enforcement procedures, but the degree to which UNGA resolutions influence international law is a very complicated question.  I don't understand it, but I have seen long discourses on this point in law books and journals without a firm conclusion.  If you read ICJ rulings (not just the recent one) you will see that the court does invoke UNGA resolutions as part (but never the whole, afaik) of its arguments for deciding some point of law.  Anyway, this article is not the place to get into legal subtleties like this.  If anyone knows about this topic authoritatively, the correct place to write about it is in the UNGA article.  In the present case, an unkind person might also note that Israel  regularly ignores UNSC resolutions, which are binding according to the UN Charter, so what does it matter if UNGA resolutions are "binding" or not? --Zero 04:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All UNGA resolutions are non-binding, and that is quite clear in International Law.  When the U.N. was founded they were intended to have the effect of moral suasion, but the UNGA has long since abandoned all pretense of being a body of moral judgement, and is now just a convenient location for international politicking, posturing, and speech-making.  For that matter, most UNSC resolutions are non-binding as well, except those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.  In any event, the article gives the impression that Israel's rejection of the resolutions is some sort of "defiance" of International Law, and so the modifier non-binding makes it clear that is it not.  Many newspaper articles also include this modifier, in an effort to clarify what is otherwise confusing and often misunderstood.  I'm going to restore the non-binding stuff now. Jayjg 05:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Now the article has "non-binding" all over it and it looks really silly. --Zero 12:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) Jayjg 16:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-bindingness of UNGA resolutions 

message: "Most Israelis believe the barrier, and intensive activity by the Israeli Defence Forces, to be as the main factors in the decrease in successful suicide bomb attacks from the West Bank. They see the barrier as saving lives (as successful Palestinian attacks have only come from places were there is no barrier), and view those who oppose it as having insufficient concern for human life."
And who knows what Most Israelis think?  Is there some kind of poll justification for this?  If not, its got to go. Stargoat 17:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections immediately before this refer to two polls. Jayjg 19:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: The map that we currently have represents one possible routing of the wall, one that is not being built.  We need to consider replacing it with a map that depicts more accurate the route that is being constructed.
Here is one example:
 and another 
--(that insertion unsigned by 69.138.236.221)
Recently activity of the Israeli Supreme Court makes it appear less likely that an eastern barrier will be built.  We should not change the map yet because the government has made recent substantial changes to the route and these are not public yet.  The most recent detailed maps that I know of are  (all WB) and  (Jerusalem area), both dated July 1, 2004. --Zero 05:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of fence 

message: Why was this deleted.  Foreign Affairs, where the article was published, is considered a rather reputable source.
Although at the beginning the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was hesitant to construct the barrier, it finally embraced the plan as predicted by the previous Prime Minister Ehud Barak referring to suicide bombings in February 2001: "When there are 70 dead Israelis, you can resist the fence, but when there are 700 dead Israelis you will not be able to resist it." [1, p54].
--(that insertion unsigned by 69.138.236.221) -- I think we are entitled to say that unsigned comments here are not atrributed to anyone and can be deleted as we wish. (Zero)
The article already says that Barak supported building a barrier.  Otherwise the quote adds nothing at all.  If it gives you a good feeling, maybe you can put it on your own page and read it every day. --Zero 05:32, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Affairs quote deleted 

message: [another barrier is needed - above: a debate over whether the WB barrier can accurately be classified among walls ; below: a discussion over whether the WB barrier as a whole is a wall. pir 23:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mintguy (T) 20:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: The UNGA is a political body of demagoguery, and the ICJ is its puppet; why would the nomenclature the ICJ or even the UNGA uses any more valid or relevant than anyone else's?  This Appeal to authority is even weaker than most, since neither of these bodies are authorities concerning (or have any authority in) this matter.  Jayjg 02:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The I.C.J. calls it a wall

message: The map we show in this page is significantly inaccurate.  Four possible routings are shown in the Foreign Affairs article cited on the page.  Lets replace the map with a more accurate one or should copyright reasons prevent us from doing that, lets make the link to the Foreign Affairs article more prominent.  Please note that this is the second time I am raising this issue which was first raised in August of 2004. Lance6Wins 13:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Map (redux) 

message: :Israel had initially announced that the wall would approximately follow the 1949 armistice line 
If not let's delete it. Lance6Wins 18:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any source for this information 

message: Many Israeli agitprop troopers here whined for days that they saw no dispute and kept removing the "disputed" notice, even though this article was disputed by several editors from the beginning and nothing was ever changed. 
When I pointed to the article history, many pretended not to know how to read and kept insisting that everything be laid out for them here on a silver platter.
Now that the article is protected in a more NPOV version, take time to read the article and see some points of dispute (no, I will not read and analyze the article for you). Have a nice day. HistoryBuffEr 06:12, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
: No. You said you dispute some facts but never bothered to write what facts, although many has repeatedly ask you. So far, you caused nothing but troubles. I'm sure that vandalizing articles and blaming Wikipedia to be a part of a Zionist conspieracy will serve the Palestinian cause. MathKnight 13:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it now clear what is disputed? 

message: First of all, I'd like to see an outside wikipedia source where people argue over the semantics of "wall" vs. "barrier" vs. "fence", its seems to me to be such a non issue. I've never ever heard the terms used in a way that wasn't interchangable. That is, I've never heard of any instance in my entire life when there has been any non dictionary connotation associated with those words. 
This article is completely NPOV to me, this is an example of wikipedia where both sides of an argument are not listening to each other at all and have a completely bizzare view that the article is biased against them. 
What this article does need is cleanup, in particular it goes into far too much detail about the UN resolutions, while not explaining any of the logic behind them which I think is more important. 67.180.61.179 08:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this article disputed?

message: You removed it November 30, 2004 Herr Jayjg. The discussion about the picture included dissenters to your position which you conveniently ignore, such as Stargoat, Tarek and Zero. Now I am dissenting against your false consensus. So there is no consensus now. You are just tryng to conceal the ugly wall to support your hasbara party line that it is really just a "fence". Your position is clear from this statement: "I'm not sure why you consider a fence to be a "shorter wall topped with a fence"; as you can see from the photographs in the article itself, that is not an accurate description. As for the rest, your opinions concerning me are, hmm, "illuminating". Personally, I prefer to use Talk: pages to discuss Wikipedia articles themselves, rather than giving my opinions of the editors. I believe that is what Wikipedia recommends as well. Jayjg 20:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: User Zero0000 was the one who took one of the alternate pictures, and got permission for the use of the other one.  User Stargoat congratulated User Zero0000 when he did that.  The article was stable from then until a few days ago, either user could easily have reverted or raised objections in the Talk: page.  User Tarek indeed reverted himself to the consensus version and apologized when he noted the discussion in the Talk: page.  Someone is conveniently ignoring things, but it is not me, and if you want to add this non-representative picture after many months of consensus not to do so, then you'll have to try to build a new consensus to do so. Jayjg 05:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point to your alleged "consensus agreement" on this Talk page by section number or link? I don't see it. Anyway, I disagree with your alleged consensus of 4 and insist that the picture is representative. Someone else must have disagreed because you had to delete it again on November 30. So your "consensus" to delete doesn't exist now. --Alberuni 05:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suggested New Image. MathKnight 07:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: MathKnight had no trouble finding it.  The consensus lasted for several months.  If you would like to now insert an un-representative picture, you'll have to try to get a consensus to do so. Jayjg 16:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is un your imagination. You made your usual POV demands and reasonable people tried to ignore them, as usual. That's not a consensus. That's normal editors trying to deal with an agreesive POV pushing bully. There was never an explicit consensus and you haven't been able to show one. There is certainly no consensus now. If you want to establish a Zionist consensus, you will have to work harder to have me and all other reasonable editors banned.  --Alberuni 17:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who were against moving it actually proposed two alternative pictures and then went and got them, and that lasted at least 4 months.  Consensus doesn't get much better than that.  Please respect that consensus, or if you wish to add the image get consensus for it now. Jayjg 00:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was no consensus to remove the picture of the wall months ago 

message: This appears to be - at least when I dropped by - a good, well-written article with no obvious POV issues. Well done people, keep up the good work :) Dan100 13:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
:I couldn't agree less. This article reads like a Israeli pamphlet for the wall, confining criticism to the opinions of the World Court and the Palestinians.  The Effectiveness section is disgustingly POV, ignoring the implications for the Palestinians and human rights violations.  I'll be back to edit soon.--Tedneeman 08:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly recommend proposing any major changes to these kinds of controversial topics on the Talk: page first.  The current content in this article has been reached through a long process of NPOVing by many editors from both sides of the topic, please respect that process and consensus. Jayjg  | (Talk) 17:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: In February 2005, the Israeli cabinet approved major changes to the route of the barrier.  Especially in the south, the route is now closer to the green line.  Here is a map; someone please insert it into the article.  --Zero 14:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck noticed some colors were wrong.  I've corrected it hopefully. --Zero 02:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New route, new map 

message: Some of the statistics in the article could be updated for the new route, see this article:  --Zero 12:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you specify which statistics in particular you are talking about?--Majestiq 18:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a new total length, and new data about the amount of land and people affected.  The changes to the route in the south had significant effects on those things. --Zero 12:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't know why you say that.  It refers to the decision in the past tense and shows the new map. --Zero 12:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I got the timeline wrong. Anyway, you found the source, why don't you update? Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: I am getting rather impatient with Jayjg's condescending repetitions in his/her edit summaries regarding these reverts. Please stop telling me to read the Wikipedia:Original research information, I have read it and I utterly disagree with you. Just deal with the fact that we have reached an impasse which may need eventual arbitration and avoid condescension in edit summaries. I have been trying to maintain a civil stance here, and limiting my reverts to once daily while we work through this. Your attitude is not helping. --AladdinSE 06:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just pointing out how clear the Wikipedia:No original research policy is in regards to this.  You keep trying to create a link between the settlements and the barrier, to whit, that the settlements are like the barrier in creating "facts on the ground". Yet none of your sources create that linkage; as such, the linkage is clearly a novel argument that you are creating.  If you disagree with this, please explain why it is not original research; i.e. please explain why this is not a novel argument, by showing where it has been made elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 07:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condescending editorials in edit summaries 

message: Jayjg and AladdinSE, it is time for you both to mediate your disputes as you have been having this discussion for over 2 weeks without any progress. This article has been changed too much  daily over a trivial matter. 
Please resolve this quickly.
Guy Montag 03:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Its time for mediation

message: I've changed this to say what the international opinion actually is.  It's pretty clear from the UN votes and what the delegates actually say (government representatives) that the vast majority of countries oppose the wall.
I've also tried to fix the layout which was getting unwieldy.  So basically it's like this:
# History
# Timeline
# Effects on both sides
# International/Legal issues
# Opinions.
The effects on Palestinians section had a lot of irrelevant information which I moved to the correct places.  The comment on opponents of the wall "not respecting human life" was insulting.  Think its clearer now. --Tedneeman 06:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Opinion 

message: I've put this term in with a few careful words. It is a common term that is mentioned on virtually every western news channel I've seen. It's derisive yes, but I've included it in a way that is NPOV. It reflects the point of view of the opponents referred to in the article (which is OK on WP), not the editors' point of view (which, as we know, is not OK) - I've made this clear. It also brings out another dimension to the significance of the separation wall, namely, that some opponents regard it as a form of segregation. There is no virtue in hiding facts in an encyclopedia. --Mpatel 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts aren't hidden, and the term is referred to in the opening section.  Please re-read the long debates about the use of the term above, which finally ended longstanding edit wars, and respect the consensus reached.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Apartheid wall' term (re ?) introduced 

message: Currently reads:
"Graffiti on the Wall
Banksy, a popular graffiti artist recently "tagged" the wall. He describes the wall as "the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers." His pictures have created a blogstorm and have raised the awareness of the wall and Palestinine sufferring to new levels."
I was going to edit this and put in the link section, but before I could act it was edited and reads "...the awareness of the wall on local communities" or something. Nice! --24.9.154.109, August 6, 2005
:I cleaned this up a little. It seemed like original research to say that it raised awareness to new levels. Also, words like "recently" aren't good to use in an encyclopedia. That won't sound right in a year, or ten years. --MattWright (talk) 03:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
"using WP as an ad for some obscure graffiti artist is highly questionable. Turning WP into a promotion vehicle for his political views is plainly against the policy." -- Humus Sapiens in an edit comment
:He's not quite obscure, he's had a WP page since 2003 and garnered major media coverage.  According to the WP page, he is quite popular in the UK. As for "Turning WP into a promotion vehicle for his political views", it was in an opinions section and described the motivations for his art. Please explain how it's not appropriate for an opinions section. Thanks. --MattWright (talk) 06:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
::A single graffiti artist's opinions are not particularly notable; thousands of people have commented on the barrier. The comments were just a personal political diatribe that were not encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti section 

message: The article says: "Since this section was built, incidents of Palestinian snipers from Qalqiliyia shooting at Israeli civilian cars have ceased."  However, there was a major shooting incident (7-yr old girl killed) after the Qalqiliya wall was built.  I also wonder about the claim of shootings beforehand.  The only case I can find is one when workers building the wall were shot at.  Can someone document others?  --Zero 12:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no reply in 12 days, I'm removing the sentence. --Zero 14:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question claim