Talk:Separation barrier

message: The Israeli barriers are not along a political boundary...we should not say that they are. OneVoice 15:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not political boundary

message: It is not clear from this definition how a "separation barrier" is meant to differ from any other defended border. I am concerned that this article might be a neologism in the sense in which it is being used. It seems clear that the newer wall/fence being built by the Israelis is being called the "separation barrier" by many (including the Israeli government), and googling on it gets tens of thousands of hits. But excluding "Israel" and "Israeli" from the search drops the hits down to just 849 - of which every link on the first three pages (after which I got sick of checking in detail) is either:
* still about Israel, just happens not to include the term
* a mirror of one of our articles
* a completely unrelated article which just happened to use the phrase (e.g. a fire safety product); or
* doesn't actually include the phrase at all.
Further, the term "security fence" has a common meaning which has nothing to do with borders. Next, several of the example "separation barriers" are conventionally understood as being military defenses rather than meeting the definition provided here. And finally, the page is a list, not an article.
This page should probably be moved to List of fortified borders or something like that, and then this page redirected to Israeli security barrier as Kingturtle originally had it. On the other hand, sticking my hand into the tarpit that is Wikipedia Israel/Palestine articles probably risks my Wikisanity. Securiger 12:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only a neologism but a euphemism to boot, and I've amended the lead to reflect this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism? 

message: ===>Largely identical articles The scope and content of both largely overlap. I don't know which should redirect to the other, though. I'm inclined to say "separation barrier" should be the main article, as not all of these are strictly built for defense, but all walls, by definition, separate. Thoughts? Justin (koavf) 01:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think merging them would be misleading to the content of this article. Not all defensive walls make a separation border, which is the focus of this article. I think the "Separation barrier" article should be renamed to something like "Defended National Border" or "fortified border" or something. --Kvasir 00:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like Defensive walls is more about fortified cities of an earlier era, whereas Separation barrier deals with much longer walls that separate territories and zones. No? //Big Adamsky 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Defensive wall]] 

message: According to constitution of Russian Federation its illegal to build such walls because of freedom of movement. Therefore, section about Chechnya and other parts of Russia seems to be fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was left by TohaSpiridonov, 16:30, 4 March 2007 
:I have added a reference. Chesdovi 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake in Russia section 

message: I've added a table of info contained in The Guardian newspaper on Tuesday April 24th 2007 p.23. The 'types' are given in the paper's graphic without further information or sourcing. Andeggs 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  table from The Guardian newspaper 

message: Is this article about separation barriers, or is it about the term "separation barrier"? Judging from the fact that the article lists and describes many barriers, it appears to be about the former. In that case, it should begin "A separation barrier is XYZ", not "The term separation barrier is XYZ". If the term "separation barrier" is an inappropriate description of the thing in question on the grounds that it is a euphemism, then the article should be moved to a more appropriate title, rather than beginning by telling us that it is inappropriate.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I may add, why is the term "separation barrier" a euphemism? Isn't it a barrier which separates? Euphemism is saying about a dead person that he is "gone". Actually he didn't go anywhere, he simply died. However, in this case we are talking about a plain simple term. DrorK (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article about the concept or the term? 

message: What about the Dingo fence in Australia? Its the worlds longest fence.
203.143.238.107 (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dingo Fence 

message: In Southern Cyprus, there are living only Greek Cypriots. The point about Cyprus is anti-Turkish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.216.91 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperation of Cyprus 

message: While it is true that the Koreas have a fortified DMZ between them, this suggestion that a wall has been built across the (entire) border is unsupported. Recommend deletion of this section.--S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea Wall? 

message: The section on Afghanistan did not have any sources, so, after a quick search here, I challenged and reverted it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: I don't know if User: Gilabrand looked at the recent talk page discussions before making some problematic changes. If he does he'll see explanations for most of my changes at this diff:See talk: changed security fence redirect; citation needed; remove material already proven to be without refs; reflect what sources say or put back relevant removed material; remove unsourced pic and move others where relevant and not pushing POV).  To Expand on these:
*I changed security fence redirect to Fence since very few security fences (which mostly are around businesses) are separation fences.  It's one thing to say Israel calls their separation barriers security fences and that can be mentioned in section on how Israelis developed the phrase; it's another to claim all security fences are separation barriers.
*No source for lead claim "refers to a barrier, wall or fence constructed to limit the movement of people across a certain line or border, or to separate two populations. "  No one could find a neutral source that described them as such. can you? In interim removed that claim and merged some of your language into existing language in second paragraph.
*Please see this articles talk page and archives for discussion of removed countries where NO refs were found and why making these claims is WP:original research.    
*What are people's thoughts on Tegart Wall staying in, but described way source does (per my edit) which is NOT as "separation barrier".
* Reflect what sources say - I found at least one example where a "Most controversial" was changed to controversial; Obviously most people hear about West Bank Barrier. I haven't looked carefully to see if other such changes were made. 
*Expand section note: background of what the conflict about is necessary. In my next edit I cut it to one paragraph and put it under "Rationale for separation barriers". I removed photo where you can't even see a fence and put in refugee picture which helps establish the fact you've got millions of people who want back in and that's what it's all about. It's not our job to leave out context like the mainstream media does. 
* Put back relevant removed material on Jordan Valley. It may need more tweaking and sources, but that much removal not really called for - it's about as much and of the same kind of info as the other West Bank material; Gaza barrier section actually needs more detail. Will work on. 
* Removed pictures of walls in No. Ireland and China where no source in our previous investigations showed they were called "separation barriers." Move two other pics to the relevant section.  Let's not give the false impression that the references for these are any thing like equivalent to those for the Israeli barriers. In fact the one for the US is quite condemnatory and really not a good reference at all and US probably should be removed unless another ref found. ''
*Also finally got around to changing Saudi Arabia. There still are one or two fences referred to as separation barriers, but I spent too much time here today so another day or week to add them - unless someone else wants to do the research.
CarolMooreDC🗽 19:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to recent edits per past discussion

message: I have removed the section headers for all other countries because none of them had more than a paragraph of information.  It is WP:Undue and just silly to give a relatively minor sources and/or trivial mentions a whole section each. If three or four of them actually had substantive information, that would be different. Also note I am removing an inaccurate, WP:OR, poorly rendered graphic CarolMooreDC 19:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly disagree with you. The piece looks and reads a lot better with the subheaders. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While sectioning does emphasize the trivial nature of the examples, I don't see any other benefit. By the way you all deleted two new (equally trivial) examples. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally found the right template for over sectioning. No other comments? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe each gets their own paragraph in a single section? However, each subsection is pretty weak at the moment. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good; it was the listings in the TOC that really bugged me. CarolMooreDC🗽 06:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: it might "look good" but it is not an accurate reflection of the content of the article. i think we need to get a better consensus before heading this way. i will change it back until we can reach consensus. Soosim (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your objection. You appear to be saying that this stylistic change editorializes somehow. Could you expand on that a bit more? TippyGoomba (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of this section is "WP:UNDUE sectioning". It is undue to provide a paragraph a major section when it has one reference from some not terribly notable source. It is POV to put in major sections; it's just NPOV editing to put in the bold sections as TippyGoomba did  - and that already is a compromise from my original edit with no sectioning at all! Do we need to take this to NPOV to get the point across? They might actually agree me. Soosim, please read Wikipedia:DIDNTHEARTHAT. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the revert - i am surprised but maybe i miscounted the 'votes' in this section. you wrote ")revert WP:undue sectioning per 3 of 4 editors" and yet, here it is 2-2. please explain so i can understand. always appreciated carol. Soosim (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A third editor, who wanted sectioning above but obviously wasn't that particular about what kind, actually removed the formal sectioning and replaced it with less WP:Undue bolded sectioning. This is a compromise and three of us are fine with that. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'all can add me to those who think bolding is more than sufficient.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Undue sectioning

message: "Fence at Israel-Egypt border near Nitzana, 2007" Doesn't make any sense to put it in there at all.  I think a picture of protest or protest art on the fence is more appropriate than the refugee photo; thanks for idea. CarolMooreDC 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Second time looked at blowup I could see it. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of a fence you cannot see??

message: This article is about separation wall, separation barrier and border fence per encyclopedia. If you wish an article on specific area start a new article, don't destroy this one.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See also other languages, all deal with the general terms per encyclopedia, not specific borders of one country. I noticed this problem when reading that Moroccan Wall is defined as a separation wall, but the explanation here doesn't mention it.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take your time to read through this talk page so you can see consensus reached here some time ago. Your "per encyclopedia" explanation does not make any sense, you will have to be more elaborate. And it is no wonder you saw the term as Moroccan wall but nowhere else, that article has been subject to edit warring by IPs trying to promote this neologism in other articles without providing any sources to support this term being used for those constructions. You will of course also need to provide some reliable secondary sources backing up the definition you are trying to introduce to the lead of this article, that it is used somewhere else on Wikipedia is not an acceptable excuse as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Until the time when you can provide such sources, the previous consensus version stays. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed, this all has been discussed at nauseam and no support for such broad statements was offered, especially about specific structures like the Great Wall of China, where none were found at all. I hope we don't have to go through all those articles and clean them up again! User:Carolmooredc  12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I see, it seems this article is dealing with the West Bank barrier.GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sept 2013 continued discussion

message: So far have not found any substantial source for such reference. Seems the Separation Wall/Barrier term in Israel/Palestine largely refers to West Bank barrier alone.GreyShark (dibra) 12:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you check if existing sources had one? I used another source to specifically ref it. User:Carolmooredc  talk  16:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaza-Israel barrier is not included in the Guardian's review on "Separation barriers" in "Walls: an illusion of security from Berlin to the West Bank". Curiously, i don't find Gaza-Israel barrier in Separation barriers in the world, but i do find there the Gaza-Egypt barrier. I guess the latter is the more relevant then.GreyShark (dibra) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somehow didn't make into this article. User:Carolmooredc  talk  17:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it relevant to Gaza-Egypt barrier?GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: You have mistakenly added that source twice already.GreyShark (dibra) 21:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Focused on something else. Will figure this out 11/22. User:Carolmooredc  talk  03:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I checked the 2004 article by Barasch and there is no relation to Gaza-Israel border barrier as "separation barrier", except some general mention that Rabin had decided to build a separation barrier in Gaza at some point, but it is unclear whether it related to the currently standing fence ("Rabin initiated plans for a separation barrier in Gaza and left the issue of a West Bank separation barrier open for later discussion"). The Barasch article names the Israel-Gaza fortification as Gaza Barrier (quote "A Successful Gaza Barrier: Israel consolidated a border around Gaza in 1994, in the wake of the Oslo Accords"; "Although Israel did not negotiate the Gaza barrier, it closely followed the Green Line"). This is not enough.GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Feel free to ad it; we're all volunteers here. User:Carolmooredc  talk  18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Any source which describes Gaza Strip barrier as "separation"?

message: In addition to the above said, Gaza-Egypt barrier is also referred as "separation barrier" in the media, see ; or as "separating wall" ,,. Certainly has to be added here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to ad it; we're all volunteers here. User:Carolmooredc  talk  18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt-Gaza barrier

message: here at the January 2014 discussion of deleting :Category:Separation barriers, I made the following comments. The first remains a suggestion. The second is about reverts and tweaks I've done in the last view days.
*Merge Israel-Gaza Strip barrier and :Category:Israeli West Bank barrier to new :Category:Israeli separation barriers. Last year a couple of us worked to remove more than a dozen totally WP:OR examples of "separation barriers" from the article Separation barrier and a few dozen from the category, which they had turned into the top level category for terms like fence/wall/barrier and many famous walls; one or two editors repeatedly tried to reestablish it as the top level category.
:A couple editors have kept our eyes on this to remove more such WP:OR examples. at this diff and this diff I have used one The Guardian reporter's one-time use of "separation barrier" about the growing use of walls/barriers/etc worldwide in its proper context, reverting a recent effort to define the whole article by it. Also removed a section on an Indian "separation barrier", since the source called it a "separation wall".
:Creating :Category:Israeli separation barriers would remove the temptations to change the article's thrust with dubious sourcing and to make this a WP:OR super-category.
Thoughts on either issue? Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of WP:OR based on one source

message: Here AnonIp 193.93.13.121 reverted to a really old version of the article (similarly to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separation_barrier&oldid=531331077 January 2013) writing: (Reverted vandalism by Islamic propagandist)  I reverted it writing: (revert vandalism against long consensus by by AnonIp) (Note: I double reverted because last year there was such persistent vandalism adding unsourced articles to the category by an Anon IP who also was issuing threats.)
Here he reverted my revert writing: (By "long-standing consensus," do you mean a consensus in which you have a discussion involving only yourself and then you agree with yourself to make these changes singling out Israel?) However, all the discussions on talk and the relevant edits show there was a consensus that only walls/barriers/etc. explicitly called "separation barriers" should be included in the article since the phrase is a neologism that has been applied almost entirely to Israel's barriers in Gaza and The West Bank. (The older uses regarding Israel are also technically WP:OR, but I know I didn't have the energy to fight about those.)
There was a lot of discussion and editing by several editors to arrive at the current NPOV version and edits made with such questionable edit summaries seem to go against that consensus. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But the only people who agree to your version are anti-Israel editors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.24.158.152 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the arbitration described above (I left a note for the AnonIP on their talk page), disparaging people's motives like that can get you blocked from editing. Please study and comply with policies. Thanks. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: AnonIP reversion to old version

message: People are still adding WP:OR, in part because some interesting WP:OR about Israel remains in the article. Given the stalemate above on what to do, I just decided to be bold and move all the relevant WP:OR over to Israeli barrier, making it its own interesting article. (Still needs work, but enough for today.) I'll now cut out most obvious parts now and clean up/shorten anything that's too long here when get a chance. Hopefully that will keep the article focused.  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: After your removals, which was followed by another editor's, and another one's, there was very little left. Suggestions on how it can be improved is good but the latest edits made it unacceptable, where it was only little left and based on Israeli POV. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I have reduced more of it now, leaving out the detailed history and other comments which should be in the main article, and having summaries from that lead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Maybe indeed i misread your edits and made a rapid revert - my apologies if so.GreyShark (dibra) 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like that. No problem then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing WP:OR ''again'', including into [[Israeli barrier]]

message: Since we have the article border fence, it makes no sense to include border fences in this article.  The fact that one can google "separation barrier" and find some unknown commentator calling some border fence that doesn't mean we should include it.  As a first approximation, I propose to delete these sections: Egypt, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, United States, Germany. Zerotalk 08:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some of what is here is actually the same as what is written in border barrier. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

text: This is a reversal of previous consensus. Of course some border barriers are also separation barriers - it says so in the first line of the lead. As an editor, who deeply looked into the issue (following discussions with IRISZOOM, among others), it is evident that the definition of separation border doesn't contradict it being a border (whether widely accepted or disputed). Egypt-Gaza is a separation barrier per multiple sources; as well as US-Mexico barrier, Berlin Wall (obsolete), the Baghdad Wall (to be included) etc. It was quite long ago agreed that if sources describe a barrier as a separation barrier, then it is a separation barrier - End of story (without entering the political disputes).GreyShark (dibra) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no such thing as a permanent consensus, but anyway I don't agree there was ever such a consensus. Above in this page there are multiple complaints about the scope of this article and its overlap with "border fence".  I also don't see what "some border barriers are also separation barriers" means; of course all border barriers separate nations, and in fact all barriers separate something from something or else they wouldn't be barriers. Zerotalk 09:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  take it cool and stand up to your cool name - this is not an opinion on you, but on the topic. We both know Wikipedia is not new to you, so that's fine to introduce new ideas. Previously IRISZOOM wasn't happy with the topic, saying that only "barriers" which are named separation barriers (or walls) by WP:RS sources can go into the list - we did as she liked. Now you raise a new idea to make some logical separation of "border" and "separation" topics. Let's get it short - maybe we should just merge it into border barrier?GreyShark (dibra) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions from this page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Separation barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110920132624/http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ernst.grabovszki/Handout_Eingemauert.pdf to http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ernst.grabovszki/Handout_Eingemauert.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Request received to merge articles: Wall of Shame into Separation barrier; dated: {August/2016}. Proposer's Rationale:Wall of Shame is a WP:POVFORK of this article. Discuss here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  The article Wall of Shame is largely a simple list of separation barriers that editors DONOTLIKE  - listings lightly sourced or unsourced, so I thought a merge discussion might be best.  But perhaps AFD is more appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Separation barrier. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040715080326/http://www.defenddemocracy.org:80/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=211945 to http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=211945
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206221142/http://www.erasmuspc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=83 to http://www.erasmuspc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=83
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Separation barrier. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003072906/http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm to http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418135746/http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Document/walllawhr.pdf to http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Document/walllawhr.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829173505/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/5/2006_5_70.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/5/2006_5_70.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=211945
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The maps shows a "2018" Estonia–Russia border barrier, but the article doesn't mention it. Jidanni (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonia–Russia border 

message: Hi, I noticed that there's reference to David Henley but it seems to be Jon Henley who wrote that article. Thanks. 23.240.65.184 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  error?