Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 4

message: Chuck just deleted a quote that Jayjg inserted about future borders, a quote that makes no mention of the Wall, but which Jayjg placed in the International opinion about the Wall section. Chuck was right to do this, and he has illustrated a clear double standard about how this Bush quote with no mention of the Wall is allowed in opinions about the Wall, clearly implying a link between the Wall and future borders. The quote in question is below.
Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.  
There is a clear connection between the Wall and concerns for "prejudged borders" and Bush's comment on "realities on the ground." Double standards like these should be above us. --AladdinSE 07:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Bush is deliberately making the connection unclear, so it's not necessarily so clear.  And you're correct that Jayjg's quote is OR just like the one you're putting in, and neither quote belongs. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you consider it to be Original Research? Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If you don't consider it to be Original Research, then what is your issue with it? Please remember that the purpose of the Talk: page is to discuss article content. Jayjg (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you believe that there is nothing wrong with the quotation itself (aside from, apparently, its placement), I fail to see the issue. Please use the Talk: page to discuss the article contents, not your view of my moral or ethical qualities - the latter is generally considered a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Article Talk: pages really aren't the place to discuss your personal views about whether or not other editors are applying "double standards", which, of course, is merely a personal attack, or at best a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, not a discussion of article content (which is what Talk: pages are for).  That said, this one example, albeit prolonged, is certainly not serious enough to warrant more formal dispute resolution.  I'll just ask you to desist from this kind of policy breach in the future, and I'll ignore this section of the Talk: page going forward. Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Standards on relevancy and original research? 

message: I'm glad I stream this program, look what I found:
An NPR STORY!!!
This is an audio stream, but it is pretty relevant to this article and the problem above - particularly quotes from Daniel Seiderman, the Israel lawyer quoted in this piece. Ramallite (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More ideas

message: Up to date statistics on the length, now much is wall, etc, appear here. --Zero 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beware, B'Tselem is a politicized special interest group, see B'Tselem#B'Tselem funders. The official source is . ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's rather funny, Humus.  B'Tselem is biased so better stick with the totally independent and reliable Israeli government.  I like it.  By the way, in the cases where B'Tselem and the government disagreed in some matter of fact regarding the barrier, so far the score is B'Tselem lots, government nil.  --Zero 02:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zero, reread my post: I didn't say anything of the sort. (On a personal note, I do wish that those inquisitively obsessed sponsors leave the Jews alone for a change. There are enough real problems in the world today). ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Heraclius, I reverted your edit because it seemed to have deleted a lot of material, and I couldn't tell whether it was intentional or not. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Damn me, I didn't mean to do that.  Oh well, I'll revert to the correct version now.Heraclius 23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for revert 

message: The map on the top of this article is not accurate. 
It includes parts that have been build, parts that have been approved by the Israeli government (but are not built at all) and some lines which are pure speculation because they have been left by the government "for further discussion". 
The route of the wall/fence/barrier has been rerouted many times.
Approval by the Israeli government means nothing, as the army eventually makes changes on the ground and the courts also have their say.
The court have just told the government to change the route of an exiting section, they previously ordered rerouting of a 34 K'm section and there are about 40 more petitions pending before the court about many other sections that have been approved by the government but have need been built yet. The court expressed it's willingness to review each such section in detail to decide it's legality.
I propose that the map will be removed and that an effort will be made to show a map of what truly exist on the ground, not to include "future plans" which are all subject to so many frequent changes.  If someone would explain to me how to load a jpg file I'll be glad to send a map I have which is the closest to the current reality. It is based on a map by human rights organization B'tselem. www.btselem.org
BTW, how do I add  my signature to this comment ?
I suggest everyone looks at this:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/fence10.jpg
The lines marked goverment decision of Oct 2003 have been cancled
major parts are marked "further interministrial discussion" (none held, no decision)
In reality only someparts of the red (called revised route) have been implemented.
User:Zeq
This is certainly an interesting map, but it does not show the green line, which makes it rather difficult to interpret. After all, the barrier's deviation from the armistice line is a central concern here, and without that point of reference, the map seems rather pointless in this context. It certainly should not replace a map that at least gives a rough sense of this deviation. --142.150.48.171 22:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map