Talk:West Bank barrier/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

ST's suggested text

ST, please do not use comments in the article to suggest new text. Most editors won't notice them. Here is what I found as a suggestion by you. I've added temporary markers like (A), (B), ... so that we can refer to the parts in our comments.

(A) Israel states that the topography does not permit putting the barrier along the Green Line in some places because hills or tall buildings on the Palestinian side would make the barrier ineffective against terrorism.<ref>[http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence.htm ''Map of Israel Security Barrier ("Wall")- Current Status (2006)''] MidEastWeb, June 2006</ref>

(B) The use of the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line") as a primary determinant of the barrier's route is contentious. (C) The International Court of Justice has stated that the route must follow, or run west of, the Green Line. (D) By contrast, Israel maintains that the Green Line was negotiated "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines"<ref>Article V(9), http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/arm03.htm ''Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949'']. The Avalon Project</ref> and that because the "sole purpose" of the fence is security, the route is determined "wherever this is needed" based exclusively on security concerns; consequently, Israel argues that using the Green Line as the basis for the barrier's route would be "a political statement only having nothing to do with... security needs."<ref>Saving Lives: Israel's Anti-Terrorist Fence, Answers to Questions, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/Documents/savinglives.pdf</ref>

(E) The barrier route has been challenged in court and changed several times.

My comments: (A) The web site MidEastWeb seems to not exist any more. In any case, it was a private operation and thus failed WP:V by the "self-published source" rule. This text needs a source that actually states this as the Israeli claim. (D) The PDF file given here is a fine source for the Israeli opinion. However that file says that the Green Line "ceased to exist following the Arab threat to Israel's existence in the spring of 1967 which led to the Six Day War in June of that year", which is an even stronger statement than what is here. Zero^talk 07:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some further comments about this: It is not true (as you wrote in an edit summary) that the ISC ruled that building the barrier on the Green Line would be inappropriate or illegal. What they ruled is that the military commander of the occupied territories can decide where it goes based (only) on security considerations. They accepted two reasons proposed by the IDF as valid security considerations: (1) topography, (2) the presence of Israeli settlements. The most controversial part was (2), as here the court ruled that the IDF was entitled to build the barrier so as to protect Israeli citizens in the West Bank even if those citizens were present illegally. This formulation saved them from having to rule on whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the territories (a question they have ducked multiple times for rather obvious reasons). Finally, to be pedantic it wasn't the Supreme Court but the High Court of Justice (even though it is the same set of judges they have multiple roles). The main ruling where the HCJ answered the ICJ is here. Zero^talk 08:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• (A) and (A) comment: seems reasonable, this text and idea can be found in many places, however, i don't think (A) should be its own paragraph or major point
• the topic sentence is something like (B) and, imho, good source to start with is from the hcj 2005 opinion, 30. Petitioners, by pointing to the route of the Fence, attempt to prove that the construction of the Fence is not motivated by security considerations, but by political ones. They argue that if the Fence was primarily motivated by security considerations, it would be constructed on the "Green Line," that is to say, on the armistice line between Israel and Jordan after the War of Independence. We cannot accept this argument. The opposite is the case: it is the security perspective - and not the political one - which must examine a route based on its security merits alone, without regard for the location of the Green Line. and i think a good anchor word is "opposite" to contrast the views of the petitioner and the hcj. roughly, the petitioners are in line with the icj and the hcj is in line with israel's mfa, (many) israelis, barrier proponents, etc. the presentation of these two sides can be done in a way that is fair and accurate and not insulting, yet still showing they are quite opposite views.
• i would write the lead based on (B) something like,
  • "(F) Opinions of the relationship between the barrier's route and the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line") are highly divergent and nearly opposite.[REF]reference to hcj quote using the word opposite[/REF]"
  • "(G) The ICJ (('s view and others? and petitioners to hcj?) is that the green line is a hard border east of which the barrier CANNOT (legally?) be constructed. Even when topographic conditions... etc., etc., the barrier must then be routed eastward... something like this))
  • "(H) Israel presents the opposite view...
    • (H1) "The choice of the topographic route was derived from the security consideration" (2005 hcj)
    • (H2) "The military commander's duty is to protect the security of his soldiers [and]... the local population [including]... settlements located in the area." "[t]he military commander is authorized to construct a separation fence in the area for the purpose of defending the lives and safety of the Israeli settlers in the area."
    • (H3) "The Court held [in 2004] that the military commander's authority is limited to military-security considerations."
    • (H4) "the military commander cannot order the construction of the Separation Fence if his reasons are political." ""28. We examined petitioners' arguments, and have come to the conclusion, based upon the facts before us, that the Fence is motivated by security concerns."
    • (H5) "It is permitted, by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation, to take possession of an individual's land in order to erect a separation fence upon it, on the condition that this is necessitated by military needs. To the extent that construction of the Fence is a military necessity, it is permitted, therefore, by international law." (2005 hcj)
  • (G) and (H) should be roughly the same length/detail
  • (I) Your "(D) comment and quote" above -- the "even stronger statement" -- about the green line ceasing to exist goes with the reference to the Jordanian-Israeli 1949 Armistice Agreement that the green line was negotiated "without prejudice..." etc. etc. which goes with a quote in the 2005 hcj, "the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, signed in Washington D.C. between the State of Israel and the PLO on 28 September 1995, provided that the question of the Israeli settlements in the area will be discussed in the negotiations over the final status (see §17(a) and §31(5)). It was also provided in that agreement that "Israel shall . . . carry the responsibility . . . for overall security of Israelis and Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order" (§12(1))." imho, these three statements are fairly similar in presenting the israeli view that the green line was merely then a happenstance armistice line -- i.e., only where they randomly happened to stop fighting -- and what happens in the future is "without prejudice"... TBD negotiated... etc. and that building the barrier on the green line would therefore be improper because that is reenforcing the green line as a political boundary, i.e., making a political statement, which is not a permitted reason for building the barrier according to the hcj. i hope this bullet point makes sense and someone can write proposed article text, i suggest (imho), using the format/order (F), (G), (H).
  • neither what exists now in the bottom 1/3 of the Route section nor what is proposed in the comment are quite right. both are awkward. i hope someone can take this and propose the next draft and possibly add it to the page.

them's my $0.02. GhostOfPhilLeeds (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SeattliteTungsten. Zero^talk 09:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Title & first sentence: why so bad?

I can not believe my reading eyes. Are we an encyclopedia, or an obfuscating pov'ing newspaper? Why does the lede not even reflect the various languages & names? Why (even worse for an encyclopedia) does not the article title say what it is? -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(SeattliteTungsten has been found guilty of multiple use of sockpuppets and will probably be blocked and/or banned shortly.) In my view the most common Hebrew and Arabic names should be in the lead, but not every variation. Incidentally, Geder HaHafrada translates as "the separation fence"—there is no need to pick apart this standard Hebrew construction. The article title was the result of a huge edit war in the past and I suggest not reopening that one; it isn't so bad. Zero^talk 23:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an English language web page. The usefulness of detailing the etymology or enumerating names, translations, and transliterations in various languages in the lead seems questionable. At best, it is debatable. How many languages? How many terms? How much detail? The lead could read,

The Israeli West Bank barrier (in Hebrew, it is often called "separation fence" (, Geder HaHafrada, lit. (the) fence, the (one of) caused separation) and "security fence" or "anti-terrorist fence", with "seam zone" (?? ????, Kav HaTefer) referring to the land between the fence and the 1949 Armistice Line.[REF][REF]; in Arabic, it is often called , (racial segregation wall[REF][REF] The BBC's style guide uses the terms "barrier", "separation barrier" or "West Bank barrier."[REF] The Supreme Court of Israel in English has primarily used the word "fence" and the word "obstacle" has also been used.[REF] The UN General-Secretary has used the term "barrier"[REF] while the International Court of Justice has used the term "wall" explaining "the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense."[REF] Upon completion, its total length will be approximately 700 kilometres (430 mi) and include on the western side approximately 9.4% of the West Bank and 23,000 Palestinians.[REF]

Barrier supporters argue that it protects civilians from Palestinian terrorism such as suicide bombing attacks which increased significantly during the Second Intifada.[REF] Between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 people and injuring over 1,900. However, from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out, killing 64 Israelis and wounding 445.[REF][REF]

Barrier opponents claim it seeks to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security[REF] and undermines peace negotiations by unilaterally establishing new borders.[REF] Opponents object to a route that in some places substantially deviates eastward from the Green Line and severely restricts the travel of nearby Palestinians to and from work both in the West Bank[REF] and in Israel.[REF]

Is this what you propose? This is a rhetorical question, obviously. IMHO, it does not make sense to include every detail about the name, the etymology, the transliteration from two languages, the translation and meaning of two languages, and different English language sources in the lead. Of course, this is only MHO.

Why do you think the title is bad? The BBC uses "barrier" as does the UN Secretary-General as does the New York Times. This appears to be the standard English compromise between "wall" (preferred by people with a bias in opposition to the barrier) and "fence" (preferred by people with a bias in favor of the barrier). SevenOrEleven (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Moot for now. Socks (e.g., multiple use of sockpuppets) to be eliminated. -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support User:DePiep's view that the lead should present representative information related to names applied to the "long winding separation thing". A key aspect of the topic is the several descriptions that have been applied. SevenOrEleven, the title is not bad. It's the lead that is content being criticised. (Comment on Wikipedia content should refer directly to the name of the specific content being commented on). It is quite simply wrong to present an agreed and definitive lead on a topic when a variety of descriptions are used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal authorities vs. linguistic authorities

Sockpuppetry

Legal authorities are not the same as linguistic authorities. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) may be a preeminent legal authority but it is not a linguistic authority for the English language. Of note, it is not even located in an English-language speaking country/city/area! The belief that the ICJ is not an English language linguistic authority is not disrespectful and does not detract from the ICJ's position as a legal authority. The section "Opinions of the barrier" rightfully leads with UN opinions and ICJ opinions before Israeli and Palestinian opinions -- rightfully so (or at least arguably rightfully so) because of the ICJ's position as a legal authority. Unlike some languages, such as French (which has the Académie française), Italian (which has the Accademia della Crusca), or Spanish (with the Real Academia Española), English has no single authoritative governing academy. English language authority is decentralized. IMHO: useful authorities for English language usage are (i) widely read (heard) media, and (ii) widely used (followed) style guidelines. In the UK, the BBC is the English-language media authority nonpareil. In the U.S., media heavyweights are the New York Times, Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, etc. Widely followed style guidelines such as the Chicago Manual of Style or Purdue MLA Style Manual are also linguistic references. Often these are associated with an academic institution but not always: Merriam-Webster is merely a long-established private company. With a polite American deference to Her Majesty, I therefore suggest than the English language linguistic authority begin with "BBC..." which is followed by references to media or other liguistic authorities (PBS, NYT, WSJ, The Economist) in English-speaking countries. Finally, as a courtesy to the ICJ as a legal authority (but not a linguistic authority), the ICJ's use can also be included even though linguistically IMHO this reference is irrelevant. (Note: the U.N. Secretary General uses the term 'barrier' so there is not even agreement between the judicial and executive international bodies.) "I think not!" -Descartes. And then he disappeared. (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC) re in general: this is not about the linguistical definition. BBC is not an authority as you state, it is a source. Elevating the BBC's internal choice to a statement for the English language is an OR. BBC makes a choice, not a definition. BBC states for themselves, not for the English language. In this not an authority but just a source. And at least the IJC has added a motivation. The IJC, an hihgly impartial and authoritative institute, so far is the one who did make a judgement on it, which is their job. I revert the order, IJC in top. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Someone else already did. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

the type of wall referenced in second name mentioned in lead of he:גדר ההפרדה

the second name mentioned in lead of article parallel in Hebrew (he:גדר ההפרדה) is חומת ההפרדה. The first word (חומת - "X of") is based on חומה ~pronounced "tomah". The Hebrew article on "tomah" is paralleled with the English Defensive wall. Other parallels for tomat include: חומת אש paralleled by Firewall (computing), חומת הקרמלין paralleled by Moscow Kremlin Wall, חומת לונדון paralleled by London Wall and מבצע חומת מגן paralleled by "Operation Defensive Shield".

חומת ההפרדה translates as "(the) defensive wall, the (one of) caused separation.

I will add this and info on third Heb article ref when I have the chance.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

anti-terrorist fence?

The Names section claims use of a Hebrew name "anti-terrorist fence". Citation? Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been shuffling a bit in these names. I made the English translations readable, but maybe you can check me, for example on the "X of" construction. lso, some formatting and ordering (more similar format per translation, including the Arabic one). -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How does ח (chet) get to be pronounced like "t"? Also I think that insertion of "defensive" into the translation is an interpretation, not a translation. Zero^talk 03:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think at least two non-English names, Hebrew and Arabic, should be in the lede (first sentence). The name elements ("fence", "security", "apartheid") are highly relevant, not just translations. And mentioning the foreign name is not uncommon for an opening sentence. As always, a more extended Name section can be in the article. -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH edits

Data showing a GNP increase is inadmissible in this article without a reliable source that connects it to the West Bank barrier. The World Bank source does not do that, so it's appearance here is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. The choice of GNP is also clearly biased when other measures show a different trend. A much better measure of the economic lot of individuals is the GNI/capita (roughly, purchasing power per person) which lags even far behind the rest of the Arab world and in 2012 was less than 1/6 of that in Israel. But that is ineligible too, for the same reason. Zero^talk 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This was debated years ago and resolved as non-synthesized information. It is purely factual and tied into the barrier discussion for the same reason that the speculative comments about the barrier's negative effects are included -- except that the GDP data is not speculative; it is actual data about the GDP of the West Bank. The resolution years ago when the previous citation of GDP data was shown (and has been part of this page for several years without any futher controversy after being discussed and resolved) was to adopt the NPOV approach and show all points of view. One point of view is to speculate that the barrier will coincide with lower GDP. Another point of view is to show that it, in fact, does not coincide with lower GDP. Thus, the resolution from years ago was to include both points of view: the speculation of lower GDP and the actual GDP. It is not a biased choice of GDP: it was simply the most accessible GDP measurement available. It's two clicks away on the World Bank site. (The reference was deleted.) The CIA Factbook does not have as many years of historical data easily available (as far as I could see.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the United Nations example given at WP:SYNTH. It is very similar to this example. You are trying to imply that the barrier didn't adversely affect the economy, but your source does not state that. How do you know that the GDP wouldn't have risen even faster if it wasn't for the barrier? It needs expert judgement, for which we need sources. Also, the text in the article only refers to the economic effect on people living near the barrier and does not make a claim about the WB&G economy as a whole as far as I can see, so your data on the whole region doesn't address the issue anyway. Zero^talk 06:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source relating the GDP data to the barrier? Did you look at the example on WP:SYNTH that I asked you to look at? The fact that you made the same false arguments in 2006, with no support from any other editor as far as I can see, has no bearing on this case whatever. Zero^talk 04:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not SYNTH. The World Bank report estimates the GDP loss due to the barrier (actually cites two studies which are close due to "barrier" and "checkpoints and movement permits so it is an upper bound.) The World Bank has estimated for the West Bank both the total aggregate GDP and the total aggregate GDP loss due to "barriers, checkpoints and movement permits" -- a subset of which is "barriers" so the World Bank has calculated an upper bound on the aggregate loss due to "barriers". The upper bound is about $185m or $229m (according to the two studies used/cited by the World Bank, respectively). It seems to be OK with Zero0000 to show outdated GDP growth on the chart that has been on this page since 2006 until now but to update the chart with more recent World Bank data is not okay?!? Arguably, without the World Bank report citation which is the first reference for the first sentence, there is a feasible argument that it could be SYNTH but the World Bank report added recently specifically discusses and estimates the economic effect of the barrier (and checkpoints and other restrictions -- unfortunately, it does not break them out.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sentence "It seems to be OK..." is complete bollocks; please restrict yourself to your own opinions and let me state mine. Looking at this more closely, the OR problem is even worse than I thought. The WB report refers to "barriers, checkpoints and movement permit" but doesn't attempt to distinguish the effects of each. Then it cites two studies. One of them considers the effects on the labor market and says "These lower bound estimates suggest therefore that the overall cost of the checkpoints on the West Bank labor market amount to around USD 229 million, which is mainly determined by the reduction in the wages. This cost is far from being negligible, equivalent to 6% of the West Bank GDP in 2007." Not only is it primarily attributed to checkpoints, not the separation barrier, the value of 6% it gives contradicts your value. That's because you divided a cost estimate for one year by the GDP for a different year; exactly why we don't allow OR. The other source estimates extra car costs (petrol, oil, maintenance, etc) caused by having to drive greater distances to avoid checkpoints when going from one West Bank location to another. The cost is attributed to the lack of permits to cross checkpoints, especially Qalandiya checkpoint, not to the separation barrier. So these two estimates (1) are not attributed to the barrier, (2) are for completely different things so should be added not compared, (3) refer to only specific types of cost and omit many other types. They would be appropriate for West Bank, but the lack of sourced connection to the separation barrier makes them not usable here. And of course the GDP pictures are 100% synth as you still did not find any source connecting them to the article topic. Zero^talk 11:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally your images say "West Bank" but their source says "West Bank and Gaza". There is also the question of whether they include East Jerusalem. Zero^talk 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: User:SeattliteTungsten has been found to be a sockpuppet. Their edits may be discarded. -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2015

add this Time-line image to the article plz https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AbuDisWall_timeLine.jpg

عماد الدين المقدسي (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This image would not add anything to the article, in addition to intentionally attempting to force people's perception rather than being NPOV, in my view. The 2004 image and 2007 imagine clearly have no change to the wall, however the image is taken considerably closer to the wall in 2007. This gives the perception of everything in the background is now gone or hidden in comparison to 2004, however in reality the photo is just taken closer to the wall so the background cannot be seen anymore. - Galatz (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done agree with above comments - Arjayay (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

UN Register of Damage

I'm surprised that this article makes no mention of the UN Register of Damage [1], the UN body tasked under a General Assembly resolution to "serve as a record, in documentary form, of the damage caused to all natural and legal persons concerned as a result of the construction of the Wall." Indeed, there is not even a Wikipedia article on this UN body. Can such information be added to the article, please? --Viennese Waltz 10:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Construction

Any information on the companies that are fabricating it?

Financial/Budget Cost of the Barrier? ===

Why is there no financial cost data? How much does this thing cost, both incurred so far and projected future costs?

Fence for Life

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

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

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

Misleading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

Regarding

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

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

Security vs. Separation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli news services (English)

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

International news services (English)

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

Government of Israel

• Security fence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nableezy for clarity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

KamelTebaast 21:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guys, it is really very simple. Since it is both, since sources call it both, since there are opinions it is either, we on Wikipedia must use both names. Bolter21 was right with his first edit "WP:BOLD, trying to resolve conflict", and I have restored it as the obvious and only correct path of action according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.[2] Debresser (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

After looking at some more sources Im fine with including security barrier in the lede as it is now and withdraw my objection. nableezy - 18:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is belied by the fact that UN agencies/organs such as the ICJ use "wall" as shorthand for the barrier as a whole. nableezy - 15:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is that we are dealing with a place with many many names and many name combinations, we can't simply call it "wall" becuase some, including the UN do, especially when it doesn't require a lot to understand that "wall" is a very bad description of the whole barrier, as it is a standing physical thing and not anything else that require academic and neutral interpretation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And my point is that isnt what determines what we call it, or the alternative titles we give it, on Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Because "wall" is the only term listed outside of (for further names see here), it gives WP:UNDUE and POV. Why choose one contentious name to be in front of (for further names see here) and not "fence"? The logical compromise is to leave the term "barrier", which seems acceptable to everyone, and place "wall" inside "(for further names see here)":

The Israeli West Bank barrier (for further names see here) is a separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government despite Palestinian opposition in the West Bank or along the Green Line. KamelTebaast 13:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

unilaterally built

The present opening sentence is:

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

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

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

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

I concur: "unilaterally" is POV-pushing. Any action by any government of any country can be considered "unilateral" if it is done within the prescribed authorization processes of that government. "Unilateral" is therefore redundant except in the context of discussing a multilateral situation (like U.N. peace-keeping forces?) which require multilateral authorizations by multiple governments and bodies (e.g., the U.N.) Silent Statute Gent (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. "Unilaterally" in this context means "without the agreement of the other affected parties", which is an obvious truth for this example. Zero^talk 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You would be right, Silent Statute Gent, if you weren't so wrong. I can build a fence on my own property, and it would be inappropriate -- silly actually -- to describe that as "unilateral" because I didn't consult my neighbors. But if I built a fence in my neighbor's yard, without discussing it with her first, "unilateral" is entirely appropriate.

Your description of the construction of the barrier as okay because it was built "within the prescribed authorization processes of [the Israeli] government" is hilarious. Do you approve of all government actions carried out "within the prescribed authorization processes of that government", or does your well of good faith only extend to the Israeli government? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

For example, it would be redundant, superfluous and POV to write, "the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5538 *unilaterally* appropriating for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes." That would be a silly, redundant and inappropriate use of the word, "unilaterally" in that context. Of course the House passes bills that appropriate money for the executive departments. That is what the House does. This goes without saying. Israel (or "the Israeli government") built a separation barrier. Of course, they did. "Unilateral" is superfluous because Israel controls the entire territory and the Green Line is not a political boundary but only an arbitrary armistice line that does not prejudice future borders. Besides, the barrier does "closely follow" the Green Line, deviating -- on average -- about 0.15% from the Green Line (see below). Silent Statute Gent (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Israel did not declare the West Bank "sovereign state" and because the official Israeli stance on this matter is that the West Bank is a "disputed territory" and therefore any action in a disputed territory that is done by one party without the aproval of all other parties, it is a "unilateral" move. If the famous Pink Floyd album was built within the Green Line it wouldn't need the title "unilateral". Personally I think that the "unilaterally built" is needless because it is quite obvious it was unilaterally built and the use of that word simplfy the whole thing in the "Israel's a jerk" way which is common here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggested above that the word "unilaterally" should be ditched in favor of a more precise description. I'll suggest it again now: "...that was built by the Israeli government against Palestinian objections...". Zero^talk 08:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest "...that was built by the Israeli government and disputed by the Palestinians..." I sounds kinda weird to ask from the leadership that sends suicide bombers at you the concent to build a barrier on lands which they don't control..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Had Israel built unilaterally on the Green Line, it would have defined the borders the PLO accepted. Indeed, it would have unilaterally solved the whole I/P conflict to everyone's satisfaction, save that of Hamas, settlers, and messianic hotheads on either side. In that sense, the PLO, and the wider world, would have endorsed, and underwritten the project. To keep adding that an occupied people 'disputes' what a foreign government does on its territory is pointless, except to stress that Palestinians are a politically intractable people when sensible measures of expropriation are unilaterally adopted by its adversary to its own advantage, regardless of legal considerations, and under pretexts of security.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

All the settlements are "unilaterally built", all the millitary an police bases. Had the PLO agreed that the Israeli police will be responsible for the security in the oPt until 1994? Every move that every country makes in an occupied, disputed or just not a land within its sovereignty can be unilateral, you don't have to emphasis that. With the Gaza withdrawal, it makes sense, because Israeli unilaterally withdrew, althouhg usually, such action is part of an agreement, like the withdrawal from most Palestinian cities in 1995, or Hebron in 1997, which wasn't "unilateral" but "bilateral". The barrier was built as an immidiate mean of security, as it was built during the time of suicide bombings. Had Israel built a millitary base next to Ramallah to serve soldiers before and after raids, it would of course be a "unilateral move", the invasion of Poland in 1939 was a "unilateral move", the point is, the emphasis on "unilaterally" is not needed, because it gives the impression that Israel did it, caring about what the Palestinians will say. The Russian annexation of Ukraine was unilateral and so was the aid to the pro-Russian rebels in Donbass, but there is no need to tell you that Russia "unilaterally" helped anti-Ukraine rebels just like when you need to state that Russia "unilaterally" conducted a referandum in Crimea.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Back to basics, then. Anything like 'despite Palestinians/disputed by Palestinians' is technically a pleonasm after 'unilateral'. The definition of unilateral is 'of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a situation, without the agreement of another or the others,' meaning it is already understood that Palestinians had no say in the matter. If one decides to elide 'unilateral' then the proper solution is that proferred by Zero. The word 'dispute' in any case, in this area, is disreputable, given the usage 'disputed territories' which suggests that there is some legal parity between an occupation and international law, an untruth.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of editors here, a large majority, who think that "unilaterally" is not the word to use, for a variety of reasons. Zero made a good proposal in the section above, to say something like "despite Palestinian opposition", and I think that is the way to go, if it can be sourced. Otherwise there is clear consensus here that "unilaterally" must go, and any editor can implement it at will and unilaterally remove it. :) I use this word on purpose, just to show how even technically correct usage of the word is not really the best way of expressing things in English. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

average seam zone width

According to the article, at a total length of 708 km the seam zone area (between the Green Line and the barrier) deviates by 770 km^2/(708 km)^2 = about 0.15% of the linear span (708 km) of the barrier. Under any interpretation in the English language, one length (the barrier) that deviates an average of 0.015% from another length (the Green Line) can be truthfully and accurately be said to "closely follow" the first length.

This should be added to the first paragraph of the Route section.

The first edit should be to state the seam zone area (77,000 ha) w.r.t. the total distance of the barrier. Make this change first.

The second edit should be to describe the seam zone area w.r.t. the total distance of the barrier as a percentage of the length (0.15%). Silent Statute Gent (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

By any Wikipedia standard 0.15% is too insignificantly precise to have in the lead. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. I do not and did not intend to suggest this should be in the lede. I suggest it be added to the "Route" section. The "route" of the barrier is a linear, one-dimensional length: 708 km according to the article. The description of the route "following" or "somewhat following" or "mostly following" or "largely following" the Green Line is discussed in the "Route" section with the additional piece of information that the deviation from the Green Line is about 77,000 ha. Even if "0.15%" is not cited, I am citing this measurement ratio here on the Talk page to justify the accurate use of an English phrase such as "very closely follows" to describe the barrier and the Green Line w.r.t. each other. 77,000 might sound like a lot but compared to 708 km it is actually not very much -- 0.15% to be precise.

I don't know about you but I don't have a good intuitive feeling for how much deviation "77,000 hectares" actually is w.r.t. a linear length of 708 km. This is not intuitive to me. I don't use ha every day in my life but I know what a rectangle would look like if you told me that the width was 0.15% of the height. If you said, "There is a non-tight string S1 from point A to point B and there is another non-tight string S2 also from point A to point B. How closely do S1 and S2 follow each other?" I might say, "What is the area between S1 and S2?" and if you told me, "S1 and S2 have about the same length. The area displaced between S1 and S2 is equal to the length of S1 or S2 multiplied by 0.15% of the length of S1 or S2" then I might say, "Well, this sounds like an area that starts off as a rectangle with the proportions 1:0.0015 or 666:1: extremely thin! No matter if that 'rectangle' gets a bit twisted and if then some parts are pulled together and other parts are (equally, offsettingly) pushed apart, I would say that those two long sides very closely follow each other if the displacement between the two long sides is 0.15% of the length of the strings." Silent Statute Gent (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think "very closely" is enough and the numbers are superfluous. Not to mention that the more you try to be precise, the more likely it becomes that someone will claim you got it wrong, as a rule. I argue for WP:KISS. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Lede edits

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

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nableezy, you really must tune down your belligerence. Bolter21 clearly stated his reason, so please don't say he doesn't have a reason. Also, you are again obfuscating the issue. The issue is not, whether Israel asked anybody else for their permission or not. The issue is whether that needs to be stressed with the word "unilaterally". Debresser (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There wasnt anything belligerent in that. Allow me to rephrase. None of the people who have argued against unilaterally have made any policy based reasoning for removing it. One user said that they feel that it implies something that the word does not mean. Im sorry the user feels that way, but a users feelings dont really have any impact on Wikipedia articles. Another said "POV" without saying how stating an uncontested fact is "POV". You counted users against it, I dont think I need to demonstrate that this is not any type of policy based reasoning. Bolter said it may be interpreted as POV, I dont see how that is a reason. What is the policy based reason to not include an uncontested fact about the building of the wall? And before you ask why include it, well because the article says the majority of the barrier was built on occupied Palestinian territory. That begs the question did the Palestinians agree to this. If they had then I would support including bilaterally in the description of how it was built. They did not, so unilaterally is the word that belongs. nableezy - 16:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with nableezy. I think people are reading too much into the word "unilaterally", which simply means "done or undertaken by one person or party" (per Merriam-Webster). It is being used to differentiate the unilateral construction of the barrier—undertaken solely by Israel—from an action negotiated or agreed upon between multiple parties. I think it is an accurate description of Israel's construction of the barrier—can somebody cite reliable sources that say Israel did not undertake the construction unilaterally?—and a neutral one as well.

I think it would be helpful if editors who disagree with the use of the word "unilaterally" would be very specific about their concerns. Is there a specific policy or guideline it violates? Please cite it. Describe how it violates it. What do you propose instead? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, if we can't come to agreement among ourselves, that's okay. We can invite uninvolved editors to comment through a Request for comments if necessary. I know that most of the editors who have contributed to this discussion know that, but Kamel Tebaast may not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but the policy is WP:NOPV. I think asking an outside opinion is probably an excellent idea. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean the policy is WP:NPOV? How does this violate that policy? What POV is there in it saying unilaterally? NPOV says representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. What significant view on the building of the wall is not fairly and proportionately represented by including unilaterally in the description of the building of the wall? Because here are a couple of RS that, according to NPOV, should be represented in the article:

• Oded Haklai; Neophytos Loizides (14 October 2015). Settlers in Contested Lands: Territorial Disputes and Ethnic Conflicts. Stanford University Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-8047-9652-1. The route of the security/separation barrier that was unilaterally built by Israel following the second Intifada is also informative; many of the settlements that are proximate to the Green Line are on the Israeli side of the barrier, whereas many of the more outlying ideological settlements were left on the Palestinian side.
• Doaa Elnakhala (August 2015). "When Fencing is Not Protecting: The Case of Israel-Gaza". In Martin van der Velde (ed.). Mobility and Migration Choices: Thresholds to Crossing Borders. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 140. ISBN 978-1-4094-5803-6. Among the twenty-five physical border barriers built in the last decade, three were unilaterally built by Israel on its borders with Lebanon (2000), the West Bank (2002), and Egypt (2010).
• Michael Karpin (31 March 2013). Imperfect Compromise: A New Consensus Among Israelis and Palestinians. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-61234-545-1. The construction of the barrier was a unilateral move, but it indicated the willingness of the Sharon government to carry out a substantial withdrawal as a first step toward giving up most of the West Bank and a large number of settlements.

So a. is there any dispute on whether or not the construction of the barrier was a unilateral move or not? and b. why should the published view in reliable sources not be included in the description of the construction of the barrier? nableezy - 19:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no issue that the move was decided upon by Israel alone, or that sources say so. The question is whether the Wikipedia article should stress that, and in the lead, by using the word "unilaterally". That is an NPOV issue, and as said above, I will be happy to receive neutral, outside input on it. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

How is it stressing it? Why is that detail, one you accept as uncontested fact supported by reliable sources, not relevant? What from WP:NPOV supports that it should not be in the lead? nableezy - 23:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Against inclusion of the word "unilaterally" As Malik Shabazz (below) and Debresser (above) pointed out, I was late to this party. I arrived at my conclusions and subsequently edited unilaterally (and was warned for doing so), without any knowledge of this thread. That in itself is partial proof that Galatz's opinions are not isolated. There are several reasons "unilaterally" should not be in the lede, let alone the first sentence:

• It is redundant. Simply writing that the barrier "was built by the Israeli government" means that the Israeli government unilaterally built it, otherwise, it would have stated that it was a joint project between parties A and B.

• M Shabazz's argument that it "typically happens by agreement of the two parties or it happens by action of one party (unilaterally)" is irrelevant, and that is not how it is written in most Wikipedia pages: The Egypt–Gaza barrier that splits Rafah is contested by Hamas, but nothing is written in the lede about it being unilaterally built by Egypt with the help of the U.S.; or in the Saudi–Yemen barrier, or the Mexico–United States barrier, or the Roma wall.

• The word "contested" precedes the phrase, therefore, what you're trying to achieve (imply, articulate) in your arguments ("they did it without agreement", "they did it themselves") is partially achieved.
• As Galatz alluded above, and was echoed in many of the rebbuttles, the word unilateral most often means that something is done by one party when in fact, it should have been achieved through discussions, or in partnership with others. As such, placing such a controversial word in the first sentence, especially when there is room in the article to highlight such a debate, breaks many Wikipedia policies [see following].
• As for policies, M.Shabbaz: WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:W2W, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:LABEL, WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, WP:REDUNDANCY, to name a few.
• As far as I can see, from the creation of the article on 2003-11-16, the word "unilaterally" was never in the lede sentence or paragraph. It was added by Al-Andalusi on 2016-06-29. That alone raises question as to why M.Shabbaz gave me a warning for disruptive editing while he did not give Al-Andalusi the same warning? I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with POV.

• M.Shabazz's and Nableezy's reverts to place the word, seem to constitute WP:EDITWAR more than my single and justifiable edit to remove.

• Your arguments for inclusion would be intellectually honest if you simply wrote in the lede what you've written above: "without agreement from the Palestinians", "it was found to be a war crime", "without agreement from other parties". If that is what you want, then write that, and we'll discuss those merits, or lack thereof. However, by placing the word, then articulating your real meanings behind the scenes (here), is simply obfuscating your POV behind a nuanced word.

Burying the lede/lead I was going to write about the issue that the entire lede had been buried, then I saw that Galatz made some of those points. All discussion about the word "unilaterally" is a distant second to the fact that the security fence was first built to stop Palestinian terrorist suicide bombings in Israel during the second intifada. Presently, the lede paragraph is 114 words, and more than 70 words are to the points that it is longer than the Green line, cuts deep into the West Bank, and isolates Palestinians from the territory. Not one word about Palestinian suicide bombers, Israeli deaths that were reduced because of the barrier, yet many of you argue that this is not POV. It is worthy to note the original article:

In 2003, Israel began construction on a security fence along much of its border with the West Bank, called the "seam zone". The purpose of the fence is to prevent terrorists from entering into Israeli cities, a problem which has plagued Israel since 2000. Israel emphasizes that the fence is solely for security measures: the fence is intended to make patrolling the border easier, not to completely prevent travel across the border in either direction.

Israeli citizens have shown huge support for the wall, but other countries have expressed considerable opposition to it, some going so far as to suggest it is a "blatant grab for land".

And what it is today:

The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a contested separation and security barrier that was unilaterally built by the Israeli government in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line". At a total length of 708 kilometres (440 mi) upon completion, the border traced by the barrier is more than double the length of the Green Line: only 15% of the barrier sits on the Green Line or in Israel, with the remaining 85% cutting at times 18 kilometres (11 mi) deep into the West Bank, isolating about 9.4% of the West Bank and 25,000 Palestinians from the bulk of that territory.

The lede that I propose:

The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a contested separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government to stop an increased wave of Palestinian suicide bombings and attacks in Israel (between 2000-2006 there were 4,000 terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of 1,639 Israelis). From 2007-2015, after the completion of the barrier, there were 32 suicide-bomb attacks resulting in 20 Israeli deaths.. (There were zero suicide-bombings in 2009 and 2010.) The barrier was built in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line known as the "Green Line". At a total length of 708 kilometres (440 mi) upon completion, the border traced by the barrier is more than double the length of the Green Line: 15% of the barrier sits on the Green Line or in Israel, with the remaining 85% at times cutting 18 kilometres (11 mi) into the West Bank, isolating about 9.4% of the West Bank and 25,000 Palestinians from the bulk of that territory.

In addition to M.Shabazz's suggestion, we can take this to WP:DRN. KamelTebaast 23:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

The material you want in the first paragraph is already in the second paragraph, except that it does not present it as undisputed fact that the purpose was to stop suicide bombings and not to effectively annex occupied territory. As far as unilaterally, no it is not redundant, saying Israel built it does not mean that Israel built it unilaterally, that doesnt even begin to make any sense. You seem to be under the impression that putting a collection of wikilinks makes it so they actually support your argument. What POV is in "unilaterally"? Are there any reliable sources that say it was not built unilaterally? If not that is an uncontested fact. Where in WP:W2W does it list unilaterally as a word to watch? Oh, and as far as intellectually honest, I did add to the lead the ICJ found it to be a word crime. That wasnt related to the unilateral point however, that comment was in response to Galatz mistaken claim that Israel had a right to build a wall in occupied territory. Try not to do that again. nableezy - 23:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kamel Tebaast, but I don't do walls of text. Please boil down what you have to say to a few specific points, and—as I asked—point to specific policy or guideline violations. Handwaving and rattling off the names of random policies and guidelines doesn't help to advance the discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The main reason this structure is controversial and the subject of high-level debate/court cases/etc both inside and outside Israel is that (1) it is largely situated in the West Bank, and (2) it was built without Palestinian approval and in fact against strong Palestinian opposition. It never would have been sent to the ICJ if either one of those two features was absent. At the moment part (2) is represented at the start of the article solely by the weak word "unilaterally". I'm thinking that rather than keeping or deleting the word it should be replaced by a phrase like "despite Palestinian opposition". The intended meaning would then be much clearer to readers. Zero^talk 01:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Zero, a very good solution. That is the way to resolve this issue. Just a small source, and go ahead. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Zero0000, I agree in principal. However, to add your phrase AND to keep the word "contested" would be WP:UNDUE and redundant. How is this?

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

Can we reach a consensus? KamelTebaast 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This phrasing doesn't sound that good in my opinion. I think that it would be better to write "in the West Bank and the green line"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

How is this? The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall (for further names see here) is a separation and security barrier that was built by the Israeli government despite Palestinian opposition in the West Bank or along the Green Line. KamelTebaast 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the removal of both "contested" and "unilaterally ". The new statement limits the opposition to the segregation wall as only coming from the Palestinians. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking back through revisions, I think the lede from January 1 was much better: shorter, better organized. 180 words in three paragraphs which were, (1) "The Israeli West Bank barrier (or wall, see also: Names) is a separation barrier built by the Israeli government in the West Bank or along the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line"). Upon completion, its total length will be about 700 kilometres (430 mi) and include on the western side about 9.4% of the West Bank and 23,000 Palestinians." (2) "The Israeli government argues that..." [60 words]; and (3) "Barrier opponents claim..." [60 words].

This seemed very concise, clear, short and fair to me. First paragraph: simple and short description. Second paragraph, "Proponents argue..." Third paragraph, "Opponents argue..." Both 2nd and 3rd paragraphs clearly describe a contested/disputed issue with equal word length given to both sides.

Now the lede rambles, is too long and too political. The Jan 1 version was better, and fair. Silent Statute Gent (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think they are not so different, but the present version contains a bit more necessary information, and would argue not to revert to the January 1 version. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's just look at the second paragraph which starts out, "The barrier was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000, and was defended by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it. The Israeli government argues in defense of the wall, that between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, while from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out."

This is just bad writing, and a bad order. It is illogical the way the sentences are laid out. However, with some small improvements, it could be a lot better. Here is how:

1. "The barrier was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000" should be moved to the first paragraph because this is very, very basic information: when was the barrier built? "The barrier was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000" or better yet, "The barrier was built in September 2000 during the Second Intifada." which is shorter and emphasizes the very basic fact that it was built (started) in "September 2000" which is a neutral fact -- the linkage to the Second Intifada is both potentially POV and also indirect.
2. This leaves, "and was defended by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it." which should be the first sentence of the second paragraph perhaps rewritten as, "The Israeli government built the barrier to stop the wave of violence inside Israel during the Second Intifada." which is shorter and a much better topic sentence for the second paragraph which can be about the pro-barrier reasons (with equal words given to the "other" side in the third paragraph.)
3. Now, this makes a lot of sense to follow the new topic sentence of the second paragraph: "The Israeli government argues in defense of the wall, that between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, while from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out." but it can be shorter by removing, "in defense of the wall" which is not necessary (because it is redundant) following, "The Israeli government argues..."

OK, do you get idea here? The current version is just not quite as logical and tight as it should be. Somebody who is not censored... please consider making changes like the above. Thanks. Silent Statute Gent (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

[When I was a first year student at {insert very well known institution of high education here}, one of my term papers was handed back with a mediocre grade and the comment from the professor that "this needs to be cleaned up." I did not understand what the professor wrote because the feedback was extremely non-specific. When I asked him during office hours what he meant by "cleaned up" he started with the first sentence in the first paragraph and suggested a few specific edits. Then he proceeded to the second sentence in the first paragraph and suggested a few more specific edits. Then he proceeded to the third sentence... The suggestions he made for each sentence were, clearly, better and I understood them all when he pointed them out specifically. I said, "OK, I got it. I see what you mean here. I will not be able to do that as quickly or as well as you but I will try better next time." He laughed and said, "This is why I am the professor and you are the freshman. When you are my age, hopefully your experiences including the class I am teaching now will enable you to write as quickly and as well as I can!" I laughed.] Silent Statute Gent (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The lede should read (I am starting with the text there now and editing for clarity, brevity, and logical paragraph structure:

The Israeli West Bank barrier (or wall) is a separation barrier built by Israel on or near the 1949 Armistice Line ("Green Line") in September 2000 during the Second Intifada uprising. The barrier is mostly a "multi-layered fence system" of about 708 kilometres (440 mi) upon completion which cuts at times 18 kilometres (11 mi) eastward into the West Bank isolating about 9% of the land and 2% of the population.

Israel considers it necessary to stop the wave of violence that the uprising had brought with it. The Israeli government argues in defense of the wall, that between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, while from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out.

Palestinians call it a racial segregation or apartheid wall and claim it seeks to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security, undermining peace negotiations by unilaterally establishing new borders. Opponents object to a route that in some places substantially deviates eastward from the Green Line, severely restricts the travel of many Palestinians and impairs their ability to commute to work within the West Bank or to Israel. The International Court of Justice found the barrier to be a violation of international law, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that condemned the barrier by a vote of 150-6 with 10 abstentions.

This text was deleted but if somebody else adds it back it, fine. I think it is not appropriate because it is redundant and obvious:

• "contested"
• "unilaterally"

This text should go in the Route section. Maybe a link to the Route section would be appropriate:

• "the border traced by the barrier is more than double the length of the Green Line: only 15% of the barrier sits on the Green Line..."
• "While the barrier was initially presented as a temporary security measure in a time of heightened tensions, it has since been rapidly associated with a future political border between Israel and Palestine." [This text is redundant.]

Silent Statute Gent (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't built in 2000, building just started then. It still isn't complete and building continues today. Zero^talk 09:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That's terrific. Thanks for the correction. I was only editing for clarity, brevity, logical flow and order... if you can improve that, terrific and I thank you. However, somebody who is not censored should please edit down the current lede which is just poor writing as it reads now. I would make the change, but the WikiNazis will immediately undo it so somebody else needs to make this change. Silent Statute Gent (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What are WP:WikiNazis? :) Debresser (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)