text:
Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 2

Archive 2

Links section
Do you think it is about time to start categorize the links? (such as "official Israeli position", "official UN position" , news-press and pro-fence and con-fence)? MathKnight 10:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Instead of that, how about just dividing them by source, such as "Israeli government", "Other governments", "United Nations", "Press", and so on? --Zero 13:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Fine with me. MathKnight 14:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opinions
Guys, quit it with adding yet more identical comments on the ICJ ruling. Currently there are far more negative than positive reactions in the article, which is a bias and a distortion. It would be easy to add dozens of positive comments from different governments, NGOs, etc etc. There isn't even a quotation from a Palestinian leader. --Zero 01:36, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In relation to the latest revert-skirmish concerning the interview: Zero gives this reason for deleting Schily's opinion "delete unoriginal remarks from unimportant politician who has neither special expertise nor special involvement in this issue". I agree that he has no special involvement but he has expertise regarding the Berlin Wall (which has been a source of quite an argument below). Also, how is he less important than ICRC? Right now at the general Opinions section we have a number of Israeli opinions, a number of Palestinian, and 1 negative 3rd party opinion. I think we should include 1 positive opinion from a 3rd party so not to give the impression that those are the opinions of all "outsiders". --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 05:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The ICRC is eminently qualified in the matter, and it fits squarely into the ICRC mandate to comment on it. The German interior minister has no special mandate for it.  Moreover, he did not say anything that is not already mentioned as an opinon in the article.  Another reason he should not be quoted is that it misleadingly suggests his opinion is representative of German government opinion, when the opposite is true.  As for numerical balance, everyone knows that world opinion on the barrier is overwhelmingly negative so the balance is actually a bit the other way.  --Zero 07:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't accept this argument. Let's leave the "world opinion" (on the Jews!) or the ICRC's supposed "netrality" out of this. The barrier is constantly being compared to Berlin Wall and the German minister's opinion is very relevant here. If not to affect the fate of the barrier, then at least to show that not all Germans are jerks.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The nature of your response clearly indicates your motivations and simply reinforces my view on my this irrelevant quotation does not belong here. --Zero 12:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Since when ICRC is qualified in security issues? Also, what did ICRC mention in the quote which wasn't said before in the article? About balance from NPOV: "Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view;" And regarding the last comment, Zero you should know that avoiding the argument by criticizing the opponent's POV presence is not very wise. In summary, I don't care who will provide the balanced (possibly security based) quote. In other words, if you don't like putting the opinion of that particular minister, then we should put someone else's --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 18:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The ICRC is the most experienced organization on earth when it comes to human rights issues, and also has standing on international law due to its special status in the administration of the Geneva Conventions. As for adding opinions, there are heaps of them out there that would just love to be added and the great majority are negative.  If you want a quote-adding war, you will lose.  You should cut your losses. --Zero 23:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "The ICRC is the most experienced organization on earth when it comes to human rights issues". Agreed. But that's not the problem. Read my post again. "If you want a quote-adding war". No that's not what I want. I want this article to be as balanced and NPOV as possible. Do you agree or not that by not balancing 3rd party opinions you damage NPOV of the article? If not, please read my quote from Wikipedia's policy again. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy. picture
Since the barrier is a fence for over 95% of its length, "fences" should come before "walls". As well, "a very small part" is imprecise, "under 5%" is more accurate.

As for the picture, why is an un-representative picture being shown? Hardly accurate or NPOV. Jayjg 03:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * On the picture: we should have one of the wire barrier and one of the wall (preferably the Jerusalem portion, which is more significant both demographically and politically). Can you agree to two pictures?  I can provide one of the Jerusalem wall taken by myself.  Do we have one of the wire barrier?  --Zero 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I would agree to a picture of the concrete portions of the barrier if there were a similarly prominent picture of the wire portions. Jayjg 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * On the value 5%: the reason I removed it is that I don't believe it. I understand that the total constructed length of the barrier at the moment is about 250 km, so 5% would be only 13 km.  There must be at least half that much at Qalqiliyia, and more than that much in the Abu Dis area and Bethlehem areas combined.  I suspect that the 5% was calculated by dividing the existing length of concrete wall (existing when the calculation was made some time ago) by the projected final length of the barrier. Apples versus oranges.  Or maybe it fails to include the long stretches of temporary concrete wall (2m high) in the Jerusalem area that are being progressively replaced by tall concrete wall.  Either way, I can't see how it can possibly be true, but I can't find up-to-date statistics.  Can you? --Zero 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The numbers I've seen recently range 97% being fence to (today) seeing a claim that 93% is fence. I've never seen any numbers outside that range.  Simply disbelieving those numbers isn't enough, one must have concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they are incorrect.  I'll look for some numbers today, but your own personal skepticism is not reason enough to keep them out. Jayjg 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not "simply disbelieving them", I'm making a judgment based on seeing the concrete wall in all of the places I mentioned. Anyway, isn't it people putting numbers in the article who have to prove them?  Can you find a source for the 5% that does not originate with the Israeli government? Where did your 7% come from? --Zero 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Have you measured the lengths you've seen? The figures I have been able to find so far say that the barrier is planned to run 400 miles 15 miles of that would be concrete, or 3.75%.  The 7% number (actually, "over 93%" I believe) came from an op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer this morning.  Phase A was 137km from Salim to Elqana, and 20km north and south of Jerusalem, of which 8km was concrete. Phase B was 80 km from Salim to Tirat Tzvi, none of which was concrete.  The other phases are still under construction, and I can't get numbers for how much of the concrete sections have been built.   As for a number which does not originate with the Israeli government, it may be fashionable in some circles to dismiss everything the Israeli government says out of hand as a lie, but that is neither reasonable nor NPOV.  If I provide a link from an Israeli government (or any other) source, and you have a link that disputes that, then you are free to provide that. Jayjg 16:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually I think that the question of fence versus wall is overblown. The wall looks more severe and must have a greater psychological effect on the people living near it, but the effect on the lives of the local population is the same in both cases. --Zero 10:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If it's "overblown", then would you be willing to have the article talk only of a fence, and only include pictures of a fence? Jayjg 14:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, because it is not true. --Zero 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah. I guess the question isn't "overblown" after all. Jayjg 15:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So where's the more representative picture? This non-representative (and thus misleading) picture can't last much longer. Jayjg 15:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's remarkable that you declare a picture to be non-Point of View. How can a picture be POV?  Does that section of wall exist along the barrier?  Yes.  If a problem exists, it is the context that the picture is in.  If you think there are other pictures that belong, then you should add them.  But you should not be deleting documentation that exists, particularly something as potent as that picture, which will be the part of the "wall" that people will remember and Palestinians point to. Stargoat 16:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course pictures are POV, and that is why they are so often used for propaganda purposes; what is remarkable is that you would suggest they are not. Subject matter, framing, choice of shots, are all choices the photographer makes, often with a specific agenda in mind. In fact, you yourself admit as much, pointing out how "potent" the image in question is, and that "people will remember and Palestinians point to [it]."  Pro-Israel propaganda shows pictures of dead Israeli children; pro-Palestinian propaganda show pictures of dead Palestinian children.  Yet an article which described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and which had as its only image a picture of a dead Palestinian child could hardly be called NPOV.
 * There is no question that the inclusion of only this highly non-representative picture is POV; the only question is, how best to restore NPOV. A suggestion was made to add a more representantive picture of the barrier, which seemed reasonable; however, if no representative picture can be found, then other mitigation will be required, and removing this picture is the simplest method. Regardless of the method, mitigation needs to be done quickly, this POV situation has remained for quite some time and needs to be fixed.  Jayjg 17:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Original Source material is not POV. The interpretation and use of the material is.  In this case, the photograph is not POV.  The photograph alone, suggesting that this is the entire construction of the wall is.  If you don't like it, add some more photographs.  Removing the photograph alone would be removing documentation, and that is unacceptable.  Stargoat 18:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I can only re-iterate that pictures are POV, and good photographers are good precisely because (among other things) they can communicate their POV in the picture. As it stands, the picture is non-representative and thus POV.  As for removing "documentation", everything is "documentation".  Hundreds of pro-Israel, or anti-Palestinian quotes are also documentation, and they are regularly removed from these kinds of articles (usually to cries of "censorship").  The articles here are not intended to be exhaustive, they are intended to be accurate and NPOV; the vast majority of "documentation" relating to any topic is not included in the articles. Jayjg 19:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The picture is not POV in the least. Even though (probably) less than 10% of the barrier is concrete, that concrete appears disproportionately in the vacinity of population areas.  Tall concrete wall is what a large fraction of Palestinians who live near the barrier see every day.  The only unusual thing about this picture is the pillbox, as much of the concrete wall does not have pillboxes.  I will replace it by a picture of the Abu Dis concrete wall.  AND (Jayjg, this means you) it is not my sole responsibility to find a suitable picture of the wire portion of the barrier.  --Zero 23:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, now you're getting into statistical arguments of rather dubious provenance. The percentage of the total length which is concrete can be verified; the "disproportionate" percentage which Palestinians "see every day" cannot be verified, and is a highly subjective measure of "representativeness" in any event.  If you look at my talk page, you'll see I've found a number of more representative pictures, but I can't tell if they can be used on Wikipedia. Maybe you can. Jayjg 01:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know what statistical arguments you are referring to. It is a well-known fact that all of the concrete portions of the barrier have a populated area either on one side or on both sides.  (It makes sense: if there was no populated area there, why would they make a high concrete wall anyway?) Therefore, the concrete wall impacts people in greater proportion than its fraction of the total length.  That's mathematics rather than statistics. --Zero 11:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Statistical, mathematical, whatever; more to the point, you brought up the issue of "disproportionate" impact, as if the "impact" difference between a wire fence and a concrete wall could be measured in any meaningful way. And indeed, in a comment you made a couple of days ago, you basically said that the impact on their lives was more or less the same, but that the "psychological" impact would be greater (again, something that cannot be measured in any meaningful way).  The bottom line is that it's a fence for 95% of its length, and this is both meaningful and measurable.  If the picture used only shows what 5% of it looks like (and in this case, with the pillbox, what far less than 1% of it looks like), simply because it is the most fortified/intimidating/permanent/militaristic looking section, then it is propagandistic and POV. It would be similar to having an article on Palestinians, and having as the only picture of a Palestinian a fully armed terrorist/militant.  One way or another, NPOV needs to be adhered to in this matter. Jayjg 16:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * As a timely compromise, until a better picture will be obtained, I suggest to add the caption of the ppicture a remark that says only 5% of the barrier is concrete wall. MathKnight 17:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't read every single bit of this talk page, but I do not see any apparent consensus on removing the Qalqilya wall image.. So, could somebody point me to where the apparent agreement is? Speaking separately, I am deeply in favour of keeping the image. From my readings and conversations, Qalqilyah is one of the very important, heavily cited and well-discussed sections of the wall. In terms of symbolism, I would like to point out that the Berlin wall was only a very small part of the iron curtain (107km; not even 5%), and yet it played heavily into discussions and the psyches of both peoples. Tarek 17:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Note the long debate about it here, mostly between me (wanting to delete the un-representative image) and Zero (wanting to keep it). Then, per the agreement here, Zero is nice enough to go out and find two more representative pictures, and on August 1 creates the current version . Jayjg 19:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No agreement here. Only some people against a good picture of Wall. Abdel Qadir 05:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, there was agreement long ago until you showed up. The people who objected agreed to change the picture months ago, and even put in the representative pictures.  I would also note that violating the Three Revert Rule is grounds for a 24 hour block. Jayjg 05:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I also do not see any overt agreement. To be clear, I reverted the image though I strongly disagree with Jayjg's POV edit because I did not want to commit the same offence that I perceived Jayjg to be committing. I think this can be done simply: What is the wording of the agreement, and who made it? If this cannot be presented, then Jayjg should revert the picture and we can gain consensus now. Tarek 17:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Please look a couple of sections down at the Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier section. The debate here was me, who wanted to get rid of the un-representative picture, vs. Zero0000 and Stargoat, who wanted to keep it.  Zero0000 proposed two new more representative pictures to replace the existing one.  Zero0000 then went and took a new picture, I found a second picture and Zero0000 got copyright release for it.  I congratulated him, Stargoat congratulated him, consensus was reached, and the issue was resolved for over 4 months.  Jayjg 17:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I apologize if I am being unclear. I know all of the 'relevant' sections, as I have by now read them all and followed this discussion. However, I have not found any specific agreement on removing that one specific picture. Obviously, agreeing on such a potentially contentious issue includes clearly stating what the agreement is, so please quote that clear statement for our benefit, or revert the image and (re?)start the consensus process here. Tarek 02:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * On July 16 Zero0000 said (above) "On the picture: we should have one of the wire barrier and one of the wall (preferably the Jerusalem portion, which is more significant both demographically and politically). Can you agree to two pictures?  I can provide one of the Jerusalem wall taken by myself.  Do we have one of the wire barrier?"  Two pictures, one of the Jerusalem portion of the wall, and one of the wire fence.  The pillbox version is neither of those.  Agreement was reached, the pictures were procured, and the old picture replaced with the two new pictures agreed to.  Everyone was happy, and the status quo lasted for the next 4 months. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this agreement. Jayjg 15:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You incorrectly infer from the agreement to include other pictures that all editors have agreed to delete the photo you propose to delete. There was no consensus to delete the photo. There was your demand that that the photo was unrepresentative and there were other editors acting to find photos to assuage your demands by providing other photos that would meet your demands. That doesn't imply agreement with your demand to delete a factual photo. It is not an explicit expression of consensus. At least on other editor involved in the discussion at that time - Tareq - is disputing your assertion of consensus and I am disputing your claims that the photo is "unrepresentative", the basis for deleting it, and the existence of your alleged consensus now. The picture of the Wall that you want to delete is very significant. It shows the ugliness of the Israeli wall. There is no rule that says photos must be representative. A photo is a factual representation of the facts. This is aone part of the wall. Deleting it is a form of cesorship of the reality of the Wall in at least some places. In any case, how is representativeness determined? Your opinion does not suffice. What percentage of the wall is fence and what percent is wall? What is the representative appearance in populated areas? What is considered a representative portion? What are the future final plans for the wall's appearance? The photo will be returned top the article without deleting any other photo. Adding information is preferable to deleting information. --Alberuni 17:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Tarek was not involved at the time; why do you imagine he was? Consensus was reached.  You can try to reach a new consensus to insert it, if you like. Jayjg 00:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quotation Game
The "game" of quotations has become totally ridiculous and the article is a mess. The main fault lies with those who started it (you know who you are). Now Buergenthal has more space than the ICJ ruling itself, and what the f**k is Kerry doing there? When he gets to be president we can quote him. Meanwhile he is nobody. I propose that the quotations section be cut to a fraction of its current size with equal space to both sides. Since the overwhelming reaction of the world to the ICJ ruling was positive, this is a major concession. --Zero 23:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, the "game" is ridiculous, and your proposed solution is much better. Jayjg 01:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the ruling itself is a fiasco and legally defected, not to say very one sided. It clearly not honors the ICJ. The reaction for ICJ ruling from democrat countries is been negative - a specially in Israel and the US, when they both reject the ICJ's ruling as illegitimate and even accused that the ruling denies Israel the right to self defense (it is a serious accusition, you know). It is obviously clear that international reaction is much more interesting than the ruling itself - as the ruling itself is only advisory (i.e. non-binding) and until the UN Security Council decides to do something (and probably will trash it away due to US veto) with that it is null and void and worth no more than a publicity stunt. If the Palestinians think they can promote peace by bashing Israel in international forums they are wrong. The ICJ's affair only increased hatred to Palestinians and UN institues - which are considered to be anti-Israeli biased and therefore morally irrelevant in Israeli public opinion. MathKnight 10:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've edited the quote for Buergenthal again. I think it's important to explain why one member of the panel has dissented, and I think this is best done using his own words. I have not paraphrased him this time, just taken his explanation in his opening paragraph. Jayjg - your attempts to cast Buergenthal as believing that the opinon of the court is totally false are misguided. If you read his whole opinion, rather than just looking for soundbites, you'll see that his argument is more of a procedural one rather than a factual one. For example, you quoted him as saying that Israel has a right to self-defence, note para 9 of his declaration, where he feels that the wall would not qualify for this along much of it's length. But hey. I'd be happy if we drop the Buergenthal comments alltogether. Iridium77 17:38, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * In fact, it's best to summarize Buergenthal's views, as I have done, rather than putting big globs of quotes into the text. What you have actually done taken one carefully chosen quotation theoretically supporting part of the ruling out of a larger body of text which is mostly quite negative on the ruling, thus changing the whole thrust and import of his dissenting opinion.  As for your claim that the Buergenthal "feels that the wall would not qualify for this along much of it's length", this is quite untrue, and only your careful choice of quotations makes it even appear this way.  Buergenthal thinks that the barrier "raises serious questions" in international law, but is quite clear that some or even all of it may be perfectly justified.  His main point was that the court couldn't come to its conclusion because it simply did not have the proper evidence to reach a conclusion.
 * Regarding Powell, you can't keep editing his statements to what you think he should have said as NPOV, but rather need to accept that he said what he did. Jayjg 18:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe that you have mis-read Buergenthal's statement. His view is, to paraphrase, "We didn't consider all the evidence, so we can't draw any worthwhile conclusions". Therefore, to present him as having drawn conclusions from the material - which he does not - is fundamentally flawed. Note especially that he says that "there is much in the Opinion with which [he] agree[s]". His arguments against the opinion all come from the fact that the court should have looked at the right of israel to self defense more closely. He does not disagree with the opinions as given.

 * Regarding my "careful choice of quotations," try this:
 * "It follows that the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law. Moreover, given the demonstrable great hardship to which the affected Palestinian population is being subjected in and around the enclaves created by those segments of the wall, I seriously doubt that the wall would here satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as a legitimate measure of self‑defence."

 * and since the stated aim of the wall is to protect israeli settlements, I think this is hard to disagree with. I'm not sure how you consider my analysis to be based on limited quotations - he states this view very clearly.

 * I propose that we remove discussions of Buergenthal's analysis, rather just say that he felt that "the Court did not have before it the requisite factual bases for its sweeping findings; it should therefore have declined to hear the case." and provide a link to his declaration. This okay with you? Iridium77 19:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * How about this:
 * Thomas Buergenthal was the sole dissenting member of the 15 judges on this ICJ panel. In his declaration [3] (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwp_advisory_opinion/imwp_advisory_opinion_declaration_buergenthal.htm) he concluded that the court should have declined to hear the case since the it did not have before it "relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel's legitimate right of self-defense."
 * This statement captures the key reason for his dissent, and also one of the key reasons other critics object to the ruling. Jayjg 19:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I'll make that edit now. Iridium77 19:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Regarding Powell. I did *not* change what he said. We are reporting what he said, so how we wrap his quotes up is rather up to us. In german, we'd use a subjunctive, which makes it clear that what is being quoted is that person's opinion. In english, for the article to remain NPOV whilst reporting somebody's point of view, we must make extra efforts to use neutral language. Therefore, I'm changing that back again, for the moment. Iridium77 19:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * We're not speaking German here, and in English you are changing Powell to saying things he did not say, and which do not coincide with fact either. No-one sees the Court's ruling as binding, certainly not in International Law, and Powell said the ruling is non-binding, not that he or the U.S. "sees it that way".  And Powell said the barrier has "cut down the number of people crossing over to conduct terrorist attacks"; whether or not this it true, or false, or speculation is irrelevant.  He didn't say it is "said to have" cut down on attacks, he said it had done so.  In English it is clear that this is Powell's opinion, and once you change the way you "wrap up his quotes", you falsify what he has said. Jayjg 19:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That said, I've changed the text around the quotes to be more neutral, and to make it even clearer that this is Powell's opinion. Jayjg 19:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The facts don't matter when you're quoting someone, especially Powell ;-) Either way, I'm happy with your edits now. Iridium77 19:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've had to modify one. Since the ICJ ruling is non-binding (as the article itself points out), I've made it clear that Powell noted the ruling is non-binding, since this is not his opinion, but merely a statement of fact. Jayjg 02:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Powell
I believe Powell was mis-quoted. The original source for this quotation seems to be, or somewhere that has syndicated it. Note that Powell is not quoted as saying "As Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly states, every sovereign nation has the right of self-defense. That includes Israel, despite the illegitimate effort of the ICJ’s to infringe on that right.", rahter that is commentary by AIPAC. As such, I have modified the article again. Iridium77 19:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, this was the orginal source: . Secondly, Powell year-earlier statement is pretty irrelevant, since: a) he probably related to a certain route (I assume he related the Eastern Barrier, which is out of plans for the near future), b) It is not a recation to the verdict itself. MathKnight 20:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The israelinn site has mis-quoted it.
 * Regarding the other quotation snippets here, this is the interview that is being quoted . There seems to be mixed-up quotations from his testimony and this interview here. Thus, I have changed the year-earlier quote to one from the same interview, which seems more appropriate, as you point out. Iridium77 20:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I had not noticed that the source was Arutz Sheva (aka israelinn), else I would have killed it immediately. Let's  get our quotations from reputable sources, folks.  --Zero 06:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good news, Zero0000;between the two of us I think we've managed to clean out most of the crud (for now). Jayjg 02:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

suggested new image
Here is my photo of the barrier at Abu Dis, near the eastern boundary of Jerusalem. This is the most common appearance of the concrete portion of the barrier, except for the older temporary parts (2m high) that are being replaced by a high wall as in this picture. Now we need a good photo of the wire fence portion of the barrier and we can feature both of them in the article. We can discuss placement and size when we have both images. --Zero 06:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Do you know how Copy Rights issue can found of pictures searched in Google?

 * There isn't a way to do it in general unless the owner is apparent. I am going to write to the owner of these: , , , , , , , to see if we can permission to use one of them.  --Zero 11:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)  No luck, he won't agree. --Zero 12:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Zero. The new image seems fine. Are any of these images available?

 * http://www.bobmay.info/images/wall/bethlehem_wall.jpg
 * http://www.nwsustain.org/DSCF0175.JPG
 * http://www.palsolidarity.org/pictures/img_28Jul03_18_43_39_0JeninHuwaida.jpg

--Jayjg 15:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, we have permission to use the third image. I reduced it to the same width as the wall picture. These two pictures together give a reasonable overview of most of the barrier.

Great work! Thank you! Jayjg 16:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Way to go. Stargoat 17:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Does anyone know how to get these pictures into the main body of the article? Jayjg 05:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I can do it, maybe tomorrow. --Zero 09:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

update link
It would be good if somebody who knows Hebrew could update the link number 8 in the references section ( http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2944632,00.html ) to have a meaningful link text, e.g. giving a translation of the linked page's title. --K. Sperling 22:01, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

 * A one-to-one translation of title would be:
 * "President Katsav calls to complete the building of the seperation fence"
 * though in the body of the article he say "security fence". However, I decided to title it as:
 * "Reaction of Israeli leaders and politicians"
 * since it is more informative and truely describe the content of the article. There are reactions there from Yossef Lapid, Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid, Muhammed Barakhe (Arab MK), Uri Luplianski (Jerusalem's mayor), Yuri Stern, Ahmed Tibi (Arab MK), Ehud Yatom, Yossi Beilin, Jamal Khazalke and Roman Bronfman. I could translate some of the reaction if you want. MathKnight 22:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Category talk:English dramatists and playwrights

CFD Discussion
The entries in this category have been moved to Category:British dramatists and playwrights with the exception of dramatists and playwrights from Wales and Scotland who have been moved to separate categories. Ganymead 03:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This category was listed for deletion on April 9, 2005. Consensus was to Keep. The following discussion from CFD is now closed and should not be modified.
 * Oppose. This decision ignores the way the British people categories work and I am in the process of reversing it. category:English dramatists and playwrights needs to be a subcategory of category:English writers because the latter will be some users starting point. Most of these people are described as English in the opening sentence of their article, and a good number of them lived before the concept of Britishness existed. Ganymead has taken the Scottish and Welsh subcategories out of the British category, but all the main subcategories of category:British writers are subdivided into national categories, including an English category, as are most of the other British occupational categories. This way people can get to an article whether they start from the subject menu or the national menu. Oliver Chettle 04:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * While I realize there are differences between "English" and "British", I'm simply attempting to streamline the categories. I have used categories to search for British authors in the past and have found it difficult to have to search two categories as there is seemingly no standard for referring to someone as "English" or referring to them as "British". Indeed, some articles refer to the playwright as being one or the other, but it could be reversed for many and still be correct (i.e. Kwame Kwei-Armah or Alan Ayckbourn). The reference works that I have consulted in my work (both the Oxford and the Cambridge Guides to Theatre) delineate these with earlier (mid 19th Century back) personages referred to as "English" and all others as "British". So I should ask, should we delineate by time period or is there another standard? I haven't a problem with keeping the English category, but there must be a standard. Ganymead 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Before I step off of my soap-box, I should also address my reasons for placing Wales and Scotland in the national category. I did so due to the nationalistic tendencies of these regions as well as cultural and linguistic differences. Indeed, these playwrights would be considered "British", but doing so would ignore the cultural traditions of their region. I shall step down from my soap-box now and go to bed. :-) Ganymead 06:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Either have Welsh, Scottish and English subcategories or none at all.  (And Northern Irish if needed.)  Scottish and Welsh playwrights have their own categories because that's where they were born and/or lived, not because they share 'nationalistic tendencies' — like England, these countries are not culturally homogeneous. Jihg 23:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Jihg's reasons.  --Azkar 18:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Jihg. Category:British dramatists and playwrights should be a parent category for separate cats of Welsh, Scottish, English and NI dramatists and playwrights. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 00:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This, and all these British vs. English categories, is a disaster. There's absolutely no logic to whether people are listed as British or English, so it becomes a total mess. Basically, either we should only have categories for the sub-nations, and make the "British dramatists", etc. categories into just parent categories with no articles in them; or else we should get rid of the subcategories and have them all in British. Ganymead's proposal - to leave the English authors in British, but keep Scottish, Welsh, and northern Irish separate, would also be preferable to the current mess. People should be ashamed of themselves for voting against a plausible solution and then allowing the current total mess to continue unabated. john k (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: File:Tang map yanzhenqing.jpg

title: File:Tang map yanzhenqing.jpg