text:
Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 4

Bush's comment
Concerning the current edit war on Bush's comment in this paragraph:
 * "Although the Israeli government has consistently asserted that the purpose of the security barrier is to prevent attacks against Israeli targets, and that any hardship is an unfortunate side effect, necessitated by terrorist attacks, the barrier's opponents claim that the existence and the purpose of the barrier is to create hardship for Palestinians and prejudge any future borders. American President George W. Bush has said that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect "demographic realities" in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements. Most of the settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line have been enclosed by the barrier."

I think the following quote by Bush more directly deals with his statements about the barrier (rather than conflating his comments about settlements with the barrier) and it flows better with the first part of the paragraph:
 * "As the government of Israel has stated, the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities." -- M P er el ( talk 07:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does, AladdinSE has been attempting to promote his own original research regarding Bush for months now, and he's not going to let a little thing like an actually relevant quote get in his way. No, he will re-insert the Bush quote about the settlements as well, even though it is not about the barrier, because otherwise how can he promote his personal opinion? Jayjg (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you please explicate this personal opinion you claim he's promoting?Heraclius 15:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier to understand the POV AladdinSE is trying to promote. Or, see comments of others on your own Talk: page to understand the problem with the inclusion: User_talk:Heraclius. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I think Heraclius's suggestion is a good one, and I'd like to expand on it. It is not clear enough to me what is being fought about and why, even after reading this stuff.  On the one hand, there are some statements in the versions and discussion which should be easy to source, on the other, there are some which are hard to see the relevance of. In the current version, I think that Aladdin's 3rd sentence is basically OK (may need some modification for accuracy), while the first two need some justification. I think it would be a great help if Aladdin said here precisely what he would like to say, pushing his POV using all the OR he wants, and then says what he thinks should be acceptable in Wikipedia, and his critics follow.  By the way, these first two Bush sentences are certainly important and notable, they should be somewhere on Wikipedia, if not here in a linked article. --John Z 16:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush's comment is important, but not in this article but in the Israeli settlements article.

Guy Montag 17:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Jayjg, you have explicitly acknowledged in earlier Talk discussions as well as in edit summaries  that original research was no longer a problem, and then switched to "relevancy complaints" when consensus agreed that OR concerns had been adequately addressed. Now here in this new Talk section you claim that I am trying to "promote my personal opinion" and yet in one of your edit summaries you admit I am not trying to do this and that your objection is to relevancy; Quote: "I didn't say "POV", I said "irrelevant" . You keep vacillating back and forth between OR and relevancy. I refer everyone to the extensive discussions in Bush's comment April 12 2005. To try to claim that it is irrelevant is ludicrous. I have no objection at all to the Bush comment inserted by MPerel and have never deleted it. --AladdinSE 23:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

As I've explained many times (including months ago), at first it was original research, and then when you removed the original research it was no longer relevant. The Bush comment was about the settlements, and you keep trying to tie it into the barrier somehow, by adding your own commentary. Now, please make explicit the "consensus" that you keep referring to; who agrees to the inclusion of this Bush quotes on the settlements? Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree to it. It does really seem harmless. There is no original research in quoting someone, and I think it's obvious by now that wall is Israel's final borders.Heraclius 23:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, it may be your opinion that the barrier is "Israel's final borders", but that's not particularly relevant. The quote is about the settlements, not the barrier.  This article is long enough as it is, it doesn't need the addition of irrelevant quotes meant to support the POV that the barrier is indeed "Israel's final borders". Jayjg (talk)  23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * All of the statements are sourced, where is the original research?Heraclius 23:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you respond to my actual comments please? P.S. Original research is often sourced; the issue is when the original research proposes a novel theory. Jayjg (talk)  23:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin and Heraclius, I said a few weeks ago that I thought a reasonable compromise had been reached with the Bush quote, because Aladdin had gotten rid of some of the more obvious original research. However, since then, others have quoted from (I believe) another part of the same April 2004 letter (and recently reiterated by Bush) that he sees the barrier as a security, not a political, barrier, and that it is temporary, rather than permanent. Ignoring whether this makes sense or not, it's what Bush has said. We therefore can't add another quote to that, as though the two quotes are about the same thing, because they're not: the first is about the barrier, but the second about the settlements, and you're drawing an inference from it, a reasonable one, but your own. While it was borderline okay to retain it in the absence of the first quote, with the first one now there, it's very clear that Bush didn't mean what you're indicating he meant. Therefore, it really does count as original research now, because it's what the policy page calls a "novel synthesis" of facts, opinions, or arguments. If you want to say that Bush meant to refer to the barrier with the second quote, you'll have to produce a credible source who made exactly that argument. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

"In April 2004, American President George W. Bush said the barrier 'should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders, and its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.' He added that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect 'demographic realities' in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements. 'In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.'  Most of the settlements beyond the 1949 armistice line have been enclosed by the barrier."

Jayjg, you can't seem to stop contradicting yourself about whether or not the current disputed addition is OR or not. If you say that the OR was removed, rendering the addition irrelevant, then why have you made repeated claims about OR in your recent edit summaries? The consensus you seem unable to find in the original Talk section can be crystalized in the last few comments made by myself, Leifern, SlimVirgin and MPerel. Even Leifern, who expressed significant reservations along the lines of your own, did not think them sufficient to induce him to revert the edit. That's more than you've ever produced in terms of "explicit consensus". --AladdinSE 00:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but that is a particularly specious argument. The sentence you have added regarding the relationship of the settlements to the barrier is original research intended to tie Bush's unrelated comments about the settlements to his position on the barrier, even though he has explicitly stated his position is the opposite of what you are trying to promote.  As for the rest, MPerel has temporarily left the project, and rarely reverted in any case, Leifern has stopped editing articles relating the Middle East (and basically almost stopped editing completely), and SlimVirgin has explicitly stated that she disagrees with the inclusion of the material on the grounds that it is original research. I find your comments here very disappointing; I expected better. Jayjg (talk)  00:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Aladdin, as the issue seems to be what constitutes original research, would you agree to bringing someone else in who's familiar with the policy? I can think of a couple of people who might be able to help, though I have to say that Jay is one of a very small number of editors who have an excellent grasp of the NOR policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: Specious argument? What do you call repeatedly flip flopping on what exactly you find objectionable in my edit. First it's original research, then after several editors collaborate and a compromise is reached where even you admit it is not OR, you switch to relevancy. That in turn is discussed at length and by the time I had to leave WP, my edit had been left in and the matter settled. Then after my two month sabbatical I come back to find the consensus trashed the the comment deleted, and lo! Once again you break out the old OR red herring even though the comment is completely unchanged from the consensus compromise worked out three months earlier. What I also find fantastically specious is the uncounted instances of original research you leave untouched in several articles that you routinely edit. There are all sorts of unsourced "critics say" and "Israelis argue" and "Palestinians object" etc etc which you leave utterly unmolested and yet here you are obsessed with these two lines, like a self-proclaimed avenging angel of the NOR policy. It is not original research. It could not be more relevant. "Facts on the ground" are not only settlers and houses but the Walls and fences and towers and military bases that protect them and separate them from the Palestinians. It's all argued at length in previous Talk, I won't go into it again. Take it to arbitration if you also cannot find a way past this. I have compromised and learned much from previous discussions and this version is OK and will stay unless I am overruled by the absolute and final ruling of the arbitrators. As for your efforts to de-emphasize the comments of MPerel, he has contributed to the Talk as early as August 18, and you make it sound like he's been gone for ages. It is immaterial if editors like MPerel and Leifern temporarily or permanently leave this article or WP altogether, their pertinent comments regarding this affair whether now or three months ago are just as valid. Slim: Listening to Jayjg, it's OR one day and relevancy the next. No, I don not believe this issue has anything to do with OR, as you yourself testified in Talk some three months ago. This does not mean you can't bring in anyone you want, this is a Wikipedia discussion page after all, feel free to bring in anyone you wish. As far as I am concerned, the OR matter was settled months ago, and I have your own and Jayjg's comments that attest to this.--AladdinSE 05:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Bush's comment is about the settlements, so it is irrelevant to this page. Your comment trying to tie his comment about the settlements to the barrier, and thus make it relevant, is OR.  You imagined a consensus where there was none, and Wikipedia is dynamic.  That's all that matters. Jayjg (talk)  20:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And yet you have gone on record that the original research concerns have been properly corrected, and the edit I am maintaining has not been altered from that version. Bush's comment is on settlements and facts on the ground. The Wall protects settlements not just Israel proper. Trying to argue irrelevancy simply won't wash. --AladdinSE 22:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me try to help: I see Aladdin's point (the way I understand it) that the wall is creating facts on the ground, and like the settlements, Palestinians see this an an obstacle to peace. However, the manner in which it is "dropped" into the middle of this paragraph is a bit confusing, especially as 1- the paragraph's opening sentence (its thesis) is ultimately unrelated to the sentences towards the end of the same paragraph, and 2- it's attempt to attribute this to Bush is on shaky ground. Here's what I propose adding instead of Aladdin's addition:

"However, Palestinians were sensitive to the president's further assertions that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect 'demographic realities' in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements, because they believe that 'as in the case of the settlements, the separation barrier will become an entrenched fact to support Israel's future claim to annex additional land.'" Ramallite (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ramallite, I think I see how you propose to make this change but I'm not entirely sure. If you would go ahead and perform the edit along the lines your explained I can more accurately consider what you are proposing, thank you. --AladdinSE 22:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * What evidence is there that Palestinians were sensitive to these statements by Bush - do they specifically reference them? Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, you're right, "sensitive" is just a NPOV word, because "damn furious" was more like it!!!! Maybe it should read like this:

"However, Palestinians condemned the president's further statements that a permanent peace deal would have to reflect 'demographic realities' in the West Bank regarding Israel's settlements . Palestinians have compared the barrier to settlements in terms of creating facts on the ground, agreeing with the notion that 'as in the case of the settlements, the separation barrier will become an entrenched fact to support Israel's future claim to annex additional land.'" Ramallite (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush's comment/contd.

 * FYI I am OK with the rewording performed by Chuckstar. I think both versions express exactly the same information in much the same manner, but if this version is a more acceptable compromise, then I'm all for it. Ramallite, what is your opinion? Do you wish to attempt that edit you explained or is Chuckstar's rewording sufficient?--AladdinSE 16:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The point of my rewording was that I agree with AladdinSE that a reader who sees just the one Bush quote might interpret him as saying that he believes the final border should be different from the barrier. The additional language points out that Bush said no such thing and allows a reader to make their own interpretation of where Bush might think a final border should be (or even if he has a specific opinion). Since the paragraph discusses how various parties interpret the existence of the barrier vis a vis a final border, I think its important for a reader to see the full extent of Bush's comments regarding a final border which I would paraphrase as follows: "The barrier shouldn't necessarily be the final border, but the Green Line definitely shouldn't be the final border." Chuck 18:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, today you deleted Chuck's edit of 2 days ago and moved a heavily changed version to the opinions section. As you can see, many of us including yourself have invested a great deal of discussion regarding this edit dispute, please continue to contribute to this discussion when you make changes. I reverted the edit because it obliterated the whole point of those comments and associated narrative following on the heels of the comment on prejudged borders, which is in the History and Purpose section. --AladdinSE 09:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * To begin with, and it bears constant repeating, the article is about the barrier, not about the settlements. In addition, there is a section designated for opinions about the barrier, including international opinions.  Bush's opinion is exactly that, and international opinion about the barrier, and belongs in the section reserved for such opinions; the section in which it has been inserted discusses the history and purpose of the barrier, quoting the development only Israeli debate on the matter. Finally, the information linking Bush's comments about the settlements to barrier was tenuous original research at best, as any number of people have told you on this page.  Moreover, your original research has proved to be incorrect, as Bush's more recent official statements on the possible future borders have shown, where he has made clear, in official statments on a government website, that the basis for negotiations are the 1949 Armistice lines, and that any changes to those lines must be agreed to by both parties.  There has never been a justification for inserting your novel personal theory about what Bush meant when he talked about the settlements; but now that this assessment has been shown to be inaccurate, based on later official statements, I think at this point you would concede that the quote does not belong. Jayjg (talk)  15:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It bears constant repeating that you yourself acknowledged on more than one occasion that the edits in question were no longer original research. Chapter and verse have been discussed and numerous compromises and rewording evolved as a result. This leaves the issue of relevance and location of the comments. As I said before, the lines you keep deleting follow directly on the heels of the "prejudged borders" comment and go directly to analysis of the purpose of the border. You may certainly expand on Bush or anyone else's opinions in the Opinions section. You also keep repeating that this article is about the Wall and not the settlements, there is no argument there. Try as you might however, you will not succeed in obfuscating the fact that the Wall specifically protects and encloses the settlements, separating them form the Palestinians. This goes ot the heart of the section on the purpose of the barrier and attempts to argue irrelevancy are simply not credible. I think at this point, after so many compromises and rewordings from different editors, and your own repeated admission this this is not original research, that you would cease this flip-flopping and concede the quote does belong.--AladdinSE 23:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Something that is false bears no repeating, and you can't compromise or re-word your way around your obvious policy violations. You certainly tried, but, as has been explained many times, when you removed original research from one sentence, you simply made it irrelevant, and then your attempt to make it relevant by adding another sentence, turned it back into original research. Your continued inability to recognize this, and instead make false claims of "flips flops", make further dialogue difficult.  If, in the future, you decide to restrict yourself to commenting only on the validity and relevance of the content itself, and not on your revisionist history regarding what I have said, then I will resume dialogue.  Until then, I will simply remove the irrelevant material and original research, and restore the contents to their proper sections. Jayjg (talk)  04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromises and rewordings under your own admission did lead to you dropping your OR objections. The last wording I presented, you specifically declared to be not OR, and you can chose between that one and Chuck's edit, but you may not delete the information wholesale. I leave your own comments in this Talk section as a record of your vacillation between OR and relevancy for anyone to examine. If these policy violations are quite as obvious as you claim, I urge you to report them and seek arbitration. As I have said before, after extensive discussion and collaboration, I believe firmly in these edits and will accept the final judgement of WP arbitrators if you and I have reached an impasse. I find it regrettable that after you, Slim and I, among others, discussed and compromised over this some three months ago, you left the edit in place but then deleted it when I was absent during my May and June sabbatical. For the record, I too believe dialogue has become difficult, but be assured that I will not discontinue the discussion should any fresh points or questions be put to me. I close with yet another reminder of your inconsistency about Original Research, since you routinely leave unmolested all sorts of edits in several Arab-Israeli related articles which under your self-described categorizations are CLEAR instances of OR. This leaves you open to significant criticism of double standards and selective application of policy in order to remove edits unflattering to the Israeli perspective.--AladdinSE 09:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but your comment deals with revisionist history, rather than current article content. This is a Wiki, the content constantly changes, and, as I explained, from now on I will only respond to comments that deal solely with issues regarding current article content. Abritrators don't rule on article content, but if you can't restrict yourself to commenting solely on the current article content, and therefore work this issue out here, feel free to take this issue to an RfC regarding article content. Jayjg (talk)  15:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My comments deal with no such thing. They are entirely about article content. It is unfortunate that you would duck the double standards point I put to you, but fine, continue to respond to the actual points and so will I. --AladdinSE 06:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Bush has said (i) the "basis for negotiations" should be the Green Line, (ii) both sides need to agree on a final border, and (iii) the final border must take into consideration "facts on the ground". Jayjg, tell me how (iii) somehow contradicts (i) and (ii). Also tell me how its OR to point out that, while Bush has indicated that the barrier should not prejudice negotiations, he has also indicated that the major settlements should prejudice negotiations and (lo and behold) the barrier was placed with the major settlements on the Israeli side. These two quotes are not orthogonal to each other. If you say "this isn't an article about the settlements", then in an article about the settlements do you also say "this isn't an article about the barrier", such that there can never be an article in the wikipedia in which both Bush quotes would appear? Chuck 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's the "lo and behold" part of your argument that's the problem, because it's your argument. Bush was referring to the settlements. If it's so obvious that he was also referring to the barrier, then it will be easy to find an article in a reputable newspaper pointing this out. If that can be found, it can be quoted, and the original research problem will disappear. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * There are actually a lot of "lo and behold" arguments along these lines being made and published in reputable sources - except not by Bush - and I personally don't see why we can't use a non-Bush quote to address the same point. After all, it's a very important point worth addressing in this article (I believe), but we can address this properly without having to rely on Bush (who once said "Sharon is a man of peace") statements. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 20:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Exactly so; what is the obssession with trying to pin this argument on Bush? Others have made the argument, if they're notable, quote them instead, rather than trying to twist Bush's words into having him making the argument. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  21:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Bush hasn't said it, but others have, so some of the others should be used for this article, and Bush left out of it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've NEVER said Bush was referring to the barrier. I said he was referring to the eventual border, which is a topic inseparable from the barrier. I find it totally POV to include Bush's comments about what should not prejudice the final border when Bush has made clear comments about what should prejudice the final border -- the barrier should not prejudice the final border, yet the settlements which are on the Israeli side of the barrier should prejudice the final border. How are those issues separate?

 * Yes, it's the settlements that Bush is saying will be taken into account. Not the barrier, the settlements. I can only repeat: if it's so obvious that Bush's two statements should be linked, find someone credible who has linked them, and quote that person. If you can't find anyone reputable who has done that, maybe that absence ought to tell you something. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * If the topic were not so long, the barrier and the settlements would be in a single article, and readers would be able to see the quotes side by side (or close to it). The artificial separation of the two topics into two articles allows Jayjg (and yourself?) to avoid allowing the reader to see the line Bush is treading between being against the "barrier as border" but for the "settlements as border". (I made those terms up but I think you understand my point.)

 * But that's right: Bush is treading that line. You're saying we ought to pretend that he isn't, and start putting words in his mouth by creating a linkage that he has declined to create, and then attributing it to him. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * As is, readers don't get to see this distinction because the topics have been (artificially) separated allowing the claim to be made that the settlement quote is not relevant here. Put in both quotes and let a reader draw their own conclusion about what Bush may or may not mean. The only reason I have seen any reason to construct an argument linking the two was because, without one, Jayjg kept claiming that the second Bush quote was irrelevant and deleting it. Now he has gone further and the article reads as though Bush has never provided any opinion about an eventual border except that the Israelis and Palestinians should decide between themselves -- totally misleading as to Bush's position on the topic. Chuck 23:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's Bush who has separated the issues (whether artificially or not), and therefore we can't link his statements as though he has not separated them. You may find the separation absurd, and you may be right, but Bush is trying to avoid the linkage. As Ramallite and Jay suggest above: others have made the link, so find another reputable source and use them instead. It doesn't have to be Bush. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to respond here so it doesn't get confusing. But each bullet responds to one of you paragraphs, in order.
 * The link between those two statements is that both discuss Bush's position on the eventual border. If the Iran article discussed their nuclear weapon program and U.S. opposition to it, would it be irrelevant to discuss that the U.S. had not tried to stop Israel's program? Would you be saying it was irrelevant because one thing was about Iran and the other about Israel?

 * No, it wouldn't be relevant to mention Israel in an article about Iran. That's what we call original research. It would be an example of creating a novel synthesis using established facts in order to advance a position or build an argument. It's not allowed, and it's what happening with the Bush comment. If you want to do it, you have to find someone else who has already published that argument and attribute the position to them. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * What! You're the one obfuscating the line he's treading by leaving out a key quote. Don't use the red herring that I'm putting words in his mouth. I've already offered that we should just show the two quotes and let readers make their own determination. You are the one who wants to leave important information out.

 * But why are you choosing those two quotes? Why don't we include every single thing Bush has ever said about Israel and let the reader decide what he meant and which lines he may or may not be treading? No, what we do in an article about the barrier is include quotes from Bush in which he talks about the barrier. We don't include comments about which, viewed from a particular, unattributed POV, it could be argued that he might have implied something about one aspect of the barrier. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * How has Bush separated the two issues? Both are about his position on a final border. Both should be included when discussing Bush's position on a final border. Just because our discussion of a final border is separated into an article about settlements and an article about the barrier does not mean that we should not provide that quote here. Chuck 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't an article about a final border. It's an article about the barrier. To turn it into something else is original research. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Chuck. We are not making any linkages. My original comments were amended specifically to address this point, after which Slim said, and I quote:"I'd say Aladdin has made concessions over this and that the current version is probably okay. Strictly speaking, mention of the settlements could be regarded as original research, in that this article is not about that issue and therefore to mention them could be regarded as an attempt to construct a link. But Aladdin's current version is very factual, with no argument, and I don't see a problem with it." Chuck's changes follow the same safeguards. Of course we all understand that this is an article about the Barrier. One of the sections in this article (History and Purpose) deals with allegations and major concerns that the barrier would be used to impose borders favorable to Israeli expansion. I remind you that the Bush quote is not limited to settlements as some have claimed, he said, quote: "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." He said realities on the ground. Realities, ladies and gentlemen, include multi-billion dollar walls, fences, ditches and military installations. Moreover, Bush specifically did not limit his meaning to "settlements," he said "including already existing major Israeli populations centers", that's INCLUDING, NOT LIMITED TO. We are allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions.--AladdinSE 06:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * First, when I wrote that your edit was acceptable (the diff you quoted from), that was before the other quote from Bush was added, which clarified his position somewhat. That's what changed my mind, as I already thought the edit was borderline, but the new quote pushed it over the line back into original research.

 * I agree that what Bush says is ambiguous, which is why he said it. What's the point of using a phrase like "facts on the ground"? Why not say "barrier" when you mean barrier, and "settlements" when you mean settlements? The answer is that he's trying to play both sides, and the confusion suits him. And yes, the word "including" is another weasel term, because he can later claim that he meant other things, but because he didn't name them, he can also deny that he meant anything else. But the point is that you have to find someone else who makes these arguments and attribute the position to them: a journalist or academic, for example. If you make the argument your own, no matter how convincing it is, it's original research. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you need to give up the ghost. If Bush's quote may be about the barrier, and is certainly about something that is closely linked to the barrier, then its perfectly reasonable to put it in an article about the barrier. My previous edit to the article reflected my giving in that closely linked might not be enough to avoid OR. I had, unfortunately, bought into the party line that the quote was "demographic realities". Chuck 07:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Answer me this: if it's so obvious that the Bush comment might have been about the barrier, why can't you or Aladdin find a reputable source that says so? Because that would solve it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

It requires no source because it is not original research. Wording that might have been suspect was amended long ago. I actually did read or view something months ago from whom I'm pretty sure was Saeb Erekat criticizing those comments as an endorsement of acquiring land by aggression and allowing Israel to impose borders and whatnot, but I can't recall if it was an article or TV news interview. It's neither here nor there because the comments carefully avoid attributing unsourced opinions to Bush. It just leaves open the possibility for consideration because Bush specifically left the door open. I don't see how you can change your stance on OR simply because Bush made other comments later. By the way I'm not reverting today because I intend on limiting my personal reverts to once daily while this dispute lasts. --AladdinSE 09:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Aladdin, just a point about our policies: any edit that is challenged requires a source or may be deleted by any editor. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

By the way there is a new article from the BBC which ties directly to the "demographic realities" term meaning not just settlements but the Barrier as well, it says "The demographic struggle manifests itself in several ways, some of them constructed in steel and concrete - the "strengthening of settlements" and the West Bank barrier." I don't know Slim if this allays your reservations at all, but I will consider working it in tomorrow when I revert the disputed edit, if no one else does it before me, which they are welcome to do. --AladdinSE 10:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a good article, and it could certainly be used here, but not to tie in the disputed Bush quote, because Bush's position isn't mentioned. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Slim makes a very good case in this thread to either find a source that actually states the conclusions AladdinSE wants to make so that it's not original research, or do what Ramallite suggests and quote someone besides Bush making the barrier/settlements/realities connection. -- M P er el ( talk 23:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion requires a source if challenged. However, as has been repeated and argued many times, no conclusions are being drawn here. Merely factual information backed up with the sources they came from. With the info from the new article I have reworded the comments. Consider: We are not saying Bush said the Barrier was now definitely part of the "demographic realities" and "facts on the ground" that had to be considered in any realistic peace and border deal. We are saying that he said "demographic realities" and "facts on the ground" and that these terms can be easily construed to mean Barrier = border, and viola, the new article is the source for this addition. Editors I do hope this will be acceptable to all? --AladdinSE 06:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * How many times must this be repeated? He was, if anything, deliberately vague about it.  You can't "connect the dots" if no-one else has, that's the epitome of original research, and the info from the new article doesn't mention Bush's comments at all.  If you want to put some BBC editorial in the opinions section, that's something to think about, but please listen to what every single regular editor has explained to you on this page. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  06:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, there's really no reason to be condescending. Repeat it as many times as you like or don't repeat it, just recognize that I disagree with you. Yes he was most definitely vague about it. We did NOT "connect the dots." We drew no conclusions. We took this vague statement which talked about needing to take into account "demographic realities" and "realities on the ground" and then showed how terms like these can and are viewed by other sources to be related to the Barrier. This compromise is beyond the bounds of what is needed. Even before the addition of the comments form the new BBC article we still never drew conclusions nor placed words in Bush's mouth. Wording that did that was amended long ago. Finally, I take exception to you lecturing me on listening to other editors. If I was the kind of editor that did not listen and discuss at length, you would see nothing but 3 reverts a day with no explanation. As it is I respond in good faith to everyone and I voluntarily limit myself to one revert daily, in addition to several collaborations on rewordings and the like. I believe I have proven on more than one occasion that when I am honestly persuaded, I concede swiftly and publicly. --AladdinSE 07:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Aladdin, this article isn't your personal research paper. Allow me to quote Bush from May 24:

"'The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier.... Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to.... There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.'"
 * You claim that, despite explicit statements by Bush that the barrier must be temporary and must not prejudice final status negotiations, you misapply a quote from an outdated policy statement, implying (by the quote's very inclusion and placement) that you think that Bush was suggesting to maybe keep the barrier after all! Though a reading free of mental gymnastics will yield understanding that Bush's stance is that Israel concede land past the barrier, you write: "...Bush was not necessarily advocating against the barrier being a possible final border." Bush was also not necessarily advocating against Sharon tying his shoes, but that's not readily apparent in his quote. If you think that this is readily apparent, than you are spouting hypotheses. If you think that this isn't readily apparent in Bush's quote, than this likewise has no place in the article (obviously). HKT talk 21:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

HKT, thank you for pointing out that this isn't my own personal research paper; I had almost forgotten until your thoughtful reminder. Just because Bush may have backtracked later, does not erase those earlier comments which, using Slim's words, employed "weasel" words that were deliberately vague and used terminology, that is demography and realities on the ground, that can and have been interpreted as an equation of borders and the Barrier. We are not required to link to Bush directly because the narrative and quotation I inserted did not claim that they were talking of Bush, only that such terminology used in the context of future borders can certainly be interpreted as being inseparable from the reality of the Barrier. Now, if you think that the United States can't backtrack on even the most explicit policy statements and assurances, then you just have to look at the several violated treaties the US has with the Native Americans to know that NOTHING is certain, and just because Bush, or anyone says something, it doesn't mean they will necessarily honor it. Nevertheless, I have never tried to delete the second quote, and I think it is essential that we place both of them in this article, to clearly illustrate that, surprise surprise, Bush has not always been consistent in his words. By the way, being only recently brought into this discussion at the urging of Jayjg, you are not perhaps familiar with the fact that the words "Bush was not necessarily advocating against the barrier being a possible final border" were in fact Chuckstar's wording, not mine. I have no objection to them and have indicated in the past that either this or my previous wording are acceptable as far as I am concerned.--AladdinSE 11:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Aladdin, that you're acting in good faith is not in doubt. You've conceded issues, changed the section, looked for other ways to word things, and your self-imposed revert limit is much appreciated. Nevertheless, I can't agree with you. You wrote: "We did NOT 'connect the dots.' We drew no conclusions. We took this vague statement which talked about needing to take into account 'demographic realities' and 'realities on the ground' and then showed how terms like these can and are viewed by other sources to be related to the Barrier." I bolded the part where you join the dots. You take quote A and quote B, and you then use sources to show that words used in quotes A and B are sometimes connected. That's original research. What you need to do is take quote A and quote B, and then find a source who connects them directly: not a source who connects some of the words they contain, but a source who says something like: "In my view, when Bush said X, he might have meant Y." The source has to mention Bush. You've constructed an argument, and now you must find someone other than yourself who has constructed it too, so you can put it in the article. It might take less time to find a source than to continue this dispute, and if there isn't a source out there, it may mean that political analysts and the like don't, in fact, agree with your interpretation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, reading Jayjg's comments, apparently I don't listen to anyone. I wish he'd be able to distinguish between listening and disagreeing, and realize that when one disagrees, it does not mean one is ignoring or failing to understand one's colleagues. Now, back to the nuts and bolts. It is not original research for the same reason you certified it not be be so several months ago. Wording which you objected to that placed words in Bush's mouth were removed. Placing both quotes together merely illustrates that there is flip-flopping and uncertainty in Bush's words. He talked about demographic realities, and realities on the ground, SPECIFICALLY in the context of future borders. The BBC article discusses demography and the barrier are it relates to future borders. I put them side by side and will allow the reader, and only the reader, to draw their own conclusions. --AladdinSE 11:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

By the way Slim, you have not commented in the Double Standards subsection below. I'm curious as to your opinion. Would you read it please and answer the question I put to you, thanks. --AladdinSE 11:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Aladdin, I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I'll take a look shortly. In the meantime, I've rewritten that section slightly, using some of the other quotes we had, but minus the disputed Bush quote. This might be an acceptable compromise, though as it stands, it should probably have another quote from an Israeli govt source, as the section now has three sources saying it's a de facto border, and one source (Bush) saying it isn't. Let me know what you think. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all Slim, I'm having trouble making timely posts myself lately. I am traveling right now and I'm caught up in the relief efforts for New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and at a conference to to raise cash and coordinate the dispatch of supplies. It's a bit of a zoo here. I have to sign off in a few minutes and get some sleep. I did read your edit via the history changes, though it was a bit of a cursory examination. Let me consider properly tomorrow evening and then reply at length. If I am unable to, I will be back home by September 6 and will definitely get it done then. Since I am unable to reply here in Talk or contribute anything new, it's only fair to refrain form reverts and edits for the time being. Before I go, I hope I am not breaking any Wikipedia policy here, but if anyone wants to help out with the relief efforts, here is the link for the Red Cross. Donations and volunteers are both greatly needed now. --AladdinSE 07:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Double Standards on relevancy and original research?
Chuck just deleted a quote that Jayjg inserted about future borders, a quote that makes no mention of the Wall, but which Jayjg placed in the International opinion about the Wall section. Chuck was right to do this, and he has illustrated a clear double standard about how this Bush quote with no mention of the Wall is allowed in opinions about the Wall, clearly implying a link between the Wall and future borders. The quote in question is below.

"Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations."

There is a clear connection between the Wall and concerns for "prejudged borders" and Bush's comment on "realities on the ground." Double standards like these should be above us. --AladdinSE 07:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Bush is deliberately making the connection unclear, so it's not necessarily so clear. And you're correct that Jayjg's quote is OR just like the one you're putting in, and neither quote belongs. -- M P er el ( talk 23:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And yet Slim said there were few editors more qualified when it came to Original Research. Hmmmmmm. --AladdinSE 06:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you consider it to be Original Research? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If I did I would have said so earlier, Jayjg. I do believe that is awkward by itself though in the opinions section, as it does not mention the barrier at all. My edits follow on the heels of the the "prejudged borders" comment and follow up with outside commentary on how demography and the Barrier can be interlinked, while never saying that Bush linked them. How about you? I assume you disagree with MPerel, then? What about Slim, do you think Jayjg's edit is OR or not? You have not commented in this section.--AladdinSE 07:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you don't consider it to be Original Research, then what is your issue with it? Please remember that the purpose of the Talk: page is to discuss article content. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it not clearly spelled out above? Let me quote: he has illustrated a clear double standard about how this Bush quote with no mention of the Wall is allowed in opinions about the Wall, clearly implying a link between the Wall and future borders and then in my last post: I do believe that is awkward by itself though in the opinions section etc etc. Discussing article content is central certainly, and pointing out double standards goes to the heart of editorial disputes regarding reasoning for said disputes and reverts. --AladdinSE 07:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

After a specific and repeated explanation of what the issue of the quote is, if you still fail to understand it is, I'm not the one to explain it to you. Finally, I most sincerely and vehemently urge you to report this so-called "personal attack" as you see it, and as you claim most people see it. The notion is so absurd, I won't engage you in such a frivolous non-starter. I will simply challenge you to prove it through the available Wikipedia channels. Finally, your efforts to duck legitimate questions of double standards is unfortunate. When an editor claims another editor is using original research and placing irrelevant material, then places information which under his own definitions and classifications is OR and irrelevant, then it goes to the heart of the dispute at hand (i.e. what is and what is not OR and what is and is not relevant). This most definitely is the realm of Talk discussion. Again, if you think this Talk is being misused, then again, I challenge you to prove it via official channels. Thanks.--AladdinSE 07:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

More ideas
I'm glad I stream this program, look what I found: An NPR STORY!!!

This is an audio stream, but it is pretty relevant to this article and the problem above - particularly quotes from Daniel Seiderman, the Israel lawyer quoted in this piece. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 14:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Statistics
Up to date statistics on the length, now much is wall, etc, appear here. --Zero 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Beware, B'Tselem is a politicized special interest group, see B'Tselem. The official source is .  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That's rather funny, Humus. B'Tselem is biased so better stick with the totally independent and reliable Israeli government.  I like it.  By the way, in the cases where B'Tselem and the government disagreed in some matter of fact regarding the barrier, so far the score is B'Tselem lots, government nil.  --Zero 02:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Zero, reread my post: I didn't say anything of the sort. (On a personal note, I do wish that those inquisitively obsessed sponsors leave the Jews alone for a change. There are enough real problems in the world today).  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Merge requested
I have recommended that the article Apartheid wall be merged with this article. That article should become a redirect to this one, as using that name for an article is allowing WP to be used as a political platform. That some people call it an "Apartheid Wall" for their political purposes does not make it a valid name. It is, instead, a description from one side of a debate. Such a name is therefore not consistent with WP naming policy. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK 00:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that there should only be one article, and that this one has the better title. As for merging the contents, I plan to stay out of that fight.  --Zero 00:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree. I'd like to see them merged. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * You all do realize that they were once one article, and the section on Apartheid was taken out and made into a separate one, right? In any case, I agree it should be put back here, and also made into a logical discussion instead of listing "arguments". (By the way, Tomer, there are humanitarian reasons for calling it a racist wall, not just political, given my first hand knowledge of it!!) Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 01:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ramallite: I didn't dig through the history far enough to figure out how the article had come to be, but I think it's not only inflammatory to have the split-off article, but also an expression of sympathy with a particular POV, no matter how legitimate that POV might be.  As for whether or not it's a "racist" wall, I would disagree since I adhere to a much stricter view of the scope of the term "racism".  It may be descriminatory, but not racist.  Racist is the Interior Ministry's limiting the applicability of the Law of Return when it comes to applicants from Peru, India and Ethiopia.  Yes, I realize the implications go far beyond politics, and deeply into humanitarian concerns, and perhaps I was negligent in the expression of my rationale, but I could write a thesis on why they should both be discussed in a single venue, at least in terms of an encyclopedia project, and not a single non-disparaging sentence about why they shouldn't.  :-p  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  01:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that they should be discussed in a single venue. As for the racism issue, I decided long ago not to try to convince people of things they can only learn by experience (i.e. coming to Palestine). Let me just say that, you're right, it's discriminatory in that it "cages in" and restricts certain people but not others, but it's also (in my view) racist because the people who built it believe they have the right to build a "discriminatory" wall in my back yard in the first place! (realize I don't believe it's a security wall, because it's somehow protecting my 'significant other's' parents from their daughter, and me from my cousins and best friends). My definition of racism may be a bit broader, you'd have to give me some slack because life is a whole lot different behind the wall. Anyway, sorry, I'm not trying to start another discussion, I just wanted to say I agree with you. By the way, just for my info, was your example of racism a hypothetical, or is there really a problem for Olim khadashim from Peru, India, etc? You made me curious. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  21:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the apartheid wall article does pretty well to show both points of view. The editor that split it off from this article was Jayjg.  However, the problem with merging is that having "apartheid wall" be a redirect to this article was objected to by several people, so that's why it was made into a sort of display for both sides of the argument.Heraclius 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the merger, provided the apartheid information is summarized succinctly. --AladdinSE 16:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Summarized" in what way? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Why, in the general way I suppose. Regarding integration within the article where the section is not overlong and flows well within the greater structure. --AladdinSE 05:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with the merge request simply because I don't think apartheid wall really deserves a whole separate article. It's a bit silly for both sides to come up with every single argument they can for and against this name which is not used by a majority of people. An arguments page doesn't seem very encyclopedic. What about something like:

 * Some opponents of the walled portion of the barrier refer to it as an apartheid wall. They argue that its extension into the West Bank is part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which serves to subjugate the Palestinians by separating them from Israel and the rest of the world and controlling all entry and exit. Defenders of the barrier reject this designation. They argue that apartheid was a system designed to separate and disenfranchise people based on skin color and that the barrier does no such thing, as over 1 million Arabs reside on the "Israeli" side and constitute 15% of Israel's population. They believe the purpose of the barrier is to protect Israeli civilians from illegal border crossings and attacks.

 * That is just an idea to get this merge request moving, since most people agree it would be better if summarized and merged. I just took what I felt were the best arguments for both sides, but if I left out something vitally important, change it. I think the term is silly, as IMO apartheid is pretty heavily tied to a specific period in history. There is obviously racism coming from both sides of the wall and plenty of similarities and differences to apartheid are present. --MattWright (talk) 07:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The issue with the original Apartheid wall article was that people objected to it re-directing to this article, as this pre-supposed that the West Bank barrier was, indeed, an "Apartheid wall". Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It doesn't pre-suppose what the barrier is, it simply is a term that some people use to refer to the wall. The redirect only comes into play if someone searches on the term (I think). If they search on the term, they are most likely looking for the barrier article instead of an argument about a controversial term. The guidelines for removing a redirect state that you can remove a redirect if ' The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article. ' Now, I know that the redirect wasn't deleted, simply an article created in its place (so I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing here), but this guideline does seem to imply that an offensive redirect is ok, if that offensive term is discussed in the article, which it was. So far most people commenting here seem to think that a merge is the way to go and I personally think it should be synthesized into paragraph form instead of a lengthy arguments list. --MattWright (talk) 00:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Again, the issue was that using the re-direct indicates synonymity between "Aparthied wall" and "Israeli West Bank barrier", and thus tacit acceptance that the barrier is indeed an "Apartheid wall". The only way a re-direct like that would be marginally acceptable would be if it went directly to a section discussing the term. As for the summary, the problem is that when activists come upon the summary, they inevitably feel the need to add their own "oh you forgot this argument" to it, which provokes a response, forcing these things to bloat. Thus a comprehensive list was created, in the hopes that people would leave it alone after that. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest you read the Redirect guidelines, particularly the section "When should we delete a redirect?" It clearly states that offensive redirects are ok if the term is discussed in the article. It is not tacit acceptance that the barrier is an "Apartheid wall". It is tacit acceptance that some refer to it and may search for it as such, which is true. "Synonym" is only one of over 15 reasons they give at the WP:R guidelines for why redirects may be created, others include "related words" or "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text", either of which could apply to this case. --MattWright (talk) 17:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

One quick point: it seems that the term "security fence" is redirected to the article "Israeli Separation Barrier" (or a disambiguation page that lists the two Israeli separation barriers). Although many people might find the term "security fence" offensive, it seems reasonable to redirect the term to an article that discusses the barrier and contextualizes the debate concerning the term. I think we should take the same approach to term "apartheid wall." This will maintain, at least, the semblance of objectivity. Jude142.150.48.188 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I support a merge, and I don't think the highly technical issue of a POV redirect is a good enough reason to keep them separate. When merged though, I would hope the merged section shouldn't be about the term apartheid wall, but the idea behind it.--Pharos 01:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I also see no point in having a seperate article for just a separate name for something that is already presented from different perspectives and discussed at length in its main article. The metaphoric reference to the (now defunct) Apartheid laws (or Nuremberg Laws or Jim Crow laws or Dhimmi laws or Indigénat codes) can only serve as a rhetoric tool to compare with entirely different phenomena in history. That is about as informed and mature as labeling one's political opponents any historical extreme that is perceived as somehow closer to the Other thatn to oneself. Creating a seperate article for everything in an encyclopedia every time a new opinion or perspective arises makes no sense to me. Comparisons are entirely in their place, but come on folks, let's call things by their correct actual name - at least in the heading. Apartheid Wall is a political slur, and not everyone who hears this appellation would automatically understand that it does not refer to any structures found in the old South Africa. The correct name for this article should read "The Israeli-West bank separation barrier from the point of view of those who vehemently oppose it and compare it to Apartheid policies (see main article for the broader picture or the general topic article for more general info)". But that's a long title... --Big Adamsky 13:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Opinions about the barrier
I've put various opinions about the barrier in the correct section (opinions about the barrier). As well, since people insist on inserting irrelevant material about Bush's opinion about the settlements into this article, I've brought the actual, official, and most recent statements by Bush on the matter, as published on the official government website, which state quite clearly that any changes from the 1949 armistice lines must be agreed to by both sides, thus clearly confirming his earlier statements that the barrier is not a permanent border, not the basis for negotiations of one. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Refer to my last comment in the Bush's Comment section dated 09:42, August 28, 2005. P. S. In your revert you also deleted another editor's inclusion of the Hebrew script and pronunciation for the Wall. Was that deliberate, i.e. was it an incorrect edit? If it is I will refrain from returning it in any potential future reverts regarding this persisting Bush comment dispute. --AladdinSE 03:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Please refrain from any reverts, particularly those deleting actually relevant information, inserting original research, or putting information in incorrect sections. Thanks. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm still a bit confused about where the Hebrew script and pronunciation belongs. I'll leave it to you and Ramalite to determine. It does however serve as a deterrent against blind reverts which I hope you will heed in the future. As for the more substantive discussion about the Bush's Comments dispute, I will refer you to my comments in the Bush's Comments section where this belongs. --AladdinSE 23:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly original research
Aladdin, I can see what you're trying to do with Bush's comment, but I have to say that this is clearly original research: "While advocating against the barrier as being the de facto final border, Bush was not necessarily advocating against the barrier being a possible final border. Around the same time, he was also quoted as saying "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

This is a classic example of an editor putting together two known facts and producing a novel synthesis, something the NOR policy explicitly rules out. "While advocating against the barrier as being the de facto final border, Bush was not necessarily advocating against the barrier being a possible final border" is your argument. And then to support it, you add "around the same time, he was also quoted as saying ...," which is adding your interpretation of that quote by placing it in a context of your choice.

If this is clearly (or even arguably) what he meant, there is bound to be a reputable, English-language newspaper article about it somewhere. The W/Post and NYT would have picked up on it if Bush had meant what you say he meant. You need to find one of those articles, if any exist, and quote from it, rather than adding your own understanding. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would urge that editors stop creating new sections to deal with disputed edits that have their own long-running discussion. It creates organizational confusion. Please refer to my replies in Bush's Comment and Bush's comment/Cont.--AladdinSE 06:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, Aladdin. Feel free to move this if you prefer. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Map
The map on the top of this article is not accurate.

It includes parts that have been build, parts that have been approved by the Israeli government (but are not built at all) and some lines which are pure speculation because they have been left by the government "for further discussion".

The route of the wall/fence/barrier has been rerouted many times. Approval by the Israeli government means nothing, as the army eventually makes changes on the ground and the courts also have their say.

The court have just told the government to change the route of an exiting section, they previously ordered rerouting of a 34 K'm section and there are about 40 more petitions pending before the court about many other sections that have been approved by the government but have need been built yet. The court expressed it's willingness to review each such section in detail to decide it's legality.

I propose that the map will be removed and that an effort will be made to show a map of what truly exist on the ground, not to include "future plans" which are all subject to so many frequent changes. If someone would explain to me how to load a jpg file I'll be glad to send a map I have which is the closest to the current reality. It is based on a map by human rights organization B'tselem. www.btselem.org

BTW, how do I add my signature to this comment ?

I suggest everyone looks at this:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/fence10.jpg

The lines marked goverment decision of Oct 2003 have been cancled

major parts are marked "further interministrial discussion" (none held, no decision)

In reality only someparts of the red (called revised route) have been implemented.

User:Zeq

This is certainly an interesting map, but it does not show the green line, which makes it rather difficult to interpret. After all, the barrier's deviation from the armistice line is a central concern here, and without that point of reference, the map seems rather pointless in this context. It certainly should not replace a map that at least gives a rough sense of this deviation. --142.150.48.171 22:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

On the above map the green line uis shown in wide pink. So the map is more accurate than the one currently in wikipedia. How can I load this map (or the Btselem map ?)

Name in Arabic
I wonder why editors insist on putting wrong information in this article.

As I indicated before, the map is not accurate.

Now come the issue of how Arabic media refer to the fence/wall/barrier and issues that refer to translation from Arabic.

Hebrew and Arabic are very close. The Hebrew word is 'Gader' and the Arabic word is 'Gidar' - Both words mean "fence".

Let's move to the second part. In Hebrew it is called "Gader Hafrada" in Arabic it is called "Gidar el-Fasel"

Fasel in Arabic has several meanings but they all come from an ancient Hebrew word "Patzel" (The Hebrew Peh (P) has been transferred in Arabic to Fa (F)  (in Hebrew P & F are the same letter). The Hebrew letter "Tzadik"  (Tz) have been transformed in Arabic to Sad (S) and the Tz is pronounced in Arabic as "S". )

All together: Patzel has been transferred to Fasel). In Hebrew Patzel means "To separate" or to diverge into two or more parts.

In Arabic the word Fasel includes meaning such as "To seaprate", " to diverge (It is used in this sense to describe all the various organization such as Hamas, Jiihad, PFL etc….)

All together "Gidar el Fasel" means "Wall/Fence of Separation" and this should not surprise any one since the term coined in Arabic is similar to the word used in Hebrew "Gader Hafarda" (Separation Fence).

The two languges are very close and constantly borrow from one another. Personally I think they were the same in the past but that is a separate issue.

All newer description were invented as political: 'The wall" "The anti-terror barrier" etc… But for sure Arabic media has not been referring to it as "wall" or "racial wall". Editors such as slimvirgin are advised to check before reverting again.

Signed: Zeq

BTW, inserting POV by "quoting" POV of Arab media is a way to bypass a a very basic rule of wikipedia. I sure hope slimvirgin is not going to take part in such cheap trick.

 * Ok Zeq. I am reverting your entries again because 1- you are clearly not 100% knowledgeable of Arabic and 2- you are completely misunderstanding the point of that paragraph. Keep in mind that I am Palestinian, from Ramallah, and Arabic is my mother tongue:
 * First of all, the paragraph that you are altering actually  is  dealing with the POV of both sides. It is saying "This is the Israeli point of view: ........." and "this is the Palestinian point of view.....". That paragraph is meant to convey the specific POV of each side. One achieves NPOV by stating both opposing viewpoints. Don't you get it?
 * You wrote  "There is a claim that the word Gidar (in Arabic) is "wall". This is nonsense." In fact, what you wrote here is rubbish. The Arabic word for wall is "جدار" (jidar), and although I don't know the history of Aramaic/Arabic/Hebrew 100%, and I don't dispute that the origin of the words in Hebrew and Arabic may be related as far as the concept of a "barrier" goes, the fact remains that 'jidar' is Arabic for wall. In classical Arabic, there may have been a use for the word 'jidar' to mean a sort of barrier that may be construed as a 'fence'. But in modern times, what would be called a 'fence' in English is more often referred to as a "'hajiz" (which can also mean 'barrier') or "sinisla" (a low-height separation structure made of sticks or stones). In any case, the word 'jidar' is used to mean wall in this context.
 * You wrote "But for sure Arabic media has not been referring to it as "wall" or "racial wall"". Excuse me? Are you just taking wild guesses? I don't know about "Arabic media" because that its pretty varied, but the sentence is talking about Palestinian officials and media, and I can assure you that Palestinian officials and media (just do a basic google search for "جدار الفصل العنصري") refer to it as "jidar al-fasl al-unsuri". Okay? You obviously have not been reading Palestinian newspapers.
 * "Fasl" (noun) by itself means "separation". But "fasl unsuri" means (literally) "separation by race" or more commonly in English "racial segregation". And since "fasl unsuri" is the term that is used, not "fasl", then that's how it is.
 * For your information, you also wrote "The Hebrew letter "Tzadik" (Tz) have been transformed in Arabic to Sad (S) and the Tz is pronounced in Arabic as "S". In fact, the Hebrew letter צ is traditionally pronounced just like the Arabic letter ص, and also, the Hebrew letter ע is pronounced like the Arabic letter ع. But the modern pronunciation of "ts" and "a" is a result of immigration of European/North American (Ashkenazi) Jewry who find it easier to pronounce the latter forms.
 * If you have any more questions, please post here, what you are doing on the main page is considered vandalism. And also, accusing editors of things like "cheap tricks" is uncivil. Regards, Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 14:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite. I listen to Al-Jazeera hope this is "Arab media" enough for you. They use "Gidar El-Fasel" which means "Wall/Fence of Separation"

I would suggest that such an educated discussion of how it is exactly called by what media is not at all the place for this article. People need to know the 5 W: what it is, where it is, why it was build, when and how. Of course on the why there should be different opinions. Clearly the barrier has a negative affect on the population which is blocked by it. BTW, in Al-Jazeera they use "'hajiz" for checkpoint not for wall/barrier/fence.

Did you do a google search for جدار الفصل and you will see it is widely more used than "جدار الفصل العنصري

In fact the term جدار الفصل is used twice than what you claim is used by "Arab media". Please be a sport and revert it yourself. To sumup: I suggest that in Hebrew it will be "Separation Fence" and in Arabic it will be "separation wall" - how about that ? This would fit what I hear in Arabic media.

 * I do not doubt you listen to Al-Jazeera, in fact I was almost sure that you do and that's where you got "jidar al-fasl" from. But Al-Jazeera is neither "Palestinian officials" nor "Palestinian media". Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar, which is one reason (out of many) that I don't care for it much and obviously does not belong in an article discussing Palestinian opinions. You are again missing the point: The paragraph in question is about the actual naming of the barrier being contentious. In fact, it is about the argument we are having right now! It is about how Israelis call it "separation fence", or "anti-terrorist fence" (which you didn't object to by the way) and Palestinians calling it a "racial segregation wall" in Arabic (Separation Wall or Apartheid Wall in English). It does not (and should not) refer to "Arab media"; there is no reason to bring the Royal Moroccan Television into this, nor the completely hilarious Syrian or Saudi or Qatari opinions. What you need to be looking at is "Al-Quds" or "Al-Ayyam" Palestinian newspapers as well as Palestinian Authority official websites (e.g. the website I linked above) or the Palestinian opposition parties (e.g. the Palestinian National Initiative) in order to see what Palestinians call it. More commonly its جدار الفصل العنصري and less commonly just جدار الفصل or الجدار الفاصل for short. If you do a google for جدار الفصل then of course you'll get more hits than  جدار الفصل العنصري because the former phrase is part of the latter (it's like saying "blue underwear" gets more hits than "dark blue underwear"). However, if you look in Google for  جدار الفصل without  العنصري, you'll see it gets much less hits than the complete phrase. So in Palestinian media (and political opinions of officials),  جدار الفصل العنصري is more common, and I'm basing this assertion based on google hits since my own observations do not count on WP. (I must confess that, although I sometimes watch local Palestinian channels,  I don't watch "Palestine TV" because it seems that the people there were trained in places like Jordan or Egypt which automatically disqualifies them as far as I'm concerned). Even if "جدار الفصل العنصري" was a minority statement (which it isn't), it still would be valid in this article as a phrase by which the wall is commonly referred to.

 * Now, if you want to remove the whole paragraph because you think it is inappropriate for the article, then please start a new section below in this discussion page and state your intention and see how many editors agree or disagree with you. If most agree with you, then we can delete it. I don't care either way, but I think it will be difficult since most editors will want to refer to these names for one reason or another. Thanks Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk)  18:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ramalite, I agree with you wrote above. Using the term used by Palestinian media (some of it is goverment controlled) is giving a room for propeganda. This is the same as refering to the barrier in the Israel govrement name "Anti-terror fence".

Clearly it is stopping terror but it does much more. see below. I think we should stick to commonly used names.


text:
California State Route 156

State Route 156 (SR 156) is a west to east state highway in the U.S. state of California, running from State Route 1 in Castroville to State Route 152 near Hollister. It serves as part of the primary route from the Monterey Peninsula to either the San Francisco Bay Area or the California Central Valley.

Route description
The western terminus is at State Route 1 in Castroville. The eastern terminus is at State Route 152 near Hollister. It overlaps U.S. Route 101 for 8 mi between Prunedale, and San Juan Bautista. Route 156 passes through Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Clara Counties. Along with US 101, it is the quickest route from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Monterey Peninsula. In addition, SR 156's connection with SR 152 allows direct access to the California Central Valley.

For its westernmost two miles (3 km), Route 156 is a freeway through Castroville, terminating at a Y-interchange with the Route 1 freeway. There is no direct access from Route 156 West to Route 1 North or Route 1 South to Route 156 East. Motorists who want to go from Route 1 South to Route 156 East can do so by using Route 183 South through Castroville. Traffic heading west on Route 156 can access Route 1 North by exiting at the Route 183 interchange and heading north. The route then truncates into a two-lane road between Castroville and Prunedale. Route 156 joins U.S. 101 for the next 8 miles (13 km) before splitting off as an expressway east to San Juan Bautista. Just after the intersection with The Alameda, Route 156 returns to a 2-lane road, then curves north by northeast, with several at-grade signal intersections, including one with State Route 25. Route 156 then crosses into Santa Clara County approximately 1/4 mile (300 meters) before a divided road and terminating at State Route 152 as a partial interchange. However, motorists wishing to use westbound SR 152 must exit at Casa de Fruita as there is no direct interchange between eastbound SR 156 and westbound SR 152.

SR 156 is part of the National Highway System, a network of highways that are considered essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility by the Federal Highway Administration. The route is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System, and from 1 mi east of Castroville to US 101 is officially designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation, meaning that it is a substantial section of highway passing through a "memorable landscape" with no "visual intrusions", where the potential designation has gained popular favor with the community.

History
The original portion of the route was defined in 1909 and ran from U.S. Route 101 to Hollister. In 1933, the remainder of the route (between Castroville and US 101 and between Hollister and Route 152) was added. It was signed as Route 156 by 1963, but was not part of the original 1934 state signage of routes.

Route 156 was originally routed through Hollister on 4th street and turned left on San Benito Street where it shared a route with Route 25 for 1 mile (as of 2009, SR 25 was rerouted onto a bypass.) before splitting with SR 25, and meeting its current alignment at the current SR 156/ San Benito Road intersection. In 1998, Route 156 was rerouted onto a new bypass of Hollister. A stub of the original route can be seen southeast of this intersection.

Route 156 east originally came to an intersection with US 101. This intersection became dangerous because U.S. 101 traffic didn't stop. This intersection was replaced with an interchange since then. A stub of the intersection can still be seen between the southbound on ramp and the bridge crossing U.S. 101.

Future
Highway 156 experiences heavy truck traffic as it serves as a primary route for moving people and goods between the Monterey Peninsula and the rest of the state. It directly links with Highway 152, one of a small number of passable routes across the Coast Ranges between Monterey Bay and the Central Valley.

Monterey County
The westernmost segment from Highway 1 to Highway 101 in Prunedale is a heavily traveled 2-lane section that has experienced numerous fatal crashes in recent years. Environmental studies are underway to upgrade this 5-mile (8 km) section to either a 4-lane highway or fully controlled access expressway. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County and Caltrans have narrowed the list of upgrade alternatives to one freeway and one expressway option. Alternative 11 — the expressway option — will add a second carriageway to the existing road. Interchanges will be constructed at Castroville Boulevard and Cathedral Oaks Road, while Oak Hills Drive will be an at-grade intersection. Alternative 12 — the freeway option — will build a new freeway to the south of the existing roadway with an interchange at Castroville Boulevard. Under this alternative, there will be no interchange with Cathedral Oaks Road or Oak Hills Drive. The existing Route 156 would be converted to a frontage road providing access to Cathedral Oaks Road and Oak Hills Drive. The environmental studies were expected to be complete in 2009, with the project originally slated for completion in 2015. As of December 2020, only the interchange at Castroville Boulevard has been funded.

San Benito County
San Benito County and Caltrans are conducting environmental studies for widening Highway 156 from two to four lanes between Highway 101 near San Juan Bautista and the Santa Clara County line. Interchanges are proposed with Highway 25 northwest of Hollister, Business Route 156 both north and southwest of Hollister, and Highway 101. The entire segment may be upgraded to freeway status to eliminate delays caused by numerous traffic lights currently present in the Hollister area.

Business loop
State Route 156 Business is a business loop that runs along SR 156's former alignment through Hollister, California. It splits from SR 156 as San Juan Road to run east to Downtown Hollister, then heads north as San Felipe Road to rejoin the parent route.

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

title: California State Route 156


text:
Talk:Bad Moon

Untitled
the dog should be listed as a star. --130.111.98.16 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Thor --Maoririder 21:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC) The dog who plays Thor is named Primo... It's mentioned in the movie box and credits.--Mr Fink 05:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the dog's name in the movie and the dog's real name? --Durin 22:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bad Moon


text:
John Bell (New Hampshire politician)

John Bell (July 20, 1765 –March 22, 1836) was the 12th governor of New Hampshire from 1828 to 1829. Samuel Bell, a brother, was the eighth governor of New Hampshire from 1819 to 1823.

John Bell was born on July 20, 1765, in Londonderry in the Province of New Hampshire, the son of John and Mary Ann (née Gilmore) Bell. John Bell Jr. (1730–1825) served in the New Hampshire Senate from 1786 to 1790 representing Rockingham County.

He received a limited education by several New Hampshire common schools, and became a merchant, attaining success by trading and selling New Hampshire products in Canada and Canadian products in New Hampshire. He was later involved in other ventures, including farming and land speculation. Initially a Federalist, according to the New Hampshire Division of Historical Records, he entered state politics when he became a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives from Londonderry in 1799. He later moved to Chester, and he married Persis Thom on December 25, 1803. They had 10 children; the youngest, Charles Henry Bell, served as governor from 1881 to 1883. From 1803 to 1804 Bell was a member of the New Hampshire State Senate, representing the 3rd District. He was also a member of the Executive Council of New Hampshire from 1817 to 1823, as a Democratic-Republican and the sheriff of Rockingham County from 1823 to 1828.

In 1828 Bell was a National Republican and a supporter of President John Quincy Adams. Adams lost to Andrew Jackson in that year's presidential election, but Bell defeated Jackson supporter Benjamin Pierce 21,149 to 18,672 votes in the election for governor.

While he was governor, the Exeter Savings Bank was chartered; several state manufacturing companies were incorporated; a number of schools were founded; and manufacturing within the state increased. Bell also promoted state support for formal agricultural education, and experimentation in farming and agriculture.

In 1829, Bell was defeated for re-election by Benjamin Pierce. He then retired from public service, and pursued actively his farming interests. He died in Chester on March 22, 1836, and was buried in the Village Cemetery in Chester.

title: John Bell (New Hampshire politician)