Talk:Separation barrier: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:59, 20 March 2013

Skip to table of contents

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Architecture Unassessed

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Not political boundary

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

New EU Fence

The European Union is planning a fence along the eastern boarder of Poland and Hungary. I have seen several news articles about this but can find nothing on the EU site. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=823974&fid=942

Neologism?

It is not clear from this definition how a "separation barrier" is meant to differ from any other defended border. I am concerned that this article might be a neologism in the sense in which it is being used. It seems clear that the newer wall/fence being built by the Israelis is being called the "separation barrier" by many (including the Israeli government), and googling on it gets tens of thousands of hits. But excluding "Israel" and "Israeli" from the search drops the hits down to just 849 - of which every link on the first three pages (after which I got sick of checking in detail) is either:

still about Israel, just happens not to include the term
a mirror of one of our articles
a completely unrelated article which just happened to use the phrase (e.g. a fire safety product); or
doesn't actually include the phrase at all.

Further, the term "security fence" has a common meaning which has nothing to do with borders. Next, several of the example "separation barriers" are conventionally understood as being military defenses rather than meeting the definition provided here. And finally, the page is a list, not an article.

This page should probably be moved to List of fortified borders or something like that, and then this page redirected to Israeli security barrier as Kingturtle originally had it. On the other hand, sticking my hand into the tarpit that is Wikipedia Israel/Palestine articles probably risks my Wikisanity. Securiger 12:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not only a neologism but a euphemism to boot, and I've amended the lead to reflect this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Defensive wall

===>Largely identical articles The scope and content of both largely overlap. I don't know which should redirect to the other, though. I'm inclined to say "separation barrier" should be the main article, as not all of these are strictly built for defense, but all walls, by definition, separate. Thoughts? Justin (koavf) 01:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging them would be misleading to the content of this article. Not all defensive walls make a separation border, which is the focus of this article. I think the "Separation barrier" article should be renamed to something like "Defended National Border" or "fortified border" or something. --Kvasir 00:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like Defensive walls is more about fortified cities of an earlier era, whereas Separation barrier deals with much longer walls that separate territories and zones. No? //Big Adamsky 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake in Russia section

According to constitution of Russian Federation its illegal to build such walls because of freedom of movement. Therefore, section about Chechnya and other parts of Russia seems to be fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was left by TohaSpiridonov, 16:30, 4 March 2007

I have added a reference. Chesdovi 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

table from The Guardian newspaper

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

Is this article about the concept or the term?

Is this article about separation barriers, or is it about the term "separation barrier"? Judging from the fact that the article lists and describes many barriers, it appears to be about the former. In that case, it should begin "A separation barrier is XYZ", not "The term separation barrier is XYZ". If the term "separation barrier" is an inappropriate description of the thing in question on the grounds that it is a euphemism, then the article should be moved to a more appropriate title, rather than beginning by telling us that it is inappropriate.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may add, why is the term "separation barrier" a euphemism? Isn't it a barrier which separates? Euphemism is saying about a dead person that he is "gone". Actually he didn't go anywhere, he simply died. However, in this case we are talking about a plain simple term. DrorK (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo Fence

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

Seperation of Cyprus

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

Korea Wall?

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

Multiple issues cleaning up now

As has been noted in talk above and/or in various tags on the article:

It's an Israeli neologism from the 1990s which mainly applies there unless one can find a ref for some other wall/fence/etc. that uses phrase. (I found just one that has two concepts in same sentence.) I also removed anything before the 1990s since obviously no ref will be found for them. (Though if one more recent one if found, put it in.)
I'm not sure if I've finished verifying all the refs, but the rest used phrases wall or fence or sometimes just "barrier" and not the full phrase, so of course that's WP:Original Research which I've tagged as failing verification. I'll give whoever a few times to find an article using that phrase for each of those sections.
The POV of course is to make Israel seem "normal" by having a "separation barrier" just like everyone else. (Not one photo of the Israeli separation barrier?? I'll take a few from Wikicommons. For that reason the chart should be removed as well and only material retained that uses the phrase "separation barrier." This is a shameful misuse of Wikipedia, IMHO. CarolMooreDC 06:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is not an israeli neologism from the 1990s. it is a term used much earlier. i think you need to revert some, many, most of your recent edits. really strange that you just move ahead with POV editing... Soosim (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the references showing that this is a term widely used for a wall separating countries or people before Israel started using it in the 1990s?
Where are the references showing that this is the most appropriate and frequently used phrase for a border fence/wall/barrier?
Where are the references that it has been used for other walls/fences? I did see a couple that looked relevant out of hundreds of mentions of the Israeli separation barrier in my news/book/general searches of the term to see if my and others posting it was a neologism is true. I don't have a problem with using separation barrier where something has been described as that (and note phrase IS used in science and that should not be ignored). Just don't want Wikipedia editors trying to force a new meaning on the world without references supporting it.

Just as a reminder: Wikipedia:No original research reads:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.^[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Waiting to see the refs... CarolMooreDC 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Soosim per your revert back here of a great deal of unsourced/WP:OR info: please see the above. It's been three weeks and no one has bothered to try to present any actual references. I went through every reference in this article and in all articles linked and left the ones where I found an actual use of the neologism "separation barrier". (And this article needs sources, not just links to articles that don't have sources.) Are you going to provide sources for every single use? Are you going to search through hundreds of refs mention Israel's use of the term to find the couple that are relevant to other countries? If so, please do tell. For your convenience:

News archive search of term
books google search
Scholar google search - a lot of uses refer to the "separation barrier" in chemistry.

If your only interest is reverting to unsourced material, do tell so I can take appropriate action. Thanks.CarolMooreDC 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis who has been reverting me last few days just got involved here so will see what can do about reverting his edits and protecting the page. 05:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

it's a question of wholesale vs retail...shwoya, shwoya... Soosim (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about, but I don't think it's policy-based. CarolMooreDC 06:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CarolMooreDCs edit was good. In fact it was more than good, it was damn good work cleaning up what is clearly a mess of unsourced OR, misinterpreted citations and dead links. Soosim it is all very well to say that it should be discussed on the talk page before being implemented, but do you actually have any valid objections to it? You haven't provided any so far. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

though i am not the original editor or among the editors who created, added or edited this page, it is clear that one's view of the situation leads one to various conclusions as to whether it is OR or whatnot. in any case, this article is one of many which uses the terms interchangeable, especially when compared with other articles by the same RS about the same barrier: World's barriers: Botswana-Zimbabwe and it is just one of series entitled 'world's barriers' - example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8342874.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8343172.stm etc. i will slowly review all of them, add to appropriate sections, etc. Soosim (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Separation barrier" is a very distinct term; as would be "Division Barrier" if say the US used that phrase predominantly to describe the US-Mexican border or any other very specific phrase mostly applied to one situation. Just because this article says the word "separate" twice about various barriers, does not make them "Separation barriers" any more than if it said "Divides" twice it would make them "Division barriers." This article is specifically about No Ireland and mentions separation, like another ref already there is more explicit on that fence separating people of different faiths; but frankly that's just about as WP:OR as the rest and I just thought I'd give you a break and leave that one in. Maybe I'm wrong to do that. This article doesn't say separate at all.

Saying you will "slowly" review/correct what is an obvious POV/WP:OR mass of edits is fine - as long as the unsourced WP:OR is removed from the article ASAP, per policy. IF you find anything that actually describes something as a "separation barrier", put it in. I gave you think search terms above and you can probably find a couple things out of those thousands of uses, 99%+ of which are about Israel. Feel free to put them in when you find them.

Meanwhile I will start searching books/scholar/newsarchive google for specific countries and the term and if nothing comes up I will remove those sections. Unless I get too busy on articles where the policy violations are not so obvious and I can do more constructive edits, then I'll invoke: Wikipedia:PROVIT#Burden_of_evidence. CarolMooreDC 18:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have no business making our own personal interpretations of which barriers can be entitled "separation barriers". We need reliable secondary sources that specifically mentions the term, otherwise it is WP:OR to include them in this article (or to add the category to the individual articles, as one disruptive editor tried earlier today). I think carrying out CarolMooreDCs edits is a priority, and then examples can be added as sources are found for them. It should not be the other way around, especially since the subject is a controversial one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here from NORN. It's not clear to me why we're wasting our time tagging these statements indefinitely (are we expecting that the sources will magically change to contain the content?) - Soosim, you shouldn't be blocking attempts to remove poor content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

[Exists-1] By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

[1]

Revision as of 19:36, 19 March 2013 edit Saddhiyama (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 23,958 edits →‎Multiple issues cleaning up now: re ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:59, 20 March 2013 edit undo Roscelese (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 35,788 edits →‎Multiple issues cleaning up now: +comment Next edit →
Line 92:		Line 92:

	:::::I agree. We have no business making our own personal interpretations of which barriers can be entitled "separation barriers". We need reliable secondary sources that specifically mentions the term, otherwise it is [[WP:OR]] to include them in this article (or to add the category to the individual articles, as one disruptive editor tried earlier today). I think carrying out CarolMooreDCs edits is a priority, and then examples can be added as sources are found for them. It should not be the other way around, especially since the subject is a controversial one. --[[User:Saddhiyama\|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama\|talk]]) 19:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)		:::::I agree. We have no business making our own personal interpretations of which barriers can be entitled "separation barriers". We need reliable secondary sources that specifically mentions the term, otherwise it is [[WP:OR]] to include them in this article (or to add the category to the individual articles, as one disruptive editor tried earlier today). I think carrying out CarolMooreDCs edits is a priority, and then examples can be added as sources are found for them. It should not be the other way around, especially since the subject is a controversial one. --[[User:Saddhiyama\|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama\|talk]]) 19:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
			::::::Here from NORN. It's not clear to me why we're wasting our time tagging these statements indefinitely (are we expecting that the sources will magically change to contain the content?) - Soosim, you shouldn't be blocking attempts to remove poor content. –[[User:Roscelese\|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese\|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese\|contribs]]) 01:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)