Talk:Separation barrier

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree Defensive Wall is sufficiently different to remain separate. However, Border barrier should be merged with Separation barrier, as I do not see a difference in meaning there as the articles are written. Jaywilson (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

it is not a neologism - it is no different than the BBC using various terms for walls, fences, barriers in the same sentence and article with the words separate, divide, etc. i believe we should consult a linguist (do they have a wiki page here? i am sure they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linguistics -- i think some non-involved folks would be good. some editors on this page are way too POV. and hence, since the BBC is RS, and since they are certainly not pro-israel (as in, paid by the israeli gov't, or work for anything israeli, etc.), their use of 'barrier' for their article on the west bank seems to be applicable. haaretz, for example, calls it a separation fence. haaretz also refers to it as the west bank fence. as does amnesty. the point is that your neologism isn't. Soosim (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You aren't adressing the main issue here, which is that we have a list of examples which this article claims is examples of "separation barriers", despite the fact that they are either unsourced or making claims that the sources doesn't back up. These should simply be removed and then re-added when sources can be found for each of them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote at WP:ORN: Neologism wise, the phrase has been used in chemistry for a long time but for a wall dividing people only since 1980s.

But even if it wasn't a neologism (which some people may be trying to use Wikipedia to propagate), per WP:RS you'd still need a WP:RS using the exact phrase "separation barrier" to mention it in the article. However, the Israel section (which currently also has no working refs at all) should mention that the Israeli separation barrier also has been called several other things,so feel free to add that with ref(s) to the article.

Anyway, I'll give it another day for actual appropriate ref'd info to show and then resume cleanup. User:Sooism, all you have to do is search "separation barrier" and the relevant nation's wall or fence and see if any WP:RS has used the phrase.

Here's one for you, but that's one of several advocacy groups justifying Israel's separation barrier by explicitly calling the wall between Pakistan-Israel one. So if such things are used the advocacy group would have to be identified and their motivation as stated by them made very clear.

Note that article also says something which should be in there with a different source: On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel's security barrier was a violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Eleven days later, the United Nations General Assembly voted 150-6 to condemn Israel and demand removal of the barrier. All twenty-five members of the European Union supported the motion.[1]

Of course, the real question is, is this article really a POV fork from the 3 other articles about Israel's different barriers and if there should just be a subsection in the largest one of those called "other uses of term "separation barrier." CarolMooreDC

ah, but carol, that is exactly the point. if an RS calls him Francis and a different RS calls him Francis I, they are clearly referring to the same person by two different names. if an RS calls that war Pillar of Cloud and a different RS calls it Pillar of Defense, they are clearly referring to the same war by two different names. and so it is with separation barrier, separation fence, security barrier, security wall, security fence, separation wall. all are found in RS and all refer to the same item. so, therefore, it does not have to be just one of those. not at all. and claiming so, seems to be your own OR. if there are other wii articles about the same item, then by all means they should be one article. and, it should be referred to as "israel's 'x' " since china, and uruguay and the rest have them too. Soosim (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, your logic is flawed. If "A" is used to refer to B, "C" is used to refer to B, and "C" is used to refer to D, it does not follow that "A" can be used to refer to D. It's not transitive. Israel's wall is a "separation barrier" but that doesn't thereby make every wall a "separation barrier." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

roscelese - i don't think we need to go to a, b, c, and d. it is 'a' is used to refer to 'b'. 'c' is also used to refer to 'b'. 'd' is also used to refer to 'b'. they are all 'b'. and yes, i agree, not every wall is a separation barrier. but every RS that uses 'barrier' and 'separate' seems to be the same thing, no? as i have said many times, if you want an article about israel's fence/barrier/wall, then call it such ("Israel's separation fence"), but don't give it a generic name and expect it to be understood that it only refers to israel. Soosim (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The analogies don't hold since a) Francis only would be in an article about the Pope and b) Pillar of Cloud only in reference to Israel's bombing attacks on Gaza in Nov of 2012. The others are far to general to apply a specific term. If we did so, someone could then write an article on Israel's "apartheid wall" and apply it to every wall/fence/etc. that ever divided any people for any reason, start a category, stick dozens of articles under it, etc.. And I don't think you'd like that.

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. 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.

Think policy, not POV. CarolMooreDC 16:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

exactly - carol, think policy, not pov. what is not clear about your great OR quote above? did you read it? and yes, the analogies hold perfectly, but methinks you don't want to see that. not sure why. it really does apply to the same item/thing/etc. there are literally dozens of names for it in RS, all referring to the same thing - the fence, the wall, the barrier, security, apartheid, separation, etc. and carol, what are you talking about? if the article refers to china or israel or portugal, then that is what it is. if it is a general article, then that is what it is. Soosim (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note this is not just a debate between Soosim and me and that three other editors (between here and WP:ORN) agree with my interpretation of policy. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

and indeed, as per comment removed, i think it would be good (as i have suggested already) to get some neutral editors involved. can you agree to that carol? Soosim (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There has already been a call for neutral editors to comment when this issue was posted at the WP:NORN (which is where I was made aware of it). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

saddhiyama - i am quite surprised by your recent edits on the separation barrier page. as you are well aware, we are in the middle of a discussion on the topic, both on the talk page and on the OR notice board page. i think it is disruptive to be edit warring in the middle of discussion, instead of waiting for a conclusion. please self-revert your edits. thank you. Soosim (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The sections I deleted either had no citations, or contained sources that didn't mention "separation barrier", and had been tagged as such for a considerable amount of time, so it was not disruptive in any way. The remaining sections do have citations, but many of a dubious nature, and those are what we are discussing here. If you find sources for the deleted sections you are welcome to re-add them to the article with proper citations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me just see if I understand the issue correctly. There are two positions:

1) There are lots of things like Israel's separation barriers so they should be included in the list even if they aren't explicitly called separation barriers

2) Only things that are explicitly called "separation barriers" should be included in the article.

Or is there another argument going on here? TippyGoomba (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

tippy - not quite. there appears to be the following:

a) a generic thing called a separation barrier which includes various ones around the world

b) a specific thing called the israeli separation barrier (or some name like israeli separation fence or israeli security fence or israeli security barrier, etc.)

now, regarding what to do with it, you are closer to being accurate. one of my positions is that if an RS says 'barrier' and 'separate' in the same context, but doesn't necessarily call it a 'separation barrier' (whether about israel or anywhere else), it is the same thing. just as many of these 'separation barriers' are referred to by different names in various RS, so too, that must be reflected in wikipedia.

i am not sure why we can't have an article about israel's fence/barrier/wall (with redirects as necessary), and an article about fences/barriers/walls from around world. since so many RS talk about these items using different names, it is hard to give it just one name. i hope i am being clear.Soosim (talk)

There is no problem when the term "separation barrier" is used in a generic fashion. The problem is there are so few refs doing so. If there were lots of such refs, you would have added at least one by now, would you not have??

Thanks to others who have removed some sections. I am now going through and trying to find refs for each section and removing it if I have not. Feel free to put back material actually referenced material if you ever find a proper reference. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The position 2 I've mentioned is the easiest to implement, we simply remove unsourced content. I don't see an algorithm for determining inclusion of a given item if we were to use position 1. Could anyone provide such any algorithm? The algorithm for position 2 is the following: "does there exist a reliable source labeling the item as a separation barrier. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above via Wikipedia:PROVIT#Burden_of_evidence. I have gone through and deleted a few more that I couldn't find refs for an added a couple refs where could and moved two sections which were misplaced. (So Soosim can't say I didn't try.) Enough for today!

I saw in passing a couple Mideast or Asian nations that had credible refs using the phrase and just copied the search terms, if not links, for future ref. But if someone wants to delete them until User:Soosim or whomsoever puts in a proper ref, feel free. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, in the various searches I did before deleting, as I noted in some edit summaries, I did sometimes find mirrors of this wiki article or language clearly copied from it, or from someone else who had copied from it. Obviously we don't do that sort of self-referencing here. And then there are POV blogs and extreme advocacy groups which may have used it. So somewhere down in the 200th search their might be a legit reference hiding, but that's for the people who think that material is worth search for to do. Not those of us who just want to get rid of obvious WP:OR. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan

The section on Afghanistan did not have any sources, so, after a quick search here, I challenged and reverted it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted comment as "vandalism"?

How come this comment was deleted as "vandalism"? I restored, but an editor took it out again. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:TPYES Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page

and WP:WIAPA ...some types of comments are never acceptable... Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with WP:Vandalism. This particular comment ("It is interesting how all three people who support the current version of the article which singles out and demonizes Israel are unsurprisingly anti-Israel editors") did not comment on personality nor on affiliations and it might help other editors judge the validity of the arguments, so I hope you or somebody else will put it back. I have already used my WP:1RR today. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am being stalked by Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis who has been treverting almost anything I do OR leaving nasty comments as either an AnonIP or a sockpuppet (he's created around 10 in the last week alone). (See my many reverts of his reverts/comments and tagging of his socks.) Therefore there is a 98% chance that was him again and he can't be allowed to abuse wikipedia. Thanks for reminding me I failed to tag User:Axlerun's page as probable sock puppet and I have now done so. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had the same experiences recently. I guess it comes with the territory. The poor thing didn't realise that their scare tactics actually has the reverse effect of what they are trying to accomplish. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Really. If it wasn't for the harassment I probably would have been mad but kept on going after made my first comment or edit or two here. But once I got nasty pushback from the troll... CarolMooreDC🗽 21:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't get a satisfactory answer as to why the deleted comment was "vandalism," so I restored it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted it and left a note on your talk page to please study policy on vandalism and sock puppets. Also note, that seeing some obvious vandalism by that user tonight I went to WP:ANI with evidence and he is now permanently blocked, so all the editor's edits will be reverted by admins or editors. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't need your patronizing attitude, thank you. Your original revert said nothing about sock puppets, just "vandalism," which it was not. I suggest you (1) be more careful in your Edit Summaries and (2) get off your high horse. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: this personal attack] which I reverted and you reverted back twice, pardon me for assuming that you knew it was a personal attack and therefore it was not necessary for me to explain WHY it was vandalism, re: put {{npa}} on your user page. I will be more diligent about that in the future. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is under a WP:1RR restriction

Unless I cannot believe my eyes, it seems that this article is under a WP:1RR restriction, so editors making more than one edit a day risk some kind of kickback, right? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It is "1 revert rule", not "1 revision rule". --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If no one does an intervening edit, it is considered within 1rr, even if you do a hundred. (Note that the first time I removed a lot of that material, I did it in one edit!)

If I do one and someone else does one, that's my one for the day. I know reverts weren't explained too well when I first learned them at WP:Reverting; I guess the explanation has not improved. The fact that numerous editors agree that there's too much WP:OR in here, and evidence of my good faith attempts to actually source material that I later removed, makes that many edits acceptable. If I was removing all sorts of properly sourced info and sticking in non- or poorly sourced ones, I could still get in trouble for edit warring. CarolMooreDC🗽 23:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I used to be under the same misapprehension, but it is one revert per day, period, and two editors have done multiple. It simply would not hurt to slow down. Here is the policy:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts [one revert in this case] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.

GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read a few more sentences down at policy page WP:Edit warring where it says: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.'CarolMooreDC🗽 00:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are gaming the system, since your reverts were decidedly not minor but were deletions of entire countries after you checked each one of them rather carefully. The sentence to which you referred seems to be directed at users who make a string of related corrections or edits of less than major consequence. I made the first deletion of Afghanistan (after checking for sources), but at least I had the good sense of delaying any further deletions for 24 hours. Nevertheless, I could be wrong, so we will let an uninvolved administrator take a look at this unfortunate series of events. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken and your accusations are a violation of WP:AGF. You should take your concerns to WP:AE, they will happily repeat what has been said here but use a more authoritative-looking font. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Get off my case. I said I thought she was gaming the system, not that she was. I could be mistaken, so I've taken the matter to the administrators notice board, and I assume they have a good-looking font, too. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are things clearer now? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes to recent edits per past discussion

I don't know if User: Gilabrand looked at the recent talk page discussions before making some problematic changes. If he does he'll see explanations for most of my changes at this diff:See talk: changed security fence redirect; citation needed; remove material already proven to be without refs; reflect what sources say or put back relevant removed material; remove unsourced pic and move others where relevant and not pushing POV). To Expand on these:

• I changed security fence redirect to Fence since very few security fences (which mostly are around businesses) are separation fences. It's one thing to say Israel calls their separation barriers security fences and that can be mentioned in section on how Israelis developed the phrase; it's another to claim all security fences are separation barriers.
• No source for lead claim "refers to a barrier, wall or fence constructed to limit the movement of people across a certain line or border, or to separate two populations. " No one could find a neutral source that described them as such. can you? In interim removed that claim and merged some of your language into existing language in second paragraph.
• Please see this articles talk page and archives for discussion of removed countries where NO refs were found and why making these claims is WP:original research.
• What are people's thoughts on Tegart Wall staying in, but described way source does (per my edit) which is NOT as "separation barrier".
• Reflect what sources say - I found at least one example where a "Most controversial" was changed to controversial; Obviously most people hear about West Bank Barrier. I haven't looked carefully to see if other such changes were made.
• Expand section note: background of what the conflict about is necessary. In my next edit I cut it to one paragraph and put it under "Rationale for separation barriers". I removed photo where you can't even see a fence and put in refugee picture which helps establish the fact you've got millions of people who want back in and that's what it's all about. It's not our job to leave out context like the mainstream media does.
• Put back relevant removed material on Jordan Valley. It may need more tweaking and sources, but that much removal not really called for - it's about as much and of the same kind of info as the other West Bank material; Gaza barrier section actually needs more detail. Will work on.
• Removed pictures of walls in No. Ireland and China where no source in our previous investigations showed they were called "separation barriers." Move two other pics to the relevant section. Let's not give the false impression that the references for these are any thing like equivalent to those for the Israeli barriers. In fact the one for the US is quite condemnatory and really not a good reference at all and US probably should be removed unless another ref found.
• Also finally got around to changing Saudi Arabia. There still are one or two fences referred to as separation barriers, but I spent too much time here today so another day or week to add them - unless someone else wants to do the research.

CarolMooreDC🗽 19:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Undue sectioning

I have removed the section headers for all other countries because none of them had more than a paragraph of information. It is WP:Undue and just silly to give a relatively minor sources and/or trivial mentions a whole section each. If three or four of them actually had substantive information, that would be different. Also note I am removing an inaccurate, WP:OR, poorly rendered graphic CarolMooreDC 19:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with you. The piece looks and reads a lot better with the subheaders. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

While sectioning does emphasize the trivial nature of the examples, I don't see any other benefit. By the way you all deleted two new (equally trivial) examples. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally found the right template for over sectioning. No other comments? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe each gets their own paragraph in a single section? However, each subsection is pretty weak at the moment. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks good; it was the listings in the TOC that really bugged me. CarolMooreDC🗽 06:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

it might "look good" but it is not an accurate reflection of the content of the article. i think we need to get a better consensus before heading this way. i will change it back until we can reach consensus. Soosim (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. You appear to be saying that this stylistic change editorializes somehow. Could you expand on that a bit more? TippyGoomba (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The name of this section is "WP:UNDUE sectioning". It is undue to provide a paragraph a major section when it has one reference from some not terribly notable source. It is POV to put in major sections; it's just NPOV editing to put in the bold sections as TippyGoomba did - and that already is a compromise from my original edit with no sectioning at all! Do we need to take this to NPOV to get the point across? They might actually agree me. Soosim, please read Wikipedia:DIDNTHEARTHAT. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the revert - i am surprised but maybe i miscounted the 'votes' in this section. you wrote ")revert WP:undue sectioning per 3 of 4 editors" and yet, here it is 2-2. please explain so i can understand. always appreciated carol. Soosim (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A third editor, who wanted sectioning above but obviously wasn't that particular about what kind, actually removed the formal sectioning and replaced it with less WP:Undue bolded sectioning. This is a compromise and three of us are fine with that. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Y'all can add me to those who think bolding is more than sufficient. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo of a fence you cannot see??

"Fence at Israel-Egypt border near Nitzana, 2007" Doesn't make any sense to put it in there at all. I think a picture of protest or protest art on the fence is more appropriate than the refugee photo; thanks for idea. CarolMooreDC 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Second time looked at blowup I could see it. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

undue in lede

why does israel get so much ink in the lede? interesting, no? i had suggested a dozen times that the name of the article could be 'israel's separation barrier', but instead, the article is called 'separation barrier'. and so, the lede should reflect the title and content. i think the first sentence is sufficient for the lede since the rest is described in the article. Soosim (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Israelis first popularized the term for walls which I've only seen used in chemistry, a description of a construction site and to describe a dog barrier in a car before they started using it. Just haven't found a ref that says that. Obviously the lead reflects the article. There are lots of refs using Israeli separation barrier, but just one each for the others.

Remember the article was started by people obviously trying to promote the phrase, since there were hardly any refs using it for any place besides Israel. And since it is used in a few places now, they are stuck with it. CarolMooreDC🗽 06:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

what? if "israelis first popularized the term" then say that using RS to prove it. what does that have to do with undue in the lede? and "israelis" also call it many other things: security fence, security wall, separation fence, separation wall, security barrier, separation barrier, etc. - so why are you so focused on just this one term? and, non-israelis (aka 'the rest of the world') also uses security fence, security wall, separation fence, separation wall, security barrier, separation barrier interchangeably. why can't you discuss that if you want the article to be 'general' and not israel-specific? and why do i care who started the article? do they own it? do you? Soosim (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The organization of the lead reflects the organization of the rest of the article. It's fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

wow - nomo, my friend. i am surprised you disagree with me. maybe, just maybe, some others should look at it? or all the POVers are sufficient? Soosim (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Soosim: What are all these sources that "uses security fence, security wall, separation fence, separation wall, security barrier, separation barrier interchangeably" - in regard to anything besides Israel?

Let's put it in simple terms, per Wikipedia policy on WP:V, WP:R and WP:NPOV:

• The article was already there - I did not start it.
• The article didn't have one single source using the term "separation barrier" for anything but Israel and only one or two even for Israel.
• When YOU objected to unref'd WP:OR being removed, I went to WP:ORN and a couple editors dropped by who agreed most of the article was WP:OR and non-ref'd material had to be removed.
• I went and found sources using term "separation barrier". They were 95% about Israel and the couple other odds and ends you see there.
• I ref'd the existing material already in the article about Israel, adding or subtracting factoids per the relevant WP:RS.

If you do not understand this by now and are continuing to edit war like this, you really should be removed from editing in this area. I am so close to going to WP:ARBPIA because I'm really getting sick of it. But I'll get some advice on best thing to do. Maybe RFC/user first. It's just getting ridiculous arguing with you at this point, especially since you do AfDs as part of your edit warring. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede follows article. The article's content is Israel-centric, hence... TippyGoomba (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

tippy - the lede follows the article and the article is israel-centric because.....carol doesn't believe that the other countries should have equal representation. rather, let's overload the article to israel. Soosim (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sept 2013 continued discussion

This article is about separation wall, separation barrier and border fence per encyclopedia. If you wish an article on specific area start a new article, don't destroy this one.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

See also other languages, all deal with the general terms per encyclopedia, not specific borders of one country. I noticed this problem when reading that Moroccan Wall is defined as a separation wall, but the explanation here doesn't mention it.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take your time to read through this talk page so you can see consensus reached here some time ago. Your "per encyclopedia" explanation does not make any sense, you will have to be more elaborate. And it is no wonder you saw the term as Moroccan wall but nowhere else, that article has been subject to edit warring by IPs trying to promote this neologism in other articles without providing any sources to support this term being used for those constructions. You will of course also need to provide some reliable secondary sources backing up the definition you are trying to introduce to the lead of this article, that it is used somewhere else on Wikipedia is not an acceptable excuse as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Until the time when you can provide such sources, the previous consensus version stays. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, this all has been discussed at nauseam and no support for such broad statements was offered, especially about specific structures like the Great Wall of China, where none were found at all. I hope we don't have to go through all those articles and clean them up again! User:Carolmooredc 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, it seems this article is dealing with the West Bank barrier.GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Any source which describes Gaza Strip barrier as "separation"?

So far have not found any substantial source for such reference. Seems the Separation Wall/Barrier term in Israel/Palestine largely refers to West Bank barrier alone.GreyShark (dibra) 12:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you check if existing sources had one? I used another source to specifically ref it. User:Carolmooredc talk 16:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaza-Israel barrier is not included in the Guardian's review on "Separation barriers" in "Walls: an illusion of security from Berlin to the West Bank". Curiously, i don't find Gaza-Israel barrier in Separation barriers in the world, but i do find there the Gaza-Egypt barrier. I guess the latter is the more relevant then.GreyShark (dibra) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Barasch, Daniel B.; Qadir, Lala R. (2004-04-08). "US National Security Interests and the West Bank Separation Barrier" (PDF). Overcoming Barriers. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: 10. Retrieved 2007-05-03. Somehow didn't make into this article. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

How is it relevant to Gaza-Egypt barrier?GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Sorry this belongs to the below section.GreyShark (dibra) 21:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You have mistakenly added that source twice already.GreyShark (dibra) 21:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Focused on something else. Will figure this out 11/22. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked the 2004 article by Barasch and there is no relation to Gaza-Israel border barrier as "separation barrier", except some general mention that Rabin had decided to build a separation barrier in Gaza at some point, but it is unclear whether it related to the currently standing fence ("Rabin initiated plans for a separation barrier in Gaza and left the issue of a West Bank separation barrier open for later discussion"). The Barasch article names the Israel-Gaza fortification as Gaza Barrier (quote "A Successful Gaza Barrier: Israel consolidated a border around Gaza in 1994, in the wake of the Oslo Accords"; "Although Israel did not negotiate the Gaza barrier, it closely followed the Green Line"). This is not enough.GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Egypt-Gaza barrier

In addition to the above said, Gaza-Egypt barrier is also referred as "separation barrier" in the media, see [1]; or as "separating wall" [2],[3],[4]. Certainly has to be added here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to ad it; we're all volunteers here. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OR based on one source

here at the January 2014 discussion of deleting Category:Separation barriers, I made the following comments. The first remains a suggestion. The second is about reverts and tweaks I've done in the last view days.

• Merge Israel-Gaza Strip barrier and Category:Israeli West Bank barrier to new Category:Israeli separation barriers. Last year a couple of us worked to remove more than a dozen totally WP:OR examples of "separation barriers" from the article Separation barrier and a few dozen from the category, which they had turned into the top level category for terms like fence/wall/barrier and many famous walls; one or two editors repeatedly tried to reestablish it as the top level category.

A couple editors have kept our eyes on this to remove more such WP:OR examples. at this diff and this diff I have used one The Guardian reporter's one-time use of "separation barrier" about the growing use of walls/barriers/etc worldwide in its proper context, reverting a recent effort to define the whole article by it. Also removed a section on an Indian "separation barrier", since the source called it a "separation wall".

Creating Category:Israeli separation barriers would remove the temptations to change the article's thrust with dubious sourcing and to make this a WP:OR super-category.

Thoughts on either issue? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You are denying that a wall is type of barrier? Do you even know what a wall is? This article uses the term "separation wall" to describe what Israel is building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.24.158.152 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

AnonIP reversion to old version

Here AnonIp 193.93.13.121 reverted to a really old version of the article (similarly to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separation_barrier&oldid=531331077 January 2013) writing: (Reverted vandalism by Islamic propagandist) I reverted it writing: (revert vandalism against long consensus by by AnonIp) (Note: I double reverted because last year there was such persistent vandalism adding unsourced articles to the category by an Anon IP who also was issuing threats.)

Here he reverted my revert writing: (By "long-standing consensus," do you mean a consensus in which you have a discussion involving only yourself and then you agree with yourself to make these changes singling out Israel?) However, all the discussions on talk and the relevant edits show there was a consensus that only walls/barriers/etc. explicitly called "separation barriers" should be included in the article since the phrase is a neologism that has been applied almost entirely to Israel's barriers in Gaza and The West Bank. (The older uses regarding Israel are also technically WP:OR, but I know I didn't have the energy to fight about those.)

There was a lot of discussion and editing by several editors to arrive at the current NPOV version and edits made with such questionable edit summaries seem to go against that consensus. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But the only people who agree to your version are anti-Israel editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.24.158.152 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Under the arbitration described above (I left a note for the AnonIP on their talk page), disparaging people's motives like that can get you blocked from editing. Please study and comply with policies. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Neologism (revisited) -- the text in this article should be merged into border barrier and the page deleted

A search on Google (as a neutral arbiter of language usage) of "separation barrier" suggests that outside of the context of THE Israeli West Bank Barrier, the term "separation barrier" does not primarily refer to a barrier separating populations and that this use is non-standard and/or not generic.

Google(+"separation barrier") returns 304,000 pages.

Google(+"separation barrier" -israel -israeli -b'tselem -bethlehem -"west bank" -ramallah -jerusalem -tulkarm -palestinians -palestine) returns 32,000 pages. A few of these are still about the IWBB but very few of them use "separation barrier" as a term to mean a barrier separating people. Much more often, it refers to chemical separation barriers, hydro-/ecological separation barriers, packaging separation barriers, or transportation separation barriers.

No non-wikipedia dictionary or encyclopedia appears to define the term primarily as a separating people.

This is not 100% clear because it still could be a generic term but when people use the generic term they tend to talk about the IWBB but I do not think this is the most likely theory. Most likely, the generic definition has "separating people" as the fourth or fifth definition behind eco, chem, trans, etc.

Candidate for deletion? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There are much more recent and non-notable neologisms that have survived. Dozens more refs could be provided to show it is widely used regarding Israeli barriers, including at times by the Israeli government. So on those grounds I'm sure it would survive AfD.

The only reason it is applied to anything besides the Israeli barriers is that editors who originally were applying it to the Great Wall of China and Hadrian's Wall insisted that every thing that had even one mention of that description be included. As you can see there isn't much. I personally would not have a problem with removing the other uses. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your response. I see that you have a bit of experience on this topic.

I do not think the issue is the need to cite authorities showing that this term is used in the context of the Israeli West Bank Barrier. I am suggesting that the generic term "separation barrier" without the context of "Israel, West Bank" does not have the primary meaning, in English, of a barrier to separate populations. Can you cite any definitions of the generic term that support the meaning of "separation barrier" as a barrier to separate people? I can't find any. Moreover, when I look on Google for uses of the term outside of the IWBB, it seems that a barrier separating people is perhaps the fourth definition or lower.

If such a dictionary definition existed, it would seem to read:

"separation barrier"

1. a barrier separating chemicals, i.e., and osmotic barrier

2. a barrier separating vehicles, e.g., on a highway

3. a packaging barrier separating multiple items packaged together

4. in geology, a water barrier

5. a barrier separating people

It seems that the definition proposed in this article is picking one of the least used meanings, in the generic sense. (In the specific case of THE Israeli West Bank Barrier, the meaning is the meaning defined here but this is specific and not generic to the English language meaning of the unqualified term, "separation barrier.")

Thanks and have a wonderful day. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if you'd been talking in terms of moving/changing the name of the article, I'd have understood. I agree the confusion with the other kind of separation barrier is a problem, even if none of those uses is notable enough for its own article. I would not have a problem with renaming it Israeli separation barrier (currently a redirect) or Separation barrier (segregation of populations) or something else. Any other thoughts on alternatives? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an article for THE Israeli West Bank barrier and I think a rename to "Separation barrier (segregation of populations)" is more accurate. I do not fully understand the purpose of this page. Maybe it should be deleted. Maybe there should be a category for "Separation Barriers (segregation of populations)" that points to various individual pages for specific barriers that separate people. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point I don't think there are enough segregation of populations barriers mentioned in enough sources to make that article title notable. Actually the best thing would be to have an admin move all of this into Israeli separation barrier and get redirect Israeli barrier to that article. And each of these already have "main article" notes in here: Israel–Gaza barrier, Israeli West Bank barrier, Israel–Egypt barrier. At this point I don't think those who formerly were interested in the current arrangement really care too much. We could bring it to Wikipedia:Requested_moves to get agreement of noninvolved editors to this and then get it done. What do you think? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am agnostic, currently, vis-a-vis how this is changed. I will only say that based on my 30 minutes of Google research to determine how the term "separation barrier" is used in English as a generic term without the context of THE Israeli West Bank barrier and the lack of citation to a single external source (i.e. dictionary) that defines the term primarily as a barrier separating people... I conclude that it is inaccurate to have a page with the lead, "Separation barrier or separation wall refers to a barrier, wall or fence constructed to limit the movement of people across a certain line or border, or to separate two populations." Note that this definition in the article's introduction lacks an external, cited source. IMHO, "separation barrier" as a generic term, unqualified by "Israel, West Bank, etc." is defined approximately as the five numbered definitions above with "(of populations)" bringing up the rear at the fifth definition.

I apologize to people who have worked on this page and I am sorry to suggest that this work should be relocated, possibly broken up, potentially discarded. I do see the benefit of having information about various separation barriers (of populations) around the world now and in the past. (On the IWBB page there is a section at the end for "other separation barriers" which has seemed both useful and out of place at the same time.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I took another look at border barrier and I now strongly believe that the text from this article should be merged over to border barrier and then this article should be delted. I do not mean to offend anybody or remove other editors' hard work. I do not know exactly what the best way is to seek consensus. I suspect that it might be best to move paragraphs and sections over to border barrier and replace them with ":see Border Barrier # <somesection>" until eventually this entire article is comprised entirely of ":see Border barrier ..." and then it will be obvious to delete it. This will also ensure that the hard work of other people with sentences and references are systematically checked, validated, and kept/moved to the other article.

I will leave this here for a bit and if I see two "go for it"s and no objections I will start making some small changes in this direction none of which is offensive and we'll see how it goes. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This article started life as a redirect to the Israeli barrier, but then was immediately turned into a separate article by a terrible edit-warrior who wouldn't last a week today before getting banned. As someone who was around at the time, I can tell you that the one and only purpose of the page was to "prove" that the Israeli barrier is perfectly normal by giving lots of other examples. The fact that the other examples were border fences didn't seem to matter. I haven't looked at this page for years but I see it still has the same problem. So SeattliteTungsten is entirely correct and I fully support deleting the page with any useful content going into Border barrier. Zero^talk 12:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Zero's suggestion. Kingsindian (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's analysis and said so many times before and had a revised version all written up to put in here today! However, I'd phrase it as "delete and merge into Israeli barrier article".

• Israeli barrier disambiguation currently exists listing 3 articles on different barriers
• The material in "Early barriers" and "Rationale for barriers" sections is intersting in itself and not covered elsewhere as far as I know. Shorter sections on the barriers themselves would have the usual links to the "main article" so that disambiguation function not lost.

I can do that even before this goes to AfD or while there if others think it's a good idea. (I'll even deal with the What Links Here list, which I just copied, and relink where appropriate to do so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Even better, since people will be typing in this term anyway, make this a disambiguation page. The blank spaces are where User:SeattliteTungsten might suggest appropriate articles; I did a search but returns were not definitive:

• Israeli barrier (since topic is constantly in the news should go first)
• Border barrier a barrier separating different nations
• Traffic barrier a barrier separating vehicles, e.g., on a highway
• Jersey barrier another popular term for highway barrier
• [___] article best describing "a barrier separating chemicals"?
• [___] one article that used the term regarding packaging?
• [___] article about water barriers in geology?

Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD is not the right place for consensual mergers. (Pardon my French.) It can be proposed and decided here, see WP:MERGE. Incidentally, Israeli barrier is a dab page so you can't propose merging into that, but it should be ok to propose merger into both Israeli West Bank barrier and Border barrier. Zero^talk 23:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for technical; I assumed mergers (or switches in my proposal) were done more by consensus. I don't have time to read WP:Disambig now, but I don't see why a disambig that should be an article can't be turned into one. In fact, this article actually used to be a disambiguation.

I do see now that Border Barrier has more material in it than I realized on Israeli barriers. So do you think another article is just too duplicative? Do you not like an article that ties together the whole history of various Israeli barriers mention in that section of this article? (I guess rationale belongs more I west bank barrier article anyway.) I don't care that much, but just wondering. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, dab articles can be converted to regular articles and vice versa whenever that is an improvement. My feeling is that this article is essentially a poor subset of border barrier so I don't think it serves a purpose. Israeli barrier can stay as a dab; I'm not sure what else you would put in it except information extracted from existing pages. Zero^talk 06:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if we do this, I'll let others deal with initial merge and then see if anything left that seems important to put elsewhere.

So this article then will be redirected to Border barrier? And who wants to do it when? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps ST, when he returns, might do it. If not, I will take a whack at it at some point. Can't say when. Kingsindian (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, did notice ST's contretemps. Will give it a few days. I worked on it a lot and am familiar with material so if no one else takes a whack, I'll get my ax out. But someone else will have to AfD this article since frankly I have a feeling it will survive as a disambiguation - or worse. I'll only do a temporary disambig. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the suggestion that this article should be merged with border barrier. The two article subjects are entirely different. I will expand on my reasoning at a later date. However, the mere statement of my opposition to the proposed merge now means that this proposed merge can no longer be considered uncontroversial. I need to also add that none of the discussion in this section amounts to an formal proposal to merge, and nobody should be doing editing work on either article towards such a merge in advance of making the required formal proposal. A proposal should be done in a separate section of this talk page, should be correctly headed (not hidden away under a title like "Neologism (revisited)") and should involve placing merger proposal tags on each articles. Also, given the amount of content on each article, a considerable time period should be given for discussion (I think at least 2 months). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative, what do you think of an article that deals with the real neologism issue (i.e., it's a neologism for everything but Israeli barriers) and merges the Israeli content into Israeli barrier, while making this a disambiguation page (See above). If you don't think that's another alternative, we can always take it to move requests, and see which of the three options non-involved editors like best. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Source for Israel-Egypt barrier

Any source for Israel-Egypt barrier being a "separation barrier"? it is certainly a border barrier, but regarding separation at least some source is required. Meanwhile i remove the illustration not to make a confusion.GreyShark (dibra) 16:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Same with everything in "Early barriers" section and in the Northern Ireland section you just reverted back after it's been taken out several times. None of them belong if they don't have that name. (And a news search of separation barriers only show it used regarding Israel.)

Thanks to User:SeattliteTungsten for having an outsider's perspective on this article. Maybe Israeli walls and barriers would be a better article that could include the old and new stuff. And remove all the rest as odd ball mentions that don't represent the general use of the word. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You aiming the change the scope explicitly to Israeli? Then where does the "separation" part go?GreyShark (dibra) 20:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

First read the section above for another editor's views. Second, Israeli walls and separation barriers would be fine and allow all the material under the current "early barriers" section to remain. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Only the West Bank is a separation barrier, the rest are not. It is pointless to create "Israeli separation barriers" article for just one barrier. And we already had this discussion in the past - you failed to find any reference for "separation" on other borders/barriers.GreyShark (dibra) 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not understood the reference to the Israel-Gaza "barrier" as a separation barrier. I thought it was just a border barrier as are many borders. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember the history of that. By now there might be a reference calling it that, I don't know. A comprehensive article should cover walls/barriers/separation barriers of Israel since it's obviously a topic of interest. Which also would solve your problem of "separation barrier" having different meanings. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't validate it either, hence it is not a separation barrier per definition, but only a border barrier. The Gaza-Egypt barrier however indeed is widely referred as separation barrier between Gazan and Egyptian Rafah, but... it is now unrelated to Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 15:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, not entirely unrelated. I'm sure if the Egyptian stopped patrolling it and let anyone or anything in or out the Israelis would fully take control there, plus exercise other options. But I'm not totally focused right now but probably will seek other input on topic in a few days. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on my edit summary for the fix of reference about discussing Henley's throw-away use of the term on talk. Getting thoughts around the several issues involved here that uninvolved editors might help sort out. So hopefully more tomorrow. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing WP:OR again, including into Israeli barrier

People are still adding WP:OR, in part because some interesting WP:OR about Israel remains in the article. Given the stalemate above on what to do, I just decided to be bold and move all the relevant WP:OR over to Israeli barrier, making it its own interesting article. (Still needs work, but enough for today.) I'll now cut out most obvious parts now and clean up/shorten anything that's too long here when get a chance. Hopefully that will keep the article focused. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

After your removals, which was followed by another editor's, and another one's, there was very little left. Suggestions on how it can be improved is good but the latest edits made it unacceptable, where it was only little left and based on Israeli POV. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reduced more of it now, leaving out the detailed history and other comments which should be in the main article, and having summaries from that lead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've hard to understand your revert, Greyshark09. Have you noticed I basically changed it to how it looked like it when you last edited it? Because after that, on 8 January, there were massive removals and some POV additions, which I sought to change. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe indeed i misread your edits and made a rapid revert - my apologies if so.GreyShark (dibra) 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that. No problem then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletions from this page

Since we have the article border fence, it makes no sense to include border fences in this article. The fact that one can google "separation barrier" and find some unknown commentator calling some border fence that doesn't mean we should include it. As a first approximation, I propose to delete these sections: Egypt, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, United States, Germany. Zero^talk 08:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Some of what is here is actually the same as what is written in border barrier. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a reversal of previous consensus. Of course some border barriers are also separation barriers - it says so in the first line of the lead. As an editor, who deeply looked into the issue (following discussions with IRISZOOM, among others), it is evident that the definition of separation border doesn't contradict it being a border (whether widely accepted or disputed). Egypt-Gaza is a separation barrier per multiple sources; as well as US-Mexico barrier, Berlin Wall (obsolete), the Baghdad Wall (to be included) etc. It was quite long ago agreed that if sources describe a barrier as a separation barrier, then it is a separation barrier - End of story (without entering the political disputes).GreyShark (dibra) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a permanent consensus, but anyway I don't agree there was ever such a consensus. Above in this page there are multiple complaints about the scope of this article and its overlap with "border fence". I also don't see what "some border barriers are also separation barriers" means; of course all border barriers separate nations, and in fact all barriers separate something from something or else they wouldn't be barriers. Zero^talk 09:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: take it cool and stand up to your cool name - this is not an opinion on you, but on the topic. We both know Wikipedia is not new to you, so that's fine to introduce new ideas. Previously IRISZOOM wasn't happy with the topic, saying that only "barriers" which are named separation barriers (or walls) by WP:RS sources can go into the list - we did as she liked. Now you raise a new idea to make some logical separation of "border" and "separation" topics. Let's get it short - maybe we should just merge it into border barrier?GreyShark (dibra) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Separation barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110920132624/http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ernst.grabovszki/Handout_Eingemauert.pdf to http://homepage.univie.ac.at/ernst.grabovszki/Handout_Eingemauert.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Request received to merge articles: Wall of Shame into Separation barrier; dated: {August/2016}. Proposer's Rationale:Wall of Shame is a WP:POVFORK of this article. Discuss here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – don't see how this would be a POV fork: not every separation barrier is a wall of shame, nor is every wall of shame (e.g. the opposite of a hall of fame) a separation barrier. Separation barriers have existed many centuries before any of them was called Wall of Shame, nor are all of them retroactively called so. Two different concepts, a redirect would easily imply that every separation barrier can willy-nilly be called a wall of shame (and that would be more POV than two separate articles). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. The article Wall of Shame is largely a simple list of separation barriers that editors DONOTLIKE - listings lightly sourced or unsourced, so I thought a merge discussion might be best. But perhaps AFD is more appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Rewrote article as per sources following discussion on talk page of Wall of Shame, happy to close this now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wall of Shame is a term, while Separation barrier is a concept. As some editors have indicated - only structures which specifically are named "Wall of Shame" are to be included in the proper list. Similar with separation barrier, which is however more of a concept ("separating cultures and peoples").GreyShark (dibra) 16:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Separation barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040715080326/http://www.defenddemocracy.org:80/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=211945 to http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=211945
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206221142/http://www.erasmuspc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=83 to http://www.erasmuspc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=83

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Separation barrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003072906/http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm to http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418135746/http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Document/walllawhr.pdf to http://www.nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/Document/walllawhr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829173505/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/5/2006_5_70.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/5/2006_5_70.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=211945

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Estonia–Russia border

The maps shows a "2018" Estonia–Russia border barrier, but the article doesn't mention it. Jidanni (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

error?

Hi, I noticed that there's reference to David Henley but it seems to be Jon Henley who wrote that article. Thanks. 23.240.65.184 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)