Talk:Israeli permit regime in the West Bank/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pieterse

Uh Icewhiz, this is what the source says:

The parallels extend to the finer print as well, as with South Africa's pass laws, and Israel's special IDs for Arabs (stamped with a "B") and requirements for travel passes in the occupied territories.

You seriously arguing it is not comparing the permits for movement to the pass laws? nableezy - 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I read the source. It is comparing a specific requirement, at a specific time, for travel passes in the occupied territory to SA. It is not comparing a "system" or "regime" of permits. Other sources (e.g. Berda) state that the regime/system only started post-Oslo (1993) - well after this source was written. Absent the source referring to a permit regime or system - then yes - tying it to our article is WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is comparing one part of that regime. No, including material on a specific permit is not OR in the article on the overarching regime. Gordon says the regime started in 1967. Does the source compare the requirement for a permit for movement to apartheid? nableezy - 15:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, Ill rephrase in the body and add several other sources in the lead for the sentence you removed. nableezy - 15:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Without Pieterse referring to a regime, system, or any other clearly synonymous word - Wikipedia editors making a guess regarding Pieterse's intentions based on a feature Pieterse mentions being present in other sources (written at a different time) that do discuss a "system" or "regime" - is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is not our place to guess about the intention of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. This article is about the permit regime, and Pietrese is discussing one of those permits. nableezy - 16:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A singular instance of permits is not a system.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

So your position is that we cannot include anything about specific permits here? Huh, Ill have to update my list of inconsistent arguments. nableezy - 16:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that, though that may be SYNTH as well - depends on the circumstances. In this particular instance we were using text on travel passes to source "The regime itself has been likened to the South African pass system under apartheid" - a clear misrepresentation of the cited source which does not refer to "the regime". Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure I already said I would rephrase it. nableezy - 16:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Israeli_permits nableezy - 16:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy is that "list of inconsistent arguments" the same arsenal you draw from in making your own? Icewhiz is correct here: she is referring to one element of the permit system, not the entire system itself. The line reads:

Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt.

I'm also utterly unsurprised that you've immediately sought formal dispute resolution, as you're wont to do, instead of discussing the matter on this talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you try restricting your comments to topics you understand? Because, hello, I said Pietrese is talking about one of the permits. And Sherlock, that isnt the source under discussion here lol. nableezy - 16:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This diff addresses both. I know your default is to get personal/run to dispute resolution when you don't get your way, because your arguments lack substance and are unpersuasive, but you're wrong, and what I see is clearly WP:OR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

lol, no it does not. What you quoted is an entirely different source. One you misrepresented. And the idea that you are going to say I am getting personal and then follow that with I know your default is to get personal/run to dispute resolution when you don't get your way, because your arguments lack substance and are unpersuasive, but you're wrong is incredibly funny. Thank you. nableezy - 19:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

second intifida was in 1987

Uh what? That surely is a mistake. nableezy - 20:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Well that part is fixed, but where in the ARIJ source does it say that it expanded after the first intifada? The general exit permit remained in place until the start of the Gulf War. All I see in the source is that closures and began to be used more. nableezy - 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to section 1.1 on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please quote what from the source supports the language you inserted in to the article? I read the source, I do not see where it says what you have placed here. If I missed something please quote it. nableezy - 22:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A reminder that WP:YOUCANSEARCH too, but:

By the end of 1967, Israeli military forces seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip entirely, declaring them closed military zones. They were then administered by the military commander. (Handel, 2009) In 1972, the Israeli military leader Moshe Dayan declared the “Open Borders” policy. (Gazit, 2003) by which Palestinians were granted general exit permission in order to integrate them into the Israeli labor force. They enjoyed relatively free movement until the end of the second half of 1980s. (Parizot, 2017) With the eruption of the first Intifada “uprising” in 1987, and the deteriorating security situation, the Israeli army completely restrained Palestinian movement applying security mechanisms like curfews and closures. (Hass, 2002) The freedom of movement between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including inside the “Green Line,” was denied to the Palestinians. Travelling abroad was also restricted under the pretext of security. (Abu Zahra and Adah Kay, 2012) This step aimed to thwart the expansion of the uprising. (CDS, 2015)

. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh obviously I looked at the source, and obviously I dont think it contains what you cited to it. So where exactly does that quote say anything close to The expansion of the permit system has been traced to the first Intifada or “uprising” in 1987? nableezy - 22:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you need it bolded for you? The paragraph above explicitly describes an expansion of the permit system following the Intifada. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You are venturing into WP:CIR territory. Exactly what in the source says anything close to "The expansion of the permit system has been traced to the first Intifada"? Because the quoted portion does not say anything of the sort. What the source says is that closures (another topic) and curfews (also another topic) expanded as a result of the first intifada. It does not say that the permit regime did. It actually says that one of the bigger topics, the general exit permit, lasted well beyond the start of the first intifada. nableezy - 22:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue these petty back-and-forths. I'm interested in discussing content, not doing the dozens with you. From the rest of 1.1, which you've also neglected to read:

In 1989, workers from the Gaza Strip were forced to get magnetic cards to access Israel, though this wasn’t enough to guarantee receiving a permit (Smierat, 2013). 'In 1991, the general exit permit of 1972 was cancelled and replaced with a new policy. Based on this policy, Palestinians were required to get individual permits. This event marked the beginning of implementation of the “Permit Regime” in order to filter out Palestinian movement under security pretext in Israel.' (BADIL, 2015) The permit regime contributed to demarcating Israeli-Palestinian spaces and the emerging segregation project supported by the former Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin. (Zureik, et al, edited, 2011)

The first Intifada prompted the stricter set of movement restrictions accompanied by the requirement for ID cards, and this ultimately led to the "implementation" of the permit regime. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that happened in 1991. It does not say that this was a result of the first intifada. You seem to be either ignoring or missing what I am saying. You attribute the expansion of the permit regime to the first intifada. You cite this source for it. Where, exactly, does this source attribute said expansion to the intifada? The closing line of your comment, The first Intifada prompted the stricter set of movement restrictions accompanied by the requirement for ID cards, and this ultimately led to the "implementation" of the permit regime. is what I am looking for a source for. I understand that you feel that this is true, however you have not provided a source that explicitly says so. Does the source cited actually do so? If not I will be removing the material as failing verification. And, oh by the way, I am discussing the content. If you are unwilling to do so feel free to find your way elsewhere. Maybe hound another editor instead of me, that would be great. nableezy - 23:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You can like or dislike my paraphrase, but it's directly attributed to the source. The issuance of ID cards restricting movement is tied to the first Intifada by ARJI, and that is what became the permit system, the modern version of which was established in 1991. A reminder that this page is under 1RR restriction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow. No, the issuing of ID cards is not what became the permit system. And no, the "modern version" was not established in 1991. Where are you getting any of this from? Because it isnt in the source. 1RR? Wtf are you talking about now? nableezy - 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I've now bolded the relevant portion for you. The 1991 policy change on movement, and the requirement for permits, is mentioned in this source and others[1][2]. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That is one source, others give a different start of the regime (Gordon says 1967 for example). Yes, the general exit permit was revoked in 1991. That is not by any means the beginning of the requirement for a host of other permits, only for individualized exit permits. Also, you know you linked to Berda right? And Btselem is also talking about that one permit. Freedom of movement is not the only thing that the permit regime covers. That one part changed, drastically, in 1991. The rest either predates that considerably or was expanded after that. nableezy - 01:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct - what was inserted into the article is directly supported by the source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

misrepresentation of sources

Wikieditor19920, Loewenstein wrote "Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime." She did not write that the "systems" limitations on movement are more restrictive. She wrote that the regime as a whole is. Kindly stop misrepresenting sources. It is a serious issue on Wikipedia, one that may be reported. nableezy - 16:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. Don't threaten me, and stop creating these disruptive, personalized talk page sections which are in blatant violation of WP:TPG. What I wrote is a perfect paraphrase of what she said: she compared the restriction on movement in the apartheid regime to the supposed restriction on movement implemented by the Israeli pass system. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not threatening you, and there is nothing personalized in the section header. You are blatantly misrepresenting what she wrote. The quote is

Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt. Israeli ID policies are tearing apart families, ruining livelihoods and preventing access to property. Individual members of families – including parents of young children – are capriciously being prevented from returning to their homes. The silence of the international community in the face of these violations of humanitarian law is ominous.

Where exactly does she say that what is "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime" is "the system's set of restrictions on movement"? Hint, she does not. She says the regime as a whole is. What you put in the article is a blatant misrepresentation of the source, and done only to further your rather silly goal of expunging the word "regime" from the article. nableezy - 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good, so that wasn't a threat? While we're on the subject, note that other things that can lead to a "report" are lack of civility, POV pushing, and personal attacks. Your talk headings are just a series of groundless invectives—Lowenstein is explicitly comparing the pass systems and the resident ID requirements. By the way, why does this even belong in the lead? You've been consistent about selectively researching and quoting sources supporting the POV you're trying to push here, which is the purported apartheid analogy, but many of the sources themselves paint a more complex picture, including how the need for the permit system arose in the first place. I find it surprising that that's not also mentioned in the lead:

The Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem (ARIJ)

By the end of 1967, Israeli military forces seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip entirely, declaring them closed military zones. They were then administered by the military commander. (Handel, 2009) In 1972, the Israeli military leader Moshe Dayan declared the “Open Borders” policy. (Gazit, 2003) by which Palestinians were granted general exit permission in order to integrate them into the Israeli labor force. They enjoyed relatively free movement until the end of the second half of 1980s. (Parizot, 2017) With the eruption of the first Intifada “uprising” in 1987, and the deteriorating security situation, the Israeli army completely restrained Palestinian movement applying security mechanisms like curfews and closures. (Hass, 2002) The freedom of movement between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including inside the “Green Line,” was denied to the Palestinians. Travelling abroad was also restricted under the pretext of security. (Abu Zahra and Adah Kay, 2012) This step aimed to thwart the expansion of the uprising. (CDS, 2015)

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you or can you not say where Loewenstein says anything about "the system's set of restrictions on movement" as being "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime"? Because that is what you put in the article, where she actually says the regime as a whole is "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime". What you are surprised is not in the lead is covered in the history section, added by, guess who, me. I assure you, I give literally 0 care to if you think my talk page headings are "invective". If you would like to report that by all means feel free. nableezy - 19:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Review the section you quoted again: Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt. She is specifically referring to the restrictions on movement in the Israeli system. And you claim that you added relevant background to the history section, but you've done everything you can to place any source mentioning "apartheid" in the lead while the background & violence that led to the system is barely referenced in the body. You should also read the WP:TPG, more specifically WP:TALKNEW, and act accordingly, preferable by editing the names of the headers you've already filled this page with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Jesus christ, no she is not. She is saying that for the people who have residence cards that this is not enough to escape the permit regime. She says, and you are quoting it so I have no idea why you are having trouble understanding it, "a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime". She says that the "permit regime" is what "is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime". She goes on to say that as a result "Spontaneous movement from place to place has ground to a halt". And that "Israeli ID policies are tearing apart families, ruining livelihoods and preventing access to property." And that "Individual members of families – including parents of young children – are capriciously being prevented from returning to their homes." She does not say that the only thing that is "more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime" is the restrictions on movement. She says the regime, as a whole, is. As far as WP:TPG, add that to the list of things you should actually read. Hello, your name does not appear in a single talk page section title. Get it? Great. nableezy - 22:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote is a clear reference to freedom of movement, not necessarily the entire permit system. And because you apparently missed this bit from WP:TPG: Don't criticize in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may interpret the heading as an attack on them.. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry that you feel that my raising misrepresenting sources is criticizing you. I dont feel that way. If you would like to bring that up then there are places you can do so. Here, on this talk page, we are meant to discuss the article. And I am discussing how sources are being misrepresented. nableezy - 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as the out there claim that the sentence is not necessarily about the permit regime, the sentence does not allow for such manipulation. She said Even those fortunate enough to have legitimate residence ID cards still face a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Again. a permit regime which is even more complex and ruthlessly enforced than the pass system of the apartheid regime. Not a portion of a permit regime that is more complex and ruthlessly enforced. But the permit regime. That you dislike what the source says does not allow you to change what it says. nableezy - 01:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::: You have not addressed my central point, at all. Can you provide a source to show that she has some sort of "special expertise" beyond the other scholars on the subject and explain why the content under "Overview of terms" cannot be incorporated into "History?" I have seen no justification for either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC) (Wrong section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

Wrong section apparently. nableezy - 21:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In reply to your previous post: No sources are being misrepresented, and if you feel they are, it's your (and everyone's) responsibility to WP:AGF and not create talk page headings that are openly critical or accusatory. That's a clear violation of WP:TPG. I'm not interested any further in listening to you pretend not to understand what I'm saying. The headings have now been revised so that they reflect the name of the source being discussed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. When you repeatedly misrepresent a source to push a POV that is misrepresenting sources. Finally, do not modify what I have written, including the talk page section header. If you have a problem with it go report it and see what's treated as a bigger deal. You misrepresenting sources or my calling it out on the talk page. nableezy - 16:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You want to pretend to justify your tag? nableezy - 16:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF means striking the exact opposite tone that's present in almost all of your posts, and not being radioactively toxic in your interactions with other editors. No one's misrepresented any sources, though you've certainly misrepresented the body of sources and run askew of WP:NPOV by selectively emphasizing negative sources in the lead. I also have some news for you: you do not "own" headings, regardless of whether you wrote them, and filling the talk page with headings that attribute negative intentions is clearly in violation of the talk page guidelines. Some further suggested reading from WP:TPG: Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To that end, please restore the heading that I wrote. The "justification" or, rather, the glaringly obvious issue with citing Loewenstein is that she is not a reputable, mainstream source. She's mostly present in WP:FRINGE publications, and doesn't belong in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you of all people are going to lecture me on AGF lol. No, the heading is accurate, it is actually "descriptive of the content of the discussion" I opened this section about a misrepresentation of a source. As far as your new claim about the source that she is "not a reputable mainstream source", you do realize this was published in Forced Migration Review right? Which is published by the University of Oxford's Refugee Studies Centre. If you would like to challenge that by all means, WP:RSN is thataway. nableezy - 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

kickbacks and other exploitation

Nish I kind of think that should be its own section. I got a few more sources on that Ill bring. nableezy - 20:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I know. But the problem is to get information in, and then sort it. For example I'm thinking of a section on the inability of any educated Palestinian, let alone many experienced lawyers to understand how the system works, and what its legal jargon means. There's no hurry, is there? Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, none at all. nableezy - 20:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

And now I cant recall which sources I had on the kickbacks to Israeli employers I had. Nish, if you have more sources on that dump em here, the work permit section still needs a bit on that. nableezy - 21:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

"Overview of terms"

This article should not be written or structured like a research paper, even though it is heavily reliant on academic sources. Relevant terms should be defined in the body text. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

And this is based on what exactly? nableezy - 20:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The definition supplied was not appropriate to the historical background. There are several others available, which will be added in due course, and like, them, Berda's term needs a section to alert the reader. Change the heading if you like, but it has no place, being a recent definition (her Hebrew monograph dates to 2012) to a section on events from 1967 onwards. By the way as any familiarity with Shira Robinson's book will tell you, the racial profiling system put into place in the occupied territories developed from the one used against Israeli Palestinians/Arabs from 1948 down to 1966, at least.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

First, overly technical terms that require an extended explanation should be avoided per MOS:JARGON. Second, there is nothing in Berda's piece that requires any specialized understanding, and the header for her views is unnecessary and, again, a WP:WEIGHT issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A definition of terms is not 'jargon'. Secondly, it is not only her view, since the section will be expanded. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If it requires additional explanation and is not understandable to a layman, it's jargon. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please read the policies you cite? MOS:JARGON is about technical topics. It says that we should try to make technical topics as easily understandable as possible. It does not say we should not introduce terms to the readers and explain them. nableezy - 21:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Do everyone a favor and read it yourself. MOS:JARGON is exactly the policy that applies when you try to introduce an "overview of terms" section; this is never necessary. A non-technical term does not require a section providing an explanation. And by the way, it's a useless section in the first place because, despite the heading, it introduces no terms that require defining. The result is, unsurprisingly, WP:UNDUE weight Berda, again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. It very specifically is about technical topics. This is not a technical topics. Your undue weight argument is likewise based off nothing. Nothing at all. Please quote what exactly in WP:DUE supports your view. Please quote what exactly in MOS:JARGON supports your view. Because I can show that it does not. What it actually says is Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using. See, even if it did apply, which it does not, the manual of style says to explain the "jargon". And the material in the section emphatically is not "jargon". nableezy - 22:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, explain to me why an "overview of terms" is necessary if references are not excessively esoteric or technical for the average reader to understand. If they weren't, such a section wouldn't be necessary; and also, please indicate which terms this section even serves to provide an overview of. WP:UNDUE means not placing minor scholars in a section of their own, and that's precisely what you've done here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your understanding of UNDUE and of Berda seem to be on the same level. Berda is not a "minor scholar". What is in that section is the view of reliable sources. If there are conflicting views they should of course be added. Since you have not quoted what from WP:DUE or MOS:JARGON supports your position I can only assume that nothing in them do. nableezy - 22:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be significantly above yours, apparently, not that I'd trust your assessment. Here's a quote from the policy in case you're confused: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. Berda is no more prominent than any of the other scholars who have been cited (likely on the lesser end, in comparison to full professors and those with far more published works) and does not deserve her own section, whether or not you want to dress it up as an "overview of terms" which in fact provides no terms. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

lol, I see you got your education at the I know you are but what am I school. You should have kept reading, because it says right after that

However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

Is there any evidence that Berda represents a minority view? Because you need reliable sources disputing what she says to make that case. As far as I have seen you have none. It later says

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Again, you need sources that show a dispute to make an undue weight claim. Do you have any? nableezy - 22:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong--if you believe that Berda's opinion carries more weight than any other scholar in the article, so much so that she should be granted her own section, the onus is on you to demonstrate that with sources. I have searched Berda's name and works compared to others in this article including Gordon and I do not see that she is a significantly more prolific or authoritative scholar than he or any other cited. It's not my job to prove a negative, you need to show that she deserves her own section, and come by it honestly rather than this "overview of terms" nonsense. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean by showing how Berda's views are being cited by other sources? Have you noticed what is the reference there? And no, I have shown that a view is treated as significant by reliable sources. You have made an unsourced supposition that there are other sources that show that this view is given too much weight. I ask you which sources. You respond with, surprise, no sources. nableezy - 22:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The relative weight of her views does not justify isolating them in a single section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not missing the point. I am flat out saying you have no point. nableezy - 22:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, if you can't show that Berda has more weight than the other scholars cited in this article, then a separate section for is WP:UNDUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Weight is, as you said, relative. Relative to other sources. There need to be sources disputing a view for there to be a weight issue. Feel free to take it to NPOV/N. nableezy - 23:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, and tag teaming isn't consensus. This is a meaningless section, it belongs in the body of the article, and we don't give obscure scholars their own section. That's classic WP:UNDUE, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she is or isn't a minority view or is "disputed." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I do think so. See how it works when somebody just makes a blatant statement and expects others to accede to their demands? The most basic reading of WP:NPOV makes this obvious. See where it says Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Berda is not an "obscure scholar". That you dont know her speaks more to the breadth of your knowledge than it does to hers. nableezy - 03:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You're almost there, but there's a key concept you're not understanding: proportion. Is she more prominent than the other scholars cited? Is she more prolific? Is she the prevailing authority? Any objective evaluation would lead to a "no" for each of these, which is why her views shouldn't be isolated under a single heading. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol, no. The view is what needs to be proportional. That is what you, again, refuse to understand. DUE is about giving views their weight proportional weight. Again, when a reliable source makes a statement that no other reliable source disputes there is definitionally no DUE issue. nableezy - 13:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(a) The article is about Israel's permit system. (b)The most up-to-date scholarly analysis in English of this system is by Berda. (c) She qualified in law in Israel at Hebrew University and went on to argue cases, many of them about permit law, before all the relevant judicial bodies that handle permit cases,-the Israeli Supreme court, administrative courts and the military criminal courts. (d) She then obtained an MA in sociology from TAU, (e) a PhD from the Department of Sociology at Princeton University, was resident scholar at Harvard University. (f)She is an expert on comparative bureaucratic systems. She made her reputation in this highly specialized area with the Hebrew edition of her book in 2012, and then obtained tenure at her alma mater as assistant professor. According to Haaretz, her latest English work is contextualized as follows, based on close practical, legal experience of the empirical basis for the topic of this area, which no authority cited, from Neve Gordon onwards, has.

Berda represented hundreds of such Palestinians, and along the way, she collected a great deal of information on the workings of the Shin Bet’s entry-permit system. When she began working as a sociologist, she used this data for her research. It is the most detailed description available about the way in which the method works – a bureaucracy of “constant emergency,” as her book is titled.

None of the other authorities cited here have this unique background, as a lawyer specializing in permit litigation, with over 80 case loads to her credit, a sociologist specializing on bureaucracy with particular regard to Israel's permit system, with two books to her credit precisely on the permit system, and the last judged to be the most detailed description available for the way the Israeli permit system works on Palestinians. Stop the hectoring, which is assuming farcical proportions of vapidly flatulent niggling, based on an obvious unfamiliarity with the topic.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

What you fail to mention that her law work was part of her "social justice activism"[3] or "activist journey", with her book beginning with personal stories, working with "NGO Machsom Watch". She's also "active in the “A Land for All” movement, which until recently was called “Two States, One Homeland,” and advocates a confederative solution".[4] We are not dealing with a scholar that is detached from the subject of study, but with an activist very much immersed in the subject and attempting to change it - as such - WP:BIASED applies. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Good grief! No serious scholar of worth is 'detached from the subject of his study'!!!! That's a recipe for scholarly failure. Read A. E. Housman, scrupulously austere in getting the minutiae of philological problems right, yet passionate, acerbic to the point of exasperation. I could cite hundreds of cases. Passion has even been theorized as intrinsic to good scholarship and teaching. Read George Steiner for god's sake.

If you cite a policy please read it beforehand, i.e.WP:BIASED reads:

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.'

The policy doesn't apply to this or most quality works written about social regimes which everyone, including blind Freddy and his mutt, knows to be deeply discriminatory esp. those that go through the arduous process of PhD scrutiny and peer-review in top-level Western universities books. Most classic studies of oppression, prejudice, or whatever form of discrimination, have been authored by people with a mission. Gordon Allport who wrote one of the definitive early works on prejudice was open about his work being inspired by a 'moral quest'. It's like impeaching Abraham Joshua Heschel's reliability as a source on the American civil rights movement, in which he participated, because he had a normative Torah based passion for social justice. I could give a million examples. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge Berda then by all means WP:RSN is thataway. Id enjoy the spectacle of seeing a user argue that a book published by Stanford University Press written by a professor at Hebrew University who has as a professional prior to her academic career focused on this subject is not a reliable source. Would actually love to see that. nableezy - 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not say it was not a RS - as a matter of fact, by linking to WP:BIASED I was implying it was. This is, as publications by other activists in an academic press, a biased RS - which needs to be balanced by sources with an opposing bias to achieve NPOV. So no - this is not a RSN issue. As for bias and NPOV - the bias is rather clearly self-declared by the author herself.Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You need other reliable sources showing her views are disputed. Nobody has stopped anybody from adding reliable sources here. The goal of some editors however has not been to add other sources, but rather to bury ones they dislike. nableezy - 15:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz is arguing that a lawyer who specializes in permit litigation is a social activist and therefore, even if they went on to write a detailed academically peer-reviewed work on the topic, biased. That means no lawyer with any background in human rights issues would be accepted as an expert on the issue because biased. It's a weird argument, really weird.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no comment on whether or not Berda is biased. What I find incredible is how dogmatically Nableezy is asserting that WP:DUE is not an issue. To be clear, for Nableezy and anyone else involved: This is not about whether her views may be included. It is about whether a scholar with no more authority in the subject than any other cited source deserves her own section, because editors happen to apparently personally agree with her analysis more than others and choose to emphasize it for that reason. The answer is obviously that she is not, and the "overview of terms" section is both WP:UNDUE and includes nothing that couldn't also exist under the "History" section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

'a scholar with no more authority in the subject than any other cited source deserves her own section'. I.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. This was answered above. She has specific competences no other scholar cited here has. If you wish to disprove this, indicate where Neve Gordon et al have specialized technical knowledge, and qualifications, in permit law and practice. If you cannot provide evidence, then your assertion is what it looks like, blah-blahing.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Its worse than that Nish. Wikieditor19920 cant even articulate what is a minority view in that section. His entire premise is based on literally nothing from WP:DUE. Not one word supports his view. nableezy - 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In this case - this is law based activism (in Machsom Watch) - similar to say Michael Sfard or crossing lines sharply to the other side - Itamar Ben-Gvir. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, do you have any sources that dispute what Berda is saying? If not then I really do not know what exactly it is you are looking for here. If you have such sources by all means bring them. Without them though there is no DUE issue. nableezy - 17:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz. Just a note on the term 'activist'. Every single person who has assisted Israel in its establishment as a state (I guess that includes even me, I worked voluntarily there), has spoken vigorously on its behalf (that includes me: I often quarreled with Palestinians before 1982), and defended its policies, enacted legislation regarding Israel, belonged to any organization, formal or informal, that underwrites Zionism, is an activist by the same token. Alan Dershowitz is an activist, Tony Blair is an activist, Chuck Schumer, alias shomer Yisrael, ad infinitum, are all 'activists', as are Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. There is nothing negative or disinvalidating in having a cause at heart, in being ac tive on behalf of that cause - it lies at the very heart of democracy. True, in the illiterate drift of much wiki talk 'activist' is coded language for 'partisan militant on the left', but Wikipedia is not a safe guide to language and conceptual thinking.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving my comment from the other thread: neither you nor Nableezy have addressed my central point whatsoever. Please provide a source showing that Berda has a "special expertise" beyond the other scholars on the subject and explain why "Overview of terms" cannot be incorporated into "History." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a source showing that Berda has a "special expertise" beyond the other scholars on the subject

I.er. you didn't read what I quoted above which described her book as

the most detailed description available for the way the Israeli permit system works on Palestinians

You ignored my request to show that any other authority cited here has (a) a degree in law (b) practices law ( c) specialized in permit law (d) wrote a book on the permit system and (e) had it reviewed as the 'most detailed description available'. All that counts here is your requests (duly answered and ignored), while you ignore what other editors request you do, i.e. familiarize yourself with wiki policy and the subject. You have done zero substantive edits to the page and are using it, and the talk page as an attritional battleground.

We have, exhaustively and in insisting only you are correct and now reverting again to your utterly irrational merging of history and definition sections makes a hash of the text, and does so in the face of two editors who have consistently shown your reasons are not grounded in policy, let alone intelligent page composition. You said it was undue to focus on Berda. I answered that by adding Rubenberg, so it is no longer an assertion of Berda's views alone, as you claimed. No! You ignored the adjustment and its going some way to meeting your complaint, and now we have definitions plunked into history. Edt-warring and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Don't cite consensus, either. Consensus does not mean doing what you alone insist be done. Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The section is meaningless, it assigns WP:UNDUE weigh to Berda (a charge you have NOT answered, and it is not resolved by sprinkling in a few other opinions) and you better believe that consensus matters if you want to give undue emphasis to a relatively junior scholar with few published works than others on the same subject. That's called WP:CHERRYPICKING, and not the way to write an article. And lastly, we previously formed a rough consensus against including Berda alone in the lead on the basis of weight, and you've tried to circumvent that by simply giving her her own section. Did you say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We have repeatedly answered it. That you dislike the answer does not make the answer any less valid. Your continued bleating about a "junior scholar" as though that means something is not something that is based on any policy. As far as cherrypicking, exactly what in the sources have been left out? Do you even read what you post? We have not formed any such consensus, your edit-warring is not a consensus sorry. nableezy - 16:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added several other sources to that section, which should make the incredibly silly DUE objection to the section only containing one voice moot. If you feel other sources speak to the topic by all means bring them. nableezy - 17:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As I have said from the beginning, there is nothing wrong with Berda as a source. In fact, I've found her reading useful on the subject; however, the point that I've consistently made, and which you have not addressed, is that her views on the subject should not be presented in their own section. WP:UNDUE presents a very logical basis for this opinion. You have countered by saying that she is not "disputed" or a "minority" view, and therefore my objections somehow don't hold. But that would only apply if I was saying that she should not be included in the article at all, which I emphatically am not. As I've asserted already, her writings and views should be incorporated into the history section of the article, along with the other prominent scholars who have written about the permit system, because her views do not carry any more weight than those. The fact that the section was inaptly named is another factor favoring getting rid of it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Your position is based on no policy, and in any event is moot. She is not the only person cited in the section now. nableezy - 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I just cited the policy, actually. Apparently it is, because you've now (somewhat) addressed the issue by incorporating other views and ensuring the Berda is not the only one represented. However, how do you figure that another section providing "definitions" is necessary in the body, in addition to the lead? Isn't the point of the lead to define what the "permit system" or "permit regime" is, and doesn't it already? Why do we need this section? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes you made a WP:VAGUEWAVE to a policy that does not support your position. The lead summarizes the body, this is an expansion of the definition and has more detail than would be appropriate for the lead. And hello, nothing was stopping you from adding more sources to that section. You are allowed to be constructive here, not purely destructive. nableezy - 17:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I would hardly call merging two sections "destructive." Notice that I did not remove any actual content. I'm still not convinced that this shouldn't be integrated into the body or lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Luckily nobody needs to convince you of anything. nableezy - 18:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)\

Yeah, actually, you do. You don't WP:OWN this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nor do you. Nobody needs your consent for anything. Sorry to tell you, you dont actually decide anything here. We as a group do, and consensus does not depend on any one persons consent. nableezy - 18:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Glad you brought up WP:CONSENSUS, which isn't just limited to editors you agree with. I see you've tried to address the WP:DUE issues in the section; we're about halfway there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, your misunderstanding of our policies does not make it so we need your consent. And you dont even have an argument anymore as hello Berda is not the only person quoted in that section now. nableezy - 19:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Trust me, I haven't misunderstood anything. I'll continue to raise issues where I see them, and right now, WP:NPOV seems to be the most significant one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, do what you want. Your view however carries no more weight than anybody elses. If you think you get to decide what is and is not NPOV well I suppose thats nice for you, but it has zero impact on me, my edits, or anybody else. nableezy - 21:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's why the problem with POV isn't only in the article, it's with (some of) the editors contributing to it. Try not behaving like an ideologue and treating this talk page like a battleground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Im not sure if you are talking to yourself, but I generally agree with your first sentence. nableezy - 03:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good! I suppose we're getting somewhere. Let's start with not placing disproportionate emphasis on scholars we may or may not agree with, not stating opinions as facts, and not selectively picking and quoting from sources to omit any information that could balance the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

These are not opinions, the views of scholars that are not disputed by reliable sources are facts on Wikipedia, and nobody has omitted any information. The article is balanced. That you are unfamiliar with how sources treat this topic does not make it so the article needs to follow your misunderstandings. nableezy - 16:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the work permit section needs balancing. Doesnt include the systematic exploitation of Palestinian workers as a result of the work permit regime. Will address that shortly. nableezy - 16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is reliant on the degree to which a scholar has been published in reliable sources, it has nothing to do with whether or not they are disputed. Competing views can be presented in proportion to their presence in such sources; what we cannot do, and which you've attempted repeatedly, is place undue emphasis on the views of scholars with limited published works by placing them in the lead, giving them their own sections, etc. These are basic, fundamental tenets of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV that you appear not to grasp or outright ignore. A current example? Loewenstein in the lead. From what I can find, she has published a single work on the subject and is otherwise undistinguished in the field.

As for the work permit section—go right ahead! I purposely left it short and fully expect it to be fleshed out. I'd encourage you not to try and craft a narrative, as you appear to suggest, instead of presenting a factual description based on the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Quote what in WP:WEIGHT supports any part of that. nableezy - 17:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Directly from WP:DUE Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Now likewise show me where you see the word "disputed" anywhere on that policy page or in one of the supplementals. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Viewpoints. How do you not get this? Are you seriously arguing that the viewpoint that the permit regime resembles South African apartheid is not prevalent in reliable sources? You see where the policy says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources? You understand what the word proportion means? When there are reliable sources that describe X, and none that oppose X, what do you think the proportionality of X is? I dont really see the need to continue arguing with you over this. Your idiosyncratic views are your own, and nobody else is governed by them. nableezy - 18:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And can you maybe not conflate ten different issues in each section? nableezy - 18:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There are viewpoints and then there are the purveyors of those views, or their own interpretation. A specific scholar can still be WP:UNDUE for the lead. From the explanatory supplement: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And the next sentence says? Ill help you, The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. See WP:RS#Scholarship for why these are the most reliable type of sources. nableezy - 18:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of the cited scholars have published in academic sources, so relative weight comes down to which sources they've been published in, and how widely distributed their work is in said reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Youre missing the point. It is not that the cited scholars have published in academic sources, its that the source cited is an academic source. That it is published by a top-quality press. That it is specifically focused on the topic. Youre objecting to what now exactly? That there is a single quote in the lead? That quote is representative of the 8 other sources cited on the comparison of the regime to South African Apartheid. That is a significant view, widely published in reliable sources. And that specific view is from Forced Migration Review published by the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. You see where Im going with this? nableezy - 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of the cited scholars have published in academic sources

Almost all of the cited writers have published in written sources

Almost all of the cited translators have published translations

Almost all of the carnivores have eaten meat

Almost all of the wiki editors have edited wikipedia

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This argufying is pointless, esp. if one's interlocutor can't see a simple tautology involved in thinking scholars write for academic publications.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, find a different way to call attention to your otherwise ignorable posts than disruptive blockquoting. And none of that makes the Loewenstein quote in the lead necessary or justified. The lead can summarize the analogy without a) violating WP:CITEOVERKILL and b) providing quotes that convey information that can be rewritten as prose and without giving in-text attribution to otherwise non-notable scholars. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You made an egregious tautology. I noted it. You display almost zero familiarity with the topic, to judge by your edits, but engage in a huge amount of empty quibbling. Please desist, and allow content editors to actually do the constructive work required here. This is all intensely boring and detracts from time better spent actually mastering the relevant literature.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Challenging potentially, IMHO, POV edits is almost as tedious and "intensely boring" as reading your hifalutin diatribes. And as far as the subject matter, please, inform me of which edits were factually inaccurate or unsupported by sources—you won't find any. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And regardless of the sources available, WP:CITEOVERKILL is not the way to go. At the very least, that should be fixed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You know thats an essay right? The citations were added because the material was challenged. If we remove the citations the material will again be challenged as not being cited. nableezy - 21:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any less relevant here. Tell me, does this sound familiar? One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It makes it something that nobody is required to follow. And that quote gets some very basic things wrong (notability has nothing to do with article content, notability is a related to the inclusion of articles as topics, not what is covered within those articles). You may think there are too many citations there, but that appears to be a personal problem. nableezy - 01:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it's a problem with the article, one that you're apparently taking personally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really? Youd be better off reading sources than trying to read my mind. The material that has those citations was challenged. So more citations were added. Im fine with moving the bulk of the citations in to the body if that will alleviate this current distress. nableezy - 04:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)