Talk:Israeli permit regime in the West Bank

Zygmunt Bauman misrepresented in the text

Wikieditor19920 here you go, not even listing the problem in the talk page header. This is a horrendously bad edit. You completely misunderstood what the sentence in the article meant, and apparently did not even look at the source. Bauman didnt write anything about the permit regime. The source, and the article, says that Bauman's writings about "bureaucracy's debilitating impact on the human condition" are echoed in Amira Hass' writing about the occupation's bureaucracy that controls Palestinian freedoms of movement, work and so on. It is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Please correct it. And please do not continue editing without regard for what the sources say. nableezy - 04:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep. This one comes close to my all time best-misreadings-on-Wikipedia list. Just for the record (further proof of incompetence)

Zygmunt Bauman's warnings of the debilitating effect bureaucracy may have on the human condition has been cited to throw light on the Orwellian or Kafkaesque trap of red tape that, it is argued, places a stranglehold on Palestinian autonomy.

Has been rewritten (ungrammatically) by

diff Zygmunt Bauman's characterized the bureaucracy as "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque."

Comically the edit summary reads:'Fixed bad paraphrases, statements of opinion as fact.' The bad paraphrase also consisted in using the source word 'pretext' instead of 'justification', which is a euphemistic gloss, and would have required 'asserted (justification)'. If you can't sight it, Wikieditor19920, 'Zygmunt Bauman's characterized' is a double elementary English error. It confuses the possessive function of 's which cannot take a verb as an object (a competent reader will stop and ask himself 'what, related to Bauman, characterized which bureaucracy..etc.' ), unless of course you were thinking, equally ungrammatically of the contractive function of 's (Zygmunt Bauman is/has) which in any case also either garbles the sentence 'Zygmunt Bauman is characterized the bureaucracy', or, in abbreviating 'has' to 's, violates normal prose conventions) Jeezus.

Nableezy is correct. You (a) did not read the source (b) did not understand the straightforward accurate paraphrase of the source (b) and solved your nescient perplexity by writing garbled English while, miraculously, distorting the source. Quite an achievement.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, let's all lose our shit over a typo. (And rant about it in a winding, ungrammatical post.) The first draft was nearly unintelligible, and it's not worth taking another stab at. And Nishidani, "pretext" is exactly the type of editorializing we should avoid—that's not "glossing over." You should learn to keep your opinions off Wiki. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing the line, because it's meaningless, I've trimmed the number of citations in the lead and made several other language changes throughout the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A typo???? You straight up made something up that the source doesnt say because you a. did not understand what was in the article, and b. did not read the source. I am restoring your removals. nableezy - 15:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Also this article was started using British English, changing it to American violates MOS:ENGVAR. nableezy - 15:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ill keep Bauman out just cus I dont see it as necessary, but if you continue to misrepresent the sources I will have to ask that you be made to stop. nableezy - 15:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Go right ahead, because I haven't misrepresented anything. You added a poorly written, confusing line, I took a crack at improving it; no one was happy, and now it's gone. In your haste to fully revert me, do your best not to restore all of the ungrammatical punctuation (+ lack of). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You have not misrepresented anything? You would do well to actually acknowledge your errors because they are pretty obvious. You wrote

Zygmunt Bauman's characterized the bureaucracy as "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque

That was cited to this page. Can you please pray tell where that source says Bauman characterized the bureaucracy as "Orwellian" (with a quote at that!)? Jesus, just dont change the meaning of what the article says unless you actually look at the source. Its a pretty basic concept. nableezy - 16:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Give me a break; you're in no position to be lecturing anyone else about supposed "errors." Your most recent revert just removed a bunch of necessary grammatical changes, such as things like commas and proper use of colons/semi-colons. Bauman cited ANOTHER scholar who made that characterization and said he agrees. My version perfectly captured the gist of the text; you should learn something about paraphrasing, because all you seem willing to do is lazily copy-paste from the source, change a few words, and call it a day. The result is that this page is filled with dense, nearly unreadable prose, and mundane lists and details about the types of permits Palestinians apply for. No one is this interested in the subject, and I'd suggest you start working on cutting down material/making it more concise than bellyaching over my relatively minor changes to the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I take it that you are unable to explain where the source you cited says anything close to the material you inserted into the article. And I also take it you still have not read the source, because no, Bauman did not cite another scholar who made that characterization and said he agreed. Elia Zureik is the author of that book. What he wrote is that Amira Hass' writings echo Bauman's writings about bureaucracy. My version perfectly captured the gist of the text? Just wow to that. Im starting to think there are some WP:CIR issues here. As far as no one is this interested in the subject well if you lack interest then you can move on. We however are here to write an encyclopedia article on this subject. And this is going to contain details. If that bothers you well, again, you can move on. That you do not understand something does not make it dense or nearly unreadable. Your relatively minor changes were a blatant misrepresentation of the source. The next time you do so I will not just ask that you fix it, given your rather obstinate defiance in acknowledging such a basic, and not even a little trivial, error. Your suggestions are very much not on the list of things I intend to listen to, sorry. nableezy - 16:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Even your explanation of this line is nonsensical. It shows poor editorial judgment that you would a) think to include such a convoluted statement and b) do such a bad job at synthesizing it. Your original version used the words "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque" in Wiki voice without clear attribution. This is far more serious. On the entire article, again, it's certainly a fascinating topic, but one that is made less so by inclusion of trivial, procedural details and over-elaborate prose. That, and you apparently can't even be bothered to properly convert the text in the sources into your own words or listen to advice to use little things like commas. WP:CIR indeed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

So, just so we are clear, there is nothing in the cited source that supports the material you put in the article? Yes, no? Because first you said it was a typo. Then you said it perfectly captured the gist of the text. What in the text supported the material you put in the article? Can you answer that question? Or do you think bluster is an appropriate response at all times? nableezy - 17:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you honestly still arguing about a single sentence that you now agree is unnecessary? Forgive me, but I really could care less. It was horribly written when you put it into the article, and since we haven't settled on how to improve it, it seems like we all agree to be rid of it. Amusing as it is to hear you talk about "bluster," this is settled as far as I'm concerned and I have absolutely no interest in dragging it out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It was not horribly written prior to you horribly writing it. We dont all agree, Nishidani thinks it relevant and I dont have a problem including it. Regardless, none of that absolves you of the responsibility to not distort sources in an encyclopedia article. I thank you for your future cooperation in the hopes that you cease doing so. nableezy - 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I was getting bored with this, but now I'm inclined to actually examine the text on this page and compare it to what you wrote.

From the text:

Thus bureaucracy becomes a formidable weapon that constrains colonised subjects, along the lines described by Israeli journalist Amira Hass (2011). She captures the essence of Israel's bureaucratic strangulation in a language that echoes Zygmunt Bauman's (1989) warnings of bureaucracy's debilitating impact on the human condition: 'A machinery of repression depends not only on guns and torture in cellars. As the Soviet-bloc regimes proved, bureaucracy is central to the system. The same is true with us: Far from the barriers of transparency of a proper democratic society, Israel has created a complex and invisible bureaucracy that completely controls Palestinian freedom of movement, and hence freedom of employment, livelihood and studies, the freedom to fall in love and establish a family, to organize and other basic liberties. (Hass 2011) The manipulative nature of Israeli bureaucracy in the state's dealings with the Palestinians is captured by Robert Home (2003, 306): "A modern, positivist ideology of law and the state supported the colonists/colonialists in dispossessing the colonized, and trapped the indigenous Palestinians in a manipulated bureaucracy worth of the pages of Kafka and Orwell."

Now, here was your "synthesis" of this material:

Zygmunt Bauman's warnings of the debilitating effect bureaucracy may have on the human condition has been cited to throw light on the Orwellian or Kafkaesque trap of red tape that, it is argued, places a stranglehold on Palestinian autonomy.

It was Home who references Kafka and Orwell, not Bauman, which your line misleadingly fails to note. You also make no reference to the actual author of the book, Zureik, only vaguely saying "it is argued," which a classic example of weaseling in a view without attribution. It's not even clear who you're suggesting is arguing this point. The line about a "stranglehold on the Palestinian economy" is traceable to Hass, whom you also did not mention. And where exactly did this "red tape" phrasing come from? If this is your original writing, I suggest you save the purple prose/editorializing for your novel and not for Wikipedia. Admittedly, Zureik's cluttered references make her arguments difficult to follow, and my changes did not entirely fix the problem, but your initial edit turned a poorly organized argument (from the source) into an utter mess, in which you combine the statements of multiple authors without proper attribution and write it in a way that sounds like Wikivoice. Considering how far off the mark your attempt here was, you can't credibly lecture anyone on "misrepresenting sources." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I didnt write that sentence. Second, synthesis requires bringing multiple sources together, you definitionally cannot synthesize one source. Thirdly, we are not required to explicitly attribute every sentence. We need in text attribution for direct speech, not for relaying ideas. For that we can use in-line citations. As was done here. And you still dont get what the source says. It is saying that Hass' writings echo Bauman's writings of bureaucracy as having a debilitating impact on the human condition, a bureaucracy that is Kafkaesque or Orwellian. Again, what you wrote in the article was

Zygmunt Bauman's (sic) characterized the bureaucracy as "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque."

That very much did not just did not entirely fix the problem. It made a problem that did not exist. You attributed to Bauman something that Home said, when the source says that Bauman is echoed in somebody else entirely. You very obviously did not read the source you were purporting to follow. You can admit to making an error. Everybody makes mistakes. But continuing to pretend that there was no problem, that you did not blatantly distort the source when you so obviously did does not instill any confidence that such errors will not be repeated. If you had a problem with attributing Orwellian or Kafkaesque you could have attributed them to Home. But that would have required actually reading the source. Finally, Elia Zureik is a he. nableezy - 03:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty rich for you to demand I admit to error (I think I just did) and insinuate that you will report me when you gave me such poor material to work with. This is why its removal is for the best. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

None of that makes even a little sense. Literally none of it. And no, you did not admit to distorting the source. You actually repeatedly refused to. And that you dont understand the text does not mean "its removal is for the best". nableezy - 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I just explained the obvious problems with the original sentence, which is why it should be excluded. Your defense of it is weak. ...we are not required to explicitly attribute every sentence. We're talking about views and, more specifically, phrases and descriptions that were used by different authors, merged into a single sentence, without quotes or attribution. It is saying that Hass' writings echo Bauman's writings of bureaucracy as having a debilitating impact on the human condition, a bureaucracy that is Kafkaesque or Orwellian. The final bit is the most important, because WP editors are not permitted to call something "Kafkaesque" or "Orwellian" without a direct, in-text attribution. Home shouldn't have been noted as the one who made that comparison, he wasn't, and the sentence did not make clear which views belonged to whom. Even if these problems were addressed, Zureik's argument is too meandering and unfocused to be suitable for inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

lol sure buddy. phrases and descriptions that were used by different authors, merged into a single sentence, without quotes or attribution. All of this comes from one paragraph by Zureik. The final bit is the most important, because WP editors are not permitted to call something "Kafkaesque" or "Orwellian" without a direct, in-text attribution. Says who? I really wish you had hounded me to an article you knew something about. What are you talking about with Home shouldn't been noted as the one who made that comparison, he wasn't, and the sentence did not make clear which views belonged to whom. Even if these problems were addressed, Zureik's argument is too meandering and unfocused to be suitable for inclusion. One more time, that you do not understand a source does not make it a source that is meandering or unfocused or not suitable for inclusion. You can keep trying to impress people with big words, but the point of this section was to ask that you read the sources you purport to cite and not so drastically distort their meanings. That sound like a plan? nableezy - 07:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There's little reason to include Zureik's flowery description of Hass (a jounralist/op-ed writer) or Berda. It was off topic in the definitions section, and of little relevance to this article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a definition - a highly editorialized review of two other pieces. Not needed

Um, Icewhiz, you should know by now that books synthesize. Zureik, an expert in the field, synthesized two relevant sources. That is what academics do. It's not called 'editorializing'.

That is a personal opinion, not an argument. There was no 'flowery' description included. To the contrary, Zureik's contextualization is wholly apposite for it summarizes secondary material, and relating it to the broader context of bureaucracy per Weber and Bauman, world-class thinkers. The permit regime is an instance of the category 'bureaucratic system', as virtually any source page on the topic notes.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy, if you think that "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque" are appropriate to use without attribution, I'm not going to waste any more space on this page explaining it to you. Nishidani, I don't know if you're aware, but every editorial judgment is essentially an opinion. And the author frankly does more quoting than summarizing, and strings it together in disorganized fashion. Even so, whoever added this line in originally butchered that comparison, and I don't see any value in "saving" it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

lol ok, dont waste your time. Once more though, just so you internalize this, you dont get to decide these things. And again, this section was about you straight up lying about what a source said. You can deflect all you like, try to change the subject all you like, but that is undisputably what happened here. You mangled the original material and you did so without even looking at the source. And in so doing you made an encyclopedia article say something that was straight up false. If you stop doing that I would greatly appreciate it. nableezy - 15:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

As there is no WP:NOCONSENSUS to add, we should stick to the WP:STABLE version which does not contain this passage. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. On that principle the piece about Bauman should stay.

WP:CONSENSUS is not a license to excise and then block the restoration of material. There has been almost zero discussion, and at least one objector couldn’t even construe the sentence he objected to.What is relevant is this:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

The bold edit was wikieditor's. You yourself acknowledger stability is the core principle here. And this means you cannot in conscience object to its continued retention until discussion determines whatever other option. I.e

The stable version, the page indeed as it was first created, contains that section excerpted here from the Israeli occupation where that precise remark and reference were on the page from the day it was uploaded, on November 24 2018.

It has been stable for 5 months, (except for one moment when you took it out in your disembowelment edit, which was consensually overruled).

So, I accept your point that stability is the core issue, and this passes the test.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The original is a mishmosh of what the source said and misleadingly fails to attribute different views to the respective author. This is not acceptable. The merits of "stability" don't change that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You got some balls to say anybody has done anything misleading with a source when you literally lied about it. nableezy - 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Desist from harping. You've made your point, and it was closely deconstructed as illiterate nonsense, per the above. Icewhiz set stability as the standard, and that phrase (now tweaked to make it even clearer, if you had trouble with it, unlike other editors) is stable. Please note. Arguments are not persuasive if characterized by bludgeoning self-repetitiveness. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. You appear to not be following the discussion. There is consensus against including this line. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Where? or tell me how you define 'consensus'. And remember, you didn't excise the line. It was fine by you to rewrite it. The problem began when your rewrite totally screwed up the source. Icewhiz alone removed the passage, and now you agree. That makes two fussing, not a consensus, and not coherent.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What bs. There is consensus against including the line? Says who? First you lie about the source, now you are making up a mythical consensus? Color me surprised. nableezy - 20:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz seemed to imply he agrees with removal, you said you thought it was unnecessary, and I concur. Do I need to remind you of your earlier statement, or are you now changing your mind? That would be consensus against restoring it, but "no consensus" would result in the same point. I would not support reinserting this line unless it were revised to correct the issues I raised above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I said it was not necessary, I did not say it should be removed. Besides that, this section was about you not reading a source and making up what it says. Can we finally have an agreement that you will not do that anymore? nableezy - 03:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a section about content. I'm glad we're in agreement that it's not necessary, and there's no reason to keep something that's not necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, this is a section about your repeated misrepresentation of sources, in this case clearly not reading one and then lying about what it says. nableezy - 06:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think so. Stop treating this page like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as I opened the section I think I know what it is about. Here, I modified the title to help you. nableezy - 14:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately you are not the one driving the discussion. That would apply perfectly well to the original version of the sentence, but again, you've violated WP:TPG with a heading that assumes bad faith. I'd recommend you brush up not just on basic policy guidelines regarding content, but also user conduct. As far as the sentence itself goes, there is seemingly nothing more to discuss here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

do it again, see what happens. nableezy - 18:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Do what again, exactly? Change the heading? Honestly, I could care less. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

lie about a source. nableezy - 02:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I never "lied" about a source, but again, if you want to keep it up with the personal attacks, we can continue that line of discussion at WP:ANI. Let's do our best to keep this talk page focused on the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you very obviously did lie about a source. In this edit you wrote that this source supports that Zygmunt Bauman's characterized the bureaucracy as "Orwellian" and "Kafkaesque when it very much does not. You pretended to have read that source and lied about its contents. Go ahead, report that to ANI. See whats a bigger deal, lying about a source or calling out the lying about the source. nableezy - 20:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:AGF? Even if my edit missed the mark (as did the original version), that's not a "lie." And battlegrounding is much worse. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was a typo? If you want people to assume your good faith it might be worth showing some every once in a while. nableezy - 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I said the apostrophe "s" possessive was a typo. Please don't mischaracterize my comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

update tag?

Sir Joseph you need to justify tags you place in the article. What needs to be updated? nableezy - 20:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is really confusing to read. Sometimes I'm stuck in the 1980's then I'm in the 2000's. I know for a fact the system is much different now and the movement is not as it's laid out here, since most Palestinians living in the West Bank are free to move without any interaction with any Israeli solider in their day to day life, and it should be mention that only if they want to enter Israel is a permit required, same as me entering any other country. It needs to be made clear that this doesn't impact Palestinians who don't enter Israel, otherwise it just adds to the bias of the article. Also, the article right now is written very academically, it needs to have a more easier prose to it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources for what you know for a fact? And you are aware that permits cover more than just entering Israel, right? What specifically in the article is outdated and what sources have newer information? nableezy - 21:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Per my reading we are presenting the introduction of various permits, yet we never cover their repeal - e.g. military order 101 has been defunct for decades (from Oslo in the 90s at least). Many of the intifada-2 measures are defunct (in particular in regards to internal movement inside the West Bank (without crossing the barrier)). I suppose part of the problem here is the underlying sources, who tend to cover new introductions and the current (at the time) system, but not so much cancellations. Perhaps sources should be used with a dated prefix (e.g. "as of 2007, the system included..").Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's very disruptive to remove a tag within minutes while a discussion is underway. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz please provide sources and either add that to the article or I will gladly. If there are sources covering any repeals then they of course should be included. nableezy - 21:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid this may be an issue with the underlying sources themselves - who cover the system du jour but not changes. For Military Order 101 - this source - refers to it in the past tense. I daresay you won't find a reasonable source from the past two decades referring to it in present tense - this was cancelled or effectively cancelled as part of Oslo (1993-1996). Checkpoints (and passes) inside the West Bank were at a peak in 2004 (where we say 0.14% of West Bankers had permits) - this was the height of the crackdown of Intifada2. By 2010 (this can be sourced, though possibly to PRIMARYish sources) - the vast majority of internal checkpoints (not the ones on the separation barrier / seam zone) were dismantled - and generally no pass is needed for civilian travel east of the separation barrier. If you have a source asserting some system, ordinance, or permit was in place at year X - you can't assume it continued afterwards. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, but does our article say that 101 is in force? It just includes it in the history as how the regime began. As far as your last line, we cant assume that it isnt in force either. Thats a bit like saying unless I have a source saying X law is still in force as of today then I cant say X is a law. No, we need a source for a repeal of X to negate our saying X is a law. As far as primary/secondary, if a primary source directly shows that something has changed I dont see why we could not use that to at least source a change. nableezy - 06:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The text in Israeli permit system in the West Bank#Dimensions describes 101 right next to stuff from 2004. 101 wasn't in force in 2004 - and it is misleading to refer to two completely separate eras (direct military rule vs. Oslo arrangements) in one paragraph. As for checkpoints (as well as various ordinances) - they aren't law. The military commander can set up checkpoints, and he can dismantle checkpoints - as an ad-hoc operational decision within his own remit. If you have a source saying checkpoints were such and such that was written at some date - all you can assume is that it was correct for that date. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, did not see that part. Ill try to get some better sourcing on that order specifically and work that out. Checkpoint locations or number may not be law, but military orders in the West Bank are. nableezy - 06:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

All the above assertions are flying in the face of the facts. This, for example, is extraordinary:

(A)most Palestinians living in the West Bank are free to move without any interaction with any Israeli solider in their day to day life, and it should be mention that only if they want to enter Israel is a permit required

Please familiarize yourself with Israeli newspapers at least, if you wish to ignore the detailed scholarly documentation on this and its sister page.

(B)I daresay you won't find a reasonable source from the past two decades referring to it in present tense - this was cancelled or effectively cancelled as part of Oslo (1993-1996).

No. Sheer bluffery. Military Order 101 was amended 4 times under later military orders, but is still in force. Issa Amro's court case in 2016 was based on it (as amended) under further military orders, and authorities like B'tselem,2011, Amnesty International 2015/2017 refer to it in the present tense.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to get into your usual snippyness. One case doesn't discount anything I said. Most Palestinians live their day to day lives free from the IDF. Don't believe me? Go travel there yourself. Stop reading B'Tselem and Amnesty garbage and travel there. And is Amnesty the organization you really want to use as your source of truth? [1], [2], [3] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been there. If you refuse to read books and scholarly articles, esp. from Israeli scholars, writers and reporters,and prefer personal memories of a few tourist jaunts, then you shouldn't be editing here, per WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Here comes the typical Nishidani bullying, telling me where I can and where I can't edit. Guess what, just because an Israeli writer says something, doesn't make it true. Just like most democracies, Israel has diverse viewpoints, something you won't often find on Arab media. You want this propaganda article to be your pride and joy, that's wonderful, but if you want it to be fair and balanced, then you need it to be accurate. It's your call. Right now it reads like it can be an annex to the International Jew. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol "B'Tselem and Amnesty garbage" and then cites NGO Monitor. nableezy - 14:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you find antisemitism so amusing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed this, and you being currently topic-banned means you cant answer, but what in the actual fuck is that supposed to be in reference to? If I had noticed this before I would have reported it at the time. nableezy - 20:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Nishidani's sources seem to support that 101 is still in force. Do you have anything better? nableezy - 14:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes - it seems to still be on the books (I also verified on a website with all the military commander ordinances for J&S) - same with most other ordinances passed pre-Oslo - however it has little to no effect on most Palestinians who live in areas A and B and who are not subject to direct rule by the military commander of the Judea and Samaria Area and to whom Palestinian law generally applies - it seems to currently mainly apply to protests without a permit in Area C. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Israel has joint authority over B, and total authority over C, 83% of the West Bank, and if you don't have the requisite papers when controlled at 98 major checkpoints and 2,941 flying checkpoints - through which according to SJ Palestinians breeze through without stopping to note the guys in uniform unless to smile and shout Al haya lazim yistamir!- were on West Bank roads (2017), the infractions are judged according to Israel military law, and order 101 and its amendments can kick in. It is also true that, despite its agreements, Israel retains the right to invade, arrest, and treat disturbances of any kind to its operations in Area A, and in such case, Palestinian law is waived. Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The first line of "Obtaining permits" reads: Since 1991 Israel has never publicly clarified with clear consistent rules the criteria governing permits. The citation is to a book written in 2001, almost two decades ago. Is there available a more recent source for this statement? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is repeated in Berda (2017) and several other authorities and I will, and others are cordially invited to join, write a section on the system's legal and verbal opacity.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. I think it'd be prudent to cite that source rather than the one from 2001. It also sounds like you are suggesting what amounts to a criticism section, which, frankly, I don't agree with. WP:NOCRIT also advises against such sections. Such characterizations are better off being interspersed throughout the article for neutrality. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

that isnt a criticism section. Nishidani, please do. Ill be adding a bit to it as well. nableezy - 18:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The proposal was I will, and others are cordially invited to join, write a section on the system's legal and verbal opacity. "Opacity" a negative characterization, leaves little room for balance. From WP:NOCRIT, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Frankly, that could almost be applied to the entire article, and creating this section would just be another step in the direction of making this a fork for criticisms of the permit system. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes the legal and verbal opacity is a topic of the permit regime. Im sorry you dislike covering that. Your dislike however is not important. nableezy - 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I know this is difficult for you to swallow, Nableezy, but being on board with your agenda for the page is not a prerequisite to anything. "Opacity" is not a topic, it's an implicit criticism, and such sections are not recommended. This is already addressed, heavily, throughout the article. I oppose this idea. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Good thing this website does not require your consent. nableezy - 02:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, collaboration matters on WP, which is why we have WP:CONSENSUS. Check it out sometime. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Im pretty sure nothing in that says anybody needs your assent to add a section to an article. I might be wrong tho, who knows. nableezy - 12:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a social forum to chat around, about, above, behind anything. 'opacity' is a word, along with several synonyms, often used in permit system sources. When several sources comment on a perceived feature of a system, this is automatically the basis for collating the comments and writing them up. Everyone else on Wikipedia and in the real world knows this is how one writes up anything, 19920. There's an expression for this worrywart pettifogging: frénétiser l'insignifiance. Reply all you like. I for one do not feel obliged to read rubbish like the above screed any further.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think this is "chatting," we apparently have different ideas about what's considered socializing. Clearly the sources are critical of the system, but our job is not to create separate sections dedicated to such criticism. Any flaws or injustices described by the sources can be illustrated with a neutral presentation of the facts, with sections labeled appropriately. A section on "opacity" (sections labeled with value judgments are always dubious), when that's already referenced throughout the article, is redundant, unnecessary, and contravenes WP:NOCRIT which is pretty widely respected. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

. . . .Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nish, ignore this nonsense and add whatever the sources direct you to add. nableezy - 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm busy rereading the Water Margin, Nab. But will get round to that in duke horse. I am ignoring the nonsense, and will, whenever it recurs, reply with . . ., as above. :) I've seen people tossed out of seminar rooms for less disruption than this. Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk about nonsense. The "sources" don't direct one to add anything, policy and good editorial judgment does. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Criticism sections are POV and show bad judgment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, disagreement is not "disruption." The two of you together are engaging in a pattern of bullying and insulting anyone who dares to offer a different opinion, including myself, Icewhiz, and Sir Joseph, which is also known as tendentious editing. Apparently, you think that policy-based critiques of your suggestions are "nonsense." Perhaps a more likely explanation is that you can't respond substantively, so you'd rather ignore it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Israeli permit system in the West Bank → Israeli permit regime in the West Bank – This move request had previously resulted in no consensus, but additional scholarly sources continue to prefer regime over system. Repeating some of the prior sources along with some additional ones:

• Berda, Yael (2018). Living emergency : Israel's permit regime in the occupied West Bank. Stanford, California: Stanford Briefs, an imprint of Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-0282-3. OCLC 994974366. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gordon, Neve (2008). Israel's Occupation. University of California Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-520-94236-3. Retrieved 2019-03-19. Even this cursory overview suggests that the permit regime infiltrated almost every aspect of Palestinian society, creating an intricate web through which the population was managed. Indeed revealing the way the permit regime spread across the entire social terrain and the way it shaped the minutest daily practices sheds light on the vast resources and energe put into administering the occupied inhabitants, both on the level of the individual Palestinian. The permit regime functioned simultaneously as the scaffolding for many other forms of control and thus as part of the infrastructre of control, as well as a controlling apparatus in its own right. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Margalit, Alon; Hibbin, Sarah (2011). "Unlawful Presence of Protected Persons in Occupied Territory? An Analysis of Israel's Permit Regime and Expulsions from the West Bank under the Law of Occupation". 13. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law: 245–282. doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_7. ISSN 1389-1359. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "The economic effects of restricted access to land in the West Bank" (PDF). World Bank. 2008. p. 5. Furthermore, combined with checkpoints and a permit regime imposed on access of Palestinians from other areas to the Jordan Valley, Israel is enforcing a de facto Eastern Separation Zone without walls or fences along the Jordan Valley and the shores of the Dead Sea. This zone includes 43 Israeli settlements and 42 Palestinian localities.
• Tawil-Souri, Helga (2011). "Colored Identity". Social Text. 29 (2). Duke University Press: 78. doi:10.1215/01642472-1259488. ISSN 0164-2472. Not long after the 1967 occupation, Israel ordered implementation of a collective permit to enter Israel, mandatory for all Palestinians, which metamorphosed into the current individual permit regime after the first intifada.
• Parizot, Cédric (2018-01-01). "Viscous Spatialities: The Spaces of the Israeli Permit Regime of Access and Movement". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1). Duke University Press: 21–42. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282028. ISSN 0038-2876.
• Orna Ben-Naftali; Michael Sfard; Hedi Viterbo (10 May 2018). The ABC of the OPT: A Legal Lexicon of the Israeli Control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Cambridge University Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-107-15652-4. In order to prevent their entry into Israel, a legal fence had to be erected. The latter, made up of military declarations and orders coupled with a bureaucratic permit system, was tasked with doing what the physical fence is not smart enough to do: selection. To use the fence as a filter, the military had to cast a complicated legal net around it, impenetrable to Palestinians and open to everyone else. The legal fence is known as the "permit regime" ... The permit regime is thus clearly a legal regime of separation and discrimination based on nationality/ethnicity.

News sources use both, sometimes in the same article, examples:

• Associated Press
• BBC
• Haaretz
• Washington Post
• Guardian

The exclusive scholar results system excluding regime: ~600, regime excluding system: 389 do show a somewhat greater usage of system, but that includes a large number of sources that merely remark on the regime. The sources that have this as its subject invariably use regime. Finally, regime better encompasses the scope, as the permit regime goes much beyond what most people would be familiar with in terms of required government permits into an overarching legal regime that governs much of daily life in the West Bank. Nableezy 23:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support The AP article, as well as referring to it as a regime, is a good explanation of why this should be seen as a mechanism of control rather than some petty bureaucracy.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This would have been the default term had it not been for the pertinacious obstruction of two editors, since banned for their abusive behavior. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per sources listed above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

Footnote N° 51 following the text "as the father of a victim of the conflict, he was again deemed a security risk" should be "Hass 2021" instead of "AHass 2021". It's a typo that prevents the template:citation (I guess) from working. Gitz6666 (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Israeli permit regime in the West Bank → Israeli permit regime in the Palestinian territories – No expert in the area, but it looks like this permit regime also applies to Gaza: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment I have altered the lead in anticipation of this move; if the consensus is to keep it as is, then it would probably be best to revert to the previous version. --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Note: this has already been reverted. If the consensus is to merge and expand scope, content at Draft:Israeli permit regime in the Gaza Strip should redirect here as well as Israeli permit regime in the Gaza Strip. --GnocchiFan (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - its a different topic, and I oppose the change in scope. The West Bank permit regime is its own topic and treated as a discrete topic in reliable sources, the permit regime in Gaza never approached the complexity of this and beyond that is mostly defunct. nableezy - 20:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I have now created a separate article for Gaza (Israeli permit regime in the Gaza Strip). If the consensus is to change the scope of this article, content there should be merged here. Thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Gaza is a completely different reality. Israel's permit system in the WB is meticulously invasive of everyday lives- The only recent change I know of was to allow up to 15,000 Gazans to enter Israel as labourers on a daily basis. Otherwise getting any kind of permit to move out of Gaza was like drawing blood from a stone. The permit system, as with the 9 Fulbright scholarship winners, is more notable for not allowing permits than otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy. The change of name would essentially change the scope of the article, and it may well be better to cover the two topics separately due to the very different natures of the permit regimes as well as the differences in dates when they were in effect. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.