Talk:Israeli permit regime in the West Bank/Archive 1

residency permits and deportations
Nish I think the story of Berlanty Azzam might be used in some way here. See (can provide a pdf if you wish)  nableezy  - 00:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, send that on if you still have my email. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

name
I think Israeli permit regime is better, its what Ive seen most often in the sources describing it as a whole. Thoughts on renaming? And thank you Nishidani for getting this started.  nableezy  - 17:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection, and no hurry.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Regime" carries connotations of authoritarianism, and the name of an article should not be to imply or express an opinion. "Israeli permit system" should be the name of this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but it is the 'system' employed by an occupying power over an occupied people, over which the latter, as subjects of military rule, have zero input. Israel is a democracy, not a regime. The governing authority of much of the West Bank does not rule by democratic principles, but according to perceived military interests, and, being unrevocable by those ruled, is a 'regime', which is, in usage, (a)an authoritarian ruling authority's 'ordered way of doing things,' which one could slightly quibble over in so far as the permit 'system' is arbitrary and notoriously not 'systematic'. One could say 'regimen' as an alternative, of course.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is certainly your opinion, but Wikipedia policy on loaded terms is clear: they should be avoided. Whether the permit system constitutes an authoritarian-like "regime" may be the subject of interesting scholarly debate, but here we should strive for neutrality in presenting the issue. All of the sources calling it a "regime" are highly opinionated, but more neutral ones like AP refer to it more consistently as a "system." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is naïve. Wiki policy is always subject to interpretation, and you hav e also given your opinion. What do you mean by 'loaded term'. All terms are loaded, even democracy (there are democracies that are not 'democracies' in our western sense of that term. The alternative title you suggest is ambiguous, since 'Israeli permit system' could equally refer to permits (to ride a motorbike, drive a car, whatevcer) issued within Israel by Israeli authorities. That is not a 'regime', whereas a permit regime issued by Israeli military authorities outside Israel for non-Israelis is adequately and neutrally covered, without ambiguity, by the term Nableezy proposed, which has excellent RS authority.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to debate with you the merits of the system, which may very well be problematic. I'm telling you that "regime" is a loaded term that carries a negative connotation, and to use this term in the article's title is inherently pushing a point of view about it. There is clearly a subset of highly opinionated sources pieces that characterize the permit system as a "regime," but the most reliable sources, including AP and WaPo, call it a system, even while criticizing it. This is classic WP:NPOV: if something is bad, it shouldn't be referred to as "bad" in Wikipedia's voice (don't state opinions as facts) but with a reliable source describing it as such. This title is clearly not in compliance with this fundamental WP rule. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You sidestepped my point about ambiguity. Your suggestion opens up the way to mislead readers, who at a glance might well think that is the article to get the drum on what permits are required to get one's home legally built inside Israel. From your remarks it would appear that of the several meanings of the term 'regime' in English, you have only in mind one, i.e. 'regime' can only bear a negative connotation. In answering my point about ambiguity, I would also appreciate it if you explain to me why  any modern state's 'system' of taxation is customarily referred to as a 'tax regime'. You are, in effect. (in)effectively challenging English usage, for your monosemiological take on this word would mean that calling a system of taxation a 'regime' is 'loaded', when it is normal.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ambiguous here - in regular usage for American English, regime almost always is used pejoratively. In certain very specific contexts, like "tax regime," it has a different meaning as a modification of regimen, but this does not reflect how the term is typically applied. And it also has nothing to do with location or borders - "Israeli Permit System" no less implies that it is limited to Israeli domestic policy than does "Israeli Permit Regime." You clearly understand that "regime" has a negative connotation here, as you indicated in your previous argument when you defended the description of the system as "authoritarian." This is not the place for you to push or defend a particular point of view; WP:NPOV takes an extreme example and states that even genocide should not be described as evil in Wiki voice, it should be described as evil by a reliable source. The same logic applies here, and you'll note that the two sources I linked above were both sharply critical but still referred to it as a "system." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There is clearly a subset of highly opinionated sources pieces that characterize the permit system as a "regime,". Uh what? The sources that actually deal with this almost all talk about a permit regime when talking about the overarching system of control. Here Living Emergency: Israel's Permit Regime in the Occupied West Bank. Neve Gordon's Israel's Occupation repeatedly refers to it as the permit regime. OCHA oPT: Permit Regime. World Bank, repeatedly refers to a regime.  clearly not in compliance with this fundamental WP rule? Oh okay, I guess that settles it, Wikieditor19920 is the arbiter of what is NPOV. This is the common name used in reliable sources for the topic. That is what Wikipedia policy says decides an article title. The incredibly imaginative "Regime" carries connotations of authoritarianism (regarding a method of control as part of a military occupation at that) does not change that, sorry to say.  nableezy  - 16:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, thank you for ''but more neutral ones like AP refer to it more consistently as a "system." '' Because if you really think AP is more neutral then perhaps you should actually read the article. Where it says, in your source, As a sign of how central the system is to everyone’s lives, the Arabic Facebook page of the head of COGAT, Gen. Yoav Mordechai, has more than 410,000 followers, most likely almost all of them Palestinians, watching for any announcements concerning the permit regime. Or in other AP articles: But with the outbreak of Palestinian unrest in the late 1980s, Israel began imposing security closures and a permit regime. Or another one: Some warn that the situation in Jerusalem is becoming increasingly unsustainable, particularly for tens of thousands of Palestinians whose daily lives are disrupted by the barrier and by Israel's permit regime, which bars most Palestinians in the West Bank from entering the city.  nableezy  - 16:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Poor name. Should be COGAT permit system or some such. Regime is POV pushing. Israeli is too wide in scope. Israel has many permit systems - you need a permit to put chairs and tables outside of a cafe. You need a permit to export various types of goods. There are dozens of different permit systems inside pre-1967 Israel (in the 80s, during the hyper inflation crisis, one needed a permit to hold dollars or a foreign bank account).Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME trumps proof by assertion. That said, I am not opposed to Israeli permit regime in the occupied Palestinian territories.  nableezy  - 19:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'Israeli West Bank permit regime,' since Gaza has a different authority issuing most permits.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As for "proof by assertion" - you want this article stuffed with cafe chair permits, Fire brigade permits, export permits, and umm - really dozens of different permit systems in Israel (I can source 100-200 different permit systems - copious sourcing available for all them)? If the title is wide - you open up the scope.... As for "in" - I think it is COGAT or Israeli Civil Administration in both cases. If you limit the article to the West Bank - then West Bank works as well. OpT can work as well. Israeli Civil Administration permit system might be simplest. Depends on scope. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I really dont understand how that is supposed to answer regime vs system. Which is what my comment is about. Im fine with limiting the scope in geography in the title.  nableezy  - 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Israeli Civil Administration is itself an egregious euphemism, like settlement| for what is just colonial carpet-baggng. But I, like most editors here, don't fuss about it, as opposed to wryly shaking my head every time I see it used as a term to camouflage what is a military bureaucracy intent on making life as difficult as possible for the occupied people they rule over. It's like calling larceny something like altruistic lifestyle downsizing. You missed the point I made earlier. 'Regime' is not a word one would use of any society's internal rules for doing things, save for taxation, which is 'vexatious'. Ther permit regime described here is notoriously 'vexatious' as a huge body of material not written by the usual suspects underlines. It is appropriate for a regimen of rules imposed by an authoritarian military body on an occupied people, and its use here excludes Israel implicitly.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with Israeli West Bank permit regime. But the idea that regime shouldnt be used needs to be substantiated by more than an unsourced feeling. Reliable sources, when discussing the overarching system, call it the permit regime. Icewhiz, do you honestly believe that not to be the case?  nableezy  - 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Civil Administration" (or the American "Civil Affairs") is by definition military. As for system - a simple google-news search shows this to be more popular. Including sources such as Mondoweiss - "Al Haq’s director Shawan Jabarin discusses a new report exposing the complex system of restrictions Israeli authorities impose to control access to Palestinian territory and to stop family reunification.". You aren't going to accuse Mondoweiss of being pro-occupation, are you? I'm not surprised sources use system (often with "arcane", "elaborate", etc.) - as regime is technically inaccurate - the permits are not a form of government or rule - but rather an aspect of such government (or regime). Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If Mondoweiss above isn't explicit enough on permits - "With over 400 checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank, a discriminatory system for the military issuance of mobility permits". Or Amira Hess on Haaretz (writing on permits) - " On the contrary. A follow-up on the bureaucracy behind the exit permit refusals shows an important aspect of Israeli society, whose best officers and legal officials have developed a system of denials that ignores basic human and family needs." - again hardly a pro-occupation source, to say the least. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, is Mondoweiss now a reliable source? A simple google news search? Have you read any of the results. Ive given specific examples of reliable sources that call the overarching policy the permit regime. And some of them use it as a proper noun. Ive seen a description of a system in your quotes, nothing however that indicates the name used for the system is anything other than the permit regime.  nableezy  - 22:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh - I've never implied Mondoweiss was a reliable source, however for determining common vernacular less than adequate sources may be assessed as well. Icewhiz (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google scholar - "west bank"+"permit system" - 678 results vs. 297 results for "permit regime". Yeah - sure - there are some POINTy sources that use the less accurate and POVish regime - however the common name is system. Icewhiz (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "POINTy sources that use the less accurate and POVish", like I really dont even understand what that means. WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Like if I were to create an article about every Palestinian victim of Israeli violence in response to the creation of a series of non-notable articles on Israeli victims, that could rightfully be called POINTy. A book published by Stanford University Press however is called a reliable source. How is it less accurate? How is it POV? Have you read any of the results from google scholar? Are they talking about the overarching regime, or a system of permits within that regime, for example the exit permit system, or the work permit system? Or are they discussing the entire structure of the method of control, which the sources I have presented are discussing and call the permit regime. You have to actually read the sources. For example: Unless you actually read the sources your WP:GHITS dont actually mean anything.  nableezy  - 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And can somebody actually demonstrate, not assert, how 'regime' is POV? The nonsense up above about how regime only is used for authoritarian governments is kind of out there. A legal regime is not exactly an authoritarian topic. Can somebody explain this using something other than their feelings as the basis?  nableezy  - 00:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regime has a negative connotation per source - and in this case "system" is more common by a factor over two clearly being the COMMONNAME.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the source, which also does not illustrate this with regard to the West Bank. To the contrary, it is defining a phrase (regime change), not the word 'regime'. And secondly it is the former that has a negative connotation, nor the latter. It further defining 'regime change (as) the replacement of one administration or government by another, especially by means of military force' it perfectly describes what happened when the Jordanian regime was replaced by the Israel in 1967. Israel effected regime change by supplanting the Jordanian civil administration with an Israeli military regime, which persists to this day.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, possibly when describing a government the use of regime can have negative connotations per your source. That is not what this is about. This is about a legal regime, which is a standard and neutral term. And again, system is not the common name. Did you read any of the sources in your google search result? Are they talking about a specific system within the regime? Or are they describing the overarching method of control, which the sources that use "permit regime" are and what this article is about?  nableezy  - 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again - system is clearly the COMMONNAME, used by the vast majority of sources. The results for "permit system" in scholar are as on-topic to this article as the far fewer "permit regime". Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, that is not true. You havent even read any of the sources. You know full well your name is challenged, if you want to move it from regime open a requested move.  nableezy  - 14:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I have read several of the sources. Most of the sources use "system" - this is clear in even a cursory BEFORE in google scholar. That you cherry-picked a small minority of sources with "regime", carries little weight in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not cherry picked a thing. Ive shown that sources dealing with the overarching method of control use regime. You used a google book search on regime "negative connotation", and without even reading the source brought it here to try to prove that regime has a negative connotation, neglecting the fact that it was talking about calling an actual government a "regime" and had nothing to do with this topic. Much like the rest of your google search results, you need to actually examine the sources.  nableezy  - 15:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To assert that "regime" does not have a negative connotation, particularly in this context, is to ignore the widely accepted meaning of this word in usual political discourse. The sources that are applying the term are clearly doing so to express criticism. On "regime" having a negative connotation, this source provides a compelling interpretation. Note that this is a selected paper from a senior at Concordia University in Canada that was edited by a professor. It does make reference to numerous reliable sources and explains usage of the term as such: The word was adapted from the French, whose usage of the word is strongly connected to the 1789 French Revolution and the overthrow of l’ancien régime (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2013). Modern usage of this term has a distinct negative connotation, and it is used outside of anthropology to refer to governments or administrations in order to mark them as “non-democratic”. We also have Encyclopedia Britannica, which acknowledges the intrinsic criticism in the word's regular usage: The article name "Israeli Permit Regime" is also not used unanimously by reliable sources, which makes WP:COMMONNAME a stretch. Some of the most reliable sources like WaPo and AP refer to it as a system (while criticizing it), and some academic papers and reports pointedly call it a "regime." Between these two, "system" is the superior choice according to WP:POVNAMING: The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. Under these guidelines, the article name should refer to it as a "system," an objectively neutral term that is loyal to the sources, with the first line within the article mentioning that it is sometimes referred to as a "regime." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to move the title you need to open a requested move. You know the move is disputed, your move violated WP:RMUM. If you do not self-revert I will seek administrative redress. You are also making things up. AP calls it a regime. And, by the way, academia is preferred to news sources per WP:RS. And by the way, your compelling reason has nothing to do with this. It is not calling a government a regime. That is what your source says has negative connotations. This is a legal regime. That is a standard term. Your unfamiliarity with it does not make it disparaging.  nableezy  - 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Israeli permit system in the West Bank → Israeli permit regime in the West Bank – This is the term used in scholarly works that deal with the entirety of the topic. Above, users have made a number of spurious arguments about regime. One of them is that it is non-neutral, based off sources that say calling a government a regime is disparaging. Yes, that is true, however we are not calling a government a regime, we are calling a legal regime a legal regime. The reason this should be moved is that is what the sources call it. Examples, and this is by no means a comprehensive list:

Even the sources that other editors claim are "more neutral" above, such as the AP, and that use "permit system" in fact use "permit regime". This AP source was provided as evidence that "permit system" should be preferred. However it actually repeatedly refers to a "permit regime" (quotes are As a sign of how central the system is to everyone’s lives, the Arabic Facebook page of the head of COGAT, Gen. Yoav Mordechai, has more than 410,000 followers, most likely almost all of them Palestinians, watching for any announcements concerning the permit regime. and Critics say that turned a defensive measure into a land grab. It also created a complex subset of the permit regime.) Other news sources likewise use "permit regime" when discussing the overarching method of control.
 * BBC: The Israeli authorities say they are implementing a security regime under which Palestinians must apply for permits to leave the occupied territories into "Israel proper". ... Ten Israeli coach drivers were also arrested and face charges for breaching the permit regime.
 * Haaretz: Human rights organizations have challenged the permit regime on various grounds. ... The checkpoint-monitoring organization Machsom Watch claims that the Shin Bet security service uses the permit regime to recruit informers.
 * AP: In the beginning, there were no barriers. But with the outbreak of Palestinian unrest in the late 1980s, Israel began imposing security closures and a permit regime.

The author of the book above published by Stanford University Press titled Living Emergency: Israel's Permit Regime in the Occupied West Bank wrote, on the SU Press blog, the following:"The term “permit regime” refers to a bureaucratic apparatus of the occupation modeled around that which developed in the West Bank between the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 through the early 2000s, when the separation barrier made West Bank residents increasingly dependent on permits from the Israeli army’s Civil Administration for movement within the West Bank, as well as for permission to enter Israel."

The sources that are focused on this subject use "permit regime". A blind google search result does not, in any way, negate that fact. The argument that regime is non-neutral is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. This is not a case of calling a government a regime because one disagrees with that government. This is a set of laws and military orders that govern a set of people. More commonly known as a legal regime. Nableezy 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Regime is POVish, and more importantly not the WP:COMMONNAME. Per Google scholar - "west bank"+"permit system" - 678 results vs. 297 results for "West Bank"+"permit regime". Yeah - sure - as the long wall of text above demostrates the are some sources that use the POVish "regime". However more than twice as many academic sources use "system" - clearly the COMMONNAME.Icewhiz (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google results are totally irrelevant because there are a lot of results from unreliable sources, the argument should be about what most reliable sources say not Google search results--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google scholar (not normal google). And we commonly use ngram, scholar, gbooks, or gnews to make these determinations. There are hundreds of published acadmic works on the permit systems - you can't list them all. I can throw here a wall of text twice as long as above with twice as many sources - it will prove nothing - as there are too many sources here to list.Icewhiz (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And if one actually looks at your scholar listing, theyll see articles like this one. Where there is actually one mention of a permit system, where it says Before the checkpoint and permit system was imposed, people travelling from Bethlehem to Ramallah would go through Jerusalem via Road 60, a well-maintained highway (see Figure 1). The sources that are focused on the topic, that provide in depth research of it, call it the permit regime. A stray mention in a source that is not focused on it does not negate that. Which is why WP:GHITS is not and has never been a valid argument.  nableezy  - 21:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Off topic - GHITS is from a deletion essay. For COMMONNAME we routinely use scholar/book/news hits (as well as in some cases plain google). Source depth is also irrelevant for common name (are we confised here with AfD?).WP:COMMKNNAME - policy - explicitely states search engines as one of the methods to determine the common name.Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, many of your sources, which you clearly have not read, will have a stray mention of "permit system". Some of them may be on entirely different topics at that. The sources that are in-depth analyses of the topic invariably refer to it as a permit regime. Hell, the books that are about the topic entirely call it a permit regime. And if you do searches on titles permit system has 157 google results, while permit regime has 231. On scholar same story, 0 results for permit system in the title, more than that for regime. If you do a search on news results youll see 362 for system but 529 for regime. Remind me again how google search results proved the common name? The sources that focus on the topic call it permit regime. Full stop. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again irrelevant AfD arguements. This is a move discussion. You are also wrong - most in depth sources use system, for instance this book. Now, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There isnt an AfD argument in my comment, sorry. Responding to a comment directed at me is not bludgeoning, sorry. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - We generally avoid language with a negative connotation but this is not the situation here and I would support the word "regime" being used. But maybe "rules" would be an alternative here? "Israeli permit rules in the West Bank"? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont think that works to be honest. There are rules and systems that are a part of the overarching regime. This article covers that overarching method of control, or as Berda calls it the "bureaucratic apparatus". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What will remain is that where sources state 'regime' and a few score will be used to document it, that language will be retained in the text. As to negative connotations, that has been discussed. If people can't get a handle on the fact that 'regime' in English per 'permit regime'/'tax regime'/'diet regime'/'study regime' etc.etc., does not refer to a political reality intrinsically, well, that's modern downdowned education's fault. People read wiki to broaden their education, not to limit it. Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I will largely copy my response on the article's talk page. To assert that "regime" does not have a negative connotation, particularly in this context, is to ignore the widely accepted meaning of this word in usual political discourse. The sources that are applying the term are clearly doing so to express criticism. On "regime" having a negative connotation, this source provides a compelling interpretation. Note that this is a selected paper from a senior at Concordia University in Canada that was edited by a professor. It does make reference to numerous reliable sources and explains usage of the term as such: The word was adapted from the French, whose usage of the word is strongly connected to the 1789 French Revolution and the overthrow of l’ancien régime (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2013). Modern usage of this term has a distinct negative connotation, and it is used outside of anthropology to refer to governments or administrations in order to mark them as “non-democratic”. We also have Encyclopedia Britannica, which acknowledges the intrinsic criticism in the word's regular usage: The article name "Israeli Permit Regime" is also not used unanimously by reliable sources, which makes WP:COMMONNAME a stretch. Some of the most reliable sources like WaPo and AP refer to it as a system (while criticizing it), and some academic papers and reports pointedly call it a "regime" in their titles but actually use "system" and "regime" interchangeably if you actually delve into the reports themselves. Between these two, "system" is the superior choice according to WP:POVNAMING: The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. Under these guidelines, the article name should refer to it as a "system," an objectively neutral term that is loyal to the sources, with the first line within the article mentioning that it is sometimes referred to as a "regime." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your own AP source calls it the permit regime. Your source about regime being "disparaging" is about regime being applied to a government. That is not what this is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not "my" source—and it uses both regime and system, in some cases interchangeably (but more frequently the latter). The other sources you cited pointedly use "regime" in the title, likely because it's provocative, but then proceed to use system and regime in its actual contents. And regime generally covers any system of control, and it is almost always a pejorative in this manner, including here. The sources using both terms clearly shows that "regime" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and in this case the better option is to default to the more objective phrasing and note that it has also been referred to as a "regime" in the first line of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)Technnically when you write:
 * "The other sources you cited pointedly use 'regime' in the title, likely because it's provocative, but then proceed to use system and regime in its actual contents"
 * One thing is evident. This is deceptive prevarication: you haven't examined, or are not familiar with them, but feign to have done so.
 * To take just the first source cited by Nableezy, which has established itself as the standard technical source on the permit 'system', namely Yael Berda's Living emergency : Israel's permit regime in the occupied West Bank, Stanford University Press 2018, the facts are exactly the opposite to your assertion above.
 * Berda uses 'permit system 4 times (pp.40,101,118,170)
 * and employs 'permit regime' 66 times (excluding the title page, and publishing details).
 * Pretending to have checked without doing so, and making contrafactual claims is frowned on in Wikipedia, and can lead to a report.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (b)Your quotation re regime defines the 'political' sense of the word, as used by Marxist or structuralists in anthropology. You ignore my point that one can speak of a diet regime, a study regime, a fiscal regime, without engaging in politics. As noted, to define a word that has several uses only in its political sense, in order to challenge the validity of its use in non-political contexts, is extremely clumsy. It's embarrassing to have to remind editors that challenging one's use of 'dictate' as in 'the native informant dictated his story to the community' as POV-pushing because dictate can mean 'bully' 'issue orders' would be the height of folly. Any native speaker knows, or should know, this. Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Support permit regime. It is the standard scholarly term, as noted above, and opposition to its use is based on unfamiliarity with the sources (see above for an egregious example) and elementary confusion over the several distinct uses of the term. A 'permit regime', like 'diet regime', 'fitness regime', 'study regime', 'training regime', 'fiscal regime', 'meditation regime''medication regime', 'travel regime', 'care regime', 'nursing regime', 'running regime', 'maintenance regime', 'operating regime' etc.etc.etc. It is sheer linguistic prevarication to assert that in all of these instances we are dealing with the political sense of regime. There is no argument here. We are dealing with known linguistic facts.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will note that the erudite original author of this article named it Israeli permit system after, surely as is his practice, a through and complete examination of every relevant source as well as taking into consideration relevant NPOV policy. Thus, it is somewhat surprising that said author is now claiming other editors who support "system" are engaging in a prevarication, are "clumsy", or haven't studied the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually in the original version at Occupation of the West Bank I simply titled it 'Permits'. That section was written in a few hours. Now that it is hived off, and subject to expansion, certainly 'a through and complete examination of every relevant source' means just that, and tweaking or expanding the text according to what those sources say. So far, they favour 'permit regime', not only as Nableezy's sources say, and this will be more evident as time allows for thicker coverage. What I would like objectors to answer is my point about English usage, which contradicts with evidence everything asserted by those who question this usage.  'Permnit regime' differs in no way, linguisticially, from all other uses of 'noun+regime': they are politically neutral. If one can't answer that, then there is no case for objecting to it.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The negative connotation is well documented, it has nothing to do with technical meaning of the word. Being a loan-word from French (and first widely applied for Reign of Terror in revolutionary France), it has acquired, as other loan-words, a negative connotation.... This is where (partially) Pardon my French comes from. Don't be coy Nishidani - you are a master wordsmith, certainly you are well apprised of the tone of "regime" and other words in English. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * False evidence again. This book p.156 refers to the political meaning of regime. You've been told that regime has several meanings in English, all amply illustrated of which the political sense is one, a class which that book does not deal with but that in 'permit regime', regime refers to 'a system or ordered way of doing things', not to an authoritarian mode of government. Please desist from manipulating English usage. It is precisely because I have a certain obsessive care for being linguistically tidy in hewing to the semantics and syntax that I support 'permit regime'. To spin it as belonging to a different semantic class than 'fitness regime', 'study regime',  'training regime', 'fiscal regime',  'meditation regime'    'medication regime',  'travel regime',   'care regime',   'nursing regime',  'running regime',   'maintenance regime',  'operating regime', 'lecturing regime,' 'deadline regime,', passport regime  visas regime, certification regime, transit regime, 'exchange rate regime', 'trading regime', 'flight regime', 'extraction regime', 'sales regime', 'scheduling regime', 'inheritance regime',  etc. etc.etc., is, in linguistic analysis, flawed. As all of these examples show, noun+regime (as opposed to adjective+regime, as in authoritarian regime/democratic regime/totalitarian regime/fascist regime/Nazi regime/ etc.) in English is a distinct class of its own, and one that is politically neutral, in referring to the rules governing the application or execution of whatever the noun in the case refers to. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that meaning depends on context and that "Israeli permit regime" insinuates something entirely different from "fitness regime?" And by the way, my point above was completely accurate - the sources cited indeed use both "regime" and "system," and that's more than enough to dispel the notion that WP:COMMONNAME would justify the use of "regime" in the article title. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Apropos understanding something, you haven't done your homework. If you followed my links (i.e. evidence) you would see in the numerous sources that 'noun+regime' is itself preceeded by a denominator of the country concerned as in 'EU'/'United States'/'Canada' etc. Anyone reading in numerous books 'European trading regime' or the 'Austrian and U.S. visa regimes' won't, if they are familiar with English usage, jump to the conclusion we are dealing with an authoritarian trading dictatorship, or Austrian and American political regimes. Attempts to consistently rephrase everything concerning Israel to make out it is invariably a special/exceptional case, though everything that happens there has happened or happens elsewhere are POV-pushing. The commoname hypothesis is again flagwaving, for you would have to show that it is the common 'universal' name across countries. It may be the common name in Israeli government publications, for example (that would have to be weeded out), but like Judea and Samaria for the West Bank, national usage does not trump the standard usage in scholarly works, as indeed in the latter regard a specific arbcom-derived decision  determined. Nishidani (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on google search results "Israeli permit system" vs "Israeli permit regime" 3320 vs 1160 even searching google books its 198 v2s 182 SCAH (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

shin bet coercion
Nish, I think we need a section on Shin Bet's involvement in the disbursement of permits and the blackmail to collaborate. Sources I have on this are Berda Living Emergency (pp. 60-65) and Gordan's Israel's Occupation (pp 39, 42, 161). Ill go through the journals I have saved off, but any other sources on this just dump here and if you dont get to it I will. Also think we need something on how they were used to both keep Palestinians as unskilled laborers and stopped them from developing an economy of their own. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of dozen potential headings to sort out the vast quantity of material on this. I suggest on makes a section for each facet of the permit regime, and then provide a subsection with an exemplary instance of the practice, as my last edits did. It is a pity that sources don't allow one to note any other comparison other than apartheid. I mean, for example, the permit conditions for the Mixtec Indians, if they are not as many are, illegals, who do the hardscrabble labour of fruit picking in the San Joaquin Valley are perhaps even worse. The local police are used by the state to blackmail them there as well, into living under intolerable working conditions, to keep wages low. Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a WP:FORUM to comment on the IPC and the Israeli govt. If the sources don't support an alleged analogy, I don't know why you're bringing it up here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * who are you trying to impress here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No one. If you want to sit and commiserate with other editors about how terrible Israel is, do it off Wiki. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

also known as
you have violated the 1RR. And beyond that, you are making things up. And doing so for reasons that entirely escape me. Kindly self-revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And in case there is any wikilawyering, 1st revert 2nd revert, both reverting this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that you are actively editing. Do you plan on rectifying your 1RR violation? Or even attempting to explain the completely nonsensical edit summary for your tendentious edit? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that the 1RR applies, though the page should have an editing notice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please notice the head of this page. Thank you for selfreverting.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the 1RR notice that should appear when an editor clicks "edit." I think that would eliminate any further possibility for confusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And to the point, it is very obviously also known as the permit regime. A ton of sources have already been provided demonstrating that. That nonsense about "sometimes referred to as" is in fact nonsense. It is often directly called the permit regime. And a no consensus to overturn the move-warring is emphatically not a consensus saying that permit regime is not the common name, and even if it were that makes not one whit of difference in saying it is also known as. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed this, as we already concluded in the RM that this is non-neutral language. Furthermore, it is factually incorrect to call this the "Israeli permit regime", as Israeli permit systems/regimes/schemes are in place outside of the West Bank as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an unequivocal falsehood. Please do not make such deceitful arguments. It is also not factually incorrect, as the cited sources explicitly call it the regime. And when you dishonestly modify what is attributed to a living person you are both being dishonest about the source and a living person, also known as violating BLP. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And regarding the laughable claim it is "non-neutral" language, WP:NPOV requires that "permit regime" be included. Per WP:NPOV articles must include all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I have demonstrated that reliable sources call the topic of this article the "permit regime". That means it is required to be included. Please do not continue to make tendentious edits. As a reminder, this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - please strike the personal attacks above. Your assertion regarding a paraphrased description is incorrect - I did not modify a direct quote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont think I wrote that you modified a direct quote. You did however replace what a source says and what is attributed to him with something he did not say. Noting that is not a personal attack. Please do not continue to substitute your POV in place of what reliable sources report. Where the source says the permit regime our article does to. Where it says system then ours will to. But pretending that your completely bogus argument on POV makes it so what reliable sources say cannot be used here is tendentious and disruptive. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As system and the lesser used regime or regimen are alternative terms for the same thing - when paraphrasing (as opposed to a direct quote) - they may be replaced as synonymous. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If they are synonymous then one is no more POV than the other. You really should try to develop a consistent argument instead of bouncing around to ones that conflict, it would demonstrate intellectual integrity. Either way, when the cited source says regime so too will we. Given that they are synonymous apparently. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we shall follow the consensus established in the recent RM for language in this article. They are synonymous - with a different POV spin.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how lying is becoming an acceptable tactic in Wikipedia discussions. The move request, following your move warring, ended in No consensus. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of lesser use. To the contrary:-
 * "Israeli permit regime" 208 results
 * "Israeli permit system" 204 results
 * There is very strong evidence that in the academic literature 'permit regime' which is the correct technical phrase written by people who actually understand that in English usage, is the preferred term. 'Regime' in such contexts does not mean a political entity. This is also a question of linguistic competence, as I have documented thoroughly, with zero responses indicating any flaw in the linguistic evidence.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no argument here. The Israeli permit regime and Israeli permit system are both widely attested. As Nableezy argued, WP:NPOV requires both to be nominated. Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The source cited in this revert - Haaretz - is using "permit regimen", and not "Israeli permit regime". Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Im sure you are aware there are other sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And oh by the way, that Haaretz source also calls it the permit regime. Again, being dishonest about things that anybody can click and look at themselves does not seem to be the best argument to make. The Haaretz source says"Human rights organizations have challenged the permit regime on various grounds."It also says"The checkpoint-monitoring organization Machsom Watch claims that the Shin Bet security service uses the permit regime to recruit informers."The only place it says regimen is in the subtitle. Something you have previously said article titles are not appropriate sources - they are edited for sensation. Match article text. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Paragraph2 has "Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy." - so not just the subtitle. This is in the quotation in the citation. You are correct that in relating to Machsom Watch's stmts Haaretz does use regime further down in the piece - but that is not what we are quoting.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are right, that was hidden by the ad banner in my search. So once in the article text it says regimen. Twice it says regime. Either way, it supports regime. As do the other sources in this article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS and other tendentious editing
Icewhiz, please read WP:BLOGS. Please read where it says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Please read what Stanford University Press is. WP:TE specifies that tendentious editing is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. You are violating that in spades. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting a particular viewpoint - twice to boot (Berda already appearing in the previous sentence which I left in place - though it is questionable as well) - in the lede is UNDUE. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body - not a place to interject random quotes. An expert writing in a blog may be considered reliable - and also may not. Given that we have no lack of published material here (including by Berda) - using an unpublished blog is not necessary.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a particular viewpoint quoted twice. That was not a random quote, it is a definition of the topic. UNDUE means that it promotes a viewpoint that other reliable sources dispute. What reliable source disputes any part of Berda's definition. Why exactly are you pretending that sources do not call this topic the permit regime? Why do you insist on continued tendentious edits and dishonest arguments? Whatever, I have some evidence to compile. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA please. As WP:BLOGS points out, while one may use self-published work by experts - the next sentence (which you omitted) - is "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.". There's no particular reason to quote Berda at all (a fairly young scholar - h-index of 5 ). Quoting her in the lede, and from a blog? Really not needed. Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, Berda's age is now disqualifying. Ill add that to the hall of fame of dishonest arguments. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Berda is not a widely cited scholar. Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, her book has just been cited by 16 papers in a shade over a year. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz. Stop inventing ideas for challenging perfectly legitimate sources. You're an experienced editor, and should know better. Berda has published with Stanford a major source for the topic, and the SUP 'blog' serves to notify the scholarly community in synthesis of what her overview of the topic of which she is an expert is. 'The SUP blog showcases new books and Press news in addition to serving as a forum for our authors—past and present—to expound on issues related to their scholarship.'Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You may or may not be correct about this particular source being legitimate; I have yet to look into it. Based on a cursory search, Ms. Yael Berda does not unequivocally appear to be an established expert—she seems more like a burgeoning scholar in the field, so it's wise to exercise caution. As for your suggestion that is engaged in WP:TE, I almost had to re-read that again to ensure that I wasn't seeing things. Your entire body of edits on talk pages largely consist of pointed, unnecessary accusations of bias against other editors and open hostility towards those you disagree with, in addition to inappropriate forum-like commentary. This is evident even here. Your user talk page includes a userbox that openly advocates "violence." You have no credibility to make such an accusation, particular in ARBPIA, against anyone, and doing so indicates a remarkable lack of self-awareness and inability to work with editors you disagree with. You'd do well to retract those comments and apologize to Icewhiz. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yael Berda is the author of several pieces specifically about the permit regime that have been cited in numerous works. The most basic of searches would reveal that (see how many papers and books on the permit regime she has had published by top quality publishers and how often they are cited). The idea that you, whose entire contribution to this article, after hounding me to it, revolves around one word, can say the entire body of edits on talk pages are unnecessary accusations of bias is kind of funny but not that important to me. You have literally done nothing on this article of any substance. You have added no sources, you have added no material, you have only made arguments that any person who examines them will quickly see are both false and pointless. If you have anything to say about the article feel free, your comments about me can be considered to have fallen on deaf ears. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again double standards. Nableezy should apologize for protesting tendentious editing? 'a remarkable lack of self-awareness and inability to work with editors he (you) disagree with' is an an NPA violation. No editing to the article, and a personal attack on the bona fides of those who do actually work on it. Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When people who have demonstrated that they are even a little bit interested in improving the article have something to say about me Ill listen. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say "improving the article" in that sense, it's pretty clear you mean "making changes to your liking." I see that you've also filed an incredibly flimsy and absurd report against Icewhiz in WP:AE. I'll be commenting there as well to provide some important context. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. It means actually adding content. Doing research. Analyzing sources. You know, improving the article. Do what you want lol. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I question the rigor and neutrality of your analysis and whether you're giving undue weight to certain viewpoints. Sixteen citations is absolutely nothing in her field. Anyone who's written a PhD paper can get sixteen citations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * lol, k. For a book published a year ago on a specific topic. What the policy says whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. You know what Stanford University Press is? Yeah, thats a "reliable third-party publication". Question what you like, your questioning is literally not on the list of things I care about. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Time for a reality check - the question is not if SUP is a reliable source, it's if this specific scholar's opinion deserves the weight it is accorded in the article by way of mentioning her views in the lead. SUP redounds in Berda's favor, but does not make her the determinative expert—looks like a lot of scholars on this subject have also had their works published in prestigious university presses, go figure. Her views can be included—in the body along with the rest of them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gordon
Wikieditor19920, misrepresenting sources is a serious issue on an encyclopedia. In this edit, you changed what was cited to Gordon. What he says on page 33 is"The permit regime and the networks of surveillance also deserve to be covered as part of the infrastructure of control. As with other forms of control, Israel began introducing an elaborate permit regime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before the armed conflict had ended."On page 34 (and emphasis in original)"While each permit can be analyzed on its own in order to show how it controlled a specific sphere, by noting examples of several permits from each category I hope to provide a glimpse of how the permit regime operated to shape practically every aspect of Palestinian life"He very specifically says the regime shaped every aspect of Palestinian life, not some "system". What exactly is "problematic" about including the time range of when the permits began to be required? Or do you think the word "occupation" is somehow verboten, as youve had the unfortunate habit of removing it elsewhere. Why did you add weasel words "has been characterized ... exceedingly difficult"? Why do you think you are entitled to demand that people follow sources on language and then refuse to do so here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll start out by saying I don't appreciate the title of this heading. You need to learn how to write headings that are not an attack or criticism per WP:TPG.

That's really what I have to say about it. At this point, I've not done a level of research where I'm interested in completely reworking the actual content of the article, but if every minor wording change is going to be met with this sort of confrontation, then frankly I'm not too interested in that either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * System and regime are used interchangeable by a number of the sources, and in this context, they communicate the same meaning. WP:PARAPHRASE does not mean a word-for-word regurgitation.
 * I don't have a problem with the word "occupied," but "the occupation" is not specific nor appropriate to use. This phrase should either not be used at all or be replaced by something more specific.
 * "Exceedingly difficult" synonymous with "almost impossible."
 * Otherwise, I really don't understand your issue. You also did a full revert instead of a partial revert, removing some other grammatical changes and areas where I tightened wording. I don't appreciate this either and don't think it's productive.
 * That is not true, I did a partial revert. I dont think you are in a position to tell me what I need to learn on this or pretty much any other topic. What you appreciate is not my concern, my concern is misrepresenting the cited sources, sources you apparently have not read. Gordon emphasizes the regime is what "shaped practically every aspect of Palestinian life". If the terms are equivalent there is no reason to replace one with the other. Your contention that regime is POV is just that, a contention made without basis. In other articles you demand sourcing for specific wording, yet here you are saying you can ignore the wording of the source. Why is "the occupation" not specific or appropriate to use? Its a standard term in this topic area to discuss the period from when Israel began to occupy the Palestinian territories. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "The occupation" is standard according to whom? Based on an analysis of all the articles you've edited and inserted that term into? Nonsense. We've already discussed the POV issues with "regime," so I'm not going to relitigate that with you here. If a change in wording alters the meaning of the original text or introduces some sort of bias, WP:STICKTOSOURCE prevails. I don't see how "permit system" does either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you made up some nonsense about POV without understanding that every source saying it has a negative connotation is in reference to it being used to describe a government. You claimed that "more neutral [sources]" like the AP use system, without apparently realizing that they in fact use "regime" regularly. So no, it is not POV. Gordon is specifically talking about a "regime". So too does the article then. "The occupation" is common in reliable sources. You should try reading some. Might learn a thing or two. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yael Berda does not have to be necessarily mentioned in the lead, you are correct in my opinion.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

tag?
Wikieditor19920, you need to justify the tag. What is given undue weight? What sources dispute what is in the article currently? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only is "regime" the word used by very many sources, it is the correct word according to legal jargon. Search for "legal regime". Here for example we read "The most basic definition of a legal regime is a system or framework of rules governing some physical territory or discrete realm of action that is at least in principle rooted in some sort of law." Which is exactly what this article is about. Zerotalk 02:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It is blindingly obvious that Yael Berda is an expert on the topic of this article. Neither Wikieditor19920 nor anyone else has provided a logical, let alone policy-based, reason for not including her analysis. After reading the failed attempts above to argue othrwise, it is clear that the case consists entirely of IDONTLIKEIT. The tag has not been justified, so it can be removed. Zerotalk 04:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Berda shouldn't be taking up 49% of the lede - she's one of many scholars in the field, and we should reflect a diverse set of views.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What you meant to write was "Berda shouldn't have one sentence in the lede", but that wouldn't be your style. Actually, as an expert she doesn't need to be attributed except by citation. There is nothing disputable about the content. Zerotalk 09:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 has some issues with the "mind blowingly obvious", see this discussion for example. It would require an RfC to resolve even this most trivial obvious issue. Anyway, based on the above discussions I too would agree with removal of the tag here. -- Green  C  13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh good, showing up on another obscure article to try and belittle me, again without reading the discussion or properly evaluating the facts at hand. I applied the tag because I'm unclear why we're giving Yael Berda, a PhD student, such significant weight in the article and in the lead. She may be a brilliant scholar but she does not have the deep background/credentials to be considered the prevailing authority on this subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh Berda is an assistant professor. You have literally no idea what you are talking about. And regardless, the sources are published by hello Stanford University Press. You want to challenge them go right ahead. Id enjoy the laugh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight means giving a disputed viewpoint more weight than is proportional in reliable sources. What view is disputed in this article? You are required to justify the tag. What views are in the article that are even disputed? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, Yael Berda who is an expert scholar in the field, particularly in the topic area, published in an RS, does refer to it as "permit regime" and it is an excellent source suitable for the lead. She wrote an in-depth piece and is one of the numerous scholars who described the permits in this way. Many other authors refer to it also as "permit regime" in peer-reviewed settings, many other references exist as well; some are cited already and I believe are supportable elsewhere.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, being published in SUP doesn't make her as the end all be all—Google Scholar reveals extremely limited citations. Sorry, this doesn't establish her as the undisputed expert in the field. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Undue weight means giving a disputed viewpoint more weight than is proportional in reliable sources. What view is disputed in this article? Consider actually reading the policy again. Whether or not someone is an authority affects the weight their opinion is given in the article—I don't understand why Yael Berda is the authority mentioned in the lead. Are there no other, more established scholars that should be quoted in the lead or is hers just the opinion you most agree with? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh first you made up that she is a PhD student (she is not), now you are making up what the policy says. Here is what it actually 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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."Again, what viewpoint in this article is disputed by any reliable source? Do you have any other "more established scholars" that should be included that dispute anything in the article? Or is this a personal opinion without any backing in any source? Have you read any sources on this topic at all? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me explain it more simply: her view does not have enough weight for the lead. It can be included in the body, but there is nothing to distinguish her opinion from any other mentioned in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That isnt just "her view", it is what a reliable source says defines the topic. It belongs in the lead. It does not even need to be attributed to Berda. You have provided zero policy basis for it, just a vague wave to a policy that does not say what you think it does. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting tired of these nasty, dogmatic replies—a view that's been published in a reliable source is not by default lead-worthy. You have not established that Berda is any more of an authority, or that her view is more significant than others that are only presented in the body of the article. WP:DUE is not just about inclusion or non-inclusion, it's about placement and emphasis. Placing Berda's views in the lead is WP:UNDUE because she is not the prevailing expert on the matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you have been called out on so many bad judgements about sources, I can not trust your opinion out of hand without evidence. You talk a good game ("these nasty, dogmatic replies") but there is little of substance to it. -- Green  C  16:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You straight up made something up (Berda is a PhD student) and are going to castigate me for "dogmatic replies"? Please quote what from WP:UNDUE supports your position. I have quoted the policy and nothing in it supports your position. It is not a due violation absent any reliable sources that dispute it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your following me around on different pages is starting to get creepy. I have made no "bad judgments" about sources, but why don't you link to that discussion where you insist that a biography is a primary source and tell me otherwise. Or better yet, why don't you contribute something to this discussion that isn't a personal knock against me. I know you're familiar with WP:HOUNDING, so perhaps you should act the part. As for Berda, I acknowledge that I initially looked at the wrong profile listing her as a PhD student (she in fact appears to be a professor at Hebrew University), but I have since done a deeper dive and still do not find anything that warrants including her opinion in the lead above the other scholars whose views are only in the article body.

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... 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 one of many scholars who have written on this subject. Neve Gordon has also written on it extensively (and his works are cited in the article), and he is only noted in the body. Making Berda's characterization the first viewpoint that readers are introduced to gives her undue weight, and the entire line that begins with "according to Berda" belongs in the body, not the lead. GizzyCat and Icewhiz already agree with me on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cognitive dissonance much? You hounded me here lol. Again, what she wrote is not an opinion. The operative part of the policy you quoted is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Is Berda's view disputed by any other source? Then proportionality is not a concern. Thats what you seem to be missing about DUE, which is part of NPOV. Have you read anything from Gordon? Have you seen anything that disputes anything from Berda? You seem to be arguing that any scholarly view on this topic should not be in the lead. I dont see any basis for that argument in any policy, and the policy you have quoted does not support the view. It needs other sources disputing a statement to make it a due concern. Your entire argument here is based on a misreading of policy. As far as who agrees with you, what? GizzyCat said it does not have to be in the lead, the user did not say it should not be in the lead. Please dont mischaracterize others views. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you've confused opinions and analysis for facts—Yael Berda's assessment of the Israeli permit system is absolutely her own opinion, and her viewpoint carries no more weight than the other scholars cited in the body. Whether or not her view is "disputed" is irrelevant; weight is determined by the reliability and prevalence of the source, and I'll refer you back to the portion of the policy cited above. Each scholar's commentary and analysis is distinct, and one scholar does not belong in the lead unless they are the definitive authority, which Berda is not. Icewhiz, GizzyCat, and I each agree on this, and we have a rough consensus against her inclusion in the lead. If you believe otherwise, you need to build consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, youve confused your personal opinion with Wikipedia policy. An uncontested statement from a reliable source is a fact on Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "unless they are the definitive authority". TOur policies say no such thing. In the vast majority of cases we rely on WEIGHT specifically "widely held views" aka common knowledge. As for criticisms of racial profiling, it is so widely held by so many critics, not including mention of that in the lead is POV. Per WP:LEAD it is a summary of the most important topics discussed in the article. It doesn't need to mention Berda at all only say something to the effect that critics see it as a form of racial profiling. --  Green  C  15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone is not a well-known authority on a matter, that is in fact a very strong case against their inclusion in the lead. If a certain view is widely held by scholars, then it can be mentioned. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ok to have Yael Berda in the history segment really. The lead was also ok in my opinion but if there are editors who argue that it is UNDUE in the lead, just let it go. There is no point of disputing such a minor thing. I'll rearrange the "History" section a little but please just let go. Don't waste time on unnecessary arguments folks. Please. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Somebody is making things up. There is absolutely nothing in any policy that says anything about being "well-known". Berda is a reliable source on this topic, full stop. The horseshit about not widely cited is in fact horseshit. And even then, that horseshit is not anywhere in WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT. Im going to continue expanding this article, and I am going to continue using Berda. And in so doing the lead section will also be expanded, and will likely include more from Berda. If the only reason you are at this page is to argue over literally one word then fine do that. I am going to do something more constructive with my time and actually build the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At no point was my argument focused on "one word"—it was about the representation of viewpoints in the lead, which is exactly what WP:DUE is meant to address. I am fine with noting general consensus among certain groups of scholars on the subject, and we should likewise note Israel's asserted justification the system (as reported in reliable sources) and any other prominent views/criticisms. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

italics
, why did you add italics to all the quotes? The only times a quote should be in italics is if a. the source is in italics, or b. it is a foreign word (like via dolorosa). See MOS:NOITALQUOTE. Could you undo that please? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)