Talk:Water supply and sanitation in the State of Palestine/Archive 1

Archive 1

More suggestions

How about adding information from these UN article about the situation in Gaza in (an) appropriate place(s) in the article? http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31927 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=596&ArticleID=6303&l=en&t=long --Mschiffler (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First review

After a first reading I would suggest the following improvements to the article to bring it to a B-class rating for the WikiProject water supply and sanitation:

Substance and structure

• So far the section on external cooperation is incomplete. Given the importance of donors for the sector, it would be very useful to complete it at least partially. The web sites of the agencies mentioned should have a lot of information in this respect.
  • Added some information on World Bank and GTZ activities. USAID is still missing.
    • Just added a short paragraph on USAID. --Kerres (Talk) 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Right now the section on history and recent developments is simply a chronological listing of three key documents with a description of the content of the documents. It may be useful to rewrite the section so that it includes key events in the sector, some of which are mentioned later in the article. These include the creation of PWA; the creation and (non-) functioning of the Joint Water Committee; the signing, implementation and expiry of management contracts for Gaza and the Southern West Bank; the creation of the Coastal Municipal Water Utility in the Gaza Strip; and the damage and reconstruction of water and sanitation infrastructure after various rounds of conflicts, to name just a few. Writing such a section will not be easy. But, if well done, it would significantly improve the article.
  • Added basic information and a short paragraph on the creation of the PWA.
• I would suggest to limit the section on responsibilities in the sector on what the situation is at this moment, and keep the history in one place in the history section.
  • The section now only deals with the current situation.
• Most of the content of the current section on history could be moved to a new section on the legal and policy framework.
  • Moved the information on key documents to a new sub section within the "responsibility" section. I also shortened the text on the Water Law No. 3 and included some information of it in the "policy and regulation" and "service provision" sections. --Kerres (Talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• In a new history section, I would suggest to add the duration of the management contracts in Gaza (since 1996, I believe) and Bethlehem (since 1999, I believe), which have both expired. Information is available in the Implementation Completion Reports for both projects: website:http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P051564

http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P040505

• • Included
• Please name the three utilities in the West Bank. You may want to include more information on them, esp. on JWU in Ramallah, which was (is?) considered to be one of the best utilities in MENA:

http://www.jwu.org/newweb/index.php

• • I restructured the whole section and included more information. Unfortunately the situation concerning sanitation is not as clear as for water supply.
• I am not sure how accurate the following statement is: “95% of the trans-boundary groundwater resources originating in the West Bank are being used and over-exploited by Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, leaving 5% of increasingly saline water resources to the Palestinians” The UN source quoted does not provide a reference or specific numbers to back up the statement. I would suggest to check the numbers, and if the numbers do not add up – as I would expect – take that statement out and rather keep the following statement in the article: “Currently, more than 85% of the Palestinian water from the West Bank aquifers is taken by Israel, accounting for 25% of Israel's water needs.”
  • I removed the statement because I was not able to access the corresponding UN document. In addition the document was from the year 1992 and might not give accurate information for 2009.

Form and style

• When quoting larger documents it would be very useful to add page numbers, e.g. in the publication by the Heinrich-Boell-Foundation (HBF), so that readers can find the actual reference.
• Wherever primary sources are available, it is preferable to quote the primary sources instead of a secondary source. The heavily quoted HBF publication is an example. This secondary source relies on primary sources, but unfortunately includes very few references, so that it is impossible to find out which primary source a specific piece of information is derived from.
• It would be useful to include hyperlinks to key documents such as the NWP, the Water Resources Management Strategy and the Water Law, if these documents are available on-line.
• While I edited the article to some extent for style and grammar, it may be useful if a native English speaker edited the entire article concerning these aspects.

Miscellaneous

• To my knowledge, municipal per capita water use is much higher in the Gaza Strip than in the West Bank. It would be useful to include figures on this, if available.
  • Included figures for the year 2005
• The article states how many wastewater treatment plants exist in the West Bank. It would be useful to add the number for Gaza.
  • Named the treatment plants in the West Bank and added the number for Gaza. Could not find the names for Gaza.
• Some background on the “current” (?) amendment of the Water Law could be included.
  • Sorry, I did not find any information on that.--Kerres (Talk) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• “lack of sewerage in the West Bank and Gaza led to a high amount of untreated wastewater which is discharged”. This sentence is unclear. If there is no sewer network, wastewater is not being discharged, but typically infiltrates to the ground through septic tanks or latrines. Septic tanks can also discharge small quantities of partially treated wastewater to the environment, if they are designed to do so. Untreated discharge of high amounts of wastewater occurs if there is a sewer network without wastewater treatment.
  • Changed the sentence. The untreated wastewater has nothing to do with the sewerage system.
• “total cost of water projects from 1996 to 2002 amounted to about US$ 500 million, out of which the total implemented cost is 150 million.” It is not clear if the $500m are only plans, and only $150m have actually been invested. Please clarify.
  • Changend sentence to "...out of which 150 million were already spent in completed projects"
• There is no hyperlink to the EMWIS country report on Palestine. Could it be added?
  • Added
• If it is not too much of an effort, please add the dates when each of the listed on-line sources has been accessed.--Mschiffler (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Updated all references

Thanks for all the useful comments and suggestions! I will include them in the article within the next days and weeks! Kerres (Talk) 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I saw that you already starting incorporating some of the suggested changes. Looking forward to reading the other changes.--Mschiffler (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that I made quite some changes in June, but did not mention them here on the discussion page. In addition, you worked on the part on external cooperation. In order to know what is left to be done, I wrote short answers to the "solved issues". --Kerres (Talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for all your help on this. I am confident that we can resolve the remaining issues over the next few months.--Mschiffler (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Kerres (Talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

complaints are prominent, facts are hard to find

compare the wikipedia article with this one about Gaza aquifier problems http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1211 . The IVP article contains basic facts about where Gaza gets water, how much it gets, and how it all works. By contrast, wikipedia article is just a big leftist rant about percentage shortages and suffering of the oppressed. While some facts are mentioned, they are given no prominence and instead serve purely to adorn the overall fact-free complaining propaganda POV. 84.109.173.206 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The article could indeed benefit from being rewritten to include even more facts, of which there are plenty in the article in my view, and to ensure that there is no POV or bias. For example, the lead section could be rewritten. In order to help others to improve the article, could you please tell us where exactly where you see propaganda that should be removed? Are any of the percentage figures on water shortages incorrect? If yes, please state it specifically and, if possible, provide alternative figures and sources.--Mschiffler (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Important Source

This source provides important demographics regarding the water supply in Gaza: http://books.google.com/books?id=7rgHmpppZ-wC&pg=PA109&dq=Wadi+Gaza+water&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ObOmUI1ojPT2BKeTgcAH&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Wadi%20Gaza%20water&f=false

Twillisjr (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claims

"The first restrictions on the development of wells in the West Bank, which at that time was under Jordanian administration have been introduced by Israel in 1949." - this does not mane much sense. If Jordan was in control, how could Israel place restrictions?. Perhaps it is a translation error, from the original German article, which is not nowhere to be found. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the claim seems odd. I looked for the original source, which is a paper by a Palestinian author published in English for a German foundation, and updated the link in the source. You will find the claim on page 138 of the paper, where no other source is provided for the claim. It remains unclear how Israel influenced the development of wells in areas that were not under its control while Israel and Jordan were still in a state of war after the 1949 armistice. I suggest that someone puts a bit of effort in researching the issue before deciding whether to keep or to remove the claim.--Mschiffler (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Current seawater desalination in Gaza?

To Wickey-nl: On what basis do you write that deesalinated seawater is a "main resource of water" for the Gaza strip? This statement is not supported by any source. There are many sources that show that, if there is any seawater desalination at all in Gaza today, its share is very small. For example, this Reuters article of June 2013 says that there are 19 neighborhood brackish water (not seawater) desalination plants in the Gaza Strip and only one seawater desalination plant. Together the 20 plants are said to supply 20 percent of the municipal water supply of the Gaza strip. According to a UNICEF article there are 18 brackish water desalination plants. No seawater desalination plant is mentioned. According to that source, the 18 plants supply 95,000 people with water, corresponding to about 6 percent of the population. An older PWA source says that two small desalination plants were planned to be built in stages around the year 2000. It remains unclear if they were built and, if yes, at what capacity.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. In your edit, you neither added a source, nor referred to the talkpage.

At least all drinking water must come from either desalination or from import. No source about the share of seawater, but Reuters suggests small. From PCBS, we know how much groundwater is pumped and used. All additional water cannot be groundwater. No source for total water use, especially non-domestic and non-agriculture.

I will make an edit. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this. However, it seems to me that a basic distinction is still missing from the article: the distinction between domestic water and drinking water. Typically, only a small share of domestic water is used for drinking. The bulk of the 106 million cubic meters per year of domestic water use in Gaza is brackish groundwater that is not desalinated and that is distributed through the piped water network. Desalinated brackish water from the plants operated by UNICEF is provided through free public taps from where residents have to collect it. Out of the 13 plants, three have the capacity to treat 50 cubic metres per hour, and 10 have the capacity to treat 50 cubic metres per day, according to UNICEF. If all these plants ran without interruption day and night for an entire year, they would supply only 1.5 million cubic meters per year, or about 1.4% of domestic water supply in the Gaza strip. The six or seven other neighborhood plants are most likely of similar size and also do not provide piped domestic water. You may want to add this in order to provide a more accurate and complete description of the water situation in Gaza.

I am not sure if I understand your comments about the water balance. The main source for domestic water use in Gaza is groundwater. This is well known among anyone familiar with the situation there. The total amount in the PCBS data simply is the sum of domestic and agricultural use. The PCBS table seems clear to me, but perhaps you see it from a different perspective. If I am missing something, please explain.--Mschiffler (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add sourced facts. Of course more water is used for washing than for drinking, but what is more important? Give a source for the amount of domestic water not used for drinking.

The 189.0 MCM in the PCBS source above are the same as in this table, which suggests that all groundwater is used for either domestic or agricultural use. Thus all industrial water should come from elsewhere, unless it is hidden in the domestic water use, or not included. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have provided sourced facts above. Did you look at them?--Mschiffler (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. In my first edits, I did not notice that most desalination regarded groundwater. Hence the header change to Water desalination. Further, industrial, schools and health uses are apparently included in domestic water use. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes and for adding the UNICEF source. I suggest to clarify in the article that desalination brackish water is not distributed through the piped water system, but needs to be picked up at the plants. I would also move the information on brackish water desalination to the section "Groundwater", since the source is groundwater. The desalination section could then be called again "Seawater desalination". This would clearly separate the two water sources - groundwater and seawater - in the structure of the article.--Mschiffler (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but that would obscure the important fact that most desalinated water is groundwater at the moment. Important enough to give it an own section, still about water resources. Better move it to below the rainwater, which is really a separate source. --Wickey-nl (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Groundwater used as drinking water is often treated in different ways, e.g. to remove iron, fluoride, or - in this case - salt. It is never considered a separate source of water. Surface water is also treated in many different ways, but it is never categorized into different sources depending on how it is treated. The fact that a (small) share of groundwater in the Gaza strip is desalinated is important. It should in no way be obscured. However, this should be highlighted in the section on groundwater, because the type of treatment is different from the source of water and the structure of this section is by water sources.--Mschiffler (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Splitting is not that easy. There is too little information about the ratio groundwater-seawater and also about the distribution of seawater. Where do the industrial plants get their water from? What about the tanker water of the 80% of water the people must buy? Is the home desalination only from groundwater? How much is bottled water?

Let us make it a main section below Water use and have a small sub-section Desalinated seawater which can be expanded later. In the near future, there will surely be enough material for a separate article Water desalination in Palestine. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seawater desalination in the Gaza strip is of marginal importance as of today, including as a source of water provided by tankers and of bottled water. Brackish water desalination is much less energy-intensive and cheaper than seawater desalination, so for the currently operating relatively small plants there is no incentive to use seawater as a source for desalination as long as the aquifer does not run dry. Its pure economics. Now you rightly point out that the small share of seawater desalination has to be documented through published sources. I have tried to do this to you through the calculations earlier on in this talk page based on reputed published sources. Did you look at it? Household-level desalination uses tap water, which is brackish groundwater. It is so obvious that I am surprised one could think otherwise. You should be able to verify that easily from published sources, if you are interested in getting a deeper understanding of the topic you are writing about.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

While your calculations are own research, they are based only on the plants mentioned in a few newspaper articles. The 2009 World Bank paper spoke of 100 industrial desalination plants that have additional value added for preserving groundwater because of use of seawater. Now, I am not so naive to think that there are large industries in Gaza, Israel will prevent that, but there are still no figures. Not a major issue, but relevant for the article.

While we can expect that households use tapwater to desalinate, it is not so obvious that they mainly use brackish groundwater, because they may use much tanking water of yet unknown origin. Presumtively also brackish groundwater, but yet not known. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for your claim that industrial desalination plants use seawater? They use groundwater. And for household desalination, what water source other than brackish groundwater could there be? There is none. As of 2007 there was only one seawater desalination plant in the Gaza Strip, located in Deir al Balah. I will add this information to the article including the source. I am also trying to find out if other plants have been built since then, and whether there are any seawater desalination plants by industries.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Annex 11 of the World Bank paper speaks about private desalination plants (industrial and domestic in parallel) and says: Additionally, as desalination units use seawater (not brackish water), they do not tap the aquifer ... Today, approximately 100 industrial desalination plants are still operational,. However, it is written a little bit chaotic.

I have no access to the Austrian source, but there is a huge difference between a desalination plant and one desalination plant. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the report must have referred to new seawater desalination plants that do not tap the aquifer. The Austrian report is a comprehensive analysis of water issues in West Bank and Gaza with some 600 pages. It says there is only one operational seawater desalination plant and it does not mention any industrial desalination plants. Actually it does not mention industrial water use at all, probably because it is subsumed under municipal water use. The industrial desalination plants are probably small and rely either on brackish tap water or directly on brackish groundwater. But I do not know that for sure. There does not seem to be a published source that clarifies the matter. I will try to find out from someone in Gaza familiar with the situation and will get back to you. We can then decide if this information should be included or not, since I will not be able to confirm it with a written source.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am careful with absolute statements like unique, the only, the first, etc. I also often prefere to mention nothing instead of speculations or vague plans that may be carried out in the future, or not. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unattributed claims

Contentious claims that come from advocacy groups need to be attributed. That's pretty basic editing policy. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides the human rights group in question it also claimed by numerous other groups. The inclusion of that source is attribution enough.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And if you don't like this source go find one for the same information that you do like. There are literally many availible.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Which other groups make this claim? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

After looking at the edits done recently to the article please allow me to attempt a recap of what the issue is so that others can follow this debate more easily: The claim made is that the West Bank is fragmented. The source of the claim is the Israeli NGO B'Tselem. The source has been included before in the footnote. The change that triggered this debate is the attribution of the source in the article itself, beyond it being referenced in the footnote. In response to the question by Kipa Aduma, Esq. I looked up the Wikipedia article on the West Bank and found a statement by the World Bank that also says that the West Bank is fragemented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#cite_ref-131. The fragmentation of the West Bank through Israeli checkpoints is, in my humble opinion, a well-known fact and I am not aware that any serious source disputes this assertion. Before moving on with this discussion, I would like to kindly ask those who have contributed so far to respond to what I have written above, so that as a next step we can hopefully resolve this issue.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the claim is that 'Due to the fragmentation of the West Bank, water cannot be moved from water-rich areas to Palestinian communities with water shortage'. Which group, other than B'tselem, makes the claim that the fragmentation prevents moving water? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There's issue with the specific languaged used. That should be addressed. It can be moved. You could stick the water in a container for instance. However the point trying to made and the more accurate statement is that due to fragmentation water movement is inhibited, hindered, or obstructed from water rich areas to areas of shortage.

And yes there are plenty of sources. All you have to do is put effort in. Minimal effort. For instance, from the UN Human Rights Council: UNHRC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is an issue with the language used, which can be solved by simple attribution. Alternatively, if you want to change it to something like 'water movement is inhibited', based on the UNHRC source, I think that would be ok. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Prof. Haim Gvirtzman

Prof. Haim Gvirtzman is a [www.gvirtzman.es.huji.ac.il/ top academic scholar] for this (water) field. I was a bout to come back to it and extract some more material from it. The fact he publiced it through a think tank doesn't discount his expertise. Ashtul (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Umh, yes, it does matter. If he'd run it thru a blog we wouldn't include it either; And we wouldn't treat any source as reliable for statements of fact (nor opinion unless very, very notable) if it would say something like "...dirty little secret about the Israelis:...". Can you see the problem here? I think it's obvious.TMCk (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gvirtzman is RS, I should think, but one should perhaps use attribution, and watch WP:Undue, because Gvirtzman is not only a water specialist but a consultant for both the US defense department and his own government, with a POV to press home. The paper is not academic, but a polemical set of unsubstantiated assertions, or at least question-begging points of view. It is, as TMCk notes, a polemical screed, systematically ignoring all of the geopolitical issues behind the scenes (like the fact that, as Gvirtzman once admitted, the 'little secret' of Israel's West Bank settlement policy was to secure control of the water resources for Israel.(I am not following you here, Ashtul. See my sandbox. I have long collected data on the water issue).Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The only "obvious" thing here is that you don;t like the article by Prof. Gvirtzman. There is nothing in the WP:RS policy that tells us that if the source uses colorful language, it is to be discounted as a RS. If you seriously doubt this, take it to WP:RSN, but removing sourced materials like this in an article subject to 1RR and discretionary sanctions is highly disruptive, and could result in a block. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It's based on assertions, that, if you know the literature are caricatures of complex events. It's like saying the Palestinians refused an Israeli offer to link Rawabi to the water system: pure spin of the fact that in all these generous offers, there are huge manipulative strings attached, which Gvirtzman ignores. By the way, what are you doing here?Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

what you describe above is called original research. If there are other views in the literature, add them, but you can;t delete reliably sourced material, from an academic expert, just because you claim to have read a differing view somewhere. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't be childish. I supported Ashtul's use of the relevance of this as RS, and you are going on as if I challenged it. Go away.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright then. I see were all in agreement this is a reliable source. Move along.I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reorgenizing this article

I believe it needs a lot of work. Right now, big parts of it are repetitive and constructed purely. I am not experience enough for such task. I will appreciate help. Ashtul (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Make a draft, outline proposals, and discuss on the page before making any reorganization. There is a massive amount of literature on the subject we haven't even used.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Other Surface Water

Regarding the Other Surface Water section, I removed the piece about Israel and the check dams. 1) Israel did not flood Gaza. Gaza, and Israel routinely flood due to heavy rains. 2) Every once in a while Gaza, and southern Israel have major, severe flooding. 3) Any "check dams" that Israel may have (and I think they have one in the south) would not affect Gaza in any which way and including it in this article is not correct.

I did have a link to Al-Jazeera where they refuted the claims of the flooding, but I removed the whole section instead, so we don't have a controversy section, we just have a surface water section. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091122132218/http://www.waterprogramme.ps:80/index.php to http://www.waterprogramme.ps/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719052816/http://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/DE_Home/Laender_Programme_und_Projekte/Nordafrika_und_naher_Osten/Palaestinensische_Gebiete/Leuchtturmprojekt_1.jsp to http://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/DE_Home/Laender_Programme_und_Projekte/Nordafrika_und_naher_Osten/Palaestinensische_Gebiete/Leuchtturmprojekt_1.jsp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent source on water situation in the Palestinian territories

See this. Much of the material in the source is covered in this article, but some recent developments could be elaborated upon. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Please add the new stuff. --NYCJosh (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Israel places its waste water treatment facilities in the West Bank

I added the following to the Wastewater Treatment section and it was removed. Please state objections, if any, based on WP rules:

Israel places its waste water treatment facilities in the West Bank

Israel built waste water treatment facilities in the West Bank for processing waste water generated inside Israeli sovereign territory. In particular, Israel operates at least 15 waste water treatment plants inside the West Bank and most of the incoming waste they process is brought over from within the Green line inside Israel proper. Of these 15 facilities, six process hazardous waste, including infectious medical waste, used oils and solvents, metals, batteries and electronic industry byproducts, and one facility that processes sewage sludge. Israel requires no reporting by these West Bank facilities of the amount of waste they process or the risks they pose to the local population, and applies less rigorous regulatory standards to these facilities in the West Bank than it does to waste water treatment facilities inside Israel. B'Tselem, Israel's leading independent human rights organization for monitoring human rights in the West Bank, has observed that "any transfer of waste to the West Bank is a breach of international law which Israel is dutybound to uphold" because according to international law "an occupied territory or its resources may not be used for the benefit of the occupying power’s own needs or economic development. Moreover, the occupying power is responsible for ensuring public health and hygiene in the occupied territory and must provide residents of the occupied territory with an adequate standard of living."

--NYCJosh (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Having received no objection in over 4 days, I will post this in the article within 72 hours. --NYCJosh (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Beyond the puffery in the text added about B'Tselem, the B'Tselem report is not about waste water (which, due to simple geography, does not flow up hill past the green line (with minor exceptions (notably the drainage of the sparsely populated Jordan valley) the West Bank is higher) - but about other waste processing activities (in which B'Tselem also includes regular industrial plants as well as plants that process waste material).Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, your main objection seems to be about the positioning of this contribution within the article. Do you have a better position in mind in this article?--NYCJosh (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please provide your objections here, folks. If you don't, you have no reasonable basis for deleting the contribution from the article. Please note that consensus on WP does not mean that everyone votes and all must agree. Rather, consensus is something we strive to achieve by working through WP rules in a fair and reasonable way. I am going to give this another few days, then repost the contribution, unless I get reasonable objections here on Talk per WP rules. After that, editors who delete without discussion here will be presumed to be politically-motivate hacks.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You are in the wrong article - as what B'Tselem is claiming that Israel is doing has almost nothing to do with sanitation, waste water, or water supply of the West Bank. B'Tselem is claiming Israel is engaging in waste shipment of several different kinds of waste products - but this has nothing to do with the water or sewage of the West Bank. The sole connection you have to this topic is the 1 (out of 15) Sewage sludge processing plant (this is a solid waste product of sewage processing).Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition, claiming that those who oppose your edits are politically motivated hacks can get you banned in this area. I suggest you ease up on this before any action is taken. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you seem to be distinguishing between wasterwater treatment in the WB for wastewater generated on the WB versus wastewater treatment in the WB for waste water generated in Israel. The article nowhere makes or implies such a distinction. Rather, it is a general article about water supply and sanitation in the territories, which includes wastewater treatment facilities whatever the source. To put it another way, the risks and harms of wastewater facilities that process imported wastewater are borne by the residents of the WB. Any harm to the groundwater, for ex., would harm them directly. Energy consumed would presumably impact their grid, etc.

In fact, the article has a whole section entitled "Wastewater treatment" that discusses wastewater treatment facilities that are on the WB. This section states that the WB's wastewater is treated in five municipal wastewater treatment facilities. At the same time, my proposed contribution states that Israel has built many more wastewater treatment facilities in the WB for its own use. I think it's quite relevant.

Sir Joseph, before someone deletes a well footnoted contribution, s/he needs to check the Talk page for relevant discussion. If s/he doesn't, or does but see no reasonable objection based on WP rules and deletes anyway, then that person is doing a disservice to the WP project.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the water supply system, not about treatments or anything else. Also, your header is POV and your source is one source and not necessarily a RS for this item. That is policy objections. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

B'Tselem is a reliable source. Content is within scope ("sanitation"). All other claims of POV can be addressed by rewording, and not removal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Al-Andalusi.

Sir Joseph, the article has a whole section entitled "Wastewater treatment." Did you even read my reply just above your last comment? The one source is RS--it is THE leading Israeli human rights monitoring organization for the Westbank. One RS is sufficient per WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The B'Tselem report is off topic as discusses waste treatment - batteries, hazardous materials and other solid waste that is shipped to the Wst Bank for treatment. B'Tselem does not address waste water from Israel (a topographic impossibility! It is up hill) or the West Bank - it is all about solids.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with the statement that B'tselem is a RS, many people have opined that it is unfortunately not a RS, or not a RS anymore, if it were one. It is quite clear that they at times are more politicized than a HR organization. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed also an issue as is UNDUE - however we do not need to address this as solid waste shipping and processing is clearly off topic (as well as the text containing outright errors in writjng about waste water treatment when the source is about solids).Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, per your suggestion, I rewrote the proposed addition by changing "waste water treatment" to "waste treatment" facility:

Israel places its waste treatment facilities in the West Bank

Israel built waste treatment facilities in the West Bank for processing waste generated inside Israeli sovereign territory. In particular, Israel operates at least 15 waste treatment plants inside the West Bank and most of the incoming waste they process is brought over from within the Green line inside Israel proper. Of these 15 facilities, six process hazardous waste, including infectious medical waste, used oils and solvents, metals, batteries and electronic industry byproducts, and one facility that processes sewage sludge. Israel requires no reporting by these West Bank facilities of the amount of waste they process or the risks they pose to the local population, and applies less rigorous regulatory standards to these facilities in the West Bank than it does to waste treatment facilities inside Israel. B'Tselem, Israel's leading independent human rights organization for monitoring human rights in the West Bank, has observed that "any transfer of waste to the West Bank is a breach of international law which Israel is dutybound to uphold" because according to international law "an occupied territory or its resources may not be used for the benefit of the occupying power’s own needs or economic development. Moreover, the occupying power is responsible for ensuring public health and hygiene in the occupied territory and must provide residents of the occupied territory with an adequate standard of living."

1. This proposed addition is about waste treatment, which certainly falls under the rubric of "sanitation," part of the title of this article. For example, "sanitation workers" collect waste and bring it to a waste treatment facility or landfill. Also, as you noted, the sewage sludge is a waste water product.

2. Lack of RS has to be proved based on WP rules. What info is there that B'Tselem is not RS? --NYCJosh (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Solid waste processing is not sanitation (generally sewage - and no, sewage sludge solids is not sanitation either). Your proposed text still misreprepresents B'Tselem - Israel (for the most part a market economy) did not construct or ship anything. Israeli individuals and companies have opened some facilities in West Bank industrial zones due to reduced costs and a different regulatory environment - and are importing and exporting waste and finished products. Regardless, this is simply off topic here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, is a Tel Aviv sanitation worker who removes curbside trash and brings it in a garbage truck to a waste treatment facility involved in "sanitation?" The title of this article includes the word "sanitation." --NYCJosh (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

See Sanitation. The sanitation of the English language (trash collector -> sanitation worker) is unrelated.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The "Sanitation" article you linked has a whole section entitled "Solid waste disposal" on just this meaning of the word sanitation. In fact, it just so happens that a photo of Hiriya "waste mountain" landfill in Israel (of all the landfills in the world!) appears as part of this section. This is an English language article so the ordinary meaning of English words control.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Touché.--TMCk (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sanitation in the main sense refers to "safe disposal of human urine and faeces.". Solid waste is sometimes, but far from always, a secondary usage. Recycling of solid waste is one step removed from even this secondary usage. Furthermore, this article does not address garbage collection aand landfills in the West Bank (besides this attempted addition of recycling plants importing material).Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The name of the article might be changed, to, say to Water supply and waste disposal in the Palestinian territories (where a link to, say Abu Dis Waste Disposal Site is due), but Israeli dumping of waste on the West Bank is a huge issue, and should of course be mentioned. Reverting. Huldra (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Even biased B'Tselem did not go as far as claiming wholesale dumping. What the article should probably cover is untreated sewage from the Palestinian Authority that goes into the common groundwater and downstream into Israeli territory (all the way to the sea, polluting along the way) - which is a huge issue that has actually been covered in depth by diverse RS for many years.Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, any such concern should go in the relevant Israeli articles, say Water supply and sanitation in Israel. Huldra (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Huldra that the title of the article can be changed to include that to address the ambiguity noted by Icewhiz. Other editors please weigh in.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: - note the text you reverted (besides DUE, RS, off topic, puffery and lack of inline attribution concerns) - grossly misrepresents the sole source it is citing - e.g. the report deals with private facilities, which were not built by Israel, and notably these are NOT waste water treatment facilities.Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying the text I reverted is "set in stones" (I just prettified the refs, somewhat), what I am saying is that this is an extremely important issue, which deserves its own section. Lets work on it, and not censor it out, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this is the right article. And if we were to address this we should also address Palestinian dumping into Israel [1] [2] which would be on topic here regardless (as this is water supply and sanitation - Gaza's sanitation at the moment is by dumping waste into the sea and into Israel via the Hanoun stream), as well as more balanced sourcing to address the economic benefits Palestinians receive from the private recycling plants.Icewhiz (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please, do tell, what is the right article for this stuff? Again, feel free to expand the various relevant Israeli articles, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not a valid question for this article. This article is about water not about waste management. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol, sorry, it is not that easy: you alone cannot decide what is a relevant question, or not. As to the scope of this article: please see the discussion above, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

1), don't lol at me that is very unbecoming. 2) You can't insert when there is no consensus to do so. 3) The entry is not for this article. If you love it so much, write an article and put it in there. This article is about water supply not about solid waste and B'Tselem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No, as showed above, Sanitation includes "Solid waste disposal". I really don't understand why you are even discussing this. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Primarily because it's undue as I pointed out earlier, it's also heavily pov and one sided and one sourced. I am sure you can find newspaper or other RS that are not B'Tselem and we can begin to discuss. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Earlier you argued that this article was not the place for this material, but now you argue that it is because the sources are primary? I wish you would stop moving the goal post, Huldra (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources found by K.e.Coffman. *The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement by Elisha Efrat. Describes that the first dump for refuse imported from Israel was established in 2005, which could be in violation of international law.

• Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation Book by Eyal Weizman. General discussion on the state of waste disposal in the West Bank, including dumping of Israeli garbage.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add what is relevant to the article. As I've said before, I know this is a huge issue, and has come up many times, (though it is a bit outside my area of interest ...which is mainly pre 1948 stuff) Huldra (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You violated BRD and DS with your revert. Please undo. And I said I have many problems with the edit. First, it doesn't belong in this article. Then I also don't like the source, and it's very NPOV (and I said that you can find better sources and then include it in a different article if you wish.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Josh - the two sources you present above discuss a single disused quarry project (from 2005) in a single paragraph each. The B'Tselem report itself is not a RS - it is not published in a peer reviewed setting - you would have to attribute to them - and the text you are edit-warring in doesn't match what B'Tselem said on the topic. I strongly suggest you find better sources + match your proposed text to what the sources say + try to find a more appropriate Wikipedia article that matches the topic you are trying to insert.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Btselem source here is WP:UNDUE if you find some secondary WP:RS that report their claims then we can consider to include it.--Shrike (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well I wish one didn't make up rules for the Palestinian articles, which do not apply to WP in general. There is nothing that says we cannot quote primary sources...with care. Amnesty International is linked/quoted 3,801 times on WP (see link), while Human Rights Watch is linked 5,696 times, (see link). Why is it that I never have seen anyone demanding secondary WP:RS for including AI or HRW stuff? Huldra (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Shrike. Here you go: Al Jazeera, 5 Dec. 2017, "Israel Turns West Bank into a 'Garbage Dump,'" http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/israel-turns-west-bank-garbage-dump-171205052610633.html +972 Magazine, 5 Dec. 2017, "How Israel Turned the West Bank into Its 'Garbage Dump:' A New Report from B’Tselem Details How Israel Has Exploited the Legal Regime in the West Bank, Trucking in Hazardous Waste to Be Processed in the Occupied Territory," https://972mag.com/how-israel-turned-the-west-bank-into-its-garbage-dump/131206/

What does that have to do with wastewater? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References

TAKE TWO: Israel's waste processed by treatment facilities in the West Bank

Here is a rewrite to address Icewhiz's concerns.

Many waste treatment facilities in the West Bank were built for processing waste generated inside Israeli sovereign territory. At least 15 waste treatment plants operate in the West Bank and most of the waste they process is brought over from within the Green line inside Israel proper. Of these 15 facilities, six process hazardous waste, including infectious medical waste, used oils and solvents, metals, batteries and electronic industry byproducts, and one facility that processes sewage sludge. The Israel government requires no reporting by these West Bank facilities of the amount of waste they process or the risks they pose to the local population, and applies less rigorous regulatory standards to these facilities than it does to waste treatment facilities in Israel. B'Tselem, Israel's leading independent human rights organization for monitoring human rights in the West Bank, has observed that "any transfer of waste to the West Bank is a breach of international law which Israel is dutybound to uphold" because according to international law "an occupied territory or its resources may not be used for the benefit of the occupying power’s own needs."

Regarding the issues raised above about primary, I think this is largely fact based and B'tselem is a reliable source for straight facts like there are "15 facilities". The only thing I see that might be an issue is B'tselem's statement of international law, unless it is known who said it and they have a recognized expertise in international law, or it has been widely cited because that is a primary opinion for B'tselem. (My position is the same for any international law related topic).Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Al Haq has an excellent and thorough report about this [3] Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Al-Haq article, it led me to this article on Geshuri Industries, and this The Lancet: Environmental and public health effects of polluting industries in Tulkarm, West Bank, occupied Palestinian territory: an ethnographic study Huldra (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone please get hold of this article? Huldra (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

References

B'Tselem as a source

This article uses B'Tselem as a source extensively, even though it's clearly not a WP:RS. The article gives the info cited as factual, without mentioning that it's according to B'Tselem. It then goes on to give pretty dubious information cited to this source. I don't want to make sweeping changes without having been a "regular" at this article at this point, but I believe that most of the info coming from B'Tselem should be removed entirely – it's only indirectly related to PA water management anyway, if at all. The info that's left should be qualified that it comes from B'Tselem. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

At the very least it should be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

B'Tselem is WP:RS, it can be attributed but this report has very thorough citations. What is the dubious information? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)