Talk:Jabel Mukaber

Sources do not support claim

Hi there. In the intro (and in the proposed DYK hooks), it is stated that "Palestinians consider the neighbourhood the site of their future capital ..." based on two sources provided Condos for American Jews (in Arab East Jerusalem) and East J'lem could be Palestinian capital. The first source does not mention this fact at all and the second indicates that Ehud Barak said that populated Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem (without naming Jabel Mukaber itself) could make up the capital of a future Palestinian state, but the article says nothing about Palestinian views towards such a proposal. The text should therefore be altered accordingly or perhaps discarded altogether since it is a huge topic that cannot be covered with any accuracy in the introduction, which should be discussing this particular neighbourhood instead.

Also, the second part of that sentence in the introduction reads: "... while the Israeli government and indeed, many of Jerusalem's Jewish residents consider Jabel Mukaber a hotbed for terrorism, and an obstacle to the peace process." Missing is a description of why this is so, as well as discussion of numerous other issues for the residents of the neighbourhood. For example, the article on "Luxury condos..." discusses how the proposed construction of the gated Jewish community of Nof Zion between Jabel Mukaber and Silwan, which is viewed by neighbourhood residents as a settlement intended to reduce the Arab presence in Jerusalem, will complicate discussions around the final status of Jerusalem.

Also, there seems to be much descriptive information on Jabel Mukaber itself (rather than Israeli perceptions of it), missing from the article altogether, such as :

"The road linking the new neighborhood to central Jerusalem runs along the Haas and Goldman promenades that offer similar views of the Old City. The landmark at the start of Jabel Mukaber is a police station that looks more like an army base. Outside the station at the entrance to the Palestinian neighborhood a giant poster advertising units in the "private" neighborhood for sale.

A newly installed traffic circle starts the descent along a path under construction to upgrade the narrow road to a divided street to accommodate the traffic. Infrastructure in Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is notoriously underfunded by the municipality, and the lack of street lights or sidewalks make Jabel Mukaber look more like an outlying village than an actual part of the capital.

Though Palestinian residents are grateful for the new road, they say their requests to be hooked up to Nof Zion's sewage system have been turned down, leaving the Palestinians without a sewage system."

This critique extends to the DYK hooks suggested as well, which focus solely on Israeli perceptions of Jabel Mukaber, rather than any facts about the neighbourhood itself. Please consider adding other POVs to this article and altering the hooks accordingly. Tiamut^talk 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Description

Due to the fact that most of the media attention on Jabel Mukaber generally focuses on the negative (i.e. terrorism and riots), very few sources contain descriptive information. If you would like to post a few sources here with other information on Jabel Mukaber, i'd be happy to include them in the article. Otherwise, i've fixed the first 2 problems that you listed to the best of my ability. Cheers --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'll try to find other sources for you and appreciate your efforts, but I still find the article to rather POV. Particularly, the lead sentence marrying the ideas that Jabel Mukaber is at the forefront of the Palestinian desire for independence (whatever that means) with the idea that it is a hotbed for terrorism. A little loaded no? Tiamut^talk 11:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried a Google book search? There are a lot of books discussing issues in Jabel Mukaber, particularly land zoning, home demolitions, etc. for example, the book Jerusalem [1] by Menachem Klein writes of how land zoning policies drafted in 1980s and implemented in 1996 by the Israeli government designaed 70% of Jabel Mukjaber's land "green space" leaving only 20.5% for building purposes, most of which was already built upon. Kleim notes that this meant that Jabel Mukaber residents could build only at 25% housing density level at a time when the adjacent Jewish neighbourhood could build at 140%. Tiamut^talk 11:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Separate and Unequal is a book which discusses how a project for coexistence between East Talpiot and Jabal Mukaber developed. Before the meetings began in 1993, a 300 meter long fence was constructed between the Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods (at the request of the Jews in East Talpiot) to allay fears after an East Talpiot resident was stabbed to death. Security officials thought the perpetrator may have come or taken refuge in Jabel Mukaber and thought the fence would do little to prevent a future attack, but it was built anyway. In any case, meetings took place and were initially successful, even leading to a joint Arab-Jewish demand to improve conditions in Jabel Mukaber, but the request was ignored by the authorities, as were subsequent requests. The lack of response is cited by the authors as a reason for the coexisence project's failure to continue. The meetings ended in 1996. Tiamut^talk 11:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This article [2] discusses the attacks perpetrated by residents of Jabel Mukaber and Sur Bahur in the context of home demolitions which plague the residents of East Jerusalem. Perhaps some discussion of this context would be appropriate considering how much space you have given to a discussion of terrorism in the section on cooexistence? Consider this passage:

One of the main contributing factors for the stirring up of hatred is the demolition of "illegal" homes of Arab residents, who are quite unable to build "legally." The dimension of official stupidity is attested to by the demand of the Shin-Bet chief, voiced this week again, to destroy the homes of the attackers' families, for the sake of "deterrence." Apparently he has not heard about the dozens of studies and the accumulated experience, which prove that every destroyed home becomes an incubator for new hate-driven avengers. This week's attack is especially instructive. It is quite unclear what actually happened: did Ghassan Abu-Tir plan the attack in advance? Or was this a spontaneous decision in a moment of excitement? Was this an attack at all — or did the bulldozer driver run into a bus by accident and try, in a state of panic, to escape — running over his pursuers, becoming a target for a shooting spree by passersby and soldiers? In the atmosphere of suspicion and fear that pervades Jerusalem now, every road accident involving an Arab becomes an attack, and every Arab driver involved in an accident will in all probability be executed on the spot, without a trial. (It should be remembered that the first intifada broke out because of a road accident, in which a Jewish driver ran over some Arabs.)

This article was also reprinted here [3]. Tiamut^talk 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, some discussion of the building plans for Nof Zion and it impact on Jabel Mukaber could be good for the article. One of your sources (on Luxury condos for American Jews) already discusses this. Here's another [4]. And another [5]. Tiamut^talk 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting fact is that one of the representative on the Palestinian Olympic team was from Jabal Mukaber. 16-year old Raed Awassat was training to represent Palestine at the Olympics in 2004 [6]. After he was not allowed to continue training in West Jerusalem, residents in Jabal Mukaber organized to expand the local 17-metre village pool to 25 metres in an effort to make it more acceptable for Olympic training. Here's another article on him [7]. Tiamut^talk 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also relevant to this article is information on the separation barrier. This article states that "Under the planned route of the Security Fence, the 1,000 residents of Sheikh Saed, the eastern neighborhood of Jabel Mukaber, would be separated from the nearly 2,000 Arabs living in the rest of the village, and isolated in a West Bank enclave surrounded by desert." Additionally, petitions by The Arab Jewish Center in Jabel Mukaber to move the route of the fence, while successful, have led to a worsening of the situation. "Daoud Awisat, an Arab from Sheikh Saed, and his Jewish friend Hillel Bardin, a pensioner from nearby Talpiot, explained that life in Jabel Mukaber has ironically become far worse since the Tel Aviv court ordered the government to move the Fence eastwards. 'The army has set up checkpoints on all the roads leading from Sheikh Saed to the center of Jabel Mukaber,' explained Awisat, 41, a building worker and father of four. 'Sometimes for days on end the soldiers do not allow us through the roadblock. This means we cannot work, my children cannot go to school and we are even denied access to hospitals.'" Tiamut^talk 11:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a testimony by a woman from Jabel Mukaber who is fighting to reunified with her husband who is from Bethlehem. It may be a good external link or perhaps you could discuss a bit about family reunification issues among the residents of Jabel Mukaber. Tiamut^talk 11:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also relevant to the article are statements made by Haim Ramon in December 2007:

Ramon told Army Radio: "I am convinced that all Jewish neighbourhoods, including Har Homa, should be under Israeli sovereignty and the Arab neighbourhoods should not be under Israeli sovereignty because they pose a threat to Jerusalem being the capital of Jewish Israel. "Those who want Walajeh and Jabal Mukaber as well as Har Homa, will ultimately cause Jerusalem not to be a Jewish capital to Israel with a clear Jewish majority," he added, referring to Palestinian villages incorporated into Jerusalem after 1967. Ramon, seen as a confidant who often speaks for Olmert, told Israel Radio: "Whoever wants Walaja, is endangering our hold on Har Homa ... Jewish neighbourhoods will remain in Israeli control and Arab neighbourhoods will be the Palestinian capital.

In light of this quote, I think I understand where you got the idea that Jabel Mukaber will serve as a future capital for the Palestinian state. Note however that this is not a Palestinian aspiration, but an official Israeli position in the negotiations with Palestinians. I have yet to see a Palestinian official say this is an acceptable compromise for them. Accordingly, I think you should change the text in the intro that refers to this. Tiamut^talk 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse

Debresser, Disputed content is kept OUT until the dispute is resolved. You should know that by now. These paragraphs are an attempt to show the place in a negative light on account of the actions performed elsewhere by a few people who happen to live in this place. How this is justified, I have no idea. I wonder if there is any example of a Jewish criminal being privileged in this fashion. Zero^talk 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, content that is sourced, is by definition not disputed, and can be removed only after consensus. This is all the more so in case like this, where the information has been in the article a long time.

As far as the inclusion of this material is concerned, I am of two minds. On the one hand, this seems, as you say, not related directly to the article, which is about the place. On the other hand, it is not a secret that Jabel Mukaber is a militant village that breads terrorists, and that is very relevant. It seems that these pieces of information come to make precisely that point. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If "Jabel Mukaber is a militant village that breads terrorists" then a reliable source should be found that says that. We aren't allowed to make such a case ourselves by cherry-picking news stories. We also aren't allowed to ignore the other side of the story, that Jabel Mukaber is one of the most underprivileged neighborhoods. I can agree to include items about notable events occurring in the village. I don't agree to adding other stuff just on an indirect pretext. Zero^talk 00:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It seem appropriate to include information about the political inclinations of a town, when it becomes a matter of significant news coverage. As here http://elpais.com/diario/2008/03/08/internacional/1204930805_850215.htmlShulMaven (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The source does not support your claim. It is also 90% sure that the items at the end of the story were extracted from Wikipedia. Zero^talk 01:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, see also this source which mentions arms dealers from Jabel Mukaber on page 22. Debresser (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A Shabak source, are you kidding? Zero^talk 02:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Shabak is a government institution. A very good source. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't relevant in this article just because they come from this area. If it can be backed up by a RS that it's relevant, then it's acceptable. Collecting your own examples to promote a certain view is not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Map unclear

Map is unclear. Where is Jabel Mukaber? also colored lines are not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.202.179 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2014‎

It doesn't seem to be there. File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg shows it and explains the lines. There are explanations in the description at File:EastJerusalemMap.svg but an explanation in a caption could be added, though in this case it is still insufficient as it doesn't show Jabel Mukaber. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now added the map and added in the caption where the neighbourhood is located as it could be hard to find. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I recently removed the following passage because it seems pretty trivial for an encyclopedic article on Jabal Mukaber: "Following the 2008 Mercaz HaRav massacre in which eight Jewish high school students were killed, the residents of Jabel Mukaber erected a mourners' tent for the murderer.[ref] Israeli protesters tried to break through police barricades outside Jabel Mukaber, resulting in the arrest of 13 protesters.[ref]."

It was reinstated with the following reasoning: "The consensus is that this is relevant." My question is, what consensus? I don't see anything close to consensus on this talk page unless I'm missing something. The information may be sourced, but it still remains trivial. So every time a family erects a mourning tent for one of its members who died as part of the I/P conflict we're supposed to mention it? Obviously that would be excessive and ridiculous. Overall, this type of editing only contributes to a cheapening of the article. Does anyone have a rational reason to keep this tidbit in the article? --Al Ameer (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is inherent in the fact that multiple editors have restored this information. As to your question, if villagers erect a mourners tent for a terrorist, yes, that is noteworthy. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what consensus means and I think that is obvious. The matter is a subject of an edit war. How is that a consensus? Beyond the trivial aforementioned fact about the mourning tent, the whole section is dubious and violates NPOV. All we have is a list of attacks against Israelis that were carried out by people who from the village. None of these attacks occurred inside the village. This is not the typical or appropriate thing that we add to locality articles. If any of these attackers were notable or had an article we can perhaps include them in a section called "Notable residents", but even then we would just list their names and a two or three word description. What he have now is out of the ordinary and inherently biased. --Al Ameer (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's original research to connect the incidents to neighbourhood and there is no consensus to include it. Three, including me, on this talk page has said no while two had said it is relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, you seem to have a problem with counting. Including the implication that 3:2 can be called a consensus (which it can not). Also, don't forget to count the people who restored the actual information by reverting its removal. Debresser (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't. I counted it totally right. You read wrong, I didn't say 3-2 is a consensus but that it isn't enough for you to claim it is. I haven't seen more than you two who wrote here to support it have reverted such removals, though some others have added other attacks but that could be expected when similar info is there (when there are already some attacks listed, why not add more). So no consensus exists yet, contrary to your claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I claim that there was a version which was stable for a considerable time. If you want to change that version, the burden to prove consensus for that change is on you. In other words, there is a assumption of consensus for the last stable version. That is the consensus I claim. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There was some examples listed, that you and one other reverted when it was removed because you thought there was a "consensus" to keep it (which was what you said, now you are saying something else about what you meant). Then the list has been expanded with more examples, though you have not showed how it's relevant. I will surely go forward in relevant venues to fix the OR problem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please drop me a note when you do. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will do it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a request at WP:DRN about this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

On 20 May 2015 a 41-year-old man from Jabel Mukaber was shot dead in his car at a-Tur by a member of the Israeli Border Police in an alleged ramming attack.[8] Ha'aretz 20 May 2015] I'm just putting this here until I can think of a sensible argument as to why it should be included. Padres Hana (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There was previous consensus on this talkpage not' to have incidents like "Man from Jabel Mukaber butcher Jewish worshipers during synagogue prayer" in this article. The underlying argument is that the place of origin is incidental to the event, not essential.

Just for the record, I was one of those who disagreed, and my reason still stands, but I won't go into that. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Summary: Objecting to including these external links to ARIJ is an overreaction, & there is no overriding reason for not including them.

I was summoned here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, & have read this discussion as well as performed due diligence review of external sources. This debate consists of two arguments: on the one side, these links ought to be excluded because ARIJ is a biased source; on the other, there is no problematic bias in the content at the URLs. Neither argument has been effectively responded to; instead the participants decided to let their emotions rule & have spent their time shouting at each other. This is why I took the time to look beyond Wikipedia in order to properly consider each argument. (If any participats object to this approach, I can only suggest they do their own homework.)

About ARIJ, an NGO which is the subject of a Wikipedia article: I performed a Google search, & the first result returned (which was not to the ARIJ website) did expend a lot of space describing how ARIJ is hostile towards Israel, providing a detailed list of all of these activities; however, the group behind this webpage is an "Israeli Non-Profit" with the purpose of "producing and distributing critical analysis and reports on the activities of the international and local NGO networks", so that may not present ARIJ fairly. I looked at the next two URLs Google returned: one did not mention ARIJ's criticism of Israeli policies, although it did provide an overview of the NGO's goals of economic development; the second did include it, but as one of 12 of ARIJ's activites, which included "Improving Plant Production to enhance Food Security of Farming communities in Rural areas of Bethlehem Governorate." & "Activated Sludge Filtration System for Wastewater Treatment in the West Bank". So the evidence is, at most, mixed on ARIJ being a primarily anti-Israeli group. There is also the consideration that a group dedicated to promoting one POV can still provide reliable information: the American Petroleum Institute promotes an agenda that has contributed to global warming, yet would that fact invalidate citing their statistics for oil production? No one even mentioned this last point.

On the content of the four external links: I reviewed these links, & found only one I would exclude -- the aerial image of the community; the article already has a similar image. Of the other 3 items, their primary content is about the population, area, & infrastructure of this community. Once upon a time, I wrote articles on the local governments & towns of Ethiopia, & I often relied on materials prepared by NGOs & the Ethiopian government to provide content for those articles; had I materials as detailed as these about any of them, I would have thought I struck gold. Considering that this article lacks objective & falsifiable facts (e.g. size of the district, quality of roads, number of schools & medical facilities), I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links". About the only objection I can conceivably find in these 3 is that the pamphlet (whose creation was funded by a second NGO, which could be expected to exert some fact-checking & editorial oversight) does discuss alleged Israeli practices of forcing resident inhabitants out of their homes & encouraging in-migration of Jews; but I expect the current policy of WP:BRD to manage any improper emphasis of this information. Moreover, incidents of this policy already appears in the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Debresser have now removed the following links, which were listed under the "External links" heading:

• Jabal al Mukabbir & al Sawahreh al Gharbiyya (Fact Sheet), Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem, (ARIJ)
• Jabal al Mukabbir & As Sawahira al Gharbiya Town Profile, ARIJ
• Jabal al Mukabbir & As Sawahira al Gharbiya picture, ARIJ
• Locality Development Priorities and Needs in Jabal al Mukabbir & As Sawahira al Gharbiya, ARIJ

...with the edit line: Remove unneeded external links per WP:EL. Also note that these are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber.

My comment: there is absolutely nothing in WP:EL which can justify a removal of these links. As for noteing that these links are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber: yeah, LOL, that was actually noted above. (And this is not the only place which is about two places, treated as one on wp, take Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba Town Profile as an example)

Debresser, you better explain this removal (which IMO borders on vandalism), or better still: undo your edit, Huldra (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have explained this removal, and you yourself have quoted my explanation above, so I fail to understand you. Also, per WP:CIVIL and WP:VANDALISM I suggest you take back your comment as though my edit borders on vandalism.

Now you had better start explaining the addition of 1. no less than 4 links to one and the same website 2. which are not really of major interest and do not meet WP:EL inclusion criteria, and 3. are sourced to an extremely POV source. Each of these points is a valid reasons to remove them, and you are hereby demanded to explain yourself or desist from adding them to articles. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

These are papers funded by AECID, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation. They are certainly more RS than all the settler sources used on Israeli settlements, for a start. Sorry, Debresser, you dont have case here, and I suspect you know it, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You ignore the bulk of my arguments, bring some Spanish organization as a source for what happens in Israel/Palestinian Territories, and top it of with an off-topic remark about other articles, and after all that you revert with the generic edit summary "per talkpage". So I reverted that, obviously, in view of the above. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I considered your arguments and found no substance in them. Zero^talk 11:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No surprise here. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, by reverting me, you even undid my linking to Gershom Gorenberg and Isabel Kershner.....Sigh, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was obviously not my intention. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC

Recently an editor added 4 external links to a certain website, First of all I think that is overkill. Apart from that, I think that none of the links is especially valuable, and see no compelling reason they should be included. In addition, the source in question, the Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem, has a very clear political agenda, and I am always wary of science which is being used for the attainment of political goals. All in all I would like to see opinions of editors regarding the desirableness of these links. I would also propose that in the case that a clear consensus should emerge among editors who have no prior involvement in this article, and on that condition only, this discussion could be used for similar issues on related articles. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The criteria which Debresser here makes for those whose opinion will determine this RFC, (ie, those ="who have no prior involvement") is totally unacceptable. This is a Palestinian neighborhood, those of us who edit Palestinian places of course have an involvement. (Imagine the opposite: A RfC on an article on a Jewish subject, to be determined by those who had not edited the article....) So, either all editors opinion matters the same, or consensus should be sought from editors with no involvement in the IP area. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I said "who have no prior involvement in this article". That does not preclude involvement in the Israel or Palestine area. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you were looking for an objective survey of uninvolved editors, you shouldn't have started the RfC with the highly biased opinion of an involved editor. Zero^talk 19:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And who has prior involvement in in this article? Answer: All of us who write articles about Palestinian places. Debresser: what would you have said if I started a RfC on...oh, say Haredi Judaism, or Menachem Mendel Schneerson (just to take a couple of articles you have recently edited)..and said that only the votes from those who had not previously edited these articles would count? Would you have accepted that? -- Huldra (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove or cut down to single link. External links are not an end around on NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Don't remove, because they are on-topic and meet the requirements for EL. ARIJ is one of the most reliable Palestinian NGOs and a blanket exclusion of it would be an act of political censorship. There's no policy that only sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right should be mentioned. Zero^talk 20:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To expand on the reasons for retention: (1) ARIJ is a large NGO which engages in development and environment projects. It has a large staff that includes many people with higher university degrees. Its annual income of several million dollars comes primarily from European governments, United Nations bodies, and external NGOs such as Oxfam. (2) ARIJ reports are regularly cited in academic sources [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], showing that ARIJ has a reputation for reliability. (3) NPOV requires us to present all notable viewpoints, which would be impossible if major representations of the Palestinian viewpoint were to be excluded. (4) The reasons given here for exclusion are "clear political agenda" (not a reason for exclusion even as a source if used properly, let alone as an EL), and "unreliable" (an assertion for which absolutely no evidence has been provided). In summary, the case for exclusion is essentially nonexistent. Zero^talk 08:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Remove this is extremist source that have no tradition of reliability it was created to disseminate Palestinian POV.--Shrike (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Don't remove, pr Zero0000. I think the best we can do is to bring all sources to the table. The suggestion from Icewhiz is impractical, as there is no single link which would lead to all (typically 4) pages which concerns each place. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove, unreliable biased source is not necessary.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Don't Remove ARIJ's "village profile" project is one of the more reliable Palestinian sources out there. I didn't see anything too problematic in these links, and the fact they follow a certain POV doesn't matter too much because they are only external links.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove Wikipedia is not an outlet for partisanship. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Remove, this source has many of the same problems as the Zochrot site that was used a lot in the past before we decided not to use it, for obvious reasons. There might be some specific research where ARIJ can be cited, but overall political NGOs should be avoided, both as sources and for ELs (unless ARIJ itself is relevant as an EL, not a specific piece it published). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)per

"Many of the same problems", "obvious reasons". Isn't there someone voting to delete who can give explicit reasons rather that just asserting that reasons exist? In addition it is a serious mistake to compare Zochrot to ARIJ. While Zochrot is an advocacy organization, ARIJ is an important NGO that engages in development projects; see their project lists here and here. They are nothing at all like each other. Zero^talk 08:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

But its advocacy organisation. Its waging law-fare and support BDS against Jewish state.--Shrike (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That is sheer nonsense, Shrike. Defining the catastal shape and history of land outside of Israel has nothing to do with lawfare or BDS against the 'Jewish stare'. A shameful argument.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Don't Remove per Bolter21 and Zero, Huldra. Looking at the links I see no indication of extremism. and it is an external link (editor is a volunteer for Wikipedia:Feedback request service) .-- BoogaLouie (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment.Don't remove, per Zero.I won't 'vote' because I don't like my appearing to imitate the bad practice around here of lockstep POV votes. In reading the above, there is sniping mostly, and avoidance of thwe duty to respond to the detailed arguments made by Zero in particular. ARIJ, as Bolter also notes and secondary sources attest, is a solid and reliable source, whose credentials are challenged simply because they document meticulously facts on the ground. The removalist editors show no familiarity with the organization, and appear to be opposed to it on principle because it covers the Palestinian angle. We simply should not continually drag out dislikes and make everything a putative POV issue, but evaluate on the merits, something which requires familiarity with the issue, and careful judgement.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been no evidence of any substance at all arguing on legitimate grounds for removal. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - not a single person arguing for removal has given a single policy justification for it. Also, WP:RFC requires a short and neutral statement about the dispute. Not this paragraph making an argument at the beginning. This isnt even a valid RFC, and the people voting to remove have not given a single valid, meaning based in Wikipedia policy and not their own personal preference to keep Wikipedia clear of Palestinian sources, reason to remove. nableezy - 17:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You sound like a tendentious editor: no policy reasons were given (what about WP:EL?!), this is not a valid RFC (if this isn't a valid RFC, then what is?), editors' votes are based on what they like (as though your vote isn't), etc. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You continue to be quite hypocritical about WP:NPA. Read and internalize that policy please. And yes, no policy reason was given, you nor anybody else has given what in WP:EL supports your view, you simply assert it. A valid RFC would be one that follows the requirements of WP:RFC, not one in which you make a non-neutral and long-winded argument at the start, then only notify WikiProject Israel and not any other relevant project until you are called out for selective notifications in violation of WP:CANVASS. That would help create a valid RFC. nableezy - 19:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am well acquainted with WP:NPA, thank you very much. I do not need to point out every argument in detail. If you don't know what WP:EL is about after all the years you have been active on Wikipedia, all discussion with you is doomed form the beginning. Not all Rfc's are non-neutral, whatever the guideline may prefer. Long winded? For an Rfc? Not really! I was not "called out" for canvassing, rather an editor reminded me, and I agreed with him immediately. One might argue that that is the same, but the way yo formulate it makes all the difference. Which just shows that you have issues with me, and with this project in general. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, Debresser: I think I will start referring to you as female, as you insist on referring to me as male....Huldra (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

:) Did I do it again? Sorry. Please show me where, and I'll be happy to fix that. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just above, at 22:30, 31 May. In case you were referring to Zero there, may I remark that I was the one first to call you out on this (below, 21:47, 27 May), which Zero then echoed at your talk page (08:30, 28 May), both cases which you acknowledged, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am well familiar with WP:EL (and both WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE suggest this material is fine), but also with WP:RFC, which has an entire section on Statements should be neutral and brief. As in Should the External Links section of this article contain these links? That would be a brief and neutral RFC question. You however chose to violate that by making a non-neutral and not at all brief opening remark here. So yes, I repeat my stance that this RFC is not valid. And the calling out is still visible below and on your talk page. nableezy - 23:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The requirement that an RfC should start with a neutral statement of the question is so critical to the whole concept of RfCs that there ought to be a standard way to request immediate closure if it is violated. Unfortunately I don't know of such a mechanism except to petition a general-purpose administrative noticeboard. Thus editors who violate the requirement, as Debresser did here, continue to get away with it. Zero^talk 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Zero0000 What "sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right" are present in the article?--Shrike (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Since Debresser wants this RfC to be valid for the whole West Bank (if I understand him correctly), we need to see "sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right" for all of those article. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I only proposed that. And only if there would be a clear and strong consensus, which s rather unlikely. And in any case, other editors would have to agree with that proposal of mine. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Shrike, I'd like to see an example of a source presenting the Israeli government viewpoint (which is an example of the Israeli right) that you have voted to remove. Or that Debresser has voted to remove. Your claim "it was created to disseminate Palestinian POV" proves that you know nothing about the organization, so you shouldn't be voting at all. Nor do I believe that Yaniv has proof that this source is unreliable (if so, where is it?). We all know what is going on here. Zero^talk 08:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to prove it reliable.--Shrike (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that a few warriors editors claim it is unreliable without evidence means there is nothing to prove. Zero^talk 19:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You ad homimenm just proves my point you have nothing to provide except violation of WP:NPA--Shrike (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Zero, please be so kind to strike that. That was not the spirit of Wikipedia speaking. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to provide evidence that this source is unreliable. It is not acceptable to just make accusations and demand that others disprove them. In order to help us judge your position, why don't you give some examples of Palestinian NGOs that you do consider reliable? Zero^talk 19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you waiting for me to prove something I never said? I said the source has a clear POV. Don't try to put words in my mouth and then ask me to prove them. You have tried this tactic many times over the years, and I have never yet fallen for it. By the way, thank you for striking that. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Having a clear POV" has never been a reason for rejecting ELs. If it was, we would delete the hundreds of ELs to Israeli government sites and that would be just the beginning. Zero^talk 08:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include not vice versa--Shrike (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple academic publications cite ARIJ. End of argument. Zero^talk 13:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Zero, what does that have to do with anything? Debresser (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, independent evidence of notability and reliability is irrelevant. Why didn't I think of that? You really deserve an award for that one, Debresser, please take a bow. Zero^talk 21:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, Debresser, I see you noted this discussion several days ago on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, but you seem to have forgotten to place a similar note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine. Please try to be less forgetful in the future, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Admit my mistake, and copied my notice there. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Debresser (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Map and caption

Debresser, for as long as this article has had a pushpin map it has used the Palestine map and had a caption "within Palestine". Jabel Mukaber is not in Israel, and you both are attempting to (again!) edit-war your change in without any semblance of an attempt at discussion and are violating your previously expressed desire to have others respect BRD. I invite you to explain. nableezy - 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

With a due respect, Jabel Mukaber is a neighborhood of Jerusalem. It is Israeli ruled, it has not connection with Palestine. I think that the map should show Israel. Somehow this was changed in a strange template edit, suddenly making this part of a Paletine t is no part of in 2019, without any specific discussion, and it simply wont fly.[14] Debresser (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Jabel Mukaber is in East Jerusalem, nearly universally recognized as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. What wont fly is you attempting to force through a change against a long-standing part of this article without any specific discussion. nableezy - 20:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with what you say. And it is precisely because of this that I think that the map should show Israel. Since it has been some 53 years now that this neighborhood is under Israeli rule, and it is Israel for all practical purposes, including for all practical purposes of its residents, it makes simply no sense to use a map of an political entity which is irrelevant in this locality. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"including for all practical purposes of its residents", sorry but that is simply nonsense. Ask a resident who wants a building permit. Ask a resident who can't study overseas for several years without their residence permit being cancelled. Compare the state of the roads and the quality of the garbage collection to Jewish neighborhoods. Zero^talk 10:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And what is the State of Palestine doing about this...? Nothing. Because they don't have jurisdiction. Which is precisely my point. All these issues are determined by Israel, so the map should reflect the reality. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

So because the occupier occupies Jabel Mukaber, it should occupy our article too? Sorry, but we need a better standard of logic. Zero^talk 12:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Zero, thank you for having an excellent sense of humor. You know that I respect you, but I'd ask you to view this question not in a personal way. Look at it from a practical point of view. I am not suggesting to make even the slightest change to the text of article. All I am saying is that a map of JM in the State of Palestine is not relevant for any practical purpose, while a map of JM in Israel is, so that is the map this article should use. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Israel occupies and controls the entirety of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Our maps show a boundary on the Green Line. This is past that boundary. You would have us put a map of Israel showing this place outside of the boundaries of Israel. And you talk about practical purposes? nableezy - 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, if that is where it is located. And that would be very informative, if you ask me. Having it in a state that never existed, at least not at that location, is (even more) absurd. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is located in the Palestinian territories. The State of Palestine exists. The state of Israel occupies that territory. It is not however located in Israel. nableezy - 23:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The State of Palestine exists, but not there. Nor has it ever been there. It is indeed, as you say, located in the occupied territories. Not i nthe State of Palestine. Which small fact, which has been true for over 50 years now, is precisely the reason I think we should add the Israel map. Since that is the only relevant map there has ever been for this locality (if not counting the Jordanian occupation till 1967). Debresser (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh no, it exists in the occupied territories. Those territories making up the State of Palestine. This place isnt in Israel. That would preclude using a map of Israel. nableezy - 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel that we are going around in circles. I remain with my opinion, and will consider taking this to a broader forum perhaps. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SoP claims the territory as does Israel by way of annex. The claim is recognized by the international community whereas the annex is considered as "null and void" ie Israel occupies the territory, nothing more. This is not a matter of dispute, other than by Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your approach is theoretical. That approach is not worth much in real life. Mind you, nobody here disputes this, not any of my fellow editors who commented above, nor I. My approach is a practical one. This locality is a Jerusalem neighborhood, is in everything dependent on Israel, and has been so for over half a century. We are not trying to right great wrongs. We are just asking which map is more relvant. That question is determined based on the situation on the ground, not by UN resolutions... And here I am not even going to questions like the political reasons behind those UN resolutions, or the appalling systematic bias in those same UN resolutions. I am just interested in writing an encyclopedia that should reflect facts, not theories. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact is this place is outside of Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories. So we use a map of those territories. Not one of a country that this place is not in. nableezy - 15:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But that isn't true, now is it. This is not a map of the occupied territories. This is a map of a (not really recognized) political entity called the State of Palestine, which has not relevance at that location. If this were an article about Tulkarem, or another place which is indeed under rule of the State of Palestine, I'd have no problem with that. But this location is, and has been for over half a century, under Israeli rule, and as such has no connection to a Palestine State (which, by the way, did not even exist for most of those over 50 years). Debresser (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A. it is really recognized, and B. they are the same map. nableezy - 22:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Arguably, Palestine has existed as a state since 1923 and Israel was certainly theoretical then :)Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I added an occupying state (israel) and israeli district (jerusalem) to the infobox. I dont know if youll be on board with occupying state, but I dont know what else to call it there. I hope that does enough to bridge the gap here in terms of reflecting the current status. nableezy - 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that is all according to the rules. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How would y'all feel about using a map of Jerusalem instead? I wouldn't complain provided it clearly showed the green line and captions used "West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem". Zero^talk 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting proposal. Could you show us an example, please? Debresser (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a pretty standard one, not saying it should be this one:

I was expecting a map of Jerusalem. The whole of Jerusalem. Not just East Jerusalem. Preferably by neighborhoods. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Map indicating East Jerusalem boundary

Nah, not needed. But if it is needed it should be focused on East Jersualem, as that is where this place is. This attempt to normalize occupied territory as just being a part of Israel is both tiresome and against NPOV. nableezy - 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry you feel tired. However, since JM is a Jerusalem neighborhood, I am rather certain that having only part of Jerusalem's neighborhood is not a good idea. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedias job is not to normalize a minority viewpoint, namely that Jerusalem is a single city in Israel. This place is outside of the borders of Israel, and the map used should show that plainly. nableezy - 22:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A map in an encyclopedia should provide information relevant to the subject of the article. That there is a theoretical point of view that holds that JM is not in Israel, is dealt with in the article, and needs no support from captions of maps. The map should be as relevant as possible, and should show JM as part of the municipality of Jerusalem, or as part of Israel, which is what it is for all practical purposes. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying nonsense like a "theoretical view". No, that is a fact. A fact attested to by thousands of sources. nableezy - 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Israeli rule vs occupation

Nableezy reverted me when I changed "occupation" to "rule" but it's my understanding that rule is preferred. At least based on prior discussions we just had a few weeks ago in the Jordan occupation in the West Bank arena. Can you clarify why you reverted and why you used the edit summary of "nonsense?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is that your understanding? The article is titled Israeli occupation of the West Bank. The reliable sources refer to an Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I already know you think you have some sort of trump card regarding the Jordanian control articles, but a. these arent those articles, b. the balance of reliable sources here is not the same as there, and c. you fail to understand the consistency in topic issue. Jordan's control and Israel's are not equivalent, and the language used here is in no way dependent on the language used there. As for why I used the word nonsense, because I was feeling charitable and didnt want to use the word "vandalism". nableezy - 01:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

While in the end I agree with your main point, although not without sympathizing with Sir Joseph's, you should really work on your civility. Calling this "vandalism" would really have been nonsense. Calling this "nonsense" was simply uncivil, and you should apologize. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It was a purposeful attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by attempting to prove a point about a different topic. That is pretty close to vandalism. Kindly stop lecturing me on topics such as civility in light of your own behavior. nableezy - 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you among the prophets now too? Are you a mindreader? No? Then you should really refrain from making such statements. Especially as they are a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

As a matter of fact I like to think of myself as a generally civil person. Although I admit we probably all have our good times and our bad times. In any case, I don't much appreciate your allusion above to incivility from my side, and since I posted about a specific violation from your side on this same page, I'd aapreciate it if you'd keep your general opinion about me restricted to admin forums and my personal talkpage, and not pollute this talkpage with it. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, I see the golden rule isnt quite your thing. If you dont want this talk page polluted, maybe not spout such nonsense here? nableezy - 14:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Debresser has begun edit-warring over the pushpin map and caption and an additional map. He says the map of the Palestinian territories is "more specific" than the one of the State of Palestine, ignoring the fact that, HELLO, they are the same exact map. Yes, to all interested observers, Debresser has been edit-warring with the claim that File:Palestine location map wide.png is more specific than File:Palestine location map wide.png. The difference there is in the caption, whether it says in the State of Palestine or the Palestinian territories. But Debresser doesn't want to say that's what he is edit-warring over, so he claims the File A is more precise than File A. And then while doing so, he removes that actually precise map we have. The pushpin map shows Jabel Mukaber within the entire greater Israel/Palestine area. The detailed map of Jerusalem shows Jabel Mukaber in relation to the Green Line, No Man's Land and so on. So while he claims to be putting in a more specific map while using the same freaking map, he removes the actually specific map. It's amazing honestly. nableezy - 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You are right regarding the map in the infobox. I was sure that these were different maps, but I now see that apart form the name they are identical. So all of Nableezy's innuendo and sarcasm aside, he is correct about this. Which does not mean that I agree with his edit, but that is an issue for another discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg. I find it an unclear map, and would remove it from the article, since the fact that it is unclear makes it useless for this article. It may be an interesting map in its own right, which when analysed in detail might yield some interesting information to some, but IMHO it does not contribute anything to the article. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You finding it unclear does not make it unclear, and I find it perfectly clear. I already said what it contributes, it shows where Jabel Mukaber is in relation to the Green Line. That is on the Palestine side of that line. It's helpful for readers, and editors (cough cough), who dont realize that. nableezy - 16:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You finding it clear does not make it that. It does not show where Jabel Mukaber is in relation to the Green Line, since from that map it is not clear where the Green Line, Jabel Mukaber or indeed anything is. In addition, we can already see from the map in the infobox, that it is somewhere around the Green Line. If there are any editors who need a hint (cough cough), the article already says that the West Bank barrier cuts the village in half. Debresser (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, this is what about. If you zoom in on the map it is indeed clear where things are. Israel may wish to build illegal barriers around illegal annexes and disappear the green line but I see no reason to respect occupier wishes in that regard.Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I rally think you should try to separate editing on Wikipedia from your political points of view. This is becoming tiresome. All I am saying is that the map is unclear. Even when enlarged, by the way. Such maps have no place in articles. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Says the guy who just argued that Gaza wasn't part of SoP, very amusing. Which bit of it is unclear? And why? Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not appreciated. Gaza may theoretically be a part of the State of Palestine, however, again, and this seems to be the bottom line disagreement here, in reality this is not the case at all. With the difference that regarding e.g. East Jerusalem only Israel disagrees, while in the case of Gaza the Palestinians themselves disagree. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You dont actually get to decide what reality is, we use sources for that. I find the map to completely clear and Ive explained what it adds to the article. That you find it unclear is not a reason to remove it and given the longstanding consensus for its inclusion. That you initially edit-warred over a different map claiming to want a more precise one and are arguing over removing the actually precise one remains a curiosity without a reasonable explanation. nableezy - 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't actually get to decide what reality is, we use sources for that. I find the map to completely unclear and I've explained why I think it does not add anything to the article. There is a difference between something that was added after a process of consensus forming, or just like that and simply not removed. The latter is the case here, so please don't claim "longstanding consensus"; at most you can claim "longstanding version". I did not edit war, nor did I "initially" have a problem with another map; I made both changes around the same time. Nor does all of that make any difference, so please stop obfuscating the issue. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thats cool that youve learned the mimicking act, maybe mimic me and read some sources. Like for example The UN World Food Program page on Palestine which, total shocker, includes Gaza. And yes, long standing material is in fact the byproduct of consensus, and this map has stood on this page since 2015. nableezy - 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

In another example of mimicking, I must ask you to read up on UN anti-Israel bias before "proving" anything regarding Israel with a UN source. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

lol. Literally, just lol. nableezy - 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)