Talk:East Talpiot

'Neighborhood'

Given the term 'neighborhood' is disputed both in law and fact by the international community, does anyone have objections to leading with more neutral terms such as 'disputed residential development' and perhaps even at the 'centre of the Israeli/Palestinian issue.'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is fine. However, I changed some of your other edits. First of all, you provided 3 sources for EU but 2 of them didn't say anything about it, so I just left the 3rd one which actually did source the info. Also, I got rid of "majority of international community" because it was unsourced and it's a weasel - we have discussed this in the past about other articles... instead of saying that, we should find sources for specific nations. For that same reason, it's good that we deleted "and other nations" from the next sentence. Also, I'm not sure why you deleted the part about it being built in no man's land, so I put it back in because I think it's notable. Breein1007 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do really appreciate your explination Breein1007. Generally when using references, i try to prefer to keep them all at the end of the sentence, or at least a pause in it, but if this is not wiki's policy I will endeavor to put each source at the end of each relevant word, even if mid-sentence. I have posted a question regarding the use of 'international community' over in Talk:Neve_Yaakov if you would not mind taking a look, or pointing me to where the previous discussion has taken place, and I will continue it there. I do agree that ideally it would be best to list each nations position, however this would be an incredibly large job, which unfortunately I do not have the time to undertake, especially when it is widely known what the majority of nations are, and is often mentioned in news articles. Perhaps we could state 'most nations' and simply show those that have clear exceptions to this, or have perhaps opted for a neutral position? I am sorry for deleting anything about no-mans land, that was not my intention and I am going to take another look to ensure it has not been removed in my latest edit, and also fix up those sources. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this seems pretty hard to manage when Gilabrand seems intent on simply removing at least slightly better edits, and replacing them with blindly nationalist ones. I have no intention of entering a wiki war over this, so will be reporting this, and other articles to an admin and perhaps arbitration group to take a look at. Simply leading with 'neighborhood' when this is clearly a disputed position, is absolutely unacceptable to NPOV and I cannot comprehend how anyone could even pretend to pass it of as so. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are finally attempting to discuss this instead of continue edit warring, although it is discouraging to see that at the same time as you posted this, you continue to revert without waiting for a discussion to take place. On the note of references, take a look at the format that other people use and copy that, because you are doing it incorrectly and every time you source something I go in and fix it for you. On the topic of reporting Gilabrand, I would strongly urge you to consider what will come of that: when reports are submitted, admins examine carefully both the user reported and the user reporting. If you submit a report, your behaviour will be scrutinized greatly. Breein1007 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I had no intention of entering a wikiwar, as I still do not. I cannot however, sit back and simply allow blatantly racist and unsourced 'information' to be displayed on any page. It is firmly against Wikipedia policy as I am sure you will agree. I do however, wonder, if you feel Gilabrand should have to enter the dialogue at all, as you seem to be protecting his edits, despite him not entering the dialogue at all. I am of course happy to have my actions and edits scrutinized by admins, as I have nothing to hide. I have not been removing dozens of sources without explanations, after all. If however, you could point me in the direction of a wiki link that explains how to properly cite articles, I would be greatly appreciative. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no racist information, and again, I suggest you watch your personal attacks and review WP:CIVIL. In terms of what you wonder about my feelings on Gilabrand, that is none of your business and certainly not the topic of conversation on this page. The dealings between me and her are between me and her. And I'm not sure of a link that shows how to do refs. Just look at a page's source and copy that. Breein1007 (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the UN doesn't recognise this place because it 'bowed to Arab pressure' without any source is misleading, factually incorrect and in my opinion is racist. First, if it were correct, 'the pressure of Arab nations' would be better, but as I am sure you are aware -- there were plenty of different pressures involved in this decision... Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Talpiot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708191106/http://www.jerusalem.muni.il:80/jer_main/defaultnew.asp?lng=2 to https://www.jerusalem.muni.il/jer_main/defaultnew.asp?lng=2

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

'Neighborhood' ....again.

It is only Israel who sees this as a 'Neighborhood'...all other nations sees it as a Israeli settlement, So, User:Debresser please change it back, as you can see, it was discussed above.

Also, I dont know why we link to "Talpiot Mizrah (East Talpiot)". 30 June 2013. Archived from the original on 2013-07-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) I cannot see anything relevant there? Huldra (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I see an 8-year old discussion between two editors. And I also see that the word "neighborhood" was there before February 2010 and after February 2010, so I see no way you can prove your point of view from that discussion. I repeat, "neighborhood" was there before and after. In any case, it is a neighborhood of Jerusalem, whether you like it or not. The fact that it is also a settlement is indeed mentioned in the lead, as per the convention in such cases.

Your second point is interesting, but I only undid your edit because you removed the archived link to a dead link. That is called vandalism. If you think we don't need the link, just remove it or tag it. In any case, I fixed the link, which apparently has moved. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Removing a dead link is called vandalism? That was a new one. (Anyway, thanks for fixing the link.)

But as to the first point: it really doesnt matter how long it has been called a "neighborhood" on Wikipedia, the point is that the world at large views it as a settlement. We cannot present the Israeli view as if that was the fact (for anything but the Israeli view)....and that is what you are now trying to do. By saying that "it is also a settlement is indeed mentioned in the lead" you give the two view points (that is, the Israeli vs the whole rest of the world) equal value.... and that is called WP:UNDUE, Huldra (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If a link is dead and somebody removes the url of the archived version, yes, that is vandalism.

Of course it matters that basically for as long as this article has existed the consensus has been that this is a neighborhood.

Also note this article is part of the "Neighborhoods of Jerusalem" template.

Since this location is in Israel, for all practical purposes, the Israeli point if view is very relevant.

No need to try and reinvent the wheel. This is the way it is done on many Wikipedia articles, that we first indicate what it really is, and then add a second sentence reflecting the irrelevant point of view of the international community. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

What it really is is an Israeli settlement in occupied East Jerusalem. Ill be adding material to that effect. nableezy - 19:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There was no East Talpiot till Israel build it, so you just replaced a reliable source with a very POV one that reflects some narrative that is not relevant to anybody. Please undo this unacceptable edit. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Debresser: you obviously didn't check the link I removed: the archive link was just garbage, too. (Check the link above). So removing 2 garbage links now constitutes "vandalism", heh, I will remember that, next time you remove a garbage link or two! Huldra (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser, That is completely nonsensical. I added books published by respectable presses, you think a Jerusalem municipal cite is a reliable one? Are you serious? nableezy - 21:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I think an official city website is a reliable source. The opposite point of view is nonsensical. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how many times do we have to go through the same thing? Check this to jog your memory on official government sources. They are reliable for some things, they are primary sources for others. Statements such as proclaiming whether or not a place is a settlement is one of those things where they are a primary source. nableezy - 05:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

first of all, I don't have to agree with that point of view expressed on my talkpage. In addition, I think a city can be relied upon to know which neighborhoods it has, even with all the politics in the world. :) Really, Zero, your position is a bit absurd here. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: Since I have never edited this talk page, nor the article, and can't think of a relevant message I left on your talk page, I'm wondering what on earth you are talking about. Zero^talk 18:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Zero, my talkpage. The link you posted above. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

lol try to pay a bit more attention please. Even after he says he hasnt edited this page you double down. That was me. nableezy - 21:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You dont agree with your own statement acknowledging the consensus that official government sources are not reliable sources for anything other than their viewpoint? The Jerusalem municipal website is not a reliable source for what is and what is not Israeli territory. It is not a reliable source for history. It is a primary source representing the viewpoint of the municipal government. If I need to take this to RS/N then fine I will. But we've been through this before and at a certain point the IDIDNOTHEARTHAT about an established consensus, and an obvious fact at that matter, gets disruptive. nableezy - 18:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#East_Talpiot nableezy - 19:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. In this case, I don't think anybody but POV editors will argue that the source is not reliable for the statement it comes to source. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus?

Im sorry WarKosign, but that is unequivocally not a reason to revert an edit. Please explain your actual issues with the edit. You removed two top quality sources, information about the location of this place, and restored a manifestly bad "source" to the article. Claiming that there is no consensus for an edit is not, I repeat not, a valid reason to revert one. It especially is not a reason to remove reliably sourced material from an encyclopedia article. Please explain your edit. nableezy - 21:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be no dispute that this is an Israeli/Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem and that many organizations consider it an illegal settlement. This is exactly what the stable version of the article says, there is no need to make a change that re-arranges the data to emphasize a specific POV. I don't mind re-adding the sources. “WarKosign” 21:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Many organizations"? You mean academic sources and news reports flat out say it is a settlement, right? Because here on Wikipedia that is called a majority viewpoint, and WP:WEIGHT requires that it be given the appropriate level of emphasis in relation to the minority viewpoint that this is an "Israeli neighborhood". nableezy - 22:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Neighbourhood: "a geographically localized community within a larger city, town, suburb or rural area". A settlement, on the other hand is "a small community, village, or group of houses in a thinly populated area." Jerusalem is the largest metropolitan area city of Israel, so by no means it is a "thinly populated area". The term neighborhood describes East Talpiot much more accurately. Sure, this neighborhood is considered by many an illegal settlement, but it is first and foremost a neighborhood. You can't deny what it is just because you dispute its legality. “WarKosign” 06:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely subscribe to WarKosign's point of view. Not to mention that such has been the consensus version for as long as this article exists, see the discussion above. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign. Given that the legal status of the area is a political question with differing opinions by the parties involved, the article should not seek to highlight one POV. In light of that, the consensus version is better than the one suggested by Nableezy. OtterAM (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The very fact that there are reverts occuring belies the existence of a "consensus version". nableezy - 07:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Who exactly denied anything? You are the one suggesting that it is "considered" an Israeli settlement. No, it is an Israeli settlement, full stop. You think playing these games of saying "Israeli neighborhood" and "neighborhood" separately will confuse the issue, but this place is not in Israel and when it is described as "Israeli" it is an "Israeli settlement". I have not at any point said it is not a neighborhood. nableezy - 05:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Solution

I really don't understand what's all the argument about. East Talpiot is a neighborhood period. It is fully connected to Jerusalem proper, functions as a neighborhood and it is administered by the Jerusalem municipality. East Talpiot is also considered an illegal settlement on an occupied territory by the international community. Therefore: "East Talpiot is an Israeli neighborhood and an settlement in the Israeli occupied East Jerusalem." Just like Kalya is a settlement and a "kibbutz", and Ma'ale Adumim is a settlement and a "city".

It should be mentioned that most of the neighborhood is in the area designated as a UN buffer zone in the 1949 armistice agreement.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 06:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Needs sourcing. I would also want the information on it being between the two Palestinian villages included with the source that was removed. nableezy - 06:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Would also prefer it be described as a settlement first but I wont harp on it. nableezy - 06:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a populated place should be first described by what kind of settlement and then its status. Its like writing "Prague is the capital of Czechia and a city".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Bolter21 East Talpiot is a neighborhood of Jerusalem - that is a quite factual description. It is also in the previous no-man's land (quite evident by a peek at google maps or any map that has the city line) making it a somewhat particular case in regards to neighborhoods beyond the line. The international recognition of East Talpiot (or any other Jerusalem neighborhood - including those completely over the line - e.g. Gilo) - is a separate issue from the type of construction - these are small rural settlements - but big urban neighborhoods that are part of the city. We can state the international recognition issues (even "the international community sees X as an Israeli settlement) irrespective of how we describe the place of human dwelling).Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, i completely subscribe to Bolter's point of view, and the sources are already there. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The type of populated place is an Israeli settlement. The analogy given doesnt make much sense to me. nableezy - 05:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear, I do not accept wording such as it is a neighborhood of Jerusalem, it may well be a neighborhood but it is in East Jerusalem. nableezy - 05:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is just part of Jerusalem, but if you want to be more specific - I don't see any problem with that. “WarKosign” 06:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It is administered as part of Jerusalem - the municipality gathers taxes, collects trash, etc. This may be un-liked and unaccepted by many - but it is factual. In terms of human dwelling characteristics - it is a neighborhood. This is not a small settlement. Furthermore, in this particular case labeling East Talpiot, which is mainly built on no man's land, as an "Israeli settlement" is a complex question.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is not "just a part of Jerusalem", it is just a part of the occupied Palestinian territories. And no, Icewhiz, it is not complicated. The best sources currently in the article are quite straightforward that East Talpiot is a settlement. nableezy - 07:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Bolter, I hadnt noticed that you worded it as an Israeli neighborhood. The problem is Israeli neighborhood would mean a neighborhood in Israel, and this place is not. I have no problem with it is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem. I do have a problem with slyly laying claim to occupied territory as though it were not. nableezy - 07:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How about "Neighborhood in East Jerusalem populated by Israeli citizens" ? “WarKosign” 07:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As this is on the former UN enclave / buffer zone - neither East Jerusalem nor West Jerusalem is an accurate (Central Jerusalem would be OR) - and East/West Jerusalem should be avoided.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So just Jerusalem. “WarKosign” 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The UN buffer zone is East Jerusalem. Both Israel and the IC view every part of the West Bank annexed to Israel as "East Jerusalem". The UN buffer zone is included in that territory. I'll remind you that the historical "East Jerusalem", that is the Jordanian municipality from 1949 to 1967 is way smaller than modern-day East Jerusalem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Israel's view is quite different from the IC - particularly regarding anything about Jerusalem (and it does not recognize an "East Jerusalem" - officially at least). In this particular case - Israel indeed extended Jerusalem's area to cover the buffer zone in 1967 - similar to East Jerusalem. What is dissimilar - is that the buffer zone was not controlled by the Jordanians prior to 1967 (as opposed to all of the rest of the West Bank / Jerusalem). The legal status of the UN enclave, small buffer zones on the city line, and the buffer zone west/south of Latrun - is somewhat different that the rest. The distinction between the buffer areas - and the rest of the West Bank - comes up in any international discussion regarding borders (for the most part - this is an obscure technicality - as the overall area of the buffer zones is small, however in this particular case we are describing a neighborhood that is smack in the middle of one).Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Israel actually does recognize an "East Jerusalem". I saw many blue IDs of Arabs from East Jerusalem and they said "Jerusalem (East)" or י-ם (מזרח) in Hebrew.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not in reference to Gilo (which per IC nomenclature is East Jerusalem (though it is to the south-west...) - since it was Jordanian - but no Israeli document would refer to it as such) - or East Talpiot (whose status as being in the buffer zone is complex also in the IC arena) - you wouldn't.Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources say this place is in East Jerusalem. You are not a reliable source. nableezy - 16:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• This source, which is a RS, says "Israeli neighborhood" - and there is no lack of sources calling it a neighborhood per a very simple "East Talpiot" + neighborhood search in google books.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Then we have an issue of weight. And whether or not Wikipedia should be making a disputed assertion by implication, that East Talpiot is in Israel. And why, if one phrase, "Israeli neighborhood", is used in the narrative voice as a fact the other, "Israeli settlement", which is sourced as a fact and not a viewpoint of the international community, not? nableezy - 07:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Settlement is disputed here as well - and in this very particular instance you can find multiple labels for this site - due to it being in a former no man's land. We could call it a Jewish neighborhood, without using Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with that. nableezy - 07:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And Id be fine adding that it is in the former no-mans land. However that is still, present tense, called East Jerusalem and internationally recognized as occupied territory. nableezy - 07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

While you can cherry-pick sources to present that view (as well as the other view) - the inclusion of most (the part in the NML) of this neighborhood in East Jerusalem (and recognition of it as occupied) - is far from obvious.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It isnt cherry picking, it is internationally considered occupied territory NYTimes: No Man’s Land encompasses the area between the armistice lines drawn at the end of the 1948-49 war and was claimed by Jordan and Israel. Israel won full control of it in the 1967 war, so the United Nations and much of the world consider it occupied territory. What sources do you have that dispute that it is internationally recognized as being occupied territory? Not sources making the argument that it really isnt, but that dispute what it recognized as. nableezy - 08:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is just or not, the UN viwes the buffer zones in Jerusalem as well as the NML in Latrun as occupied territory (and I believe the same opinion exists for the buffer zones on the Syrian border.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The merits of the argument are different, as is "what is occupied". The demilitarized zones the former Syrian border (with the Golan) are actually completely different - these were (1949-67) under Israeli civil control (and were former British mandate areas), but Israel was prohibited from entering military forces into them due to the cease fire agreement.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, whether we Israelis view it as just or not, the international community is against our position and they recognize every territory we captured in 1967, regardless of who controlled it before, as "occupied". The goal of the lead section is to describe both what Israel thinks and what the world thinks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources say this place is in occupied East Jerusalem. Once again, User:Icewhiz is not a reliable source. nableezy - 17:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" say a lot of things, including that it is a Jerusalem neighborhood. Sorry, but you're running around in circles. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Literally have no understanding of what it is you are trying to say. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute this place is in East Jerusalem? Didnt think so. nableezy - 19:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

Uh, Icewhiz, your tagging as dubious that Jordan occupied East Jerusalem? Cus that's what the sentence refers to. The phrase the Israeli government effectively annexed the formerly Jordanian occupied territory is about Following the capture and occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. What exactly are you disputing? nableezy - 07:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That East Talpiot is located on "formerly Jordanian occupied territory". In the rather unique situation of East Talpiot, it is located (mainly - ignoring spillovers to either side) on the UN headquarters exclave that was not controlled by Jordan nor Israel. The paragraph, as is, misrepresents this and suggests that this area was "formerly Jordanian occupied territory".Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence does not say that. Not in any way. nableezy - 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sur Baher and Sawaher

I for the life of me cannot understand why something as basic as saying this place is between two Palestinian villages repeatedly gets removed. @Debresser:, why did you remove that material? nableezy - 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And your edit does not better represent the source regarding Bethlehem and Beit Jala, the sources are saying Gilo and East Talpiot were made to cordon off Jerusalem from the Palestinian population centers to make a return of the newly occupied territory impossible. Not just they are in that general direction. nableezy - 18:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That may be true, or not. i for one am not convinced by the reliability of the source in question. But in any case, these neighborhoods are not close to those cities, and that is something that must be made clear. Which, by the way, is one of the reasons I doubt that statement. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A. The book is published by Taylor & Francis, the author has a PhD in Applied Social Sciences with a focus on Jerusalem. It is unquestionably a reliable source. B. You have not in any way responded to the question on Sur Baher and Sawaher. Please, with something more than your unsubstantiated opinions and with a reference to Wikipedia content policies, explain why you removed the material on Sur Baher and Sawaher and why you distorted what the source said regarding Bethlehem and Beit Jala. And please explain how misrepresenting the source "more accurately reflects the source" as you claimed in your edit summary. nableezy - 21:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

B1. Because it is not relevant. B2+3. I already explained that above. In general, this is all just conjecture from a POV source, so unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In what world is what a reliable source says specifically about this place not relevant. Are you seriously arguing against these sources? Taking this RS/N then. And you absolutely did not address the removal of the Palestinian villages, or the distortion of the cited source. Distorting sources is sanctionable. nableezy - 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the reliability of obviously reliable sources was oddly challenged, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#East_Talpiot. Im also raising the use of the municipal site there too. nableezy - 17:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The only commentary on it at RS/N is that it appears to be highly reliable. Ill be returning the material from these sources to the article. nableezy - 22:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You will be reverted and reported. You see very well that the issue is not only whether the source is reliable. Please notice that on WP:RS there is opposition as well, so I have no idea why you are trying to escalate things here. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I will be returning the reliably sourced material, and if you revert it again without basis I will be in turn asking for a topic ban for disruptive editing. You may not remove material because you dislike it. And what opposition on RS/N? You know there are permalinks where anybody can see you are wrong? The only opposing statement was copy pasted by Icewhiz and didnt even address the sources. The only views on the sources where that they are obviously reliable, and they are. nableezy - 17:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I returned the material on Sur Baher and Sawaher and reworded the material on Bethlehem and Beit Jalla to hopefully address what Debresser thinks is a problem of saying East Talpiot is "close to those cities" while actually sticking to what the sources say, unlike what the previous edit. However several reliable sources say that this settlement was built to help separate Jerusalem from those Palestinian cities and as such it should be in the article. nableezy - 06:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw the discussion at WP:RS, and have no further objection. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Arab East Jerusalem

@יניב הורון: the phrase "Arab East Jerusalem" is in reference to what it was in 1967 when Israel captured and occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. It is there to contrast its population at the time and the Israeli aims to increase the Jewish population there following its occupation. Your edit summary doesnt make any sense in that context, it is not discussing the place now but as it was then. Please self-revert or provide some reasoning for why not. nableezy - 23:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This location was not in Arab East Jerusalem - being located on the buffer zone in which the UN was located and controlled by neither side.Icewhiz (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(refactored) One more time, that sentence does not say that East Talpiot is on land that was not part of the no-man's land. That sentence is in reference to the territory Israel occupied and their plans for it. Part of their plan for Arab East Jerusalem was to increase the Jewish population there and to cut it off from the rest of the West Bank. The establishment of East Talpiot was part of that second part. I really dont get why you are arguing against a strawman, the line does not say anything about East Talpiot being in Jordanian occupied territory. nableezy - 04:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: can we please discuss this tagging and the material on East Jerusalem? The line there, in the background section, is not saying that East Talpiot was in occupied Jordanian territory. It is saying that East Talpiot was created as part of the plan to incorporate that previously occupied Jordanian territory into Israel and to make a future separation impossible. I really dont get why you continue to raise that as the objection, the sentence does not say that. nableezy - 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems this text was copied over from some other ring neighborhood. That case of this particular neighborhood on a NML is unique in its circumstances - it is not the place for a copy-paste job. Whether East Talpiot makes separation impossible or not is a matter of opinion - as are the motivations for its construction.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely was not copy-pasted, have you even read the sources? It is very specifically about East Talpiot and its part of the Jerusalem Plan. Do you have even the slightest bit of evidence that it was copied over from some other ring neighborhood? Because I wrote that line here and only here. Though it should be added to Gilo and a couple of others the source mentions.

• Ira Sharkansky (1996). Governing Jerusalem: Again on the World's Agenda. Wayne State University Press. pp. 80–81. ISBN 0-8143-2592-0. Also prominny in Israeli policy was the enlargement of Jerusalem's boundaries and the extension of Israeli law to areas formerly under Jordanian control. The municipal area was increased from 38,000 to 108,000 dunams... The point was to make Jerusalem more secure with a substantial Jewish majority... Soon after the 1967 war there began the task of rebuilding the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, creating new Jewish neighborhoods and suburbs at all points of the compass ... meant to realize the decision of the national government that Jerusalem be developed as a city with a large Jewish majority and to create physical facts that would discourage any further division ... The next stage put new neighborhoods for Jews in open areas that had been occupied by Jordan to the north, south, and east of the city. Gilo and East Talpiot were built on the city's southwestern and southeastern flanks, positioned between it and the Palestinian locales of Beit Jallah and Bethlehem.
• Rawan Asali Nuseibeh (8 October 2015). Political Conflict and Exclusion in Jerusalem: The Provision of Education and Social Services. Taylor & Francis. p. 43. ISBN 978-1-317-53576-8. According to the Jerusalem Master Plan 1968, the plan consisted of a three-phase policy: First uniting the western and eastern sides of the city by populating the eastern side of the city with Israelis, so as to make re-division impossible in the future. Second, encircling the city, outside its existing periphery, with new Israeli settlements aimed at control over the broader Jerusalem region... the settlement of East Talpiot fell between the Palestinian villages of Sorbaher and Sawhreh... The international community has never recognised this annexation. Under international law East Jerusalem is considered Occupied Palestinian Territory.

nableezy - 08:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It was not in Arab East Jerusalem before, as Icewhiz has correctly shown, but the main reason for removal is that the way the sentence reads, it implies that East Jerusalem is Arab, and it is not. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it says East Jerusalem was Arab, and it was. Not that it is. It is a statement on the place as it was. nableezy - 17:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

Icewhiz, you know you dont have consensus to remove East Jerusalem as the location. It is, present tense, considered internationally as being in East Jerusalem. nableezy - 08:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, removing the category is inappropriate. It is well sourced that it is an Israeli settlement. nableezy - 08:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As other seam zone locations - this status is contested (In a much more wider fashion than locations that are actually inside the West Bank and were controlled by Jordan). Even if considered occupied - it isn't occupied East Jerusalem (of which it was never a part) - but the "occupied former UN enclave in between East and West Jerusalem".Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry but that is just wrong. East Jerusalem is, present tense, the entirety of the territory that Israel annexed to Jerusalem that it occupied in 1967. It is not just the territory of Jerusalem as occupied by the Jordanians. Reliable sources say that this place is, present tense, in East Jerusalem. They say it is a settlement. Your disliking of those facts does not in any way justify the removal of those well-sourced facts. nableezy - 17:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Some sources say that, some otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Do any sources dispute that it is in East Jerusalem? List them please. nableezy - 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

They usually just omit the label.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So you have no sources that dispute that this place is in East Jerusalem? Because on Wikipedia when several reliable sources, eg BBC, say something is a fact, like East Talpiot is in East Jerusalem, and no reliable sources dispute that fact, we accept that as an uncontested fact. nableezy - 18:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The BBC piece, which parroted a Peace Now communique, was about newer construction on the Eastern edge of East Talpiot that is in East Jerusalem. The situation regarding this neighborhood is quite clear on a map (which shows it mainly in the buffer zone), and several sources call it a neighborhood in Jerusalem, without east.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so you think it is just one BBC piece?

• Reuters: The East Jerusalem neighborhoods where building is planned are Givat Hamatos, East Talpiot, Ramot, Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaakov, Ramot Shlomo, Gilo and Atarot. These areas extend in an arc from north to south around the eastern side of Jerusalem, forming something of a buffer with the West Bank.
• Adelman, M.; Elman, M.F. (2014). Jerusalem: Conflict and Cooperation in a Contested City. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-5252-6. Retrieved 2018-05-31.: between 1968 and 1970 the first Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem were built, in French Hill and Ramot Eshkol, then in Ramot, Gilo and East Talpiot.
• Handel, A.; Allegra, M.; Maggor, E. (2017). Normalizing Occupation: The Politics of Everyday Life in the West Bank Settlements. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-02505-0. Retrieved 2018-05-31.: Major population centers, each counting more than 10,000 residents, are the "new neighborhoods" established in East Jerusalem (Gilo, Ramot Allon, Neve Ya'akov, Pisgat Ze'ev, Har Homa, Ramat Shlomo, and East Talpiot)

Again, do you have any sources that actually say East Talpiot is not in East Jerusalem? Because, again, when reliable sources say something that no other reliable source disputes it is accepted as a fact on Wikipedia. So far we have no reliable sources that dispute that East Talpiot is in East Jerusalem. nableezy - 22:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ive added those references to the article to hopefully disabuse you of the notion that this is one BBC News piece that parrots a Peace Now communique (which would matter why again?). nableezy - 22:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I still fail to understand what are you both argueing about. East Talpiot is a neighborhood - fact. East Talpiot is a neighborhood of Jerusalem - fact. East Talpiot is located in East Jerusalem - fact. East Talpiot is considered a settlement on an occupied territory - fact.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing against any of that. Icewhiz however seems to think that his or her unsourced commentary negates the so far undisputed fact that it is in East Jerusalem. nableezy - 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bolter21: - please open a map. Most of East Talpiot is not in East Jerusalem - it is on a buffer zone than wasn't in East nor West Jerusalem.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The buffer zone is East Jerusalem. Everything east (south or north) of the Green Line that is annexed to Jerusalem is "East Jerusalem".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Its a slick thing you are doing with the tenses. "Most of East Talpiot is not in East Jerusalem" and "a buffer zone than wasn't in East nor West Jerusalem." Your argument, wholly OR by the way, is that what it was determines what it is. But that isnt the case. Much of what is recognized as Israeli sovereign territory was not assigned to the Jewish state under the partition plan. It however is a part of the Jewish state. Now I dont really want to venture too far into the weeds on this, because again it is OR that is directly contradicted by the several reliable sources provided above that give the location as, present tense, East Jerusalem, but needless to say your argument, OR though it is, is flawed anyway. All that said, there are several sources in the article and on this talk page that give the location as East Jerusalem. It is easily the best sourced part of this article. Unless and until you can provide sources of equivalent quality that contradict those cited I see no reason to continue arguing this. nableezy - 07:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no rigorous answer to this because there is no rigorous definition of "East Jerusalem" as far as I am aware. But the majority of modern sources that I could find consider "East Jerusalem" to be all of Jerusalem that was not under Israeli control before 1967 but came under Israeli control in 1967, including territory within the vastly-expanded municipal boundaries that Israel imposed that was never part of Jordanian Jerusalem. This latter observation contradicts the OR that being in the no-mans land excludes being in East Jerusalem. We should follow the majority of sources and call this East Jerusalem, while of course noting the history of the location. Zero^talk 08:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In regards to claims of OR, all contemporary maps that show the status of areas in Jerusalem take care to shade this area as "no man's land", e.g. this OCHA map (click to open the PDF) with shaded area and big green arrow with a caption saying "No Man's Land" in green, complete with the drawing of both green lines around the NML. So no, this is not OR that this has a separate (and complex) status from the rest of Jerusalem.Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree about where the no-mans land was (and still is, by UN reckoning), but that is not the issue. The OR comes in asserting that the no-mans land is not in "East Jerusalem". The map you indicate does not answer this question (though it does show ET as a settlement). But you just have to click on a different map on the same page to see that OCHA considers that the no-mans land is part of East Jerusalem. Zero^talk 10:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Not one person has disputed that it is largely on the territory that was no-mans land, however that, again, does not negate that it is considered East Jerusalem. And again this is well sourced as being in East Jerusalem. With no sources disputing that. And yes, it unequivocally is OR to take a map that does not specifically say that a place is not in East Jerusalem and then use that as evidence that this place is not in East Jerusalem. That is OR, otherwise you would be able to provide a single source that explicitly says that East Talpiot is not in East Jerusalem. Like I have provided sources that explicitly say that it is. nableezy - 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatever this is East Jerusalem or not for example [1] This source doesn't say this and this either [2].Most of the sources say its just land between east and west Jerusalem--Shrike (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If that is the best you can do, it just serves to confirm our point. The first source refers to pre-1967 terminology while the second doesn't seem to address the question at all. Zero^talk 09:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

municipal services

Yedioth Aharonat on Jabel Mukaber's municipal services:

One doesn’t need to be a great expert on infrastructure to understand the Jerusalem municipality doesn’t budget much money to its Arab residents. It is enough to just walk through that part of town. The roads are studded with potholes, the few sidewalks are in total disrepair, and there are almost no public parks. In Zur-Bakhar, a neighborhood of 15,000, a sewage system has never been installed. In parts of Beit Hanina, Shuafat, Silwan, Jabel Mukaber and Ras al-Amud - the deal stinks: Residents of Kfar Akab, for example, were fed up with the sewage and decided on their own initiative to install a sewage system – and to finance it from their own pockets. They didn’t even ask the municipality if they could – what would be the point?

Is anybody aware of what the source that says this settlement provides municipal services to Jabel Mukaber says? nableezy - 19:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Israeli neighborhoods

Debresser, we just went through this above where it was agreed to call it a Jewish neighborhood instead an Israeli neighborhood. Why are you returning the problematic phrase? nableezy - 17:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I have not reverted this a second time. I am fine with either way. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you not just say you are not reverting this again? Why did you then revert a second time? nableezy - 23:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You got mixed up. I didn't change "Jewish" to "Israeli" in the beginning of the lead sentence "East Talpiot or Armon HaNetziv is a Jewish neighborhood". That is what you wrote about, and this is what I replied about. In the diff I changed something else. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh no, this followed this revert by you, which was followed by this from Huldra, at which point you said the line I have not reverted this a second time. I am fine with either way. And then you reverted a second time. nableezy - 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

pejorative?

The present sentence:

"The international community considers Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to be Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law"

...is simply not acceptable. It starts out with naming East Talpiot as a "Israeli neighborhood"....and that is not something anyone (except Israel) agrees with. It will have to go. This is wikipedia, not Israelipedia!

Also the definitions of pejorative: "expressing contempt or disapproval"

Calling a place a "community" is not pejorative. It is not as if we, eg called it a "shithole" (which would have been pejorative, IMO), Huldra (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Especially as he just said he would not restore his edit in the section above. nableezy - 23:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

See above that you mixed up between two different instances of "Jewish settlements". Debresser (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried a new formulation to avoid such an issue. nableezy - 23:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely not pejorative. As for Israeli - these are the facts on the ground, and what multiple sources refer to (even when they dispute Israeli sovereignty) - heck we have are own Israeli settlement article (there's nothing illegitimate with "settlement" as a word - it has become illegitimate after being associated with Israeli settlements). All that being said - both edits (the new and old version) are splitting hairs.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Israeli settlement is a noun phrase, Israeli is not simply an adjective modifying the generic noun settlement. It has a specific meaning, that being a locality established by Israel in occupied territory. Israeli neighborhood however doesnt have such an established meaning, and the plain reading of the phrase is neighborhood in Israel. We avoid making factual statements based on minority POVs, and the POV that this place is in Israel is such a minority POV. Which is why I objected to begin with, and why I assume you agreed with "Jewish neighborhood" above as well. nableezy - 08:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It has come to be used as a noun phrase - but not exclusively so. I disagreed with the labeling of this as pejorative. However - we are splitting hairs - I am perfectly fine with "Jewish neighborhood".Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

East Talpiot is not a "community". The word "community" may apply to small settlements of a few tens to a few hundreds of people, but not to a full-fledged neighborhood of tens of thousands of people. That is what I meant by "pejorative", like "diminishing". And no, Icewhiz, that is not "splitting hairs". Debresser (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

background

Uhh the part yall keep reverting is directly related to the preceding line. Why should the effective annexation not mention that it was internationally condemned? nableezy - 07:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But seeing as how I wrote the effectively annexed part Ill just reword that without needing to worry myself with whether or not it is a revert. nableezy - 07:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How is the condemnation, in 1980(or 1?), relevant to East Talpiot? Was East Talpiot specifically condemned? The UNSC issued a declaration vis-a-vis a declarative Israeli law - neither of which mentioned Talpiot.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That isnt the only condemnation. United Nations Security Council Resolution 252, United Nations Security Council Resolution 267. It is as relevant as the rest of the background section. nableezy - 07:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is SYNTH, as the condemnations do not refer specifically to East Talpiot or to the Governor's Palace/UN headquarters. Given the ambiguous status of this locale (being a no-man's land) - there are also OR concerns regarding whether this locale is included in wider statements when it isn't mentioned specifically - though SYNTH is sufficient here for exclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You continue to make the unfounded assertion that the locale's status is ambiguous. It isnt. Ill also note you removed things that were in a source specifically talking about East Talpiot. Ill be returning those later. nableezy - 08:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite founded - see this OCHA map (click to open the PDF) with shaded area and big green arrow with a caption saying "No Man's Land" in green, complete with the drawing of both green lines around the NML. So no - it is not unfounded that this area has a different status from most of Jerusalem - this is the position of the UN itself. As for "things" - please specify exactly what you think wasn't SYNTH (or an amaglmation of Gilo+East-Talpiot that was not specific (and incorrect) in relation to East Talpiot.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol, Zero responded to that above. Ill just quote his response.

I agree about where the no-mans land was (and still is, by UN reckoning), but that is not the issue. The OR comes in asserting that the no-mans land is not in "East Jerusalem". The map you indicate does not answer this question (though it does show ET as a settlement). But you just have to click on a different map on the same page to see that OCHA considers that the no-mans land is part of East Jerusalem.

nableezy - 08:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

While perhaps many definitions of East Jerusalem consider East Talpiot part of East Jerusalem (or possibly a part of it), the legal status of East Talpiot (and other NMLs, but this is the largest one that was a "pure NML") is sui generis within Jerusalem - and as such we should draw inferences (WP:OR) that statements made generally regarding occupied Jerusalem include East Talpiot - we should require (as we would anyway, to avoid SYNTH), a source stating this explicitly.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several sources on this talk page that explicitly discuss East Talpiot as being in East Jerusalem and as occupied territory and as an illegal settlement. Nobody has drawn any inference except for you, the only OR on this page comes in your edits in which you take a map that shows No-man's land and claim it as proof this place is not in EJ, when the same group that made that map clearly shows it in EJ in a map on another page. Nice of you to not even acknowledge that, for the second time. Also, see below for Zero's response to the rest of the OR claims made by your good self. nableezy - 17:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Quoting from the source: Gilo and East Talpiot were built on the city's southwestern and southeastern flanks, positioned between it and the Palestinian locales of Beit Jallah and Bethlehem. How exactly is that not specifically discussing East Talpiot? nableezy - 08:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Open a map, and you shall see this primarily refers to Gilo - this is an amalgamation in the source.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Open the source, youll see that it explicitly diuscusses ET as being a settlement created to segregate Jerusalem from Palestinian population centers, and along with Gilo to specifically block off Beit Jalla and Bethelehm. Your dislike of what the source says does not change that a RS specifically says this. nableezy - 17:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say I "disliked" the source. It says Gilo and ET block Beit Jala. That is correct. Saying "Gilo and NY" block BJ would prbably be correct too. This article is not about Gilo, or Gilo and East Talpiot, it is about East Talpiot.Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Um the quote discusses ET. Specifically ET. Again Gilo and East Talpiot were built on the city's southwestern and southeastern flanks, positioned between it and the Palestinian locales of Beit Jallah and Bethlehem. What about that is not clear? And responses of the variation of look at a map and the source is wrong are not on Wikipedia valid arguments, per WP:V and WP:OR. nableezy - 17:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles which explains better than I that maps published by a reliable publisher are a RS. As for your source, I did not say it is wrong, merely that it discussing Gilo+ET and not ET by itself.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The same publisher has a map that shows it in EJ. The line you removed also discusses the two of them together, so I dont see how that advances the argument that you were justified to remove it. nableezy - 18:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And for the record, User:Firkin Flying Fox is an obvious NoCal100 sock and I sincerely hope editors in good standing dont seek to take advantage of his reverts here and at other articles. Hell be blocked eventually but in the meantime can we agree that banned editors should not be editing here and gaming the revert restrictions with his reverts isnt exactly a becoming look. nableezy - 07:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, WP:AGF.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a suicide pact. nableezy - 08:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

ahem. nableezy - 06:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WarKosign, on what earth is that a POV edit? How? How is maintaining the inclusion of only one POV, which is what you just did, a NPOV edit? nableezy - 07:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Had we (and I don't think we should!) had text saying "the eternal capital of Israel" - that would be POV. The Israeli capture, occupation, and administration of various territories in 1967 is not POV - but a historical fact - when we add support or condemnations to the Israeli actions - then we insert a POV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

When we say it was incorporated into Israeli territory that is an Israeli POV, as it neglects the international view that it is not Israeli territory. nableezy - 08:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is internationally view, supported by many sources, that Israel annexed East Jerusalem. It is also more recent (hence irrelevant in this sentence) international view that this annexation was illegal. Don't mix legality with reality. “WarKosign” 08:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the view of the international community is that the attempted annexation is null and void. And again, that is not the only time that the UNSC censured or otherwise condemned Israel for attempting to change the status of Jerusalem. I have no idea what your last line is supposed to mean. nableezy - 08:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... [3]: "... the widely held view, both in Israel and outside it, is that the State of Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem...". “WarKosign” 09:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you read that article? Or even the sentence that immediately follows your quote? And I repeat, the view of the international community is that purported annexation is null and void. There is no real dispute about that, and I find it puzzling you are even pretending that there is. nableezy - 11:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, null and void. So according to the prevailing position East Jerusalem is annexed by Israel and this annexation is of no legal value. It is not the same as it not being annexed at all, otherwise there wouldn't be that widely held view that "Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem". I know that the article argues against this view, but it's not the point. The point is that it IS the widely held view. “WarKosign”

No, the article doesnt argue against the view, it says it is flat out wrong, and even then that doesnt have anything to do with what the status of the territory is. It is a widely held view that the Earth is flat. Not among competent sources, but still, held widely nonetheless. Like I said, the view of the international community is that purported annexation is null and void. And there is no serious dispute about that. nableezy - 12:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing (or intentionally mixing up) legality with reality. As I demonstrated, international consensus is that Israel did annex East Jerusalem, and that this annexation has no legal power. No contradiction between the two. “WarKosign” 12:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, you did no such thing. And again, the phrase confusing legality with reality is completely devoid of meaning. nableezy - 17:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with this subject and the related edits/reverts. First, in 1967-8 Israel did not claim to have annexed East Jerusalem but on the contrary openly declared that it had not annexed it. Second, the UN resolutions (GA 2253 and 2254, SC 252) don't mention the word "annexation" either, nor do they mention "East Jerusalem", but instead they condemn Israel for changing "the status of Jerusalem". Since the condemnations referred to "Jerusalem", which obviously includes the no-mans land, the question of whether the condemnation applied to the no-mans land does not rest on whether or not the no-mans land is in "East Jerusalem". Nor does it depend on the Jordanian status of the no-mans land, since the UN did not ever recognise Jordanian sovereignty in Jerusalem. The claim that East Talpiot must be mentioned explicitly is pure BS (and Icewhiz is well aware that the legislative actions taken by Israel that led to the UN condemnation did apply to East Talpiot, which kills that wikilawyering gambit stone dead). Finally, to address what the article should say, we can use a non-legal phrase like "effectively annexed" which should be easy to source. It is also perfectly reasonable to mention both the contemporary UN condemnation of the 1967-8 actions and the current UN policy 50 years later. Zero^talk 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the sentence which was added and then removed multiple times is undue in this article. The convention on all such articles is to have a short mention of the disputed status in the lead, and that is all. If any editor wants to add more than that, they will have to attain broad consensus regarding all of these articles. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That isnt true, more fleshed out articles have entire sections on the legal status. But regardless, this isnt even about the legal status, it is about the history of East Talpiot specifically and how it came to be. If somebody wants to say that Israel effectively annexed EJ they need to include that this action was condemned internationally per NPOV. nableezy - 17:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The material on the Jerusalem Master Plan calling for settlements to be created to encircle Jerusalem with Jewish settlements to both separate the city from Palestinian population centers and to make future division impossible is directly related to this settlement through this source. I intend to restore that material as it was removed without basis. nableezy - 00:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The question is how you will word it, as far as I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

2017 Jerusalem truck attack

@Icewhiz: as you have removed sourced material that explicitly discuss ET on the basis of SYNTH, bizarrely, can you explain where in this article it discusses East Talpiot? Because the only places it says "East" are next to Jerusalem (and once following Middle), and it nowhere says Talpiot. Could you explain the reasoning that allows for the removal of material specific to ET per SYNTH and then the addition of material that does not even mention it? How do you reconcile those edits? nableezy - 18:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The NYT uses Armon Hanatziv, which is the widely used alternative name (which is perhaps the COMMONNAME). No lack of additional sources, as you might see in the truck attack article. Futhermore I shall note the NYT says The attack on Sunday occurred on the Armon Hanatziv Promenade, a popular tourist spot between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem that offers sweeping views of the Old City. - which is a RS on the subject that does not call it East Jerusalem, but rather between East and West - as I have advanced above.Icewhiz (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The promenade stretches from Ramot Rachel through East Talpiot. It does not just say Armon Hanatziv, it says Armon Hanatziv Promenade. So again, where does that article specify that this took place in ET? And please, the NYTimes is a reliable source for news, like the fact that this attack occured, but it is a weaker source than the several listed above that say emphatically that ET is in EJ, which btw this does not address. nableezy - 18:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The NYT is pretty much the gold standard in journalism and dang in the center for POV. If you want a source saying East Talpiot, the alternative name, then sure - Ceremony commemorates East Talpiot terror attack. There really isn't a lack of sources covering this attack in East Talpiot/Armon Hanatziv.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes for journalism. However WP:RS lays this out well, I invite you to read it. Particularly the line Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. What is the status of East Talpiot is not news, and the scholarly sources here make clear what that status is. Even the source you thought backed your position, OCHA, manifestly does not. nableezy - 18:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But since you say the NYTimes is "pretty much the gold standard .. and dang in the center for POV", perhaps you should look at this in the East Talpiot neighborhood of East Jerusalem. nableezy - 18:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, the OCHA map (and any other serious map) shades this a color in between east and west and calls it a NML - an area that could possibly be seen as east, west, both, or neither, but I really do not want to go into that again. This topic, the status of an area, is a journalism issue not a question of scholarship - status primarily determined by opinions of involved and non-involved countries. But are we satisfied that the truck attack took place in East Talpiot?Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but add a source that says that explicitly please. nableezy - 18:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But no, whether or not a place is occupied territory or its current legal status is not a journalism question. That is not "news". But regardless, I gave a NYTimes source right above the edit conflict that shows them also saying in EJ. likewise BBC, likewise Reuters. You arent going to win the argument on EJ, it is extremely well sourced that this settlement is in EJ. Even the sources you claim support your position invariably do not. nableezy - 18:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem map by neighbourhoods needed

See discussion at Talk:Jerusalem#Map by neighbourhoods needed. Arminden (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)