Talk:Ma'ale Adumim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Segregated[edit]

User Atefrat deleted my addition of the adjective segregated in the first paragraph. Mishor Adumim is a segregated settlement.MrAtoz (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)MrAtoz

I have reverted your change. 'segregated' is non-specific and no source has been cited. What attributes are you trying to convey with the word 'segregated' ? All Israeli settlements are essentially Jewish Israeli communities across the green line in the oPt. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wall[edit]

May 18, 2005 email from Brit Tzedek v'Shalom says:

Now, disturbing reports are surfacing in the Israeli press, which according to the US press have been confirmed by Israeli government officials, that the security barrier will be extended to enclose Maale Adumim, with construction slated to begin in the next few weeks. As with the previously proposed extension of Maale Adumim… this would complete the "Jerusalem envelope," which would cut off Arab East Jerusalem and its 250,000 Palestinian residents from the West Bank.

Someone may want to follow up on that. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do you believe that Ma'ale Edumim doesn't deserve protection? TFighterPilot (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you believe that this is a forum? nableezy - 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering why he considered it disturbing. If it's against the rules then I apologize. TFighterPilot (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a map?[edit]

You know what would be really, really useful in this article? A map showing wher Ma'ale Adummim is, where the Green Line is, where the boundries of Jerusalem municipality are, and the proposed route of the barrier. Does anyone know where such a thing could be found? --Jfruh 19:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

this is a city in the region of israel[edit]

and belonging to it in the municipial way. it has nothing to do with internationally recognised. this is the reason nablus, ramallah, gaza are palestinian cities. they're not internationally recognised either - irrelevant. Amoruso 07:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it is an Israeli settlement, we cannot call it a "city in Israel" since it is not in Israel - it is quite clearly incorrect (and tendentious). If you want to rename the category "Israeli cities" then I suppose it could be included, but as long as it's not in Israel it can't go into a category called "cities in Israel". This is pretty basic. Don't readd the category until Ariel is moved or Israel's boundaries change. Palmiro | Talk 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
it's a city in israel, simple. it's connected through area called E1 to jerusalem and Israel won't negotiate its return like the rest of the west bank. since east jerusalem and goln are in israel through law so this is. See the article and see that it's State Land and therefore annexed. Whether that is illegal according to international law is dealt in the article but it's a state of facts. Amoruso 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
the poland example provided by soman is irrelevant because it really doesn't matter. Wikipedia at the time could have decided whatever it wanted. But this city is populated only by Israelis (btw, annexed after defensive war on area belonging to israel according to international law from san remo and mandate if you're at it) on state land, and is part of Israel de facto and fits into the category. That's all we should be concerned with. Like I said, there's also cities in palestine and palestine is a region not a state, so if you really want think of it as an Israeli region. But it shall be included. Amoruso 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
East Jerusalem's annexation is not recognized internationally so presenting it as so on WP is not neutral. However, this is irrelevant to Ma'ale Adumim, since this settlement is OUTSIDE the annexed boundaries of Jerusalem. In other words, it isn't in the parts annexed by Israel, it is in territory that has the same status as Jericho or Balata refugee camp. That's why it isn't IN Israel. Now if it's connected to Israel, that doesn't make it Israeli. Amman is connected to Israel... highway and airway... I'm surprised you do not know your geography better. Ramallite (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
that's where you'r wrong. Btw, Amman is Israeli too, but it's not annexed. In this case, it's in Israel in every sense. It was legally annexed as a seperate city in 1991. Amoruso 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It was declared a city, but it was not legally annexed, nor was it illegally annexed (which is Israel's preferred method). And I believe you know this already. As for Amman, please do the world a favor and go ahead and annex it. You're welcome to it. In fact, why don't you move the residents of Kiryat Arba there? Amman has eight hills, so you can even rename it Kiryat Shmonah Ha-shniya. Ramallite (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's always legally annexed - that is Israeli law. International law is am anbiguous subject to say the least, and it is of no legal binding force. I'll put it in a category - cities in judea if you insist it's not annexed though it is in many ways. In fact, I'll ask a court for an injunction to tell me if it is or not, or check the issue, pretty sure that is annexed already, will be very soon if not, more checkups. Amoruso 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, check with the court. And tell them you want fries with that as well.... And on a serious note, is there a political entity called "judea" now? If there is, then my buddies and I in Tulkarm are going to found a competing entity called Israel, just for old times sake... Ramallite (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't kidding about the court. And no, there is only a geographic entity called Judea. Amoruso 09:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, In the past, there were two kingdoms of 'Jews': Judea and Israel. Ramalite, some Jews have already reformed and copyrighted the kingdom of Israel.
Anyway, the precedent seems to be Majdal Shams. Why is it in the Villages in Syria cat? --Shuki 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps because it is in Syrian territory? Palmiro | Talk 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
it shouldn't be... it's a wrong cat. Amoruso 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

This infobox is POV, as shown by the "debate" immediately above. Ma'ale Adummim might be considered by some Israeli citizens as a full part of "Judea and Samaria", international law and international media refers to it as part of the West Bank, which, to date, has not been annexed by Israel. If, and when, Israel decides to annex Ma'ale Adummim and makes it a full, legal part of Israel, this infobox will be factual. Right now, it is not. Tazmaniacs 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"International law" is a tricky thing that people claim to know, but there has been no binding court case on the matter, and considerable legal debate. I'll leave out the infobox for now, but please don't go inserting boilerplate text about this or that settlement being "illegal" according to XYZ. The Israeli settlement article discusses the complex legal issues at length, and they aren't any different for Ma'ale Adummim than they are for Ariel or Ofra or Ma'ale Shomron or... Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I had stayed out of "your" articles which you liked so much for some time now, I had forgotten about the way you edit. Will you ever considerate that this is Wikipedia, and that rather than engaging in teenager edit wars, we may have other, more interesting things to do, both in real life and on Wikipedia, and try to find a consensual solution before? This is incredible, the BBC, which is not the most subversive media I know off, takes the pain to state that the international community considers Ma'ale Adummim as an illegal settlement, and also recalling that Israel claims it as its own. I can hardly find a better, NPOV way of putting the thing. Not speaking about its more than controversed judicial nature, and preferring to say "lots of people considers it as a suburb of Jerusalem", does this not strike you as POV propaganda? Hasn't Wikipedia better things to do than that? And please stop rhetorics sentences like " 'international law' [in brackets, because, of course, it's no use -- let's not speak about the good things international law did, but just about the things you don't like, right?) is a tricky thing"... Yeah? "that people claim to know"? So, you do know it? And the infobox is out of the question: not only is it silly taking such a complex matter to a "box" edit war, but it is totally unjustified, as you are virtually annexing the colony to "Judea and Samaria", which you will allow me to put into brackets because only parts of Israeli citizens refers to it, others, including in Israel, refers to it as the West Bank, which is its international name. So, so, tiring!... Don't send me to the "Israeli settlement" article, I was consensual enough to accept your deletion of contextual information, although the Wikipedia:Manual of style requires such context info, and it also states clearly that articles are supposed to be independent from one other. Please respect the community a bit more, thanks. Tazmaniacs 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please respond to the issue; does it make include boilerplate POV text in every single article about an Israeli settlement, or does it make sense to leave the more nuanced discussion for the proper article? I offered compromise here, you seem unwilling to take it. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you are of bad faith Jay, you know very well that articles are independent, and that the BBC is a NPOV source. I am tired of you, you act like a kid, sorry. You don't know the word "consensus", so I really don't know what you're doing on Wikipedia. Your behaviour on Hamas as shown it repeatedly, and here is the same. But you know the truth, don't you? Good for you... Tazmaniacs 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I won't put up with consistent violations of WP:CIVIL. Please stop trying to make POV assertions based on one-sided source picking, and leave the legal arguments applicable to all settlements in the settlement article. I tried to find a consensus version, leaving in almost all of your edits, but, of course, you just reverted to your own previous version regardless. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Your "consensual version" precisely took out the important BBC sourced sentence. Tazmaniacs 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We've been over that. The legal status of the settlements applies to all settlements, not just this one, and therefore is better discussed in its entirety in the relevant article. In addition, the issue is there discussed by citing legal experts; a random BBC report doesn't really compare to legal experts arguing the issue. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

When some users think the BBC is not a NPOV source...[edit]

I reintroduced the NPOV sentence sourced by the BBC, repeatedly deleted by JayG (under the edit falsely claiming "per talk" although we have resolved nothing on talk). I hope users who stumble here will agree in considering that the BBC is a WP:RS, and that it's formulation is about the most neutral one can get.They will also be witness to Jayg's willingness to negotiate and find a consensual and NPOV version. This is rather alarming for a contributor to Wikipedia who edits daily since years , and is known by anyone who've ever tried to edit on articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most, like me, tired, because of his WP:OWN attitude... Tazmaniacs 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing article content, not for discussing other editors, or attributing your straw man arguments to them. Please desist, or further action will be taken. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
An user like you should also known that when you delete massive portions of sourced texts like you just did you are required to put it here on talk page to discuss it. Tazmaniacs 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense; you completely re-wrote the article without "putting it here on the talk page to discuss it". Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never re-written the article, as I wrote it on the first place. Tazmaniacs 05:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course you re-wrote it, see this for example. Jayjg (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:CONTEXT. Not every reader of this page knows that in 1967 there was a war. Tazmaniacs 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not a response to my point though, is it? Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What point have you made? I also added a dispute tag, as to claim that it was "completely unoccupied land" according to Jordan and Israel although Bedouins lived there and that Palestinian refugees claim it as their own is not only POV, but denying historical realities. I recall you that you are required to put text here when you delete it, not to ask permission before editing and adding text. Tazmaniacs 05:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite policy on that? The points have been made in the previous sections. Also, hugely POVing articles and then zeroing in on one specific claim is a pretty obvious tactic. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sic. Instead of adressing the question of the infobox and the deletion of the BBC sentence, you discuss other things. I just love your attitude on Wikipedia, it is so mature. Tazmaniacs 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've discussed the BBC sentence and the infobox a number of times already. This will be the last time I respond to an uncivil comment. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I quote you:
 "International law" is a tricky thing that people claim to know, but there has been no binding court case on
 the matter, and   considerable legal debate. I'll leave out the infobox for now, but please don't go inserting
 boilerplate text about this or that settlement being "illegal" according to XYZ. The Israeli settlement 
article discusses the complex legal issues at length, and they aren't any different for Ma'ale Adummim than
 they are for Ariel or Ofra or Ma'ale Shomron or... Jayjg 
(talk) 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the only time you "discussed" on the infobox or on the BBC sentence. I recall that the introduction which you find outrageous and which you block me (and other people who have lifted the subject concerning the legal status of this settlement relative to international law - what you, or the Israel state (and not "Israel people", they are divided on the issue, thank you very much) think about international law, is another thing -:

Ma'ale Adummim (Hebrew: מעלה אדומים‎‎; unofficially also spelled Maale Adumim) is an 
Israeli settlement in the West Bank, east of Jerusalem, and one of the largest Jewish 
communities in the West Bank. It is considered by the international community and the United Nations
to be illegal, although the Israeli state claims it as its own <ref name="Sharonpledges">   
Sharon pledges settlement growth, BBC, April 5, 2005 (English)</ref>. 
Founded after the 1967 Six Day War, in 1976, Ma'ale Adummim is now sometimes considered by 
Israeli citizens to be a suburb of  Jerusalem, mainly because most of its population works in 
Jerusalem. The settlement, which stretches almost from Jerusalem to Jericho, is built outside
 of the 1949 Armistice lines, or "Green Line", 
and is considered a major barrier to the formation of a future Palestinian state <ref name="linchpin">
 Israel's 'linchpin' settlement, BBC, November 12, 2005 (English)
 </ref>. Prior to the city's establishment on barren hilltops outside Jerusalem, 
the land upon which the city was built was legally unoccupied land declared "State Land" by both the 
Ottoman Empire and then the Kingdom of Jordan, though the current Palestinian residents of the 
refugee camp Abu-Dies claimed it as their own <ref name="Arij">
 {{cite web | title=The Expansion of Ma'ale Adumim | work=Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ) website |  
 url=http://www.arij.org/paleye/maale/index.htm | accessdate=February 10| accessyear=2006}} </ref>. It 
was annexed to Israel during the Six Days War. Once the city was established on "State Land", it was declared
 a city in 1991. The municipal borders are about 50 square kilometres (19 square miles) in size. According to the
 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), in 2006 the city had a total population of 31,400 <ref> 
 [http://www.cbs.gov.il/population/new_2007/table3.pdf Israel Central Bureau of Statistics]</ref>. 
The city's planning scheme, which was finalized in 1983, sets Ma'ale Adummim borders to an area of approximately
35 square kilometers. Of these, only 3.7 square kilometers have been built so far, representing the settlements 
of Ma'ale Adummim, Mishor Adumim, Kfar Adumim, and Allon<ref name="Arij">{{cite web | title=The Expansion of Ma'ale Adumim | work=Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ) website | url=http://www.arij.org/paleye/maale/index.htm | accessdate=February 10| accessyear=2006}} </ref> Ma'ale Adumim is governed by an elected mayor and city council.
 The current mayor is Benny Cashriel, recently elected to a third term by a large majority of the population.

Your version is the actual one, which makes no mention of international law, no mention of WP:CONTEXT and of the importance of this settlement, no mention of Palestinian people who were living there before, although both Jordan & Israel considered it to be "unoccupied land". It doesn't adress either the concerns lifted several months before by Palmiro concerning the fact that, until and if the West Bank is one day annexed by Israel, than you can not include it in a "Judea and Samaria" box, virtually annexing the article and using WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. You claim I am uncivil because I point out to you the total lack of respect you demonstrate in regard to contributors to edit following your personal opinions, which, by the way, are not representative of the totality of Israeli citizens, nor of all Jews, religious or not. It is not even representative of the totality of Israeli settlers. You have no right to engage other peoples under your "flag" which represents your faction, and, as representant of a particular mindset and of a particular political opinion, you have no right to disrespect, censor and evacuate debate with representants of other tendencies. I have negotiated on others articles with people from very different political opinions than mine, and this successfully, so I gather that if you showed the least attempt at doing so, we would be able to do so. The prerequisite of that is, of course, to show a bit more respect for others, and in particular for decisions and statements made by the United Nations, which, you like it or not, do represent several states on Earth. Thank you. Tazmaniacs 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained the problem with boilerplate text in dozens of articles; that's what the Israeli settlement article is for, particularly for very complex topics like international law. As for the rest, it appears to have little to do with article content; could you please stick to that? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What you've "already explained... in dozens of articles" does not concern me, nor others users of this article.
  • WP:LEAD states that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". How can you claim international law concerns is not such a point?
  • See also Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Provide context for the reader. Each article is autonomous and must be understood by itself. What happens on another Wikipedia page does not concern this one.
  • Have you read those guidelines? Then, you must agree that:
  • international law concerns (and Israel's claims to the contrary) must be adressed in the lead. This kind of information is much more important that the weasel words "many consider it be the suburbs of Jerusalem" (which is interesting only insofar as it gives information on the author of that sentence).
  • Not speaking about the 1967 Six Day War is assuming that any reader knows what happened in 1967. It is not the case of every one. Wikipedia is an all-public encyclopedia.
  • "stretching from Jerusalem to Jericho" (used by the BBC) is an easy way to provide context for reader.
  • "the current residents of the Palestinian refugee camp Abu Dies", who claimed the land as theirs before, against Jordan & Israel's claims that it was "unoccupied land", is definitely important fact.
  • By the way, "it was annexed to Israel during the Six Day War" needs source, as Israel has not annexed the West Bank.
Please respond to these points. Thank you very much. Tazmaniacs 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of information. As such, the different parts of it must properly integrate with one another, and be written in a way that is informative and accessible. Fortunately, Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, and article links handle most of the issues you have raised. Regarding specific points:
  • International law is an important point for the entire issue of Israeli settlements, but it is not an issue specifically important to the articles on each individual settlement. Indeed, it would be absurd to insert that kind of boilerplate into dozens of article leads. Not only that, but as soon as you inserted one POV, you would have to insert the other POV as well (to comply with NPOV), which would lead to even more boilerplate. In addition, the deficiencies with the particular source used have been stated already. Leads should contain information which is uniquely relevant to that particular article; the link to Israeli settlement handles the other issues.
  • Your point is completely unclear; the Six Day War link easily handles the year issue. However, I've added "1967" for you.
  • "almost from Jerusalem to Jericho" is sloppy unclear language.
  • I've fixed the "annexed" language.
Please don't make me respond to these points again, I've already had to do it several times. Instead, please assimilate my responses, and don't repeat your arguments. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dailycare, please read this previous discussion. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent RV War[edit]

The area is regulated by the Gush Etzion council. That is a fact. That area is the regional council for Jewish town and cities in the area. No one would remove that El Past is part of Texas. It is a verifiable fact. It is the same thing at the moment. It is noted that it is a disputed area, but the council is relevant information.

The road issue is also relevant. The population that lives in Ma'ale Adummim was constantly attacked on the road. The safer roads are important to those people. Again relevant. I have been there and seen where people were murdered. It is real, I promise.

Please discuss any changes here so we can achieve a consensus before RVing again. --יהושועEric 18:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

These claims have no source. Furthermore, I can't see anyone make moral on consensus-building here when no attempts at all have been made to resolve the issues lifted on this talk page by various users over the month. I am finally completely appaled by the highly immoral description of the land as "vacant" although clearly they're were people living on it. Are Bedouins not people ? I would hope that political conflict would not lead someone to such deletion of reality. Tazmaniacs 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Although despite having very strong views, I knew JayZ has opposed, on other pages, extremist views. This despite his entire uncapacity of negotiating on this talk page. I am thus surprised to see that he has in the past removed "Zionist POV" as he puts it, that is, the use of the term "Judea" in the first sentence of the article. I wonder what has motivated his change of attitude towards this question, and, lacking any information about it, I must conclude that it is indeed bitterness because of disagreements with other users that has lead to this radicalization. What I can still not understand is why Mr. Jayz refuse to consider the BBC as a neutral source, as I would be incline to think that using the BBC is a fair enough way of achieving a seeming of neutrality concerning such conflictual matters. Finally, I would like it if people decided to take the time for negotiation on this article, by adressing concerns lifted above and finding a disciplined way of resolving this issue. Tazmaniacs 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
BBC is known as anti-Israel. See the link here as my source. [1] That does not mean BBC should not be referenced. However, second sources are valuable in BBC Israel reporting. --יהושועEric 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
BBC is known as a reliable source, period. Don't be paranoiac. You might as well claim that the BBC is anti-Semitic. Tazmaniacs 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics[edit]

Quoting a population figure to unit accuracy is both meaningless and stupid. No one can possibly know the population to that accuracy. --Redaktor 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Some of the regulars here might be able to expand E1 (Jerusalem), which I just started. Shalom Hello 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken link to reference[edit]

The link to reference 5 is broken.

Statement on the illegality of the settlement[edit]

Ok, let's hammer out a NPOV formulation of this comment. My opinion is that the current version is NPOV, since it states what the status is and by using the wording "considered to be" we leave room for the Israeli right-wing view that they are not, although also in Israel the consensus view is that the settlements are illegal. Mentioning that "Israel disputes this" would in my opinion be undue weight.

Wording like "Ma'ale Adumim is an Israeli settlement on the West Bank. Such settlements are considered illegal under international law" could be supported simply by the ICJ ruling.

Like other settlements in the West Bank, Ma'ale Adumim is considered to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this[1]

Hello my anonymous friend. The source you mentioned actually brings a NPOV paragraph with both sides of the legality issue. I have moved the whole issue to a new section named "controversy" and inserted that text there. Love. Tkalisky (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I made a few edits to your text, hopefully you'll find them acceptable. I changed the title of the section, since there really is no "controversy" over the issue. --Dailycare (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4419046.stm "But [Ma'ale Adumim] is built on land claimed by the Palestinians for a future state and, like all settlements, is considered illegal under international law - although Israel disputes this."

Fabrications and other nonsense[edit]

Gush Shalom did not "fabricate" anything, they used figures from an inaccurate leaked report. When the official report was released, due to their request, the numbers were revised. Can you all for one second actually pay attention to the text here? Haaretz has the whole story, the CAMERA piece is just useless nonsense. nableezy - 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Terms[edit]

The term "occupied" is the entire worldview, so that is the neutral term, "won" is one sided, as the entire worldview do not see it as a "win" and do not accept Israels occupation [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that the Six-Day War was an Israeli defeat? —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
No but the wording mostly used is "occupied", that's the international accepted status. "Won" implys that its a part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how it implies that. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty clear from even a cursory examination that saying the territories were "occupied in 1967" is vastly more common than saying they were "won in 1967." Perhaps if "occupied" is a scare word for our Israeli editors (even though it's clearly the mainstream term,) we can say "territories captured in the 1967 war." EvanHarper (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Although, to call it "POV" as Shuki does in his edit summary is garbage. Again, it's clearly the mainstream descriptor. EvanHarper (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
An edit that says "on territory won in the 1967 Six-Day War" with a "rv POV" edit summary.... That is a bit of a classic. Shuki, knows better than to make silly POV pushing edits like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Replaced with controlled....hope both sides can at least agree that this is factual and not an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.237.69 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's inconsistent with the terminology in the majority/plurality of reliable sources, "occupied". There aren't any "sides". There is just a set of rules=wiki policies and the reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the Israeli Supreme Court acknowledges that the West Bank is held under belligerent occupation. There is almost no dispute among serious sources that the West Bank is occupied by Israel. It is not an "opinion" that the territory this settlement lies in is occupied Palestinian territory, it is a fact backed up by countless high quality sources. nableezy - 05:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we compromise on "captured?" I agree that "occupied" is a perfectly appropriate descriptor, and the most common term by far in reliable sources. But it does seem to be a red flag for some people, and even though it is a reasonable word to use, I don't see that we have to use it. EvanHarper (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not a fact. That earth is not flat is a fact, that light has a certain speed etc. - all these are facts. Whether the territories are occupied or not are not facts but legal interpretations. As you say the majority of reliable or serious sources use the word occupied, thus following one legal interpretation. But that means that we cannot ignore the minority of reliable or serious sources that subscribe to a different interpretation. I am not sure about captured as a good compromise, but I am open to other suggestions that summarize the different interpretations of the situation. Controlled seems one good compromise, but maybe someone else has a good alternative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.237.69 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Not just the majority, the overwhelming majority of sources. Read WP:WEIGHT. We do not give equal say to extreme minority viewpoints, and the view that Ma'ale Adumim is not in territory held by Israel under military occupation is an extreme minority viewpoint. There is no debate on this point among serious sources. "Occupied" is the status of the territory, according the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and countless scholarly sources. They all say this is a fact. It is a super-majority view that the territory is occupied, and we should not pretend otherwise. nableezy - 15:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There isn't a policy based reason to compromise. That would reduce policy compliance. If the most policy compliant word is a red flag for some people those people need to walk away from the article per the discretionary sanctions. This is a simple matter of policy compliance and as nableezy says, even Israel's HCJ accepts that the area is held under 'belligerent occupation'. Fringe views can and should be ignored. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You have it wrong about policy compliance. If there are two terms, and one is undisputed and the other is disputed, then the undisputed term should be used. There are in fact several undisputed terms for the territories, and "occupied" isn't one of them. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you have it wrong. Just because a fringe sized minority "disputes" the term does not mean that we dont use the term. WP:WEIGHT specifically says that "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" (my emphasis). You are arguing that we reject a super-majority view because a tiny, yet vocal, minority "disputes" it. That is not how we do things, and you know that. This attempt to disallow what nearly every competent source says because a fringe sized group "disputes" it violates WP:NPOV. nableezy - 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You are completely missing the point. A term that's disputed, no matter by what kind of minority, is not as good as a term that's not disputed by anyone. Or can you find sources that dispute any of the other proposed terms? —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Im not missing the point, I dont recognize that you have a point, other than saying that we cant say Israel occupies territory that it holds under belligerent occupation. And the term "spheroid" when applied to the Earth article is disputed by flat-Earthers. Are you saying that we cant say that The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid in that article? Should we just say that "Earth has a shape" because "shape" is not disputed by that fringe minority? nableezy - 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Whether the "world views it as occupied" or not is mostly irrelevant. Even assuming it does, it does not allow for "occupied" to turn into a prefix used each time the area is mentioned. Unless of course, we're interested in POV-pushing our political views instead of building a neutral encyclopedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What you say about "a prefix used each time the area is mentioned" is irrelevant, because this is about one specific use of the term "occupied" within an entire article. It is fogging the issue.
What you say about people "interested in POV-pushing ... political views instead of building a neutral encyclopedia" is a thinly veiled insinuation based on no evidence. It is poisoning the well. EvanHarper (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. The issue here is how to describe the land that Ma'ale Adumim was built on. The term most often used by serious sources is "occupied". The only "POV-pushing political views" being done here is by the side determined to obfuscate the wholly uncontroversial fact that this territory has been occupied by Israel since 1967. nableezy - 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Legality in the lead[edit]

Could somebody please explain why the status of this settlement under international law is not allowed in the lead? nableezy - 15:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settlement is the FIRST descriptor of this locality in this article. Click it and you'll get all arguments regarding settlements. No need to repeat it again and again. This is what links are for in wiki article, unless you wish to make a non neutral point. Noon (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
No, my "point" is that NPOV requires that all significant POVs be included. And WP:LEAD requires that the lead accurately summarize the content of the article. This settlement is illegal under international law, that is both a significant view and one that is included in the article but not summarized in the lead. nableezy - 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue is covered more than enough in the lead by the link to Israeli settlement as the first link in it, and by saying it is located in the West Bank, and even by the link to Gush Etzion Regional Council. If you care so much about summarizing significant items in such a short lead, why not put something about the Byzantine monastery which was once the most important monastic centre in the Judean Desert, or some other stuff from the article, instead of repeating what is already covered. Noon (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Because what I care about is the legal status of this settlement. Can you provide a policy based reason why the legal status, reported in a number of sources, should not be in the lead? Just saying it is in another article is not a valid reason. One of the more significant aspects of this settlement, in fact of all settlements, is that it is illegally constructed on occupied territory. Why should that not be included in the lead? If you think this was too much for such a short lead you can include other information in the lead, such as the Byzantine monastery. But in this article, and in many others, the legal status is deprecated by either pushing it to the bottom of the article or by not including it at all. nableezy - 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I can think of a good reason why it shouldn't be in the lead--it would make wikipedia look like nothing more than a base to slander Israel. Anyone that's looking for information on Ma'ale Adumim is probably well aware of the implications of "Israeli settlement," and if they weren't, they could figure it out pretty quickly. When the intro is going out of its way to make Israel look bad, it would be a pretty good indication to a lot of people that the point of the article is not information about the location, but just another forum for Israel-bashing. You've already got enough articles on here that appear that way. This one actually has some decent information, so giving an indication of bias would waste what's otherwise a fairly quality article. And yes, this would be an indication of bias. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That isn't a good reason. It's circular reasoning based on invalid premises. Bias isn't measured that way here. It's measured with reference to the degree of compliance with the NPOV policy and that policy eliminates bias by relying on reliable sources rather than editor's opinions about the real world. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
so once you wanted to include all over the Israel's articles 'israeli settlement' so that it will show: the obvious status as being illegal as you said but now it's not enough, do you want to add the complete Israeli settlement article in the lead in order to scream the illegal status into the mind of the dumb reader? are you implementing here the give us a fingernail we will demand the arm and more policy? seriously, there must be a limit to propaganda inserted in an encyclopedia, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talkcontribs) 09:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop saying stupid things. I would like to add the well-established fact that this Israeli settlement, like all Israeli settlements, is illegal under international law. nableezy - 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless somebody can provide a policy based reason why the international legal status of this settlement should not be included in the lead I will be returning that information. Not liking the fact that it is considered illegally constructed under international law is not a valid reason. nableezy - 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy based reasons have been quite clearly set forth above, the main one being Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please stop with the Wikipedia:LA,LA,LA-I'MNOTLISTENING.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Really, NPOV? What POV is not adequately represented by the sentence "Ma'ale Adumim, like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is considered illegal under international law, though Israel dispute this". Just giving a collection of letters is not a reason. The super-majority view is that this is settlement is illegal under international law, and NPOV requires that POV be adequately represented. Would you care to explain what in WP:NPOV says that we should not include reliably sourced material about the legal status of this settlement in the lead? nableezy - 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a very slam-dunk case, IMO. Per WP:LEAD major controversies must be addressed in the lead, and the illegal status certainly makes the settlement controversial. In fact, writing as we are based on the best sources, the fact that the settlement is illegal is a key fact that's very frequently mentioned in the best sources, which makes it perhaps the single most important aspect concerning Maale Adumim deserving promiment mention in the lead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, really slam dunk case. We've got a guy whose seemingly sole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to insert "it is therefore an illegal Israeli settlement" into as many articles as possible, and his cohort in tow to insist that his POV is neutral because "it can be found in a high number of sources."
There's a concerted effort by many members of the press to paint anything that has to do with Israel in light of the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, that's not a neutral POV. You pick up the encyclopedia and look up a place, and it should explain things in a neutral context before delving into any political POVs. Any town with a population of over 30,000 is worthy of having it's own article that's not solely painted in a strictly political light. Enough already. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You clearly dont understand what "neutral" means in "neutral point of view". I'll put my nearly 17000 edits to your 254 any day and we can see whose "sole purpose" is more easily defined. "Neutral point of view" means that the content of articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It is an unequivocal fact that the international community regards all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as violations of international law, and it is an unequivocal fact that this view is a "significant view". Your idea of "neutral" insists that we toe the Israeli right wing party line, that is not the meaning of "neutral" either in a dictionary or, more importantly, on Wikipedia. nableezy - 01:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We're not speaking the same language here. The fact that you MUST include this political factor as the first immediate information of a small city is a POV in itself, regardless of whether or not that POV is accepted in the international community. I could care less about your 17,000 edits, because they've resulted in a serious case of tunnel vision. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:LEAD specifies that notable controversies should be included in the lead. nableezy - 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, none of these settlements are illegal under international law. What is my source? You guessed it, good old Article 242 of the Geneva Convention, which these days people reference for pretty much anything they can think of without having a clue what it says. At some point in time, the settlements became "illegal," and if that's repeated enough times in the press, I guess people take it to be official. Just like when a place that's clearly in North Jerusalem according to anyone with two eyes that can look at a map, is designated as being in East Jerusalem because "a high number of sources" report it being there. So if you color the news, I guess you can utilize Wikipedia to turn it into a fact. Unfortunate. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"East Jerusalem" is not "eastern Jerusalem", something can be in northern "East Jerusalem". And while it is admirable that you make an attempt to understand the Geneva Conventions it is clear that you have failed. This is not just a news story, the ICJ unanimously agreed that all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law. See the Wall case where it says:

As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not dlrport or transfer parts of its ow11 civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory. In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

and:

The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

Forgive me for giving more weight to qualified experts in international law than a random person on the internet making easily disproved claims. nableezy - 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite. Well said.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Anything that refers to the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" does not include "qualified experts in international law." Are you kidding me??? Disprove my claim on Article 242 if you are so knowledgeable on this topic. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You would like me to disprove your "claim" about "Article 242 of the Geneva Convention"? That isnt possible because it does not mean anything. There are the Geneva Conventions (the fourth is relevant here), there is the UN Partition Plan, and then there is UN Security Council Resolution 242. Somehow you put these together to form some sort of mythical creature, one that I am sure in your imagination is an ally that cannot be defeated with a shield of truth and a sword of justice. nableezy - 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"A shield of truth and a sword of justice?" Those kind of comments belong on some kind of web forum. What the heck are you talking about? What's the "sword of justice?" World War 3?
All I know is that Article 242 was drafted directly in response to Israel's annexation (for lack of a better term) of Judea and Samaria, aka the West Bank, and that has been policy ever since. It doesn't matter how many fake Geneva Conventions certain sectors of the nations of the world want to convene, or racist Durban Conferences. As soon as you reference "Occupied Palestinian Territory," you make it clear that you are not dealing with the "international community," especially considering most countries realize that the Ottoman Empire no longer exists. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that you are demonstrating is your utter lack of any knowledge in the things you think you should be commenting about. What is "Article 242"? What are "fake Geneva Conventions"? Why are you talking about the Ottoman Empire? What does Durban have to do with this? nableezy - 23:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal status and the lead[edit]

The article discusses the status of this settlement under international law. The lead is supposed to summarize the article and include all notable controversies. Jiujitsuguy, please explain what in WP:UNDUE supports the removal of that summary from the lead. Also, a long discussion was had at IPCOLL. There is consensus for including material on the legal status of settlements in the lead, see here. nableezy - 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. I read, "it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia." I also saw your immediate declaration that this was sufficient evidence to immediately start adding your coveted sentence at will, followed up with exactly zero people supporting you.
I personally have little interest in spending much time editing these types of pages, however I do have a problem with a singular individual on such a driven mission to insert a highly political sentence in the lead of as many articles as he or she can get away with. I value Wikipedia for having the ability to bring people together to reach a consensus on issues through a balanced discussion. Personal attacks combined with an obvious political agenda is not the way my friend. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Did you really read the sentence you quote? Because what he wrote is It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct. He wrote that the editors who feel that the legal status should not be mentioned and act to stop the inclusion of such material should be resisted "like any other form of disruptive conduct". nableezy - 22:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice try!! Although he certainly did write it in a mixed up way, so I will give you that. But no, he definitely did NOT say that "the editors who feel that the legal status should not be mentioned and act to stop the inclusion of such material should be resisted...." He said that attempts to stymie the development of the project must be resisted like any form of disruptive conduct. You want to read that as "editors who feel the legal status should not be mentioned." I read it as somebody who has no interest in the actual development of the page but just wants to insert a controversial sentence in the lead. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Uhh no, any person with something more than an elementary understanding of English can see what was said. nableezy - 23:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see what was said. And I can also see what you wrote that wasn't said. Take the blinders off already. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont plan on wasting my time on this, you clearly dont know what you are talking about, either on the actual issue of the legal status of the settlement or on what was written on that page. nableezy - 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you don't plan on wasting your time on this. So then you'll let me say that I disagree with both of these accusations and "I'll trust that will be the end of this." Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is the second conversation on the exact same thing at Ariel (city). That makes three separate conversations. Also, support JJG's revert since the process of implementation was not agreed upon (I told you we needed it) and (much more importantly) Nableezy's edit ignored the admin's suggestion on how to handle the lead and body. I reccomend closing this conversation and taking it to the centralized one.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Ive explained to you why what you think was suggested was not. That you persist in making an erroneous claim is noted and ignored. If any editors wish to actually discuss the content of the edit on the talk page, as a talk page is intended to be used, please do so. nableezy - 23:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
We've had discussions on this topic before, which is why the centralized one is such a good idea. The fact that the settlement has been built despite it being considered to be a war crime by the entire world is definitely a "significant controversy" in the sense of WP:LEAD, IMO.--Dailycare (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin has said that there is consensus for the line and that there is consensus that it be included in the lead. As such I am restoring it. If an editor would like to remove it they need to give policy based reasons and explain why that consensus does not apply here. nableezy - 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus. --Shuki (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin says there is. You are disruptively editing against consensus. nableezy - 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess resident status is part of legal status. Please answer my questions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
No it is not, and unless you can provide sources showing how the two are related your questions are not relevant to what is under discussion in this section. Please stop disrupting the purpose of this talk page. If you would like to discuss another topic please do so in another section. nableezy - 18:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting so in your opinion legal status of residents is not part of legal status. This is interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting because you dont understand what is under discussion. No, the status of the residents of these settlements is not related to whether or not these settlements are illegal under international law. I opened a new section below, your persistence in muddying this one up with irrelevant noise is done with the sole intention of annoying me. Please stop doing so. If you wish to discuss whether and how to incorporate the legal status of the settlers into the article please do so below. It is not relevant to this discussion. nableezy - 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Nab, you're being border civil. Since illegal settlement sounds like residents are illegal, this clarification is due, considering WP:TERRORIST approach. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The right place to have that discussion (since it's outcome would impact many articles) would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues in a new section dedicated to this issue since it is completely separate from the status of the settlements themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a few editor have wished to argue a pedantic point that the edit that I inserted was not exactly the same as what LHvU said there was consensus for. Ill add the exact line and I trust that will be the end of this. nableezy - 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. If there's really consensus, a number of people would be supporting your point of view. You're basing a clearly unpopular, unsupported, and highly controversial edit on a vague statement from an uninvolved editor. Not only that, but you immediately resort to an insulting and intolerant dialogue as soon as someone challenges your statements. There is something seriously wrong with that. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You are risking a ban by editing like this. Self-revert your edit or you may face consequences for it. nableezy - 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so you are telling me to self-revert my edit or you will do everything within your power to try and get me banned from editing this page and all pages like it, as you've threatened on my talk page. That's bullying, and I don't know who you think you are but I'm not going to take a bite out of it. So I guess we are left with a situation where you can either cyber-bully and harass people into accepting your point of view, or accept the fact that on a site like Wikipedia you need an actual consensus and can't just do whatever you want to. Whatever happens happens, but I won't let myself get strong-armed and I hope that people can see what's going on here. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not threatening, I am not bullying. I am however saying that the line you removed has an uninvolved admin saying there is consensus to include in the lead. If you choose to disregard that you can, but you should be aware of potential consequences. As you appear to have chosen to do so you have left me with little choice. nableezy - 20:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"You have left me with little choice." Spoken like a true Godfather! So I guess Nableezy owns this site and what he says goes, never mind the fact that I dispute his claim that there is consensus to make the change he wants. I'm going to have faith that there is room for diplomacy, and I encourage anyone reading this not to let themselves get bullied by Nableezy and go ahead with the edits you think are right. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Ill let this get worked out at AE. Id rather not have to ask that each editor who disagrees with the clear close of the discussion be banned from editing in the topic area, but if each editor who disagrees with that clear close chooses to continue to ignore it there isnt much more I can do. nableezy - 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If there is really a clear close to the discussion, then you can be a little more patient in this update. Trying to lock down the page and ban anyone who disagrees does not seem like a clear close to me. Not only that, but the statements made on this talk page by the two people who have tried to put the controversial line in the lead clearly show bias. I could get into that more but I'd rather not spend all night editing this page. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You have now both violated the 1RR that applies to the ARBPIA topic area as well as disruptively removed material that an uninvolved admin says has consensus. nableezy - 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the neutrality tag as this has all been superseded by the centralised discussion.--Misarxist 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal status of settlers[edit]

Maybe some clarification about status of residents is still due. Do we consider those as civilians as war law goes? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The article does not say the residents are not civilians. How about you try to stay on topic, the issue you are raising is not in any way related to the status of this colony under international law. nableezy - 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The article also does not say settlements are legal. This is an interesting point that was a matter of dispute. Maybe we should discuss it per WP:LEDE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to discuss that go ahead. But do it in a section where it is not an irrelevant piece of noise. nableezy - 17:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Are not we discussing legal status and the lead? Maybe I was not clear enough do you think we should address residents legal status in the lede? Are those civilians as war law is concerned? If residents status is not important in your opinion just say so. Maybe a proper discussion is not about dismissing questions as noise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
We are discussing the inclusion of the well sourced statement that the settlement is illegal under international law. If you wish to discuss the status of the settlers themselves then open another section. One thing is not dependent on the other. nableezy - 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
In fact, ill do it for you. I am moving this to a new section. nableezy - 18:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli settlement"[edit]

Gilabrand, there was agreement to leave the order of "Israeli settlement" and "city" as they were. You have made it so that "city" is the first description used where "Israeli settlement" was used. You also wrote that it is "considered" an Israeli settlement, not that it is an Israeli settlement. Please either explain why you have done so or restore the original order. nableezy - 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There was an agreement? No there wasn't. But now there will be, because the lead explains the issue clearly and includes all points of view in a neutral way, the layout has been fixed, and sourced content has been added. The page has been improved all around. All the best, -Yespleazy (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes there was, based on the close of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. Most people accepted that articles that we would not change the order of which comes first. On this page that was Israeli settlement. I realize you think this makes the lead better, but I dont. If that is all the explanation you wish to provide I will be restoring the original order. nableezy - 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

line in lead[edit]

There is a consensus for the line "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank under international law, though Israel disputes this" at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. Brewcrewer, as you took part in that discussion you are obviously aware that it was closed by an uninvolved admin, and that further a topic ban was handed out to another editor for disregarding that consensus. Quoting from that AE: Once an uninvolved administrator has determined the consensus of a discussion, it needs to be followed if our consensus-based editing model is worth anything. If there are disagreement with the closure, the closing administrator may be requested to reconsider, or review may be requested at an appropriate venue such as the administrators' noticeboard. But until that closure is actually modified, it is binding. I am reverting your edit as it was made against the consensus established in that discussion. nableezy - 02:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello obvious sock, thanks for joining the party. Would you care to explain why you are exempt from following the consensus on this sentence? nableezy - 03:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The city is in israel and it is israeli by any way[edit]

you said in the article that this is a city in the west bank, true, but you should mention it is also in israel. all the israeli laws apply this city, almast all its citizens are israeli, all of its systems are the same systems exist in any city of israel. the only connection that it has to the west bank is in a maybe future palestinian state. but for now, it is in israel by any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.139.158 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, but thanks for sharing. nableezy - 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ma'ale adumim expansion photo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Ma'ale adumim expansion photo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nahal?[edit]

Is there any other source that Ma'ale Adumim started as a Nahal camp? It doesn't seem consistent with the story that follows and I didn't manage to find any other place this is stated. Zerotalk 06:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any source saying it was a Nahal camp. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
(Conjecturing, so please ignore me...) It might have been described that way in official statements even if it wasn't. This was a common thing in the early days. There's an interview in Gorenberg's Accidental Empire with a settler from the Etzion Bloc who says the only thing "Nahal" about it was a metal sign they found convenient for scrapping mud off their boots. The reason for this was that military sites are permitted by the Geneva convention. Zerotalk 03:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking about Gorenberg, he has a lot about the founding of Ma'ale Adumim and it was certainly not a Nahal camp. Can we remove that claim? Zerotalk 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference for WHY Israel disputes illegality. Only fair to include a reference.[edit]

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-illegal-settlements-myth/ NevilleChamberlain (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thats not actually the Israeli position, thats the position of David Phillips. The Israeli position is actually that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not governed under the Fourth Geneva Conventions as they had not been the recognized sovereign territory of a signatory to the treaty. That doesnt apply to the Golan, but as Israel has applied civilian law to that territory it doesnt recognize that as occupied and governed by the Geneva Conventions either. nableezy - 18:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)