![]() | A fact from Jabel Mukaber appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,130 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Hi there. In the intro (and in the proposed DYK hooks), it is stated that " Palestinians consider the neighbourhood the site of their future capital ..." based on two sources provided Condos for American Jews (in Arab East Jerusalem) and East J'lem could be Palestinian capital. The first source does not mention this fact at all and the second indicates that Ehud Barak said that populated Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem (without naming Jabel Mukaber itself) could make up the capital of a future Palestinian state, but the article says nothing about Palestinian views towards such a proposal. The text should therefore be altered accordingly or perhaps discarded altogether since it is a huge topic that cannot be covered with any accuracy in the introduction, which should be discussing this particular neighbourhood instead.
Also, the second part of that sentence in the introduction reads: "... while the Israeli government and indeed, many of Jerusalem's Jewish residents consider Jabel Mukaber a hotbed for terrorism, and an obstacle to the peace process." [1] [2] [3] [4] Missing is a description of why this is so, as well as discussion of numerous other issues for the residents of the neighbourhood. For example, the article on "Luxury condos..." discusses how the proposed construction of the gated Jewish community of Nof Zion between Jabel Mukaber and Silwan, which is viewed by neighbourhood residents as a settlement intended to reduce the Arab presence in Jerusalem, will complicate discussions around the final status of Jerusalem.
Also, there seems to be much descriptive information on Jabel Mukaber itself (rather than Israeli perceptions of it), missing from the article altogether, such as :
"The road linking the new neighborhood to central Jerusalem runs along the Haas and Goldman promenades that offer similar views of the Old City. The landmark at the start of Jabel Mukaber is a police station that looks more like an army base. Outside the station at the entrance to the Palestinian neighborhood a giant poster advertising units in the "private" neighborhood for sale.
A newly installed traffic circle starts the descent along a path under construction to upgrade the narrow road to a divided street to accommodate the traffic. Infrastructure in Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is notoriously underfunded by the municipality, and the lack of street lights or sidewalks make Jabel Mukaber look more like an outlying village than an actual part of the capital.
Though Palestinian residents are grateful for the new road, they say their requests to be hooked up to Nof Zion's sewage system have been turned down, leaving the Palestinians without a sewage system."
This critique extends to the DYK hooks suggested as well, which focus solely on Israeli perceptions of Jabel Mukaber, rather than any facts about the neighbourhood itself. Please consider adding other POVs to this article and altering the hooks accordingly. Tiamut talk 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Due to the fact that most of the media attention on Jabel Mukaber generally focuses on the negative (i.e. terrorism and riots), very few sources contain descriptive information. If you would like to post a few sources here with other information on Jabel Mukaber, i'd be happy to include them in the article. Otherwise, i've fixed the first 2 problems that you listed to the best of my ability. Cheers -- Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was also reprinted here [3]. Tiamut talk 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)One of the main contributing factors for the stirring up of hatred is the demolition of "illegal" homes of Arab residents, who are quite unable to build "legally." The dimension of official stupidity is attested to by the demand of the Shin-Bet chief, voiced this week again, to destroy the homes of the attackers' families, for the sake of "deterrence." Apparently he has not heard about the dozens of studies and the accumulated experience, which prove that every destroyed home becomes an incubator for new hate-driven avengers. This week's attack is especially instructive. It is quite unclear what actually happened: did Ghassan Abu-Tir plan the attack in advance? Or was this a spontaneous decision in a moment of excitement? Was this an attack at all — or did the bulldozer driver run into a bus by accident and try, in a state of panic, to escape — running over his pursuers, becoming a target for a shooting spree by passersby and soldiers? In the atmosphere of suspicion and fear that pervades Jerusalem now, every road accident involving an Arab becomes an attack, and every Arab driver involved in an accident will in all probability be executed on the spot, without a trial. (It should be remembered that the first intifada broke out because of a road accident, in which a Jewish driver ran over some Arabs.)
Also, some discussion of the building plans for Nof Zion and it impact on Jabel Mukaber could be good for the article. One of your sources (on Luxury condos for American Jews) already discusses this. Here's another [4]. And another [5]. Tiamut talk 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Also relevant to the article are statements made by Haim Ramon in December 2007:
Ramon told Army Radio: "I am convinced that all Jewish neighbourhoods, including Har Homa, should be under Israeli sovereignty and the Arab neighbourhoods should not be under Israeli sovereignty because they pose a threat to Jerusalem being the capital of Jewish Israel. "Those who want Walajeh and Jabal Mukaber as well as Har Homa, will ultimately cause Jerusalem not to be a Jewish capital to Israel with a clear Jewish majority," he added, referring to Palestinian villages incorporated into Jerusalem after 1967. Ramon, seen as a confidant who often speaks for Olmert, told Israel Radio: "Whoever wants Walaja, is endangering our hold on Har Homa ... Jewish neighbourhoods will remain in Israeli control and Arab neighbourhoods will be the Palestinian capital.
In light of this quote, I think I understand where you got the idea that Jabel Mukaber will serve as a future capital for the Palestinian state. Note however that this is not a Palestinian aspiration, but an official Israeli position in the negotiations with Palestinians. I have yet to see a Palestinian official say this is an acceptable compromise for them. Accordingly, I think you should change the text in the intro that refers to this. Tiamut talk 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Debresser, Disputed content is kept OUT until the dispute is resolved. You should know that by now. These paragraphs are an attempt to show the place in a negative light on account of the actions performed elsewhere by a few people who happen to live in this place. How this is justified, I have no idea. I wonder if there is any example of a Jewish criminal being privileged in this fashion. Zero talk 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, see also this source which mentions arms dealers from Jabel Mukaber on page 22. Debresser ( talk) 10:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Map is unclear. Where is Jabel Mukaber? also colored lines are not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.202.179 ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2014
I recently removed the following passage because it seems pretty trivial for an encyclopedic article on Jabal Mukaber: "Following the 2008 Mercaz HaRav massacre in which eight Jewish high school students were killed, the residents of Jabel Mukaber erected a mourners' tent for the murderer.[ref] Israeli protesters tried to break through police barricades outside Jabel Mukaber, resulting in the arrest of 13 protesters.[ref]."
It was reinstated with the following reasoning: "The consensus is that this is relevant." My question is, what consensus? I don't see anything close to consensus on this talk page unless I'm missing something. The information may be sourced, but it still remains trivial. So every time a family erects a mourning tent for one of its members who died as part of the I/P conflict we're supposed to mention it? Obviously that would be excessive and ridiculous. Overall, this type of editing only contributes to a cheapening of the article. Does anyone have a rational reason to keep this tidbit in the article? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 07:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
On 20 May 2015 a 41-year-old man from Jabel Mukaber was shot dead in his car at a-Tur by a member of the Israeli Border Police in an alleged ramming attack. [8] Ha'aretz 20 May 2015] I'm just putting this here until I can think of a sensible argument as to why it should be included. Padres Hana ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I was summoned here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, & have read this discussion as well as performed due diligence review of external sources. This debate consists of two arguments: on the one side, these links ought to be excluded because ARIJ is a biased source; on the other, there is no problematic bias in the content at the URLs. Neither argument has been effectively responded to; instead the participants decided to let their emotions rule & have spent their time shouting at each other. This is why I took the time to look beyond Wikipedia in order to properly consider each argument. (If any participats object to this approach, I can only suggest they do their own homework.)
About ARIJ, an NGO which is the subject of a Wikipedia article: I performed a Google search, & the first result returned (which was not to the ARIJ website) did expend a lot of space describing how ARIJ is hostile towards Israel, providing a detailed list of all of these activities; however, the group behind this webpage is an "Israeli Non-Profit" with the purpose of "producing and distributing critical analysis and reports on the activities of the international and local NGO networks", so that may not present ARIJ fairly. I looked at the next two URLs Google returned: one did not mention ARIJ's criticism of Israeli policies, although it did provide an overview of the NGO's goals of economic development; the second did include it, but as one of 12 of ARIJ's activites, which included "Improving Plant Production to enhance Food Security of Farming communities in Rural areas of Bethlehem Governorate." & "Activated Sludge Filtration System for Wastewater Treatment in the West Bank". So the evidence is, at most, mixed on ARIJ being a primarily anti-Israeli group. There is also the consideration that a group dedicated to promoting one POV can still provide reliable information: the American Petroleum Institute promotes an agenda that has contributed to global warming, yet would that fact invalidate citing their statistics for oil production? No one even mentioned this last point.
On the content of the four external links: I reviewed these links, & found only one I would exclude -- the aerial image of the community; the article already has a similar image. Of the other 3 items, their primary content is about the population, area, & infrastructure of this community. Once upon a time, I wrote articles on the local governments & towns of Ethiopia, & I often relied on materials prepared by NGOs & the Ethiopian government to provide content for those articles; had I materials as detailed as these about any of them, I would have thought I struck gold. Considering that this article lacks objective & falsifiable facts (e.g. size of the district, quality of roads, number of schools & medical facilities), I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links". About the only objection I can conceivably find in these 3 is that the pamphlet (whose creation was funded by a second NGO, which could be expected to exert some fact-checking & editorial oversight) does discuss alleged Israeli practices of forcing resident inhabitants out of their homes & encouraging in-migration of Jews; but I expect the current policy of WP:BRD to manage any improper emphasis of this information. Moreover, incidents of this policy already appears in the article. -- llywrch ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Debresser have now removed the following links, which were listed under the "External links" heading:
...with the edit line: Remove unneeded external links per WP:EL. Also note that these are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber.
My comment: there is absolutely nothing in WP:EL which can justify a removal of these links. As for noteing that these links are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber: yeah, LOL, that was actually noted above. (And this is not the only place which is about two places, treated as one on wp, take Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba Town Profile as an example)
Debresser, you better explain this removal (which IMO borders on vandalism), or better still: undo your edit, Huldra ( talk) 21:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Recently an editor added 4 external links to a certain website, First of all I think that is overkill. Apart from that, I think that none of the links is especially valuable, and see no compelling reason they should be included. In addition, the source in question, the Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem, has a very clear political agenda, and I am always wary of science which is being used for the attainment of political goals. All in all I would like to see opinions of editors regarding the desirableness of these links. I would also propose that in the case that a clear consensus should emerge among editors who have no prior involvement in this article, and on that condition only, this discussion could be used for similar issues on related articles. Debresser ( talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Zero0000 What "sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right" are present in the article?-- Shrike ( talk) 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, for as long as this article has had a pushpin map it has used the Palestine map and had a caption "within Palestine". Jabel Mukaber is not in Israel, and you both are attempting to (again!) edit-war your change in without any semblance of an attempt at discussion and are violating your previously expressed desire to have others respect BRD. I invite you to explain. nableezy - 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Debresser, I added an occupying state (israel) and israeli district (jerusalem) to the infobox. I dont know if youll be on board with occupying state, but I dont know what else to call it there. I hope that does enough to bridge the gap here in terms of reflecting the current status. nableezy - 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
How would y'all feel about using a map of Jerusalem instead? I wouldn't complain provided it clearly showed the green line and captions used "West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem". Zero talk 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy reverted me when I changed "occupation" to "rule" but it's my understanding that rule is preferred. At least based on prior discussions we just had a few weeks ago in the Jordan occupation in the West Bank arena. Can you clarify why you reverted and why you used the edit summary of "nonsense?" Sir Joseph (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Debresser has begun edit-warring over the pushpin map and caption and an additional map. He says the map of the Palestinian territories is "more specific" than the one of the State of Palestine, ignoring the fact that, HELLO, they are the same exact map. Yes, to all interested observers, Debresser has been edit-warring with the claim that File:Palestine location map wide.png is more specific than File:Palestine location map wide.png. The difference there is in the caption, whether it says in the State of Palestine or the Palestinian territories. But Debresser doesn't want to say that's what he is edit-warring over, so he claims the File A is more precise than File A. And then while doing so, he removes that actually precise map we have. The pushpin map shows Jabel Mukaber within the entire greater Israel/Palestine area. The detailed map of Jerusalem shows Jabel Mukaber in relation to the Green Line, No Man's Land and so on. So while he claims to be putting in a more specific map while using the same freaking map, he removes the actually specific map. It's amazing honestly. nableezy - 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Jabel Mukaber appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,130 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Hi there. In the intro (and in the proposed DYK hooks), it is stated that " Palestinians consider the neighbourhood the site of their future capital ..." based on two sources provided Condos for American Jews (in Arab East Jerusalem) and East J'lem could be Palestinian capital. The first source does not mention this fact at all and the second indicates that Ehud Barak said that populated Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem (without naming Jabel Mukaber itself) could make up the capital of a future Palestinian state, but the article says nothing about Palestinian views towards such a proposal. The text should therefore be altered accordingly or perhaps discarded altogether since it is a huge topic that cannot be covered with any accuracy in the introduction, which should be discussing this particular neighbourhood instead.
Also, the second part of that sentence in the introduction reads: "... while the Israeli government and indeed, many of Jerusalem's Jewish residents consider Jabel Mukaber a hotbed for terrorism, and an obstacle to the peace process." [1] [2] [3] [4] Missing is a description of why this is so, as well as discussion of numerous other issues for the residents of the neighbourhood. For example, the article on "Luxury condos..." discusses how the proposed construction of the gated Jewish community of Nof Zion between Jabel Mukaber and Silwan, which is viewed by neighbourhood residents as a settlement intended to reduce the Arab presence in Jerusalem, will complicate discussions around the final status of Jerusalem.
Also, there seems to be much descriptive information on Jabel Mukaber itself (rather than Israeli perceptions of it), missing from the article altogether, such as :
"The road linking the new neighborhood to central Jerusalem runs along the Haas and Goldman promenades that offer similar views of the Old City. The landmark at the start of Jabel Mukaber is a police station that looks more like an army base. Outside the station at the entrance to the Palestinian neighborhood a giant poster advertising units in the "private" neighborhood for sale.
A newly installed traffic circle starts the descent along a path under construction to upgrade the narrow road to a divided street to accommodate the traffic. Infrastructure in Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is notoriously underfunded by the municipality, and the lack of street lights or sidewalks make Jabel Mukaber look more like an outlying village than an actual part of the capital.
Though Palestinian residents are grateful for the new road, they say their requests to be hooked up to Nof Zion's sewage system have been turned down, leaving the Palestinians without a sewage system."
This critique extends to the DYK hooks suggested as well, which focus solely on Israeli perceptions of Jabel Mukaber, rather than any facts about the neighbourhood itself. Please consider adding other POVs to this article and altering the hooks accordingly. Tiamut talk 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Due to the fact that most of the media attention on Jabel Mukaber generally focuses on the negative (i.e. terrorism and riots), very few sources contain descriptive information. If you would like to post a few sources here with other information on Jabel Mukaber, i'd be happy to include them in the article. Otherwise, i've fixed the first 2 problems that you listed to the best of my ability. Cheers -- Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was also reprinted here [3]. Tiamut talk 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)One of the main contributing factors for the stirring up of hatred is the demolition of "illegal" homes of Arab residents, who are quite unable to build "legally." The dimension of official stupidity is attested to by the demand of the Shin-Bet chief, voiced this week again, to destroy the homes of the attackers' families, for the sake of "deterrence." Apparently he has not heard about the dozens of studies and the accumulated experience, which prove that every destroyed home becomes an incubator for new hate-driven avengers. This week's attack is especially instructive. It is quite unclear what actually happened: did Ghassan Abu-Tir plan the attack in advance? Or was this a spontaneous decision in a moment of excitement? Was this an attack at all — or did the bulldozer driver run into a bus by accident and try, in a state of panic, to escape — running over his pursuers, becoming a target for a shooting spree by passersby and soldiers? In the atmosphere of suspicion and fear that pervades Jerusalem now, every road accident involving an Arab becomes an attack, and every Arab driver involved in an accident will in all probability be executed on the spot, without a trial. (It should be remembered that the first intifada broke out because of a road accident, in which a Jewish driver ran over some Arabs.)
Also, some discussion of the building plans for Nof Zion and it impact on Jabel Mukaber could be good for the article. One of your sources (on Luxury condos for American Jews) already discusses this. Here's another [4]. And another [5]. Tiamut talk 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Also relevant to the article are statements made by Haim Ramon in December 2007:
Ramon told Army Radio: "I am convinced that all Jewish neighbourhoods, including Har Homa, should be under Israeli sovereignty and the Arab neighbourhoods should not be under Israeli sovereignty because they pose a threat to Jerusalem being the capital of Jewish Israel. "Those who want Walajeh and Jabal Mukaber as well as Har Homa, will ultimately cause Jerusalem not to be a Jewish capital to Israel with a clear Jewish majority," he added, referring to Palestinian villages incorporated into Jerusalem after 1967. Ramon, seen as a confidant who often speaks for Olmert, told Israel Radio: "Whoever wants Walaja, is endangering our hold on Har Homa ... Jewish neighbourhoods will remain in Israeli control and Arab neighbourhoods will be the Palestinian capital.
In light of this quote, I think I understand where you got the idea that Jabel Mukaber will serve as a future capital for the Palestinian state. Note however that this is not a Palestinian aspiration, but an official Israeli position in the negotiations with Palestinians. I have yet to see a Palestinian official say this is an acceptable compromise for them. Accordingly, I think you should change the text in the intro that refers to this. Tiamut talk 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Debresser, Disputed content is kept OUT until the dispute is resolved. You should know that by now. These paragraphs are an attempt to show the place in a negative light on account of the actions performed elsewhere by a few people who happen to live in this place. How this is justified, I have no idea. I wonder if there is any example of a Jewish criminal being privileged in this fashion. Zero talk 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, see also this source which mentions arms dealers from Jabel Mukaber on page 22. Debresser ( talk) 10:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Map is unclear. Where is Jabel Mukaber? also colored lines are not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.202.179 ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2014
I recently removed the following passage because it seems pretty trivial for an encyclopedic article on Jabal Mukaber: "Following the 2008 Mercaz HaRav massacre in which eight Jewish high school students were killed, the residents of Jabel Mukaber erected a mourners' tent for the murderer.[ref] Israeli protesters tried to break through police barricades outside Jabel Mukaber, resulting in the arrest of 13 protesters.[ref]."
It was reinstated with the following reasoning: "The consensus is that this is relevant." My question is, what consensus? I don't see anything close to consensus on this talk page unless I'm missing something. The information may be sourced, but it still remains trivial. So every time a family erects a mourning tent for one of its members who died as part of the I/P conflict we're supposed to mention it? Obviously that would be excessive and ridiculous. Overall, this type of editing only contributes to a cheapening of the article. Does anyone have a rational reason to keep this tidbit in the article? -- Al Ameer ( talk) 07:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
On 20 May 2015 a 41-year-old man from Jabel Mukaber was shot dead in his car at a-Tur by a member of the Israeli Border Police in an alleged ramming attack. [8] Ha'aretz 20 May 2015] I'm just putting this here until I can think of a sensible argument as to why it should be included. Padres Hana ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I was summoned here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, & have read this discussion as well as performed due diligence review of external sources. This debate consists of two arguments: on the one side, these links ought to be excluded because ARIJ is a biased source; on the other, there is no problematic bias in the content at the URLs. Neither argument has been effectively responded to; instead the participants decided to let their emotions rule & have spent their time shouting at each other. This is why I took the time to look beyond Wikipedia in order to properly consider each argument. (If any participats object to this approach, I can only suggest they do their own homework.)
About ARIJ, an NGO which is the subject of a Wikipedia article: I performed a Google search, & the first result returned (which was not to the ARIJ website) did expend a lot of space describing how ARIJ is hostile towards Israel, providing a detailed list of all of these activities; however, the group behind this webpage is an "Israeli Non-Profit" with the purpose of "producing and distributing critical analysis and reports on the activities of the international and local NGO networks", so that may not present ARIJ fairly. I looked at the next two URLs Google returned: one did not mention ARIJ's criticism of Israeli policies, although it did provide an overview of the NGO's goals of economic development; the second did include it, but as one of 12 of ARIJ's activites, which included "Improving Plant Production to enhance Food Security of Farming communities in Rural areas of Bethlehem Governorate." & "Activated Sludge Filtration System for Wastewater Treatment in the West Bank". So the evidence is, at most, mixed on ARIJ being a primarily anti-Israeli group. There is also the consideration that a group dedicated to promoting one POV can still provide reliable information: the American Petroleum Institute promotes an agenda that has contributed to global warming, yet would that fact invalidate citing their statistics for oil production? No one even mentioned this last point.
On the content of the four external links: I reviewed these links, & found only one I would exclude -- the aerial image of the community; the article already has a similar image. Of the other 3 items, their primary content is about the population, area, & infrastructure of this community. Once upon a time, I wrote articles on the local governments & towns of Ethiopia, & I often relied on materials prepared by NGOs & the Ethiopian government to provide content for those articles; had I materials as detailed as these about any of them, I would have thought I struck gold. Considering that this article lacks objective & falsifiable facts (e.g. size of the district, quality of roads, number of schools & medical facilities), I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links". About the only objection I can conceivably find in these 3 is that the pamphlet (whose creation was funded by a second NGO, which could be expected to exert some fact-checking & editorial oversight) does discuss alleged Israeli practices of forcing resident inhabitants out of their homes & encouraging in-migration of Jews; but I expect the current policy of WP:BRD to manage any improper emphasis of this information. Moreover, incidents of this policy already appears in the article. -- llywrch ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Debresser have now removed the following links, which were listed under the "External links" heading:
...with the edit line: Remove unneeded external links per WP:EL. Also note that these are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber.
My comment: there is absolutely nothing in WP:EL which can justify a removal of these links. As for noteing that these links are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber: yeah, LOL, that was actually noted above. (And this is not the only place which is about two places, treated as one on wp, take Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba Town Profile as an example)
Debresser, you better explain this removal (which IMO borders on vandalism), or better still: undo your edit, Huldra ( talk) 21:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Recently an editor added 4 external links to a certain website, First of all I think that is overkill. Apart from that, I think that none of the links is especially valuable, and see no compelling reason they should be included. In addition, the source in question, the Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem, has a very clear political agenda, and I am always wary of science which is being used for the attainment of political goals. All in all I would like to see opinions of editors regarding the desirableness of these links. I would also propose that in the case that a clear consensus should emerge among editors who have no prior involvement in this article, and on that condition only, this discussion could be used for similar issues on related articles. Debresser ( talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Zero0000 What "sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right" are present in the article?-- Shrike ( talk) 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, for as long as this article has had a pushpin map it has used the Palestine map and had a caption "within Palestine". Jabel Mukaber is not in Israel, and you both are attempting to (again!) edit-war your change in without any semblance of an attempt at discussion and are violating your previously expressed desire to have others respect BRD. I invite you to explain. nableezy - 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Debresser, I added an occupying state (israel) and israeli district (jerusalem) to the infobox. I dont know if youll be on board with occupying state, but I dont know what else to call it there. I hope that does enough to bridge the gap here in terms of reflecting the current status. nableezy - 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
How would y'all feel about using a map of Jerusalem instead? I wouldn't complain provided it clearly showed the green line and captions used "West Jerusalem" and "East Jerusalem". Zero talk 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy reverted me when I changed "occupation" to "rule" but it's my understanding that rule is preferred. At least based on prior discussions we just had a few weeks ago in the Jordan occupation in the West Bank arena. Can you clarify why you reverted and why you used the edit summary of "nonsense?" Sir Joseph (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Debresser has begun edit-warring over the pushpin map and caption and an additional map. He says the map of the Palestinian territories is "more specific" than the one of the State of Palestine, ignoring the fact that, HELLO, they are the same exact map. Yes, to all interested observers, Debresser has been edit-warring with the claim that File:Palestine location map wide.png is more specific than File:Palestine location map wide.png. The difference there is in the caption, whether it says in the State of Palestine or the Palestinian territories. But Debresser doesn't want to say that's what he is edit-warring over, so he claims the File A is more precise than File A. And then while doing so, he removes that actually precise map we have. The pushpin map shows Jabel Mukaber within the entire greater Israel/Palestine area. The detailed map of Jerusalem shows Jabel Mukaber in relation to the Green Line, No Man's Land and so on. So while he claims to be putting in a more specific map while using the same freaking map, he removes the actually specific map. It's amazing honestly. nableezy - 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)