![]() | 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.
|
<- You do not know how it works here. The Times is not the New York Times. At least have the common decency to read the sources, look at what people are removing, ask yourself whether removing a source like the Times is the action of someone who wants to build an encyclopedia. The reason people use maps to say this is in Northern Jerusalem and remove impeccably reliable sources like the Times is because they don't want it to say East Jerusalem. This is the kind of nonsense that must stop. I tried to be nice. I added the Jpost source that said northeastern J. This is despite the fact that even that source uses the following terminology
I could have picked another Jpost source which states " to build 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo in east Jerusalem" or any number of the countless RS that refer to this location as being in East Jerusalem (the consensus view) but I didn't. Why ? Because the opening statement doesn't need to have anything to do with politics. That was the agreement in the centralized discussion about settlements. You can continue being a POV warrior or you can simply follow policy. It's up to you but things will go more smoothly if you simply follow policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Ramat Shlomo is in North Jerusalem, according to all modern maps. Even a map posted on the NYTimes Lede blog last week shows this! Just because the Muslims renamed it East Jerusalem 60+ years ago, that doesn't make it legit. Before Jordan invaded and illegally annexed the area, it had a majority Jewish population as the entire city of Jerusalem has, since 1844 through today!
Jews were ethnically cleansed from the area by the Jordanian Arabs in late 1948. Where is the paragraph on this?
Why does the history of the area only begin after Jordan's 19 year illegal occupation? Obviously people lived there prior to 1948, otherwise it, as well as much of the Jewish owned property in J'lem wouldn't be so sought after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.137.201 ( talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia article for the Russian Compound in Jerusalem clearly states that it is in "central Jerusalem". Google map also confirms this. Yet the Russian compound is slightly farther East than Ramat Shlomo. On the map you will see Ramat Shlomo, slightly Northwest of Central Jerusalem.
This would mean that the Russian compound is in East Jerusalem if Ramat Shlomo is to be considered East. Otherwise you have to use truth & logic and declare R.S. north central Jerusalem, if the Russian compound is also central.
Logic & fact prevail over the big lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.137.201 ( talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to call this as I see it. As of April 8th, 2010, this article has an imbalance of information--some stuff on the actual housing development, lots of stuff on the political front, nearly all of it from an anti-Israel standpoint. It mentions the Obama's administration's and EU's condemnation of recently announced units slated for construction, but completely leaves out Netenyahu & Israel's explanation for the announcement, and their response to the criticism.
Not surprisingly, the article also declares that "it is therefore considered to be an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem." "Therefore considered" by whom? Not by George W. Bush or past U.S. presidents. Not by many prominent American politicians. Not by pro-Israel European countries. Also, I would venture to guess that any proposals to divide Jerusalem will for sure include Ramat Shlomo safely within Israeli territory, even those coming from the Pro-Palestinian side.
Finally, this article initially mentioned Ramat Shlomo's "East Jerusalem" political status in both the intro and "political status" pages (though since edited by yours truly), in the exact same wording and phrased as above. Perhaps this is an oversight, but in light of the other issues it does suggest an anti-Israel bias from certain editors. A good wiki page is informational first, and if it does include political viewpoints, it should give both sides equal mention. I'll be re-visiting this page. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read this centralized discussion. This article is just one of many articles beset with problems caused by editors using their personal views about 'the truth' rather than simply following policy. The discretionary sanctions are there to make it clear to editors what is expected of them when they edit in this narrative warring prone topic area. Do not voice your opinions about the real world on this talk page per WP:TALK "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective". What right do I have to revert the edit ? My revert is shown here. Your edits reduce mandatory policy compliance.
I have no interest in the rights and wrongs of this issue or the pointless narrative wars editors like to fight over this issue. I have an interest in ensuring policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Something is not adding up here. Okay, so you have a problem with something that's not mentioned in the lead. So expand on the last edit and add it in in a smooth manner, to help create a quality article. Just reverting it to less developed version creates more problems than it solves, as you can see here.
I've been on wikipedia for over four years and definitely had some pretty good debates in that time. When disputes come up, the different parties talk about them on the discussion page and their own personal talk pages. Immediately reverting the edits and then trying to report the person I do find unusual, as well as telling them not to post to their talk page while in the middle of a dispute. Also, to say that I'm using a blog to source facts is taking things a little out of context. That happens to be an article written by Alan Dershowitz, one of the foremost experts on the Middle East. Yes, it happens to be on a "blog," but it is being posted on mainstream news sources and this is simply where it originates from.
In any case, if you have an issue or want to make a change, instant reverts is not the way to go about it, which is the approach you and Nableezy have taken. To make matters worse, to instantly warn and then report a user who is simply doing a milder version of what you are doing does seem to be just a little out-of-line, as Nableezy has done. I'm not going to make any accusations but I can say from vast experience that this is not typical wiki editing. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Alan Dershowitz is not "one of the foremost experts on the Middle East". That line actually made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that. nableezy - 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I readily accept the criticism put forth by Sean Hoyland and Nableezy. A more thorough procedure could have been utilized to address my issues with this article. At the same time, I just want to point out three things:
1) This article appeared to me as being low quality. Generally speaking, when I edit what I think is a low quality article I don't bombarded with this kind of intense opposition. Usually it means that nobody has paid attention to it for quite some time, and my changes are either unnoticed or address by some rogue soul. I now understand that anything that could be labeled as part of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is treacherous territory and I should be prepared for a reaction to any major changes. But that raises another question--if this is such a watched page, than why did it seem so low quality to somebody like me?
2) I posted what I thought was a controversial post to the discussion page. No responses. I came back 24 hours later and made what I thought were appropriate changes. All hell breaks lose. What's up with that?
3) I still have to question whether this page is an encyclopedia entry, which is the criteria I go by when I raise up objections. Let's just say, hypothetically speaking, I'm Jewish and take an academic approach to my religion. I have some other religious friends who have lived in Ramat Shlomo for years, and think I should move there. Not knowing much about the place, I decide to look it up in the encyclopedia. In 2010, that should mean Wikipedia. All I really learn about the place is that "it is considered an Israeli Settlement." Is this an encyclopedia entry?
I'm not somebody that you should be reporting--I'm an intelligent individual whose actions are based in experience. I have no problems with playing by the rules. I do feel as though I've been attacked. Maybe it was self-imposed to an extent, but this is what I have to say. Any responses? Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Breein, could you explain why you changed "and annexed to Israel in a move not recognised by the international community" to "and annexed to Israel in a move which has not received comprehensive international backing"? Yes, it has not received "comprehensive international backing" but that understates a bit, dont you think? The "move" has been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community, it doesnt just lack "comprehensive international backing". nableezy - 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Breein, is there a reliable source that considers this incident to be important because "it demonstrates the complexity over the issue and that it is even worth printing a correction over" ? Media sources use a whole spectrum of terms to refer to Ramat Shlomo even within a single article. For example..
What is special about this case and who says so ( apart from CAMERA) ? Don't you think it's undue weight ? In effect you are giving it the same weight as the Israeli government's position. Or consider a sentence like this
What's the difference ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been busy but I did gather these sources, quotes etc and I've prepared the refs for use. They are all unaltered samples from the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Condemns the new Israeli announcement on the construction of 120 new housing units in the Bitar Elite settlement, and 1,600 new housing units for new settlers in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo, and calls upon the Government of Israel to immediately reverse its decision which would further undermine and jeopardize the ongoing efforts by the international community to reach a final settlement compliant with international legitimacy, including the relevant United Nations resolutions [1]
In favour (46): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia. Against (1): United States of America. Abstentions (0): [2]
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Moscow views the announcement on March 9 by Israel’s Interior Ministry of plans to build 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo neighborhood with great concern. We believe that such Israeli actions are unacceptable. They run counter to the generally recognized international legal basis for a settlement, and prejudge the outcome of the negotiation process, during which a solution must be found to the final status issues, including Jerusalem. We call on the Israeli authorities to refrain from such negative unilateral steps. This is particularly important at such a sensitive moment when the international community has intensified efforts to bring a lasting and just peace to the Middle East, and the parties – the Palestinians and Israelis – after a long hiatus show a desire to resume talks, if still indirect. The nascent opportunity to advance towards settlement cannot be allowed to fail. [3] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Building on occupied land is illegal under international law, but Israel regards East Jerusalem - which it annexed in 1967 - as its territory. [4] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Israel annexed East Jerusalem as part of its capital after capturing it in the 1967 war. Its claim is not recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as capital of a future state they are seeking in the occupied West Bank. [5] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That Israel then approved a new building project, the suspension of which the United States had demanded as long ago as last July... [6]
The Americans spent much of last year trying and failing to get Israel to freeze all construction in the Jewish settlements, which are illegal under international law. [4] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
UN chief Ban Ki-moon also issued a statement condemning Israel's settlement plan. [4] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"But we have to make clear to our Israeli friends and partners that the two-state solution -- which we support, which the prime minister himself says he supports -- requires confidence-building measures on both sides," Clinton told CNN's Jill Dougherty. "And the announcement of the settlements the very day that the vice president was there was insulting." [7] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Ask Rabbi Sam White what he thinks of the global political row over plans to expand the community in which he lives, prays and studies, and he answers bluntly: "I don't see the problem. God gave us the land of Israel." [8] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"The EU position on settlements is clear. Settlements are illegal, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state-solution impossible." [9] Under the Israeli plans, the new homes will be built in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem. [9] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Israeli settlement building anywhere on occupied land is illegal and must be stopped, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Saturday, after getting a closer look at some of the Israeli enclaves scattered across Palestinian-claimed territories. [10]
The panorama included Jewish neighborhoods in traditionally Arab east Jerusalem, the Israeli-annexed sector of the city that Palestinians claim as a future capital. [10]
Ban rejected Israel's distinction between east Jerusalem and the West Bank, noting that both are occupied lands. "The world has condemned Israel's settlement plans in east Jerusalem," Ban told a news conference after his brief tour. "Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.". [10] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's why I would still put this article in the "unfairly anti-Israel" category, absent of neutrality. Yes, you've got a whole list of people saying that it's an "Israeli settlement." But we all know that you can have thousands of sources spinning the public perception of something, and that does not make it true, especially when it comes to Israel. For example, this recent "flotilla" incident is a prime example. You can find videos made by the people on it with Islamic Jihadist leaders preparing dozens of participants for a suicide mission. Yet this is widely reported simple as an "aid flotilla." The deliberate spin put out there by enemies of Israel, and picked up by certain world leaders, does not make it reality.
So anyway, back to Ramat Shlomo and why it's NOT a "settlement." Under the Oslo accords, the PLO and Israel agreed, in writing, that any Jewish construction in greater Jerusalem would not be an obstacle to peace and can go on unabated. As of 1995, when Ramat Shlomo was built, this was fully understood by everyone involved, including Yasser Arafat.
I'll go ahead and source this and do what's necessary, but not if it's going to be instantly reverted and reported as vandalism. So if anyone has an issue, please chime in. Moreover, if anyone understands where I'm coming from and wants to support this, please chime in as well.
Also, for the record, "it is therefore considered an Israeli settlement" comes across as weasel-worded as anything, and IMNSHO makes this article look amateurish and POV'ed. Anyway, feedback to this post is appreciated. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what sources Accipio had in mind, but in the latest protocols which were brought in Al - Jazeera, the Palestinians stated clearly that they are aware (and accept) that all neighborhoods beyond the green line within Jerusalem will be part of Israel. Editorprop ( talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ramat Shlomo. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Shrike today removed some stuff I had added from ARIJ.
Now, we recently had a RfC about ARIJ, here: Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#RFC; a RfC where Shrike participated. The closing admin, User:Llywrch, not only accepted ARIJ as a EL, but stated that "I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links"" ...which is exactly what I did.
So how can you, Shrike, justify your removal? Huldra ( talk) 20:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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.
|
<- You do not know how it works here. The Times is not the New York Times. At least have the common decency to read the sources, look at what people are removing, ask yourself whether removing a source like the Times is the action of someone who wants to build an encyclopedia. The reason people use maps to say this is in Northern Jerusalem and remove impeccably reliable sources like the Times is because they don't want it to say East Jerusalem. This is the kind of nonsense that must stop. I tried to be nice. I added the Jpost source that said northeastern J. This is despite the fact that even that source uses the following terminology
I could have picked another Jpost source which states " to build 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo in east Jerusalem" or any number of the countless RS that refer to this location as being in East Jerusalem (the consensus view) but I didn't. Why ? Because the opening statement doesn't need to have anything to do with politics. That was the agreement in the centralized discussion about settlements. You can continue being a POV warrior or you can simply follow policy. It's up to you but things will go more smoothly if you simply follow policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Ramat Shlomo is in North Jerusalem, according to all modern maps. Even a map posted on the NYTimes Lede blog last week shows this! Just because the Muslims renamed it East Jerusalem 60+ years ago, that doesn't make it legit. Before Jordan invaded and illegally annexed the area, it had a majority Jewish population as the entire city of Jerusalem has, since 1844 through today!
Jews were ethnically cleansed from the area by the Jordanian Arabs in late 1948. Where is the paragraph on this?
Why does the history of the area only begin after Jordan's 19 year illegal occupation? Obviously people lived there prior to 1948, otherwise it, as well as much of the Jewish owned property in J'lem wouldn't be so sought after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.137.201 ( talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia article for the Russian Compound in Jerusalem clearly states that it is in "central Jerusalem". Google map also confirms this. Yet the Russian compound is slightly farther East than Ramat Shlomo. On the map you will see Ramat Shlomo, slightly Northwest of Central Jerusalem.
This would mean that the Russian compound is in East Jerusalem if Ramat Shlomo is to be considered East. Otherwise you have to use truth & logic and declare R.S. north central Jerusalem, if the Russian compound is also central.
Logic & fact prevail over the big lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.215.137.201 ( talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to call this as I see it. As of April 8th, 2010, this article has an imbalance of information--some stuff on the actual housing development, lots of stuff on the political front, nearly all of it from an anti-Israel standpoint. It mentions the Obama's administration's and EU's condemnation of recently announced units slated for construction, but completely leaves out Netenyahu & Israel's explanation for the announcement, and their response to the criticism.
Not surprisingly, the article also declares that "it is therefore considered to be an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem." "Therefore considered" by whom? Not by George W. Bush or past U.S. presidents. Not by many prominent American politicians. Not by pro-Israel European countries. Also, I would venture to guess that any proposals to divide Jerusalem will for sure include Ramat Shlomo safely within Israeli territory, even those coming from the Pro-Palestinian side.
Finally, this article initially mentioned Ramat Shlomo's "East Jerusalem" political status in both the intro and "political status" pages (though since edited by yours truly), in the exact same wording and phrased as above. Perhaps this is an oversight, but in light of the other issues it does suggest an anti-Israel bias from certain editors. A good wiki page is informational first, and if it does include political viewpoints, it should give both sides equal mention. I'll be re-visiting this page. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 18:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read this centralized discussion. This article is just one of many articles beset with problems caused by editors using their personal views about 'the truth' rather than simply following policy. The discretionary sanctions are there to make it clear to editors what is expected of them when they edit in this narrative warring prone topic area. Do not voice your opinions about the real world on this talk page per WP:TALK "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective". What right do I have to revert the edit ? My revert is shown here. Your edits reduce mandatory policy compliance.
I have no interest in the rights and wrongs of this issue or the pointless narrative wars editors like to fight over this issue. I have an interest in ensuring policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Something is not adding up here. Okay, so you have a problem with something that's not mentioned in the lead. So expand on the last edit and add it in in a smooth manner, to help create a quality article. Just reverting it to less developed version creates more problems than it solves, as you can see here.
I've been on wikipedia for over four years and definitely had some pretty good debates in that time. When disputes come up, the different parties talk about them on the discussion page and their own personal talk pages. Immediately reverting the edits and then trying to report the person I do find unusual, as well as telling them not to post to their talk page while in the middle of a dispute. Also, to say that I'm using a blog to source facts is taking things a little out of context. That happens to be an article written by Alan Dershowitz, one of the foremost experts on the Middle East. Yes, it happens to be on a "blog," but it is being posted on mainstream news sources and this is simply where it originates from.
In any case, if you have an issue or want to make a change, instant reverts is not the way to go about it, which is the approach you and Nableezy have taken. To make matters worse, to instantly warn and then report a user who is simply doing a milder version of what you are doing does seem to be just a little out-of-line, as Nableezy has done. I'm not going to make any accusations but I can say from vast experience that this is not typical wiki editing. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Alan Dershowitz is not "one of the foremost experts on the Middle East". That line actually made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that. nableezy - 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I readily accept the criticism put forth by Sean Hoyland and Nableezy. A more thorough procedure could have been utilized to address my issues with this article. At the same time, I just want to point out three things:
1) This article appeared to me as being low quality. Generally speaking, when I edit what I think is a low quality article I don't bombarded with this kind of intense opposition. Usually it means that nobody has paid attention to it for quite some time, and my changes are either unnoticed or address by some rogue soul. I now understand that anything that could be labeled as part of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is treacherous territory and I should be prepared for a reaction to any major changes. But that raises another question--if this is such a watched page, than why did it seem so low quality to somebody like me?
2) I posted what I thought was a controversial post to the discussion page. No responses. I came back 24 hours later and made what I thought were appropriate changes. All hell breaks lose. What's up with that?
3) I still have to question whether this page is an encyclopedia entry, which is the criteria I go by when I raise up objections. Let's just say, hypothetically speaking, I'm Jewish and take an academic approach to my religion. I have some other religious friends who have lived in Ramat Shlomo for years, and think I should move there. Not knowing much about the place, I decide to look it up in the encyclopedia. In 2010, that should mean Wikipedia. All I really learn about the place is that "it is considered an Israeli Settlement." Is this an encyclopedia entry?
I'm not somebody that you should be reporting--I'm an intelligent individual whose actions are based in experience. I have no problems with playing by the rules. I do feel as though I've been attacked. Maybe it was self-imposed to an extent, but this is what I have to say. Any responses? Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Breein, could you explain why you changed "and annexed to Israel in a move not recognised by the international community" to "and annexed to Israel in a move which has not received comprehensive international backing"? Yes, it has not received "comprehensive international backing" but that understates a bit, dont you think? The "move" has been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community, it doesnt just lack "comprehensive international backing". nableezy - 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Breein, is there a reliable source that considers this incident to be important because "it demonstrates the complexity over the issue and that it is even worth printing a correction over" ? Media sources use a whole spectrum of terms to refer to Ramat Shlomo even within a single article. For example..
What is special about this case and who says so ( apart from CAMERA) ? Don't you think it's undue weight ? In effect you are giving it the same weight as the Israeli government's position. Or consider a sentence like this
What's the difference ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been busy but I did gather these sources, quotes etc and I've prepared the refs for use. They are all unaltered samples from the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Condemns the new Israeli announcement on the construction of 120 new housing units in the Bitar Elite settlement, and 1,600 new housing units for new settlers in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo, and calls upon the Government of Israel to immediately reverse its decision which would further undermine and jeopardize the ongoing efforts by the international community to reach a final settlement compliant with international legitimacy, including the relevant United Nations resolutions [1]
In favour (46): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia. Against (1): United States of America. Abstentions (0): [2]
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Moscow views the announcement on March 9 by Israel’s Interior Ministry of plans to build 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo neighborhood with great concern. We believe that such Israeli actions are unacceptable. They run counter to the generally recognized international legal basis for a settlement, and prejudge the outcome of the negotiation process, during which a solution must be found to the final status issues, including Jerusalem. We call on the Israeli authorities to refrain from such negative unilateral steps. This is particularly important at such a sensitive moment when the international community has intensified efforts to bring a lasting and just peace to the Middle East, and the parties – the Palestinians and Israelis – after a long hiatus show a desire to resume talks, if still indirect. The nascent opportunity to advance towards settlement cannot be allowed to fail. [3] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Building on occupied land is illegal under international law, but Israel regards East Jerusalem - which it annexed in 1967 - as its territory. [4] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Israel annexed East Jerusalem as part of its capital after capturing it in the 1967 war. Its claim is not recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as capital of a future state they are seeking in the occupied West Bank. [5] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That Israel then approved a new building project, the suspension of which the United States had demanded as long ago as last July... [6]
The Americans spent much of last year trying and failing to get Israel to freeze all construction in the Jewish settlements, which are illegal under international law. [4] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
UN chief Ban Ki-moon also issued a statement condemning Israel's settlement plan. [4] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"But we have to make clear to our Israeli friends and partners that the two-state solution -- which we support, which the prime minister himself says he supports -- requires confidence-building measures on both sides," Clinton told CNN's Jill Dougherty. "And the announcement of the settlements the very day that the vice president was there was insulting." [7] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Ask Rabbi Sam White what he thinks of the global political row over plans to expand the community in which he lives, prays and studies, and he answers bluntly: "I don't see the problem. God gave us the land of Israel." [8] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"The EU position on settlements is clear. Settlements are illegal, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state-solution impossible." [9] Under the Israeli plans, the new homes will be built in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem. [9] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Israeli settlement building anywhere on occupied land is illegal and must be stopped, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Saturday, after getting a closer look at some of the Israeli enclaves scattered across Palestinian-claimed territories. [10]
The panorama included Jewish neighborhoods in traditionally Arab east Jerusalem, the Israeli-annexed sector of the city that Palestinians claim as a future capital. [10]
Ban rejected Israel's distinction between east Jerusalem and the West Bank, noting that both are occupied lands. "The world has condemned Israel's settlement plans in east Jerusalem," Ban told a news conference after his brief tour. "Let us be clear. All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.". [10] Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's why I would still put this article in the "unfairly anti-Israel" category, absent of neutrality. Yes, you've got a whole list of people saying that it's an "Israeli settlement." But we all know that you can have thousands of sources spinning the public perception of something, and that does not make it true, especially when it comes to Israel. For example, this recent "flotilla" incident is a prime example. You can find videos made by the people on it with Islamic Jihadist leaders preparing dozens of participants for a suicide mission. Yet this is widely reported simple as an "aid flotilla." The deliberate spin put out there by enemies of Israel, and picked up by certain world leaders, does not make it reality.
So anyway, back to Ramat Shlomo and why it's NOT a "settlement." Under the Oslo accords, the PLO and Israel agreed, in writing, that any Jewish construction in greater Jerusalem would not be an obstacle to peace and can go on unabated. As of 1995, when Ramat Shlomo was built, this was fully understood by everyone involved, including Yasser Arafat.
I'll go ahead and source this and do what's necessary, but not if it's going to be instantly reverted and reported as vandalism. So if anyone has an issue, please chime in. Moreover, if anyone understands where I'm coming from and wants to support this, please chime in as well.
Also, for the record, "it is therefore considered an Israeli settlement" comes across as weasel-worded as anything, and IMNSHO makes this article look amateurish and POV'ed. Anyway, feedback to this post is appreciated. Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what sources Accipio had in mind, but in the latest protocols which were brought in Al - Jazeera, the Palestinians stated clearly that they are aware (and accept) that all neighborhoods beyond the green line within Jerusalem will be part of Israel. Editorprop ( talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ramat Shlomo. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Shrike today removed some stuff I had added from ARIJ.
Now, we recently had a RfC about ARIJ, here: Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#RFC; a RfC where Shrike participated. The closing admin, User:Llywrch, not only accepted ARIJ as a EL, but stated that "I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links"" ...which is exactly what I did.
So how can you, Shrike, justify your removal? Huldra ( talk) 20:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)