This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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