Talk:Kafr 'Aqab

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

Palestine Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Start‑class Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 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 Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

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: You must be logged-in and making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic 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. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process . Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kafr 'Aqab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207052201/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/populati/pop08.aspx to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/populati/pop08.aspx
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20060313002206/http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fullMaps_Sa.nsf/luFullMap/BB0D1D0CC89A371F8525706F00517495/%24File/healthinforum_HLT_westbank_opt110205.pdf?OpenElement to http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fullMaps_Sa.nsf/luFullMap/BB0D1D0CC89A371F8525706F00517495/%24File/healthinforum_HLT_westbank_opt110205.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add to: Category:Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem Architau (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 This was a pretty obvious request, if you look at the code instead of the regular page. The editor forgot the ":" before the word "Category".

 Done Debresser (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of existing cat.Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Israel, and the Palestinian Authority claim this land. I believe the article should reflect it, instead of assigning to "Palestine". --Exx8 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chance. Zero^talk 23:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any valid argument against it?--Exx8 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough about the status in the article already. Zero^talk 01:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, the article states that it belongs to a country that effectively doesn't exist, furthermore, it disregards the Israeli claim on it. The PLO forces cannot enter this land, and it ignores Wikipedia's policy of stating the claims of each widely recognized country on the legend. I find no reason to make this place different for example from Crimea.--Exx8 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that belongs in the linked article, Israeli occupation.Huldra (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, though some people consider this as an occupation, Wikipedia should be as objective as possible. Because this is a political issue, objective truth can't be reached. I believe it should represent the main stream views of both sides. Regarding the claim this land is occupied, according the Israeli view, this territory is administrated by the democratically elected Jerusalem Municipality. Therefore, it is not occupied, but an integral part of Israel--Exx8 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that belongs in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the International law and Israeli settlements-articles. (The only way to "survive" on wp in controversial areas, is to put what is controversial into specialised articles (such as the two above), and then link to them. If we did as you apparently would like; to "cherry-pick" certain facts and put them into each and every article, well, that is a recipe for absolutely endless edit-wars.) Huldra (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We represent not "the mainstream view of both sides" but rather give due weight to what third party reliable sources report. They overwhelmingly report that this Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. As a fact. So we follow that weight of sources and do the same. nableezy - 15:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well implementing the policy that you mention is a complete diverge from the policy which Wikipedia takes regarding disputed territories. Both Crimea and Kafr 'Aqab are disputed territories, that some 3rd party sources assign to country/pseudo-country, and yet Wikipedia mentions, all of the claims on these lands on the legend. This is also the case for North Nicosia and many other disputed lands. There is no reason, that Kafr 'Aqab and other places in Jerusalem will be exempt from this reality. I say that if you believe the policy you've written, you should implement to every disputed land, no matter what is your political view. Otherwise, this article should obey to the previous precedent regarding disputed territories. Especially if the "country" you mentioned has no effective control on this territory. --Exx8 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has attempted an annex of territory and it has been contested. For an annex to be effective, it requires recognition internationally and this one has not by multiple UN resolutions to that effect and therefore the territory continues to have the status it held previously, in this case belligerent occupation. Any amount of reputable RS supports this.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, are we talking about the same place here? Israel hasnt claimed Kafr Aqab as part of its expanded Jerusalem municipality as far as I can tell. nableezy - 18:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just went by what it said in the article, "While Kafr 'Aqab was unilaterally annexed by Israel with the rest of East Jerusalem and falls under its full jurisdiction". Is it not true?Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into it a bit. It is inside the municipal borders but on the West Bank side of the wall resulting in something of an administrative mess, the Israeli side tries to claim it but provides very little in services. The article needs some updating, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

let me comment for the claims that have been made. First, annexation does NOT require international recognition. According to the sovereignty principle a nation may annex any territory it rules. The annexation might be or might not be recognized, but it won't change the state on the ground.The state will still enforce its law on the ground. Annexation is merely a declaration of a nation that it begins to enforce its laws on a specific place. But I believe there is some validity of presenting the Palestinian National Authority claim, as pseudo-state. Anyway, what I ask is to mention the Israeli claim that this land belongs to Israel. Other nations cannot by any mean discard a nation claim. They can disregard it, or not recognize it, but the claim is made by a country not the international community what so ever. Regarding the say that Kafr Aqab doesn't get services from the Israeli side. It's true that there are more central places in Jerusalem that get much more services, but it's also true that Kfar 'Aqab does not get any services from "Palestine" meaning, that de-facto (as de-jure from Israel's view) this village is Israeli.--Exx8 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That lot is not even worth a reply, try consulting some proper RS. And the article clearly says that it was annexed so you are as well asking for something to be mentioned that is already mentioned.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not claiming anything isn't a valid argument, do you have any argument, fact-based? We are in a respected place. Please mind your language. The legend doesn't state that this place is administrated and claimed by Israel. It makes a false impression, that this place is part of the PNA which clearly it isn't. That what I want to change. Is there any objection, which relies on any Wikipedia-editing-precedents, or on any fact based argument, or should we finally update this article to be more genuine and less biased?--Exx8 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the article "While Kafr 'Aqab was unilaterally annexed by Israel with the rest of East Jerusalem and falls under its full jurisdiction", have you even read the article? Also, if you wish to change something in the article the onus is on you to justify the change and you need to provide appropriate RS in support of any change. I'll wait to see how you get on with that.Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to fix the legend:

--Exx8 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the infobox to refer instead to East Jerusalem, this reference leads to details of the disputed annex. I changed the short decription the same way and I expanded the lead with the necessary information.Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]