Talk:Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Neutral

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

If the Jordanian occupation of the eastern part of Jerusalem was illegal (because of it's neglect UN partition plan), the Israeli occupation of the western part was illegal too for the same reason!!! The article, from title to core, is far from being neutral, since it's neglecting the other point of view!--Maher27777 (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jordan was officially recognized by the UN to be occupying the West Bank including East Jerusalem. Israel however was recognized by the UN as having sovereignty over West Jerusalem. Therefore Israel does not occupy the western part. - Galatz ^Talk 14:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The Suggested Arab state of the partition plan was occupied by both Jordan and Israel, and Jerusalem was set to be under international administration. So it's meaningless to call one side "sovereign" and call the other "occupant"!--Maher27777 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue I asked in the #wikipedia freenode IRC channel they told me to come here and discuss POV. The post I have made are only from a neutral point of view that both side have agreed to. Should be nothing to dispute as the links are only law and not option or conjecture from reputable official legal sites. Reunification is not a legal status as the partition plan was agreed to by both sides upon becoming states, which Israel has been one and Palestine is a member state also since the last decade.

--icarusfactor (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusfactor (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes however what you wrote and how you wrote it was certainly not neutral. To use the term "the occupiers" is certainly not neutral. Additionally you are editorializing, with comments like and "Reunification" is not official. Additionally using force to take territory is disputed since it was in defense, therefore by not showing both sides you are once again showing POV - Galatz ^Talk 13:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Also just an FYI, you are not allowed to edit this page anyway, per WP:ARBPIA3, so I have gone ahead and requested it be locked. - Galatz ^Talk 13:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

In the introduction to the article, the following key subjects need to be wikilinked to their Wikipedia pages:

1. Israel - the word Israel appears five times in the article and is never wikilinked. Failure to wikilink this word could leave Wikipedia open to claims of bias against Israel, especially as Jordon, which proceeds Israel in the introduction is wikilinked.

2. Six Day War - the Six Day War is wikilinked but in the second paragraph. Once corrected in the introduction, this second paragraph wikilink will need to be removed.

3. UN - the word UN should be corrected to read United Nations (UN) in the introduction as per the formal Wikipedia entry, and then the abbreviation UN can appear in any subsequent text. The word is currently written twice in the article and both times has not been wikilinked.

Notes: a. By not wikilinking, the article does not really comply with the Manual of Style/Linking guidelines ie. "...including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads..." and, b. "...only link the first occurrence of a term in the text of the article..." Mimaroba (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Done Jack Frost (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)