User talk:Dan Palraz

Invitation for a "Discussion" - Belgrade - Kosovo Train

Good Day,

Due to barely interactions with the Article, it is easy to assume that there wont probably be a disccusion to start with. Since you were the one reverting the move, then you might also take part in the "discussion".

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Belgrade%E2%80%93Kosovska_Mitrovica_train_incident

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz

I guess that you are ignoring my comments means that you dont want to accept my invitation. Am I right?

Also, since you are removing information on the Article about the International recognition of Kosovo without taking into regard the concerns I have written down on the Talk page of the Article, I might have to revert your edits, which probably will result in a Edit-War, because you would most likely edit the Article again, which I cant allow due to not having a proper solution/summary/result from the discussion which was started some days earlier on the Talk page of the Article.

I hope that you will cooperate with finding a solution to the problem.

Best Regards,

I am not Serbian nor Kosovar/Albanian (nor American nor Russian) so I have no personal position on Kosovo's statehood, but you know much better than I do that Kosovo is trying to gain full international recognition as a sovereign State, and that Serbia, Russia, China, India, Greece, Spain and most countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa still consider Kosovo a part of Serbia, while Albania, the USA, France, Germany and most countries in Western Europe consider Kosovo and Serbia two distinct countries, and Wikipedia tries (as it has to) to be neutral about it and use language that suits both parts. So your suggestion for changing this article from the name of the two cities to "Kosovo-Serbia" would obviously be controversial and not reach a consensus in this moment. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you, it's not the two of us who will change the minds of about half of the international community and Wikipedia's policy on the issue. But if the city name is Mitrovica, we can change it to Serbia-Mitrovica, yes. Dan Palraz (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz

The whole comment of yours could have been written on the talk page of the article, the place where it is meant to be.

Of whose ethnicity you are part of, plays no role. Since it doesnt answer the question. On wikipedia I am trying to be neutral. Something like "Kosovska Mitrovica" isnt neutral at all. Maybe I shouldnt have directly changed the articles name and rather asked about it on the talk page first.

Either way, I take your comment into consideration and I will change the article to "Belgrad-Mitrovica".

Now to the second part, which you didnt answer:

"Also, since you are removing information on the Article about the International recognition of Kosovo without taking into regard the concerns I have written down on the Talk page of the Article, I might have to revert your edits, which probably will result in a Edit-War, because you would most likely edit the Article again, which I cant allow due to not having a proper solution/summary/result from the discussion which was started some days earlier on the Talk page of the Article.

I hope that you will cooperate with finding a solution to the problem."

Do you might wanna answer this?

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad we could come to a consensus on it eventually! Good editing! Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"InfoboxIPA": soundfiles

Hi Dan,

I undid your edit to article Voiced palatal lateral approximant because you inserted a sound file where a graphic is appropriate. Please note that sound file data of template {{Infobox IPA}} is handled on Module:IPA symbol/data. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed that, thank you! Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Oslo areas

A month ago, around the discussion of User:Nishidani & User:Doug Weller, I didn't want to engage bc I thought "he may be impulsive, as he wants to engineer reality to his thinking without regards to rules or facts on the ground." But my opinion doesn't matter. You mentioned your mental health (I wish you good health), and that caused me to view it in a more empathetic way. So I am addressing your empathy and compassion: you should understand that, for example, a young American jew, who reads that the Nebi Samuel is part of "the state of Palestine", with no mention to the reality -- being part of area C under Israeli control -- can be afraid to visit the area, as if it was Ramallah? This is not merely a specific, or about the narrative war. This is a crucial information. I hope you get it. Archway (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned...I won't speak of the merits or otherwise of the edit in question, but this is not a matter of empathy for one or the other side of the divide, or for that matter the reality. The reality is that (a) there is a State of Palestine; (b) There is an International Court of Justice which in its advisory opinion in 2004 found that the Separation Barrier violated international law in infringing what it called the West Bank Israel holds under belligerent occupation; (c) In that territory Israeli, and it is reflected in numerous wiki articles, illegal settlements are described as coming under the purview of Israeli regional councils*. (d) Technically, those councils and settlements are expropriations, theft, of land to which Israel has no legal title; (e) The state of Palestine is a de jure reality, as the settlements are a de facto reality; (f) Two 'realities' imbricate over each other; (g) in stating that for a 'young American Jews' there is a sense of safety associated with visiting areas 'under Israel control' , and, conversely, unease if those areas are defined as falling technically within 'Palestinian' jurisdiction, may reflect what some such people feel. Many other 'young American Jews' have no problem with it.

One cannot speak, in short, for others and, on wiki, we don't edit for 'political correctness' either way. If you wish to challenge Dan's edit, then you simply have to request a source that states what he affirmed, that Nebi Samuel is part of the State of Palestine. If they cannot produce such a source, then the edit can be challenged as a WP:OR inference.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note for example how the linked article on Israel's regional councils conflates seamlessly those in Israel proper, and those beyond the Green Line, as if the latter were part of 'Israel'. They aren't. They are built and exercise jurisdiction on Palestinian land. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Anything in Area C (specifically mentioned in the second line of the lead) is in occupied Palestinian territory. The State of Palestine claims the occupied Palestinian territory. Any Israeli settlement in Area C is illegal under international law. That includes Nabi Samwil, where Israel's forced transfer of population, creation of a park and construction of a wall are all likewise illegal. It seems to me that the OP commentary is merely intended to provoke although the phrase "But my opinion doesn't matter" is most certainly true. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This all reminded me of the fact that we need for several articles a map of the areas in the West Bank over which settlement councils assert their authority, together with a map of Palestinian governorates. I looked around for one but couldn't find any.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the international law here doesn't matter nor relevant. The Palestinian Authority, witnessed by the US, signed the Oslo accord and agreed to the divisions of Area A, B and C. That's the reality.

Secondly, having you calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory" (occupied yes, but that's it) seriously questions your neutrality (indicating about pro-Palestinian stance), although I don't question your decency and overall good will. As former Primer Minister Naftali Bennett to CNN just recently] (then as PM), these are Areas in Dispute. And as I said, on this subject this isn't a personal opinion -- there are significant factors differentiating Area C from A/B -- the existence of settlements, army, police, entry permits and others. Although the Israeli government disputes the illegality libel of the settlements -- and even though this is an old controversy that's been debated and settled, long before me being here -- it's really not connected to my point about area C, or to any legality issue. To date, the PA is signed on the Oslo accords. Archway (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not neutral because I called the West Bank 'Palestinian territory', a 'pro-Palestinian stance'? You are neutral because the terminology I used comes from the International Court of Justice, and 'that doesn't matter'. You prefer a youtube soundbite mantra recited, this time round (there's a cast of thousands who chant it) by the PM of the day, to the deliberations of the ICJ and the language of those who signed the Oslo Accords.

Is it a waste of time to actually read the Oslo Accord and note that it (a) refers to an 'interim agreement' for arrangements beween Israel and the PLO setting forth arrangements for the following five years (1994-1999), that foresaw a peace settlement in terms of the two UN resolutions that recognize Israel's obligation to withdraw from the territories it occupied? Oslo1 specifically states, against the meme, that 'The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.' The interim agreement 'transitioned', during and then after its expiry, into the present patchwork of settlements, military bases and firing zones, and 165 bantustans penning in over 2 million people to allow cheap real estate land grants to a few hundred thousand immigrants, 23 years after the failure of the parts to implement the interim agreement, a division of a 'single territorial unit' along lines not foreseen by the PLO/PA (understandably, they are as corrupt as their adversary, though far less smart).

Language is crucial and you ignore it (I tend to think that when you use the word 'libel' for 'label' (the 'illegality libel') that is just a lapsus calami, though I would be entitled to take it as a Freudian lapse revealing a more personal take -that anyone using the language of international law in this regard is engaged in 'libelling' Israel. (Nations are not subject to the laws of libel: only individuals).

I intervened here for just one reason, not to forumize, but to undo the perceived damage (WP:AGF) of what could be read as a personal attack (I'm sure that was not your intention), in mentioning Dan's 'mental health' while questioning his edit. Our job here, regardless of POV, is to read scrupulously all the relevant historical documentation, rather than consult youtube, or politicians' speeches, or the usual mediatic spin. It's hard work, requires Sitzfleisch, and a particular sensitivity to language, which is charged with erratic emotional commitments (i.e. you eliciting an imaginary story about a 'young American Jew' to imply Dan was offending someone's sensibilities.) Let's drop it. Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

+1. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Archwayh The West Bank:" The United Nations calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip Israeli-occupied territories. The United States State Department also refers to the territories as occupied." How is agreeing with this a show of lack of neutrality? Doug Weller talk 09:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I will eventually archive all this conversation as I don't want to be reminded all the time about health issues, but I just *need* to agree with Doug Weller, Nishidani and talk about there being nothing political about calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory". Every single country in the world *including* the United States calls the West Bank one of the two "Palestinian territories": https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/west-bank/ - literally, the US official position's first sentence about the WB: "The landlocked West Bank - the larger of the two Palestinian territories - is home to some three million Palestinians." Which leads me, by the way, to point out the need to include this crucial bit of information in the first line of Wikipedia's West Bank article - the way it is now is not neutral, as it follows only the position of some politicians of one single country, Israel, according to which it is no one's territory for now, going against the official positions of all other 192 UN member States, and of international law: whatever the ICJ says *is* by definition "international law" as the ICJ rulings are a source of international law, so, by international law, the West Bank is the largest of the Palestinian territories, and not stating it clearly in the introduction to the "West Bank" article is clearly biased. Dan Palraz (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

By all means archive this. The points have been made and read by the parties. Just a small pointer, Dan. These articles all need a lot of work, and just getting the right language and due weight to the parties is minor, compared to the microhistorical details. Most editors come in to contest the politics, and have little knowledge of such relevant details. It's probably easier on anyone with a deep interest in the area to focus on the nitty-gritty. Details are more persuasive than broadbrush categorization. That said, edit towards your own lights, and, above all, keep well. This should be a hobby, nor a source of stress.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Samaritans

Hey Dan, I don't really think that we can affirm something that is not proven, at lest in wiki's neutral voice. Now it is true that a recent genetic paper concluded that the genetic evidence points to their descent from the Israelites, and we note that. Genetics in this area is still a young science (b) as I edit stuff in that area and follow it, I know of work that is questioning one of the methodological fundamentals behind a large amount of this research and (c) in historical writing there are few certainties for this period, even for dates, let alone population figures. That is why historians prefer not to pass claims or even probabilities as facts, which is what emerges if one replaxces 'whose traditions affirm' with 'are' Above all, the lead must summarize the sections below it, and, in those, we outline in some detail (still incomplete) the two basic arguments for and against an Israelite descent.

Everyone has a natural right here to call the shots as their reading suggests, of course. But I hope you pause to reflect on the change made. It doesn't strike me as neutral, even though I am highly sceptical of the theory proposed in rabbinical/Jewish traditions. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"whose traditions affirm they descend from the ancient Israelites" doesn't sound neutral to me either; it makes it sound like that is not true. We don't have the same sentence in the page about Jews, and rightly so, as it would sound demeaning. I really have a problem with the way it is, and if genetic research has proven it I don't see what else is missing for the affirmation to be made, but if you oppose it, I hope we can find a better lead, maybe scratching up this part completely.

This is a matter of compositional method. I found an article that struck me as a disaster. Since for over a decade a large number of editors have contributed to it, rather than wipe out their work, I accepted (privately with distaste but out of respect for prior editors and protocols) the given structure I found. So (a) one went through the whole article like a dose of salts, getting references correct (b) ridding the text of poor sources and replacing them with scholarly ones, always while hewing to the given textual priorities. I was half way through that before the sudden disturbance and panic over my choice of region of Palestine vs the toxically ideological 'land of Israel'. (c) Once I have, if these contretemps pass, finished this first review, I intend to then go back through all of the text and reorder it so the relentless reduplicative harping on controversies as to whether the Samaritans are 'pure Israelites' or not, is replaced by a brief synthesis of the various positions, and a summary of what both modern archaeological scholarship and genetics state.

This involves an immense amount of laborious source checking and research, only a small part of which will ever get into the article. Constant editwars do nothing other than disrupt the primary task: fix a deeply flawed article. Only in the second phase can one begin, with the evidence there in footnotes for all to see, to tinker with terminology. It doesn't matter for the moment that the lead states the phrasing you contest, because that summarizes objectively what the evidence below points to so far, and leads summarize. They don't affirm a truth. No article should. Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work – good luck on continuing working on the article! Dan Palraz (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Abu Ali Express

Hello, Dan Palraz,

Thank you for creating Abu Ali Express.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I think the inclusion of information sourced to a broader variety of sources would help to rectify the POV problems in this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ONUnicorn}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ONUnicorn. I have replied on the deletion discussion page: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abu_Ali_Express&oldid=1112730594

As I pointed out there, "I had only added two sources because it was a first edit, but I have just added five other sources that confirm that, as said in the Hebrew Wikipedia version of the article, As of September 2022, it is the Telegram channel with the most views per post in Israel. and stories first published by Abu Ali Express have been often reproduced in the mainstream Israeli media, including in Maariv, Globes, Ynet, Arutz Sheva, as well as on Israeli television. Dan Palraz (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New sources added:

Nomination of Abu Ali Express for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abu Ali Express is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ali Express until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Slatersteven. I have replied there. As I pointed out in the specific page (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abu_Ali_Express&oldid=1112730594), I had only added two sources because it was a first edit, but I have just added five other sources that confirm that, as said in the Hebrew Wikipedia version of the article, As of September 2022, it is the Telegram channel with the most views per post in Israel. and stories first published by Abu Ali Express have been often reproduced in the mainstream Israeli media, including in Maariv, Globes, Ynet, Arutz Sheva, as well as on Israeli television. Dan Palraz (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New sources added:

November 2022

Hello, I'm Apaugasma. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Epistles of Wisdom, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

References added! Thank you! Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Assyrians in Israel, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Lapid and Shilat

These villages are not in the West Bank; Shilat is half inside the green line and half in the Latrun salient (no-man's land). Lapid is fully in the salient, but again this is not the West Bank. Please undo your edits. Thanks, Number 57 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't me or you who say what is a settlement and what isn't; they are built over area which was out of Israel control before 1967 and are therefore settlements in international law: https://www.ochaopt.org/atlas2019/images/db/israeli-settlements-checkpoints/israeli-settlments.pdf Dan Palraz (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You have again reinstated the incorrect claim that Kfar Ruth is in the West Bank. I will be undoing your edits in the next few days. Then you are expected to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus for your edits on the talk pages. Number 57 22:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't you read? https://www.ochaopt.org/atlas2019/images/db/israeli-settlements-checkpoints/israeli-settlments.pdf Dan Palraz (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I can read a map, which makes it clear that source is wrong. Sources are not always correct. Number 57 22:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The official United Nations body that defines what is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank says it is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. By the way, I also don't know what you mean by "reading a map", but the image in the article itself clearly puts Kfar Ruth inside the yellow area (the West Bank). But again, I have provided official source saying Kfar Ruth is an Israeli settlement; if you find a source saying Kfar Ruth is not a settlement, be my guest. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone with a basic understanding of geography can read a map like this and see that the villages are located between the armistice lines (in no-man's land), and therefore not in the West Bank. Shilat is half in Israel and half in no-man's land, so labelling it as "in the West Bank" is even more ridiculous than doing it for the other two. Number 57 22:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. The officials on what is an Israeli settlement says they are Israeli settlements; if you are so sure they are wrong, you can publish an article on it and then you can someone can use it as a source on Wikipedia to un-do the changes... Dan Palraz (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, as you yourself say, if you want to change long-established wording, take it to the talk page, rather than force changes in by reverting. Number 57 22:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that your "position" doesn't have nor has ever had any source, other than the fact that you claim to know it, which isn't really how Wikipedia works. Good luck with changing the international definition of settlements. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It is how Wikipedia works though. Editors critically assess sources and can discard them if they can clearly shown to be wrong, which is the case here. Number 57 22:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Where have you shown it as wrong, I must have missed that? I can't see Lapid on the list at a glance but the other two are there. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Um, if there is a RS saying a thing and you want to dispute that, you need a reliable source to back that up (we don't need to read any maps because the source will say what it is or what it is not). Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This also

But it turns out that, like Neve Shalom, the state never officially annexed Maccabim and other nearby communities: Kfar Ruth, Lapid and Shilat. “The EU is right that it’s not part of Israel, because we didn’t issue a Foreign Office Certificate for them,” notes Robbie Sabel, the ministry’s former legal adviser, adding, “The EU did not assert that it was Jordanian territory, but did state that it didn’t belong to Israel before 1967.”

Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Number 57 is right on this, and I think Zero0000 would be able to verify that as well. You can say a portion of Shilat is outside of Israel's sovereign territory, while a portion of it is inside that territory, but that portion is also is not in the West Bank, which does not include no man's land. Israel occupied that territory, but it isnt either part of the West Bank or in the Palestinian territories or state of Palestine, whatever wording youd prefer to use. nableezy - 23:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "West Bank" is a precisely defined term when it comes to the demilitarised zones. Israel considers the Latrun Salient to be in Israel (despite no formal annexation) but I'm not surprised if the UN or someone else calls it West Bank. Number 57's description of the locations is correct, though. I think the best thing would be to use Latrun Salient in the location descriptions. I'm in favor of territorial disputes being treated centrally rather than all over the place. On the other hand, reliable sources call them settlements and I don't see a problem with following suit. Zero^talk 04:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy and Zero0000: Unfortunately Dan has again reverted, changing the introductions of the respective articles as follows:

• Kfar Ruth from "Kfar Ruth is an Israeli moshav located near Modi'in in the Latrun salient of the Green Line." to "Kfar Ruth is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank"
• Shilat from "Shilat is a moshav partially in Israel and partially in the Latrun salient of the Green Line." to "Shilat is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank"

If you would be able to restore the correctly-worded versions of these articles, it would be appreciated. The changes to Shilat are particularly ridiculous, but it seems he has ignored the comments above. Cheers, Number 57 22:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ive changed Kfar Ruth a bit, see that Shilat was already changed back. Dan, youre the one making changes to long-standing content, youre the one that needs consensus for your change. Edit-warring is edit-warring even if you are right, and to be honest I dont think youre right here. nableezy - 06:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

During peace talks, Israel does not include the annexed areas in East Jerusalem, the no-man's land and the Palestinian part of the Dead Sea for the purposes of calculating the percentage of the West Bank that Palestine would get, about a 5% difference, see 2000 Camp David Summit. It seems clear from the Haaretz source that while technically, they are not Israeli territory, the area will likely get rolled up in so called "swaps" ( treated as settlements in the WB that Israel wants to keep in exchange for territory elsewhere.) Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

We could perhaps use wording along the lines of that used in Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut "....(the Maccabim neighborhood) is not recognized by the European Union as being in Israel, as it lies in what the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Jordan left as a no man's land, and was occupied in 1967 by Israel after it was captured from Jordan together with the West Bank proper.

Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is only the EU. There are also two related problems at Lapid, Israel: (1) The title says it is in Israel, which is POV. The title arose from an RM on the talk page in which nobody mentioned the problem with the location. (2) "Before the Six-Day War in 1967, this territory did not belong to either Jordan or Israel" implies that it now does belong to someone, also POV. Zero^talk 01:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the ambiguities, in rsality and in sources, perhaps we should all strive to get some consensual arrangement here on how to deal with these several places in a consistent way, as was done when Avi had expressed some perplexity over the status of Canada Park.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This goes back to Res 242, it may not be in the WB but it is not in Israel either, Res 242 refers to the "territories occupied" and that includes the Salient. Subsequently, the ICJ ruled that the business about the sovereign was irrelevant and that Jordan was to be treated as HCP for the purpose of defining the occupied territory. Per Zero, we probably need a separate article on that bit of territory to clarify matters. However one thing is clear, while it is true that Dan's move was undiscussed, it is more POV to revert that move than it would have been to have left it be, and started a discussion from there.

According to Btselem, the Latrun salient is not considered occupied territory under international law.

This is the problem; the articles did not state they were in Israel, they stated they were in the Latrun salient. Dan keeps reverting to his (incorrect) version stating they are in the West Bank (which is clearly nonsense with regards to Shalit). Lapid could just be moved to Lapid (community settlement), which takes away any locational element. Number 57 15:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Or Lapid (Israeli settlement), which would surely be many birds with one stone - descriptive and precise, but not geographically deterministic. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, because it's not an Israeli settlement in the usual sense (i.e. it is not in occupied territory). Number 57 16:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That B'tslem doc (a draft) is wrong, it says "Israel also annexed to its territory a strip of land parallel to the Green Line along a few kilometers north and south of the Latrun area.." when we already know for a fact that Israel did not annex the territory and if they had it would be just as illegal as the other annexations anyway (ie it is occupied territory). We can address all these points in a proper article. Personally I am not bothered whether it says "Israeli settlement" and what Dan had was fine.

The B'tselem text in fuill reads,

In addition, Israel also annexed to its territory a strip of land parallel to the Green Line along a few kilometers north and south of the Latrun area (see the map attached to this report). This strip of land had been known as “no man’s land,” because in 1948-1967 it was not subject to the control of either the Israeli or the Jordanian side. Over the years, Israel established three communities in this area (Shilat, Kfar Ruth and Maccabim). We shall not relate to these settlements in this report, since under international law this area is not considered occupied territory.

That definitely supports Number57s pointof view.

Since that is a draft, one could question its RS status of course. But B'tselem even in drafting would not make such a statement were it not grounded in strong evidence. In any case it is the kind of statement that should be ytraceable back to the appropriate source, some authority on international law. If technically, the land is not Occupied, it is equally true that Israel's annexation of the Salient is not recognized. Obviously, we require an article on the Latrun salient to cover all of the relevant legal, historical issues to allow readers, not to speak of ourselves, clarity in this confusion.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a final version of that Land Grab doc, idk why the draft is posted. As counterpoint, we have Latrun No Man’s Land (1949-1967) "Most of the international community views the area as occupied Palestinian territory, along with the adjacent West Bank." Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

University of Bologna Law Review ISSN 2531-6133 VOL.4:1 2019

"Accordingly, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem as well as the narrow strips of territories known as the “no man’s land” in the Latrun and Jerusalem regions) were among the territories which fell under the occupation of Israel." Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Both Dan and Number err, in my view, by taking diametrically opposed viewpoints that ignore the technical complexities. Dan because his premise appears to be that West-Bank is anything east not-Israel down to 1967. Number because, even if in international law, the Latrun salient was not 'occupied', that does not mean that Israeli settlements there form part of Israel. They are places which in international law are still in no man's land, 'annexed' or not. So, stating that Lapid or the others are in Israel, as the versions Number supported state, Israel is a violation of NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not stated they are in Israel (except Shilat, which partially is) – see the text of the articles (which Dan keeps changing) above (i.e. "Kfar Ruth is an Israeli moshav located near Modi'in in the Latrun salient of the Green Line.", "Shilat is a moshav partially in Israel and partially in the Latrun salient of the Green Line.". Lapid's intro is: "Lapid is an Israeli community settlement. Located in the Latrun Salient of the Green Line near Modi'in Illit..."). The issue here is that edits keep being forced back into the articles claiming these are in the West Bank. Number 57 20:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Well not to state is one thing, but in your edits you seem to be insisting on a default description of those places as in 'central Israel,' e.g. here. You had a case against Dan's claim, but, as far as I can see, you called on him to revert to a version that was equally flawed, one you hadn't corrected. That led to my inference. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the short decription described it as being in Israel (it doesn't appear in the text). I obviously have no issue with that being corrected. Number 57 22:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I also never note such minutiae. The problem only emerges if one checks the diff flow. Sorry for the inference that you endorsed it. By the same token, it is the sort of thing that might have triggered Dan's response. Well, that at least is settled. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The most detailed description I know is by the Israeli geographer Gideon Biger, Latrun — A no man's land in Israel, European Journal of Geopolitics, vol 4, 2016, 122–131. Biger confirms that it was never officially annexed by Israel, so Btselem's 2002 article is wrong on that point. Zero^talk 00:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic; Based on this summary of negotiations between the parties, it seems the Israeli view is that since it was no-man's land, they didn't need to officially annex it (Before the Six Day War, part of the area was a no man’s land. Accordingly, the Israelis relate to the area as an integral part of Israel). Raja Shehadeh states that the land was "outright annexed without using the term". The fact that the three villages in question are under the jurisdiction of Hevel Modi'in Regional Council (i.e. within the municipal boundaries of Central District) would suggest that the area has effectively been annexed. Kfar HaOranim, which is contiguous with Lapid, but in the West Bank, is deemed under the jurisdiction of Mateh Binyamin Regional Council and therefore in Judea and Samaria Area. Number 57 01:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That font of neutrality, the CIA factbook description of WB says "note: includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967". There is in all likelihood a de facto annex by Israel but since all sources agree that the area was occupied by Israel post 67 (whether or not you refer to it as WB), then any such annex is illegal. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay chaps/chapesses. At this point several good sources have been provided and rather than continue cluttering the talk page with them, I think it is time to roll up the sleeves and write up a stub where these can be used productively. I'll sketch out a Latrun salient, using Biger's outline, afteer lunch, say in an hour or two, depending on the digestability of my brother-in-law's pasta.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I was actually just in the process of doing this at Latrun salient. I have also moved Lapid to Lapid (community settlement). Unfortunately Selfstudier has blindly reverted an attempt to correct the Kfar Ruth article (not realising that the article does not claim the village is in in Israel)... Number 57 12:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I know exactly what I am doing, thanks. There is an ongoing discussion and we should take it to Latrun salient article and finish it rather than trying to push our own preferred version. So I copied this section to there and we should continue there rather than cluttering Dan's page any further. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

1rr

I believe that's two reverts at Bethlehem. nableezy - 22:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The rules are strict on this,and you are under a formal obligation to self-revert there, Dan. Please exercise patience.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, done that, nableezy and Nishidani! Thank you both once again!

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:East Jerusalem

A tag has been placed on Category:East Jerusalem indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Dan, what did you have in mind for this cat? Recall that West Bank includes East Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right, you are absolutely correct in that East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank, but the same way that we have categories for "State of Palestine" and "West Bank" (two different leves, even if the first includes the second), thought it wouldn't hurt to also have "East Jerusalem" (the third level). But I have no strong opinion on it, and on what concerns me, please be welcome to do with the category as you wish, you'll have my blessing either way! Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate categorisation

What is the difference between Category:Israeli outposts and Category:Unauthorized Israeli settlements? Outposts are unauthorised settlements. Number 57 14:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like either of them. All settlements are illegal under international law and these are illegal even under Israeli law so should be called illegal settlements, I'd support a WP:CFD rename to that. Could even try speedy but doubtless someone will object. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, we should just have Category:Israeli outposts, which matches the main related article, Israeli outpost. If the other one is depopulated, it will then be speedily deleted as an empty category. Number 57 15:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you both, that was my proposal but I have no strong position on it - feel free to do with the category as you wish, you'll have my blessing either way. Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Typo fix

Could you please replace the full stop for a comma where it says "In the Hebrew Bible"?:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa#Hebrew_Bible:_conquest_to_return_from_Babylon

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.28.177.55 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, thank you for pointing that out! Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wadi Natuf moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Wadi Natuf. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Church of St. George

Your opening and closing of a dispute seems to have been successful. In the future, please do not delete a case at DRN after opening it, but let a DRN volunteer close it. We need to avoid confusing the archival bot. I think that you took care of it cleanly this time, and that everything is okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Dan Palraz (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

1RR violation

This is a 1RR violation. Please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but can you please point out to the link with the explanation of what exactly is the 1RR rule? I have seen so many different interpretations / rules. Thank you! Dan Palraz (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR covers it. On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish , will look into it and let you know if I have any doubts. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So ScottishFinnishRadish basically what it means is that, for these sensitive topics, you can not "redo" the same edit twice in less than 24 hours, correct? Dan Palraz (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

are indefinitely topic banned from any edits related to the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for a 1RR violation after a 6 month topic ban.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lebanon War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Lebanon conflict. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sayings of Jesus on the cross into Language of Jesus. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Done it, thank you for teaching me! Dan Palraz (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Al-Darazi prophetic status

Hey Dan! I'm a bit late to the gun here but thanks for your edits on Al-Darazi's page about him being a prophet. I really appreciate it. AmrAlWatan^{(🗣️|📝)} 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for the positive feedback - it is such a rare thing nowadays! Dan Palraz (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)