Jump to content

Talk:E1 (West Bank)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Merge proposal

[edit]

Looking up this subject on Wikipedia, I came across this article and E1 Plan, which seems to have a very similar topic. They are slightly different - this one is about the area of land, the other is about the plan to build on it - but close enough that it would make more sense to cover them in a single article to avoid duplicating material. As this article is the older one and has more incoming links, I've suggested merging E1 Plan here rather than the other way around. If you have any thoughts on this merge proposal, please comment below. Robofish (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that they should be merged. There is a bunch of redundant information between the articles, and most of the information not included in the E1 (Jerusalem) article could
probably be fit into a single section entitled "Controversy" or something. -- Avi (137.164.79.11 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I agree as well. However I would like to question the title, why Jerusalem when it is part of the male something. --Mor2 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Ma'ale Adumim" (meaning, if I recall correctly, red hills). See the discussion below: it's not part of Ma'ale Adumim, but is put in the greater Jerusalem metropolitan area. I'm in favour of keeping the name E1_(West_Bank) as E-1 is in the West Bank. It is also in Jerusalem, so I'm fine with that too. Both are accurate, though classifying it as part of the West Bank is probably (for some reason) less politically controversial. -- Avi 68.96.94.208 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like there is a clear consensus to merge. I will do this shortly unless there are objections. All Rows4 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that E1 (Jerusalem) is disambiguated wrongly (it is not Jerusalem). So leaving E1 Plan as the content page is better. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ElectronicIntifada as source

[edit]

I don't quite understand this revert. ElectronicIntifada is a highly problematic website which should never be used as a source on Wikipedia. It is better to have no source, especially considering the fact that the underlying statement isn't being disputed (except perhaps its wording). —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abuminah is a notable Palestinian American journalist, he is regularly published in peer reviewed journals (e.g [1], [2], [3]. I find it highly problematic that someone would make the assertion that the source should never be used in Wikipedia, but I guess in this specific case it is not particularly important if we use it or not. Dlv999 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he is a regularly published Palestinian American journalist, then surely the same article can be found in another publication? ElectronicIntifada is not a reliable source, simple as that. If we agree on that then we can also agree that then it's irrelevant who the author of the article is, because the source could've changed the article, and also we don't want to damage Wikipedia's good name by including such sources. If, on the other hand, we disagree about ElectronicIntifada in general, then that's a whole different story. However, in this case it's been discussed ad nauseam, like here, and this is just one example from the last month (search the RSN archives for older examples). EI is a self-published source, and a controversial one at that. It has no place on Wikipedia, and as I said, since I'm not actually disputing the underlying fact (maybe just the wording, which is not relevant to whatever source is used), I don't really understand what the problem is removing the source. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not agree on that point. You might want to read the RSN discussion that you linked. It is a nuanced discussion about whether a specific EI article should be used for a specific claim in a specific wiki article. Only one editor argues that EI should never be used and he changes his mind by the end of the discussion, So I'm not sure how you think this supports your assertion that it has "no place on Wikipedia". Whether a source is suitable or not is dependent on context. In this case EI is probably not the best source for a number of reasons, but I find your claims that EI should never be used to be dubious and contradicted by the RSN discussion that you have cited. Dlv999 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re Ynhockey: I don't quite understand -- then ask don't judge. a highly problematic website -- problematic for who? What is the problem exactly, -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep: I will only say one thing to you: "this was not a civil answer, and not WP:AGF ... Anyway, no personal attacks at WP." (—User:DePiep). You are not a new user on Wikipedia so please strike out the offensive remarks. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Done & gone. I'm sorry. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that it's essentially an opinion website and (in my experience, which is the best I have at the moment), viewed as extremist. We shouldn't use Electronic Intifada as a source. -- Avi 68.96.94.208 (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent discussion on Electronic Intifada on RSN, and the result was that whether it can be used for factual issues depends on the information in question. There can't be a blanket statement one way or another to the effect it can't be used at all, or that it's always reliable. EI has both opinion and news. --Dailycare (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting involved parties to participate...? EI does not present "news" -- everything it presents is severely colored by its editorial bias. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by inviting parties? Anyway, you can read the RSN discussion here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rename?

[edit]

It seems that the article has been renamed without a vote or discussion. How so? --Mor2 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources refer to E1 as being in the West Bank, I haven't seen one claiming it is part of Jerusalem. Dlv999 (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't asked you to guess why the user moved it or add your support for the new title. I asked why the move took place without an outlet for us to make those arguments and suggestions in the first place. --Mor2 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mor2, the answer to your question is: Sources refer to E1 as being in the West Bank, I haven't seen one claiming it is part of Jerusalem. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, the question is: Why the article has been renamed without a vote or discussion?--Mor2 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Move#Before_moving_a_page and ask yourself what an editor would have to believe in order for them to decide that they can move a page without a vote or discussion. Then the question becomes why do they believe that ? You will find the answer to that question above. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in the business of guessing other people motives. I am looking for a simple answer to a simple question, after all this article is part of an active arbitration case, I think that a basic discussion should have been inorder.--Mor2 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me spell it out: the new title is based on a fact, as the earlier answer said. If you read the link Sean.hoyland provided, you can learn how you can protest or discuss the change. Less formal, but to the same effect, you could have started a discussion on this page already. You may expect a serious discussion, except when the attitude is getting personal. One argument is already in this thread, which might give a clue about the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about which fact or naming convention your rename is based on, only that you thought that such a rename on this page will not be controversial. If you look at the merge proposal on this page, you can see that a month ago I have questioned the Jerusalem part in the title myself, nevertheless I haven't went with a partisan rename like you did, without any discussion trying to understand why it was named so or looking for better alternatives.--Mor2 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the business of answering simple questions with answers that can be deduced from the information already available, but I did it anyway because it was obvious that your approach wasn't working. Arbitration has nothing to do with the answer to the question you asked which was about why an editor did something, not whether it was right. If you think it shouldn't have happened, you could have just said that using straightforward language that expressed what you think and what you would like to happen. Also, it would help if you provided a source based reason that explains why you regard it as a "partisan rename" just like DePiep has provided a reason for the rename, Sources refer to E1 as being in the West Bank, I haven't seen one claiming it is part of Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration alludes to the fact that big changes to this article such as change to its title, would likely be subject of controversy and as such should have been discussed up front and my question was very straight forward, asking why the rename was done seemingly without discussion or achieving consensus.(since I wasn't sure if DePiep participated in some from of discussion or if there was some rule that allowed him to do so).
Anyway on the constructive side, I support a revert and proper discussion for rename. --Mor2 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. If you want this named E1 (Jerusalem) say that. Then you would have a reason for moving it back and having a proper discussion. But do you actually think that this is not the correct name? If not, why should anybody go through the hassle? nableezy - 19:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mor2, do you have policy-based reasons for opposing the current name? If yes, then those reasons can be discussed. If no, I'm missing the point of this discussion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added formal WP:RM template + subsection below. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your request is from E1 (West Bank), as if your recent undiscussed rename has been voted. I asked for revert and E1 (Jerusalem) -> ? furthermore, I only suggested E1 (Ma'ale Adumim) as an option if it is decided that the title should include geographical location. --Mor2 (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you above: either you complain about the procedure (elsewhere) or you propose the name you prefer. Since you started that last one, I made it an explicit Rename request below as if started by you. That is the procedure WP:RM. You being the de facto nominator (not me), you can withdraw it quite easily. Discussions about the earlier process I will not comment on any more, unless something really new pops up. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy, Yes I think that 'E1 (West_Bank)' is not the correct name. First its my understanding that E1(which is short for East1) is the area within the Maale Adumim municipal boundary, which is east of Jerusalem. As such DePiep made a wrong presumption that it refers a geographical location of E1 in Jerusalem, changing the name of the project to a shorthand + geographical location. Second even if we choose to use a geographical location saying that E1 is in the 'West Bank' makes as much sense as saying that Manhattan is in the USA rather than New York.

Considering that some found the title confusing, I don't mind a discussion and suggestion toward a more clear title but knowing how some discussion here turn out, I don't think that following proper procedure is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. @Dailycare, The point of this discussion is that this is controversial change and thus should have been discussed instead of done in partisan fashion. --Mor2 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added the formal WP:RM template added by me to structure the discussion. From here it is forward only: discuss a proposed new name. Any back references (to previous process or "revert") are irrelevant here: just treat it as a proposed future name change. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You fractured the discussion, oked your recent undiscussed rename and made a rename suggestion in my name.--Mor2 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policy pages that have been linked for you earlier here. You wanted a discussion about the name [4] [5] [6]. For the guideline, in this situation a "revert" equals a "new proposal". We don't do antedated discussions here. So you think it should have been discussed? You claim the change was not uncontroversial? Go ahead, discuss what you would have discussed right here right now. And if you do not want to discuss the name, then you should say so here. At least I am the one that puts it onto the table. -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mor2. After some warnings I start taking offence to you using the "partisan" accusation (second time) and other non-AGF contributions. I suggest you take it back and refrain from further casting of aspersions and making the discussion personal. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking offence by experienced users, who have been frequent in the arbitration sections and readily quotes WP policies and yet fail to present his opinion on the talk page to avoid controversy, instead sneaking that rename and then avoiding to explain in good manner but "spell it out" for me and throwing accusations[7] --Mor2 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you don't consider East Jerusalem part of the West Bank, Ma'ale Adumim is part of the West Bank, not Jerusalem. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either there was a misunderstanding or you are making strawman arguments, since as far as I seen no one suggested that E1/Ma'ale Adumim was part of Jerusalem or East Jerusalem as you said. only that Ma'ale Adumim named its municipal territory which is east of Jerusalem as East1 and that E1 (Ma'ale Adumim) will be far better title than E1 (West_Bank). Other than that I believe that its obvious that there are enough arguments for revert and discuss/vote.--Mor2 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"since as far as I seen no one suggested that E1/Ma'ale Adumim was part of Jerusalem or East Jerusalem". In that case there is zero case for a revert because, as you say, there are zero people claiming the previous name was an appropriate name for the article. Dlv999 (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really care if its moved back. I think its silly, but Mor2 is entitled to ask people to go through the motions. However, what actually counts for the name here is WP:DAB and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. The first thing there that would apply here is Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient. The choices using that would be West Bank or Palestinian territories. Jerusalem as the disambiguation doesnt fit, neither does Ma'ale Adumim. And thats leaving the politics completely out of it. But if you want to make life harder than it has to be, move the page back. nableezy - 04:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and we have another suggestion on this page for a name E1 Plan(merge) and other options that should have been discussed before any rename attempt. Furthermore in regard to your suggestion, this place exist as part of municipal boundary of Maale Adumim settlement, as such it should be dealt as any other neighborhood in regard to WP:DAB. Also looking at other similar cases, the convention seem to lean toward 'E1, Ma'ale Adumim' rather than 'E1 (Ma'ale Adumim)'

--Mor2 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That merge proposal (E1 Plan into E1 (West Bank)) is irrelevant for this rename proposal: it would leave the Plan page as a redirect to whatever this page is called. -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep E1 (West Bank). The proposal by Mor2 appears as if it is a sort of opinion on how to name it. That is not so. The name of the article originally should be E1 (no one disputes). But then, since there are other unrelated topics on WP that are named E1, see E1 (disambiguation), we need to add a disambiguation tag to the WP:TITLE. That is the only reason something bracketed appears in the title. Now which term to choose? As WP:PLACE says on disambiguation, "(West Bank)" ticks all the boxes, while "(Jerusalem)" (plain wrong) and "(Ma'ale Adumim)" (what you say?) do not. "(West Bank)" hits on use English, widely accepted. And, time to note this, it is geographically correct. As for being simple and helpfull for the user (reader), I cannot find a trumping argument in the proposal. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the RM, you cant propose a rename in somebody elses name. And if Mor2 objects to the original rename the article should be moved back to E1 (Jerusalem). WP:RM is pretty clear on this point. If the move is contentious it should be discussed, as it wasnt it can be reverted. nableezy - 03:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I moved it back. Mor2, you could have done that yourself. nableezy - 03:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving back to E1 (Jerusalem) seems WP:POINTy as there are exactly zero editors who think that name is a good idea. Dlv999 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@nableezy, Beforehand I wasn't sure if the standard rules of WP:BRD applied to article titles change, also I wanted to hear DePiep side before I do anything, anyway thank for going forward with this while I was away.--Mor2 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Noone can say I shove objections (to my earlier move) under the carpet: I made these objections, however badly formulated, into a formal RM. Now that the RM is gone, I have no obligation here anymore at all. It also means that there is, after correct procedure, no argument alive for changing the current name away from E1 (Jerusalem). -DePiep (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you before assume good faith... no one have said you shoved anything under the carpet, attacked you or went personal, just the same there is no need for you to feel that you need to "put things on the table". lets say that you tried a Bold edit and it was Reverted, that it, nothing happened, its normal. If you want discuss a new title or make a new rename vote please do. I already made made my suggestion, but if necessary I can clarify them.--Mor2 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

The lead says:

  1. "E1(short for East 1), also named Mevaseret Adumim" - I Googled "Mevaseret Adumim" and found this[8] it is the name of a neighborhood to be constructed there, so they are the same or additional neighborhoods are planed there?
  2. "number of Bedouin communities", while later on we have only Jahalin Bedouins, so which is it?
  3. Any reason why the "Bab al Shams" a 48 hours protest should be left in the lead? because I think its WP:UNDUE .--Mor2 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Source is not an RS so has no relevance to the article
  2. Cited RS states that there are a number Bedouin communities within E1 therefore the article says there are a number of Bedouin communities within E1
  3. Bab Al Shams has received widespread national and international coverage in RS. We weight our articles according prevalence in RS (See WP:NPOV). Dlv999 (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I believe that recently you made a counterargument to this, by putting forward this qualifies as self source. I believe that the the municipality that E1 is part of and which responsible for its zoning decision is at the very least RS for the neighborhood name and their plans for it.
  2. The lead also suppose to summaries the article. I'll wait sometime for additional sources, but unless they are presented, I'll change this broad term, with the specific community in question as outlined in the article.(which will also be more informative as their article, specifically their village article has much more info on the topic)
  3. I didn't asked about notability. I asked if its given WP:UNDUE in the lead, considering that everything in this article received widespread national and international coverage, this latest protest is just a recent bump on the controversy issue at large(which was placed after it for some reason)--Mor2 (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this can solve point 1[9]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section

[edit]

In the Controversy section, the first paragraph is

Construction in the area is a subject of controversy. Palestinians say that it would prevent contiguity between the northern and southern areas of the West Bank making "the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state almost impossible" and increase travel time between Ramallah region north of Jerusalem to the Bethlehem region to the south. This would make it harder to reach agreement over permanent borders. The United States and EU has supported the Palestinian position and has sought to block Israeli construction at the site, pending a final peace agreement. Israeli governments have so far avoided construction in E1 due to international pressure.

This discusses about the contiguity of future Palestinian state. This is followed by three sections:

  • Opposition (focuses on the US and EU not wanting it built, not mention of contiguity, nor does it say thats the reason they oppose)
  • Palestinian Contiguity Road (Focuses solely on the contiguity
  • Bedouin communities (Completely removed from the contiguity issues and bring up something different)

Since only one of these topics deals with contiguity I moved that paragraph to the relevant section. This was immediately reversed by DePiep saying "No it doen't! You try to turn this into just an opinion, while it actually describes the *controversy*"

I disagree with this comment. It clearly only described a controversy not the controversy. If it was the only controversy than the Bedouin section does not belong there. The way this is worded not it does not flow properly. The US and EU oppose all West Bank building not just E1, so I dont think this has anything to do with contiguity. Its a very misleading order. Please chime in and let me know your thoughts - Galatz (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly you are saying, but perhaps this is useful. The US/EU/UN oppose the construction of E1 because it would make a Palestinian state impossible. They variously describe it as making 2-state solution "almost inconceivable.", "fatal blow" etc. US describes it as "counterproductive" in its usual understated manner. So they accept the Palestinian position, as far as I can see. Here are a couple of sources. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/04/israel-east-jerusalem-settlements/1744829/ http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/04/opinion/la-ed-e1-israeli-settlement-20121204
I am a bit confused about the structure of that section anyway. Not sure what that introductory paragraph is doing all by itself. Then there is "opposition" section...it is very confusing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Galatz misrepresents my notes & actions, for example by only quoting my response es, but not their own prior es. I feel no need to disentangle the Galatz distortions. I agree with Kingsindian saying "I am a bit confused". -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only gave your response because I in tremendous detail explained mine, I didn't think it needed to be repeated.
As for the issue at hand, I understand the issues, but the article doesn't say that the lack of contiguity is the reason the US and EU opposed Israel developing E1. The section does not flow by going from (a) contiguity to (b) Israel's defense (c)US telling Israel not to build (d) back to contiguity. Thats why I think (a) and (d) should be combined. No reason for it to be choppy. - Galatz (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused as to why you say that the UN/EU/US do not oppose it due to concerns about contiguity. That is precisely the reason why they oppose it, and why they say that if it is implemented, it would be a "fatal blow" etc. to a Palestinian state. In my opinion, there should only be one section, dispensing with this "opposition", "contiguity road" etc. It should deal with Israeli arguments, arguments of EU/US/UN/Palestinians about contiguity and the consequences for the viability for a Palestinian state, the road which is proposed to address those arguments. The Bedouin issue should just be a subsection, because it just claims that Bedouins are being driven off to pave the way to build settlements there. Any construction in E-1 is opposed by EU. Kingsindian (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what the article says about the US/EU/UN opposition. I am not saying they don't oppose it due to contiguity but not where in the article does it clearly state issues they had.
The United States has historically opposed the plan, with Israel stopping its construction under pressure of the Bush Administration.[34] In 2009, Israel conducted an additional understanding with the United States government not to build in the E1 zone. However, in 2012, Israel breached the agreement and announced its intention to build 3,000 new housing units in the zone. A prominent Israel official explained the decision by stating that the agreement with the American government was "no longer relevant,"[35] claiming that the Palestinian Authority had "fundamentally violated" their prior agreements.
Israel's 2012 plan to move ahead with construction of 3,000 housing units in the E1 zone was faced with widespread international opposition. In particular, the European Union put strong diplomatic pressure on Israel to reverse its decision,[36] and Britain and France threatened to take the unprecedented action of withdrawing their ambassadors in reaction.[37]
It no where mentions the Palestinian nation's contiguity or anything like that. Those parties equally oppose the new construction in Gush Etzion just like they do the new housing unit in Chevron. They oppose all West Bank construction. E1 is not unique. Even if contiguity is part of their argument it is not clear in the article. I feel either more clarity needs to be made to the US/EU issues in the article or the contiguity section should be moved as I proposed, or remove all subheadings except Bedouin as you mentioned, because this section has no flow right now. - Galatz (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no comments on this in over a week, so I am going to go with the solution to have to make sense in the way I think makes the most sense based on the information thats there. - Galatz (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten about this, so thanks for your edit. However, this edit is not completely satisfactory. As I mentioned already with sources, the opposition by the EU and UN is due to their view that construction in E1 will deal a "fatal blow", or make 2-state solution "inconceivable". The LA times source states: "As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, it would deal "an almost fatal blow" to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it would make it extremely difficult to configure a reasonably contiguous Palestinian state." This is not different from the Palestinian position. I have fixed the section to make this clear. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on E1 (Jerusalem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on E1 (Jerusalem). 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2018

[edit]

This page is severely limited in its use and impact without a map of the E1 corridor. Please add a map. 73.119.116.186 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please provide an image to add, you can request to upload a new image at Wikipedia:Files for upload. --Danski454 (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E1 (Jerusalem) → E1 (West Bank) – This isn't in Jerusalem, by all accounts it is in the West Bank. Jerusalem as a disambiguation makes no sense, West Bank or Palestinian territories make the most sense per WP:PLACEDAB (Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient). Per the further examples on disambiguating by state or province or whatever, and to avoid some rather pointless arguments about Palestinian territories or State of Palestine, I suggest West Bank as the disambiguation. Nableezy 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E1_(West_Bank)&oldid=1214114934"