Jump to content

Talk:Geula

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

i dont think there still is a bar on malkhei yisroel

Baseless revert

[edit]

Gilabrand, why did you revert me and ad the non neutral pov claim that this location is in Israel? No part of Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel, I asked for worldview source at IPCCAI, and no such source was provided. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is false and you are uninformed. Attempts to introduce your personal POV will be reverted. If you have positive contributions, please add them. Perhaps you should go back to school before you proceed. --Geewhiz (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not false and its not my personal pov, I opened a discussion at IPCCAI and asked for a source that says that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel, no such source was provided. So unless you yourself can provide such a source, you have no right to re ad this non neutral pov claim. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal research has no merit on Wikipedia. You don't get to rewrite history and decide where cities/neighborhoods/countries are located. As I said, you may be knowledgeable about other places, but you know nothing about Israel/Israeli history/Israeli geography/Israeli culture. Geula is an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in downtown Jerusalem, Israel. Even the anti-Zionists who live there will tell you that.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it my personal research? I'm not the one saying: "Even the anti-Zionists who live there will tell you that.".. I'm not deciding anything or rewriting history, I asked for a source at IPCCAI to confirm that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel, no such source was provided, and now you were the one that added that this place in West Jerusalem was in Israel, so can you provide a source that says that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source that says it isn't? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several views can be´seen from p 15: [1], it doesn't show that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel. I'm also removing a pov, not adding one, the burden of bringing sources is with the one who is adding the pov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources or no sources, we cannot leave a page about a suburb of a city without naming a state or region too. Chesdovi (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If its an incorrect state or region, then yes we can remove the incorrect text.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I'd like to see one what basis SD made contentious politically based edits to multiple articles without trying to seek consensus. These articles are under discretionary sanctions after all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reached consensus at IPCCAI, per the fact that no source was provided as I asked for, there is consensus to remove the pov claim.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about this, I don't see how you can claim in good faith you "reached consensus" about anything, not to mention removing the word "Israel" from multiple articles about neighborhoods in west Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the source provided there showing that WJ is internationally recognized as part of Israel?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source provided in Paris showing it's internationally recognized as part of France? Where is the source saying WJ is not recognized as part of Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already showed you a source above that shows that WJ is not internationally recognized as part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have not read your own source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have: "broader agreement exists regarding west Jerusalem, at least with respect to the future control of Israel over this part of the city (though not with regard to sovereignty).", this means that today West Jerusalem is not internationally regarded as part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Ask any uninvolved admin to read that sentence and see what he or she says.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What board do you suggest we take all this to? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ill contact some admin soon, do you want me to ask about this sentence specifically or the entire discussion here and at IPCCAI? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have this discussion on a board with wide participation rather than get one admin you chose. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was opened at a public big board, IPCCAI. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IPCOL is small, contains almost exclusively involved editors, not many admins, and the discussion there in no way indicated you have consensus to remove the word "Israel" from every article dealing with west Jerusalem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me. SD you really have got yourself in a pickle now: Let's analyse your editing: Sometime in Aug 2010 I added to the Golan Heights article "continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN Charter, on a self-defence basis." based on Sharon Korman. You were not happy: "The text sourced from Sharon Kormans book, is it really reliable? Isn't it just that persons interpretation?" and added "Who?" tag. Unomi seemed to be concerned too [2]. I removed it [3], but currently it has reappeared and is still there. Now you back up your assertions regarding WJ with a book by Moshe Hirsch. How do you explain that?! Isn't it also "just that persons interpretation?" Chesdovi (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of what Korman said, she said "many states" support the occupation which does not sound likely considering that its internationally recognized as part of Syria, and if there infact were many states supporting that, then there should be sources from those countries saying that. In the case of the Hirach book, he brings several examples and UN resolution povs, and I already know that West Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel and when I asked about it at IPCCAI no one was able to bring sources saying that it was, so if it was internationally recognized as part of Israel there would be sources, which there isn't, which doesn't make it hard to believe Hirachs comments. No one needs to bring sources debunking something when there isn't anything to debunk.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acc. to that line of reasoning, I will tag Hirsch, while you find sources for all the states that have said they do not recognise WJ as part of Israel. 100 will do. Chesdovi (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to bring a source as I am not adding a pov but removing an unsourced one, the once adding the pov is the once who have to bring the sources supporting it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those are the rules. (But what are you basing your removal on? Have you researched all members of the UN's view? No, Hirsh's book was good enough. Why? Because it fitted with your POV. If you don't like RS books which talk vaguely of the "IC" without specifying, don't ever use them, ever.) Chesdovi (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances were not the same. I'm basing its removal on that I looked for sources supporting that its internationally recognized as part of Israel and I couldn't find one, and I asked others at IPCCCAI and no one could provide one either.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference? For you, it is only sufficient if we have a source for each and every county, only then we can say the IC holds xxxx. Why do I say this? b/c Korman said the IC (“many states”) xxxx. But that was not good enough. I have to go and find 100 sources that say that individual states view that occupation as a military tactic permitted acc. to the UN charter. As if. Chesdovi (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the situations were not the same, Korman was saying something very unlikely considering that no other sources says it: "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN Charter", while the Hirach book was saying something in accordance with the non existent sources saying its internationally recognized as part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean is that you agree with one so you think it's good, but disagree with the other so you used a different standard.
I'm still waiting for a source that says the International Community doesn't regard west Jerusalem as part of Israel. Explicitly. Not that scholars disagree like the source you provided above, but something that actually shows the "International Community" making a statement on the matter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above I don't have to bring a source as I am not adding a pov but removing an unsourced one, the once adding the pov is the once who have to bring the sources supporting it. But here is another source: "As already noted, Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem had not been recognized in international law or by the international commu-nity other than through the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which merely confirmed the fact of its presence there." p 39. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should really read more of that book. Did you notice the sentence you quoted is in the past tense? Read the "International Community" and "Conclusions" chapters. The author is is no way saying that now (at the time the book was written) Israel does not have sovereignty over west Jerusalem. In your previous source, 4 of the 5 experts quoted support that as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book is divided and speaks about post 1967 in that chapter, Israel controlled WJ after 1948, so that's why it speaks in the past tense in that part. I might be mistaken, but I don't see anything superseding the quote I brought, I also don't see any "International Community" and "Conclusions" chapters, could you please bring quotes from the texts you are referring to? I can only see parts of the book. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is is clear that SD is using RS in a selective fashion. All RS books can and should be used here. I will proceed to implement this obvious course of action. Chesdovi (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Ger wear completely different clothing - totally different. These and these are Gerrer chassidim. What these two on that picture wear is normal Yerushalmi style. The flat hat is worn by Yerushalmim and some Hungarian chassidim (Satmar most prominently worldwide). In Yerushalayim such a style absolutely doesn't denote a person being chassidic. Even more - the fixed belt around it clearly shows they're probably not. Davka the non-chassidishe Yerushalmim wear a rekel with affixed belt; the chassidim wear a normal chassidishe rekel without an affixed belt (but with the same low hat). I assure you - there is nothing to base it on that these two would be chassidic, everything points in the opposite directionm. For example, this is a chassidishe person (no affixed belt). By comparison, this one is not chassidish - with the belt. Now this is not really a 100% distinction... There are chassidishe groups that do wear the rekel with the attached belt (particularly some Yerushalmi chassidim apart from Satmar, such as the youth of Toldos Aharon). But most people who dress like this (Yerushalmi with affixed belt) are of the Talmidei HaGra - many affiliate with Neturei Karta for example, the Prushim. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting me straight. I always get the Yerushalmim mixed up with Hasidim. :) Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, so does almost everyone, including most frum people (just like how people always think NK are chassidim). I lived in Yerushalayim for almost 6 years and while I didn't live in the center, I was affiliated with one of the groups there and know quite a lot about it. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem map by neighbourhoods needed

[edit]

See discussion at Talk:Jerusalem#Map by neighbourhoods needed. Arminden (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geula&oldid=1199528645"