Talk:Ma'ale Adumim

message: User Atefrat deleted my addition of the adjective segregated in the first paragraph.  Mishor Adumim is a segregated settlement.MrAtoz (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your change. 'segregated' is non-specific and no source has been cited. What attributes are you trying to convey with the word 'segregated' ? All Israeli settlements are essentially Jewish Israeli communities across the green line in the oPt. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Segregated

message: May 18, 2005 email from Brit Tzedek v'Shalom says:
Now, disturbing reports are surfacing in the Israeli press, which according to the US press have been confirmed by Israeli government officials, that the security barrier will be extended to enclose Maale Adumim, with construction slated to begin in the next few weeks. As with the previously proposed extension of Maale Adumim… this would complete the "Jerusalem envelope," which would cut off Arab East Jerusalem and its 250,000 Palestinian residents from the West Bank.
Someone may want to follow up on that. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
:Do you believe that Ma'ale Edumim doesn't deserve protection? TFighterPilot (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe that this is a forum? nableezy - 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering why he considered it disturbing. If it's against the rules then I apologize. TFighterPilot (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wall

message: You know what would be really, really useful in this article?  A map showing wher Ma'ale Adummim is, where the Green Line is, where the boundries of Jerusalem municipality are, and the proposed route of the barrier.  Does anyone know where such a thing could be found? --Jfruh 19:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a map? 

message: The area is regulated by the Gush Etzion council.  That is a fact.  That area is the regional council for Jewish town and cities in the area.  No one would remove that El Past is part of Texas.  It is a verifiable fact.  It is the same thing at the moment.  It is noted that it is a disputed area, but the council is relevant information.
The road issue is also relevant.  The population that lives in Ma'ale Adummim was constantly attacked on the road.  The safer roads are important to those people.   Again relevant.  I have been there and seen where people were murdered.  It is real, I promise.
Please discuss any changes here so we can achieve a consensus before RVing again. --יהושועEric 18:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These claims have no source. Furthermore, I can't see anyone make moral on consensus-building here when no attempts at all have been made to resolve the issues lifted on this talk page by various users over the month. I am finally completely appaled by the highly immoral description of the land as "vacant" although clearly they're were people living on it. Are Bedouins not people ? I would hope that political conflict would not lead someone to such deletion of reality. Tazmaniacs 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although despite having very strong views, I knew JayZ has opposed, on other pages, extremist views. This despite his entire uncapacity of negotiating on this talk page. I am thus surprised to see that he has in the past removed "Zionist POV" as he puts it, that is, the use of the term "Judea" in the first sentence of the article. I wonder what has motivated his change of attitude towards this question, and, lacking any information about it, I must conclude that it is indeed bitterness because of disagreements with other users that has lead to this radicalization. What I can still not understand is why Mr. Jayz refuse to consider the BBC as a neutral source, as I would be incline to think that using the BBC is a fair enough way of achieving a seeming of neutrality concerning such conflictual matters. Finally, I would like it if people decided to take the time for negotiation on this article, by adressing concerns lifted above and finding a disciplined way of resolving this issue. Tazmaniacs 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: BBC is known as anti-Israel.  See the link here as my source.  That does not mean BBC should not be referenced.  However, second sources are valuable in BBC Israel reporting. --יהושועEric 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC is known as a reliable source, period. Don't be paranoiac. You might as well claim that the BBC is anti-Semitic. Tazmaniacs 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent RV War 

message: Quoting a population figure to unit accuracy is both meaningless and stupid. No one can possibly know the population to that accuracy.  --Redaktor 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Some of the regulars here might be able to expand E1 (Jerusalem), which I just started. Shalom Hello 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: Ok, let's hammer out a NPOV formulation of this comment. My opinion is that the current version is NPOV, since it states what the status is and by using the wording "considered to be" we leave room for the Israeli right-wing view that they are not, although also in Israel the consensus view is that the settlements are illegal. Mentioning that "Israel disputes this" would in my opinion be undue weight. 
Wording like "Ma'ale Adumim is an Israeli settlement on the West Bank. Such settlements are considered illegal under international law" could be supported simply by the ICJ ruling. 
Like other settlements in the West Bank, Ma'ale Adumim is considered to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes thishttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4419046.stm "But [Ma'ale Adumim] is built on land claimed by the Palestinians for a future state and, like all settlements, is considered illegal under international law - although Israel disputes this."
:Hello my anonymous friend. The source you mentioned actually brings a NPOV paragraph with both sides of the legality issue. I have moved the whole issue to a new section named "controversy" and inserted that text there. Love. Tkalisky (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there! I made a few edits to your text, hopefully you'll find them acceptable. I changed the title of the section, since there really is no "controversy" over the issue. --Dailycare (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on the illegality of the settlement 

message: Gush Shalom did not "fabricate" anything, they used figures from an inaccurate leaked report. When the official report was released, due to their request, the numbers were revised. Can you all for one second actually pay attention to the text here? Haaretz has the whole story, the CAMERA piece is just useless nonsense. nableezy - 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabrications and other nonsense 

message: ::::Maybe some clarification about status of residents is still due. Do we consider those as civilians as war law goes? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not say the residents are not civilians. How about you try to stay on topic, the issue you are raising is not in any way related to the status of this colony under international law. nableezy - 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also does not say settlements are legal. This is an interesting point that was a matter of dispute. Maybe we should discuss it per WP:LEDE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to discuss that go ahead. But do it in a section where it is not an irrelevant piece of noise. nableezy - 17:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are not we discussing legal status and the lead? Maybe I was not clear enough do you think we should address residents legal status in the lede? Are those civilians as war law is concerned? If residents status is not important in your opinion just say so. Maybe a proper discussion is not about dismissing questions as noise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing the inclusion of the well sourced statement that the settlement is illegal under international law. If you wish to discuss the status of the settlers themselves then open another section. One thing is not dependent on the other. nableezy - 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, ill do it for you. I am moving this to a new section. nableezy - 18:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status of settlers

message: Gilabrand, there was agreement to leave the order of "Israeli settlement" and "city" as they were. You have made it so that "city" is the first description used where "Israeli settlement" was used. You also wrote that it is "considered" an Israeli settlement, not that it is an Israeli settlement. Please either explain why you have done so or restore the original order. nableezy - 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an agreement? No there wasn't. But now there will be, because the lead explains the issue clearly and includes all points of view in a neutral way, the layout has been fixed, and sourced content has been added. The page has been improved all around. All the best, -Yespleazy (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there was, based on the close of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. Most people accepted that articles that we would not change the order of which comes first. On this page that was Israeli settlement. I realize you think this makes the lead better, but I dont. If that is all the explanation you wish to provide I will be restoring the original order. nableezy - 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israeli settlement" 

message: There is a consensus for the line "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank under international law, though Israel disputes this" at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. Brewcrewer, as you took part in that discussion you are obviously aware that it was closed by an uninvolved admin, and that further a topic ban was handed out to another editor for disregarding that consensus. Quoting from that AE: Once an uninvolved administrator has determined the consensus of a discussion, it needs to be followed if our consensus-based editing model is worth anything. If there are disagreement with the closure, the closing administrator may be requested to reconsider, or review may be requested at an appropriate venue such as the administrators' noticeboard. But until that closure is actually modified, it is binding. I am reverting your edit as it was made against the consensus established in that discussion. nableezy - 02:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello obvious sock, thanks for joining the party. Would you care to explain why you are exempt from following the consensus on this sentence? nableezy - 03:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  line in lead 

message: you said in the article that this is a city in the west bank, true, but you should mention it is also in israel.
all the israeli laws apply this city, almast all its citizens are israeli, all of its systems are the same systems exist in any city of israel. the only connection that it has to the west bank is in a maybe future palestinian state. but for now, it is in israel by any way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.139.158 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, but thanks for sharing. nableezy - 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The city is in israel and it is israeli by any way

message: An image used in this article, File:Ma'ale adumim expansion photo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ma'ale adumim expansion photo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Is there any other source that Ma'ale Adumim started as a Nahal camp?  It doesn't seem consistent with the story that follows and I didn't manage to find any other place this is stated. Zerotalk 06:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any source saying it was a Nahal camp. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Conjecturing, so please ignore me...) It might have been described that way in official statements even if it wasn't.  This was a common thing in the early days.  There's an interview in Gorenberg's Accidental Empire with a settler from the Etzion Bloc who says the only thing "Nahal" about it was a metal sign they found convenient for scrapping mud off their boots. The reason for this was that military sites are permitted by the Geneva convention. Zerotalk 03:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  Speaking about Gorenberg, he has a lot about the founding of Ma'ale Adumim and it was certainly not a Nahal camp. Can we remove that claim? Zerotalk 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nahal? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ma'ale Adumim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713142353/http://www.kehillottehilla.com/communities.asp?id=847 to http://www.kehillottehilla.com/communities.asp?id=847
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-illegal-settlements-myth/ NevilleChamberlain (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not actually the Israeli position, thats the position of David Phillips. The Israeli position is actually that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not governed under the Fourth Geneva Conventions as they had not been the recognized sovereign territory of a signatory to the treaty. That doesnt apply to the Golan, but as Israel has applied civilian law to that territory it doesnt recognize that as occupied and governed by the Geneva Conventions either. nableezy - 18:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for WHY Israel disputes illegality. Only  fair to include a reference.  

message: Maale Adumim is mentioned in the Talmud as a place from where Jewish people of the era would witness and report the appearance of the new moon in order to determine the calendar and accurate holiday times. The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Rosh Hashana, chapter 2 page 42 states,"
"Tell us what was the appearance of the moon?" "I went up," replied he, "to Maale Adumim..." http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t02/ros04.htm CarlSerafino (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ma'ale Adumim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917020530/http://www.jericho-city.org/etemplate.php?id=19 to http://www.jericho-city.org/etemplate.php?id=19
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please somebody revert this edit, since redundant category is already included in "Mixed Israeli settlements".--Boots Dawson (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: :Since the TrickyH's edit was in question here. Its best if the editor attends this edit request. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 06:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I started adding this cat to pages that already included the subcats of "mixed" or "religious" settlements, I read through the H:CAT page and I didn't see any statement that a page shouldn't belong in both a subcat and the parent cat. To me it makes sense for the pages of the settlement to be listed in both, so that one cat might make a complete list of settlements. I'm happy to be proven otherwise if I'm not looking in the right place. TrickyH (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ma'ale Adumim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129221248/http://thewitness.org/article.php?id=906 to http://www.thewitness.org/article.php?id=906
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120719070418/http://middleeastprogress.org/2009/03/the-e1-corridor/ to http://middleeastprogress.org/2009/03/the-e1-corridor/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106130254/http://www.paulasays.com/articles/maaleh_adumim/maaleh_adumim_-_history.html to http://www.paulasays.com/articles/maaleh_adumim/maaleh_adumim_-_history.html
*Added  tag to http://www.urbanisrael.com/MaalehAdumim.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * Lior Raz (born 1971), actor and screenwriter
--2604:2000:E010:1100:8D1A:8635:13F3:AAB6 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable residents

message: Please change the PNG-version of emblem of city to the SVG-version. Thanx. Юкатан (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emblem of city 

message: It has come to my attention that Maale Adumim is becoming a tourist attraction in its own right. Since there already is a section with “Attractions” perhaps the two can be combined and expanded upon?
192.38.131.129 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maale Adumin and tourism 

message: When did Israelis settle permanently? Population growth in time? Nada. Essential data missing. Background is important, but where is MA's actual history? Arminden (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No history section 

message: Completely one sided with an obvious proPalestinian view. Try for a tiny bit of balance please 185.120.125.61 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildly political 

message: It appears this page, among others including Judea and Samaria Area are being targeting by one user with ties to Qatar. The Palestinian flag has been added to these pages, in a move that is inaccurate, among other things.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.113.91 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically-Motivated Page Changes 

message: Our current mayor is Guy Yifrach (who replaced Benny Kashriel) in the recent municipal elections. 46.120.223.48 (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2024