Talk:Modi'in Illit

message: Is Kiryah really translated as book?--77.124.198.123 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sefer is book. I'm not sure how to translate kiryah though. --Shuki (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to translate... basically it means district/borough, or even city (in the Israeli sense of the term) lol. So town is basically accurate enough. Breein1007 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book town 

message: Brewcrewer, could you please explain this illogical revert? Why exactly should the Israeli claim on the applicability of GCIV be included without one word about the fact the this view has been rejected as being without basis by the ICJ? If you wish, I will add a substantial amount of material on the topic of illegality of this colony under international law to the section so as to render moot any concern about an over-reliance on primary sources. I will add as many secondary sources as you would like. How many would you like? nableezy - 19:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One for what? How is there "too much reliance on primary sources" when exactly one "primary source" is used and that primary source says, nearly word for word, what the article says? To be clear, the only primary source is the ICJ Wall decision. That decision rejects the Israeli position (pages 171-177). It also says that the ICRC has reaffirmed the applicability of GCIV to the oPt (and for that it is a secondary source). nableezy - 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: hey, just one secondary source. thats all i am asking for. the inclusion of contentious material based on primary sources is not a good idea, for one due to the potential OR issues. i'm open to being overruled by a consensus of positions based on our WP policies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the "contentious" material. Primary sources are acceptable when they are being used for the views of the source. Citing the ICJ for the views of the ICJ is a valid use of a primary source. Can you please specify what the misuse of the primary source is? Do you really dispute the sentence? Or is it that you just want to ensure that Israel's specious argument on the applicability of GCIV to the occupied territories remains unanswered? nableezy - 16:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't recall there being any policy-based reasons for not using primary sources, as long as they're used correctly. FWIW, here are a few secondary sources on this point: 1 2. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "reliance on primary sources" 

message: Hi. I added a section about the "Archaeological site Khirbet Bad-Issa". I first had it under "History", but it doesn't seem to fit in. If somebody has a better idea where to place it, please feel free to do so. Ajnem (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeological site Khirbet Bad-Issa 

message: Please somebody revert this edit, since redundant category is already included in "Religious Israeli settlements".--Boots Dawson (talk) 06:02, 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  ★ 06:32, 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 one external link on Modi'in Illit. 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/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
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) 02:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Updating the new official website link to the municipality Stuckinmud (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. .spintendo  16:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2018 

message: The primary description this article uses, and found in reliable sources, is Israeli settlement. Not Israeli city. I have reverted the so called fix of a POV edit as a POV edit. nableezy - 23:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  settlement in short description 

message: It says khardata is a fifth palestinian village, but no mention in the ARIJ source, which only mentions 4 villages...so right now it reads “5 villages” but only mentions land confiscations from 4. Any suggestions? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khardata 

message: 2604:2000:E010:1100:68A0:D758:F52B:2D8B (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add 

message: Change the region label of West Bank to Palestine (occupied territory) Khrom3ium (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2024