Talk:Ateret

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

ateret is a settlement/colony built on a stolen and confiscated land from the palestinians, it is built on an occupied land... it is illegal under the international law and the international community.

the legal and objective name of it is settlement/colony and NOT a village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.43.73 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC) --213.6.43.73 (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

citation needed?
The source explicitly says that Ateret is illegal under international law. What exactly needs a citation?  nableezy  - 22:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The source says the settlement in Ateret is illegal under international law, but does not say other settlements are illegal or that Israel disputes the legality of the settlement. The latter two statements need citations. Akerans (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Im fine with just saying it is illegal. I can provide sources that say all settlements are illegal, but I am having difficulty finding one that specifically mentions Ateret. Same for Israel disputing that.  nableezy  - 02:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is just a mention in passing, there is no proof provided that Ateret specifically is 'illegal'. It seems that we are basing this on one reporter's opinion. According to this logic, anyone can become a reported make a statement, and WP will have to accept it? --Shuki (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS. A source is all the "proof" Wikipedia needs.  nableezy  - 14:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you want a court, the International Court of Justice unanimously agreed that all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law. Quoting from the Wall decision:"As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: 'The Occupying Power shall not dlrport or transfer parts of its ow11 civilian population into the territory it occupies.' That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory. In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited."And"The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law." nableezy  - 14:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An clearly opinionated article in The Guardian seems hardly a good source for a WP:REDFLAG statement. It would be fine for regular statements, but in this case it's a problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it a redflag claim that this Israeli settlement is illegal under international law? I can provide you several sources saying that every Israeli settlement is illegal under international law. And how is this a "clearly opinionated article"? If you would like to take this to RS/N feel free. This is not a "redflag" claim, in fact it is an exceptional statement to say that a settlement is not illegal under international law. And even if it were, a verifiable, reliable source has been provided for this supposed exceptional claim.  nableezy  - 05:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)