Talk:Cave of the Ramban

Location
This place is located in East Jerusalem in the West Bank, not Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank is a supercategory of Category:Archaeological sites in Jerusalem, which is wrong since it suggests all sites in Jerusalem are in the West Bank. Category:Jerusalem is a subcat of both Category:Cities in the West Bank and Category:Cities in Israel, which is fair enough; but percolating this dualism down through the subcats is clumsy. There is no Category:East Jerusalem; see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 June 11. jnestorius(talk) 18:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, West bank is not Israel, Israel occupies it and its "extension of laws" has no valid or legal effect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * East Jerusalem is recognized as separate and distinct from the WB. Resolution 242 makes no reference to East Jerusalem and there is no classification of "belligerent occupation."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that say that WB is distinct from EJ? This reliable BBC source says "West bank including East Jerusalem" This reliable UN source show that the international view is that its part of the Palestinian territories:. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it obviously is distinct from the palestinian territories as the BBC feel it necessary to stipulate "inc. EJ" distincly. If it was all regarded as the West Bank, why the need to specify an area of the unrecognised annexed part of the unrecognised capital of Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So that people like yourself and Jiujitsuguy will know that EJ is part of WB, it was not clear for you and Jiujitsuguy that EJ is part of WB, thanks to the BBC specifically saying so, you and he are hopefully now aware of this fact. The UN source shows it part of the Palestinian territories, you can change it to the Palestinian territories location map if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your OR is as good as mine. Chesdovi (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehh.. no its not I that is saying EJ is part of WB and the PT, its the BBC and the IC. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See the UN and BBC source above, they show EJ is West Bank and not Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Jerusalem's status is almost always regarded as separate and distinct from the WB. Israeli law applies in Jerusalem and all who reside within her municipal boundaries are regarded as Israeli citizens. Resolution 242 specifically excludes East Jerusalem precisely because it is not regarded as part of the WB.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are repeating yourself from above without addressing the issues, I have brought you two reliable sources saying EJ is WB,you have not brought one single source that contradicts this, Even if Israel has proclaimed its laws to EJ, this does not mean its not part of WB, you also incorrectly say that "all who reside within her municipal boundaries are regarded as Israeli citizens", while the vast majority of Palestinians in EJ are not Israeli citizens, but it doesn't matter at all what nationality they have, it still does not change the fact that EJ is part of the WB, it doesn't matter how many settlers move in there or Palestinians there that receive Israeli citizenship. I'm reading UNSCR 242, and it does not say anything about that EJ is not part of WB. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Link you provided is broken and 242 specifically excludes Jerusalem--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is UNSCR 242 at Israeli government website:, it does not say one single word about East Jerusalem not being part of the West Bank. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem is treated as a separate entity by most. It is often coupled with the WB, but it's status is not equal by any means. Its not just Israel or the Arabs who want Quds. The whole world wants Jerusalem, that's why the CS plan is still viewed by so many governments as binding. As Israel has annexed it, the whole city should be viewed as in Israel. The same happened with the WB after Jordan annexed it. Chesdovi (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the map in the infobox, I have shown several reliable sources specifically saying that East Jerusalem is part of the West bank, you and Jiujitsuguy have not brought one single source that rejects this, Jiujitsuguy claim's about UNSCR 242 is also false as shown above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Positions on Jerusalem clarifies that Jerusalem has a separate legal status. It is not part of the WB. Chesdovi (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a Wikipedia article, not a source that can used as an argument in this discussion. Even if you have a source that say that EJ has a separate legal status from the rest of the WB, (which you don't have) but even if you did, it doesn't mean that EJ is not part of WB. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

None of your sources acyually say EJ is part of the WB. The OT consist of 4 separate areas: GS, WB, GH & EJ. . Chesdovi (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, the BBC source say its part of WB: "West Bank including East Jerusalem" and the UN source representing the international community says its part of the PT: "Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem". Your source also say: "The West bank (excluding East Jerusalem) covers an area of....", this means that EJ is part of WB. There are some sentences in your source that say "WB and EJ", but that sentence above also says its part of the WB, its contradicting itself. So so far we have several sources specifically saying that EJ is part of WB/PT, including a source representing the international community. We do not have one single source representing the international community saying EJ is part of Israel, so this shows clearly that the map we should use per the sources is either the WB or PT maps. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi, could you reply to the above post? "So so far we have several sources specifically saying that EJ is part of WB/PT, including a source representing the international community. We do not have one single source representing the international community saying EJ is part of Israel." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sol, the WB may not be in Israel, but EJ is. Chesdovi (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No its not, sources above say EJ is part of WB/PT, not one single source here says its part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, its back to the whole "do we recognize EJ as part of Israel or occupied territory?" The answer is always OT/WB as shown by SD's sources. Sol (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the stance on West Jerusalem? Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some disagreements (because its Jerusalem, and it would just be too easy if people agreed on it!) but, as I recall, the parts of the city held by Israel before '67 are considered 100% Pure Kosher Israeli territory. Sol (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have news for you. WJ is also not considred part of Israel by the IC. What I am getting at is Jerusalem is not part of Israel or the West Bank. It is viewed as a unit unto itself. WJ & EJ are both illegally occupied, and as Israel controls both sectors, we should use the "in Israel" map. Chesdovi (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Worldview source above say EJ part of the Palestinian territory's, do you have a worldview source that say EJ is part of Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please link a source on that? And I'm not sure I follow your logic; because it's all not a part of Israel we put it on the map of Israel? Sol (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Cpt: That sounds like a much better solution than endless edit war. Sol (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem appears to be the map. Simply remove it. It is a shame when over-politicizing something removes an asset that improves the reader's understanding ut so be it.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be much better if we had a good map of the city itself. The only prob with the current map is that it says under it "Shown within Israel". Otherwise it is useful to show where in the country its located. Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Or an image of the actual subject. So I attempted to upload a new map since "location in Israel" is coded into the infobox. Unfortunately, now it is too big and I can't seem to adjust it. D'oh. So removal works for me but if someone knows how to tinker with it to work in the infobox then super. see: File:Cave of Ramban loc.png Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember reading it somewhere, Sharon someone. Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, your image is not better, it still shows it with a map of Israel instead of the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It also shows the Palestinian territories. See the little dotted line. They are of course related as illegal as it might be.Cptnono (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)