This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is written as if the Paratroopers at the Western Wall exists entirely in a vacuum, completely ignoring the significance of it to to anyone that doesn't have a world view that blindly supports this. There's a New Yorker article, for instance, talking about the context of this photo, and, to cut to the chase, hypothesizes that the photo is such a close shot, a shot that shows so little of the Western Wall, which is supposed to be one of the subjects of the photo, because of the densely built up Moroccan quarter, inches away from the soldiers celebrating the violent conquest and illegal occupation. The illegal occupiers predicted a religious pilgrimage of they believed as many as 100,000 pilgrims to visit a place where barely a single person could comfortably stand... Leading, 3 days later, to the tragic, razing of the Moroccan quarter, which was done with no valid legal process. No permit. No permission from any valid authority. This article is written entirely from one point of view ignoring all others.71.178.3.227 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usual anti-semitic view. No context as to what the Israelis para were there for at all - like you know an 'illegal' anti-UN ceasefire attack by five nations against Israel.
All of the householders were given alernative accommodation and compensation by the Israelis for the remodelling of the area. That is legal not illegal. 79.71.170.238 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
