Talk:Rawabi

Untitled

This is not a place for discussion on the geopolitical situation in this region. Please limit all discussions to the article and only the article. Thank you, Sven Manguard _Talk 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Word Rawabi

Rawabi is a plural word for Rabiah. It’s the Arabic word for Mounds. Arabs use the word Rawabi to name many things towns, places, shops, companies, etc. Rawabi is not only associated with the Palestine city, Rawabi. Therefore, I suggest to have two pages, one for the word Rawabi and the other is for Rawabi town in Palestine.

--Bandarsq (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should have an article for the word, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary (and, moreover, the English Wikipedia isn't an Arabic dictionary). But I take the point about the name of this article. Perhaps we should move it to Rawabi, Palestine? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Localities should not have extra words unless other localities exist with the same name. Bandarsq, please give specific examples of locations with the same name that might bring possible confusion. --Shuki (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The other main use seems to be in the name of the Rawabi Holding Company, which Bandarsq has tried to create an article about. Since the company isn't simply called Rawabi, I don't think there's a risk of confusion so I agree that we don't need to move the page. I can't find any settlements with the same name. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There so many Rawabi things out there as Rawabi Rumah http://www.ameinfo.com/170283.html. It's not fair when I search for Rawabi, I get the Rawabi city in Palestine. I should get a list of choices.--Bandarsq (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

one more example http://www.ameinfo.com/134903.html --Bandarsq (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Settlers VS inhabitants

It is very misleading to use the term inhabitants instead of settlers while describing the settlers who are living on a stolen and confiscated land from the indigenous people of Palestine. The settlements are considered to be illegal under the international law, and the ones who lives in them are considered to be illegal settlers, they are not any ordinary inhabitants. they are illegal settlers.--82.213.38.2 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, "settlers of Israeli settlements" reads badly due to the repetition of "settle". It's perfectly clear that an inhabitant of a settlement is a settler. The article also already mentions the illegality of the settlements, so I don't see what your problem is. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

i have no problem; but i do not know about you! it does not read bad at all! it only reads bads and sounds very misleading and manipulating with terms when using the word inhabitants of settlers. so i believe it should be added as settlers and not inhabitants! Thanks!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

please be more neutral and convincing rather than just "does not read well"; otherwise, i will have to revert your edits. Thanks!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"X is X" is not a useful sentence--everyone knows from the definition of X already. There is no need to restate it again, and no harm in using a different word since it is already clearly stated that it is X. I strongly suggest you do not revert it...you are already well aware of the contentious nature of this area of articles and the 1RR restriction on edit-warring them. DMacks (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what is non-neutral about the argument that something reads badly. I have no problem with describing the inhabitants of settlements as settlers, but the point is that we also need to make the article's prose flow well and "inhabitants" sounds better. It is perfectly clear that these inhabitants are settlers from the context (i.e. the next three words being "of Israeli settlements"). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

you might be right, but for some reason i am not convinced. at any rate, i'll keep it as is.

in a total different top, why did you delete: "It all started with an idea of the Palestinian-American businessman Bashar Masri."

well, if you did your little homework by doing some research about Bashar Masri and Rawabi, you will find hundreds of articles.

you just ruin all your credibility by wasting yours and others time by deleting some info that you think is not correct, instead of working on improving wikipedia! the worst case scenario, you could rephrase it!

here are some link proving that Rawabi is Bashar's idea: http://www.theage.com.au/world/palestinians-pursue-their-own-suburban-dreams-20090918-fvd0.html

http://www.theworld.org/2010/02/02/the-first-palestinian-planned-city/

--82.213.38.2 (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because I thought it was incorrect, but because I couldn't be sure whether it was correct based on the reference provided. While the source mentioned Masri, it didn't say that Rawabi was his idea. I'll take a look at the other sources you provide and consider reinstating the sentence. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

sure, no worries. I'll be waiting for your feedback--82.213.38.2 (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a look and they make it clear that Masri is in charge of the project and has been at the forefront of its development, but they still don't really establish that it was his original idea. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph 10: "A chemical engineer by training, Masri, 48, the majority shareholder in the Massar group of companies, began seriously exploring the idea for Rawabi in 2007." http://www.theage.com.au/world/palestinians-pursue-their-own-suburban-dreams-20090918-fvd0.html

at any rate, the word "idea" is not the issue, but i think that we should give some credit to the man behind this project. what do you think?

how about this statement: Bashar Masri, a Palestinian-American businessman, is the driving force behind Rawabi. any comments?--82.213.38.2 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Whether or not he was behind the original idea, he warrants mention. I think "driving force" is a bit promotional and hence POV but I'll try to come up with a better wording. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

great job Cordless Larry! however, there are few things i think should be changes:

1. at the end of the first paragraph: Massar international is not the developer, as per their website: "Bayti is jointly owned by Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company and Massar International." http://www.rawabi.ps/bayti.php?linkss=0&page=no AND http://www.rawabi.ps/bayti/investor.php

2. under the financing headline: 3rd line: "The project is a public-private partnership between the Bayti Real Estate Investment Company, jointly owned by Qatar Investment Authority (through Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company) and Massar International,[21] and the Palestinian National Authority.[22]"

this also has to be changed, as the PNA is not a part of the Rawabi and of the developers.

3. under the master plan headline: i do not think that the following fit with the topic "Thousands of saplings are being planted as part of a greening project which involves growing a forest around the city.[28] The Jewish National Fund is donating 3,000 saplings to the project, the announcement of which sparked some internal Israeli and Jewish controversy.[29] Saplings have also been donated by the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture and by local and international organisations, corporations and individuals.[9]"

i think that it should be removed from there, and create a new headline for their campaign to plant trees, and also not to name some of the donors (such as the JNF, PNA, because it may sound promotional and might offend others who donated trees and were not named). i suggest the following:

==Planting a Tree in Palestine Campaign== As per Rawabi's website "The Palestine of our parents’ generation was lush with fruit orchards and flowering trees - olive, oak, citrus, nut and evergreen varieties ornamented the Palestinian landscape. Today, however, the natural beauty of the land is being lost to the ravages of war, neglect, development and climate change." http://www.rawabi.ps/plant.php

Thousands of saplings are being planted as part of a greening project which involves growing a forest around the city.Saplings have been donated by local and international organisations, corporations and individuals. --82.213.38.2 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the introduction. Do you have a source that states that the PA is not linger involved? Because the website continues to state that they are. As for the trees, I think the current wording is fine. It's descriptive rather than promotional and the fact that some of the trees are being donated from Isreal is surely an interesting fact. Other donors are already mentioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As per Rawabi's official website, there is no mention that the PNA is one of the developers (i am not sure that the PA is politically supportive or not, or if they are supporting/sponsoring some projects/infrastructure in the city or not), but it's obvious that Bayti is owned only by Massar & Qatari Diar

As for the trees, i do not think they fit under the headline "Masterplan", i think that we should have them under a different one. what do you think? btw, the trees were donated by the JNF and not Israel (as a state)--82.213.38.2 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Rawabi website states: "The vision for the city of Rawabi will be realized through a one-of-a-kind public-private partnership formed between Bayti and the Palestinian Authority (PA)". This is also mentioned on the masterplan page. As for the trees, I understand that they're not being donated by Israel as a state. When I said "from Israel", I meant from the country, not the government. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

i agree with you, but maybe we should make it clear that the PNA is not one of the developers, as the website says that "The PA committed to the funding of necessary public services and off-site infrastructure development in Rawabi as promised in its pledge to “increase affordable quality housing for low and middle income families” in the context of the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (PRDP)." the PA is funding some public services and infrastructure (which every government does is any city in the world) but not the project itself. Maybe we should re-phrase it?--82.213.38.2 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this makes it clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

it's much better, but for some reason it gives a hint that the PA is part of the project, as any other developers. (it's kind of misleading) maybe we should have them in 2 different paragraphs? the first one about the developers and the second one about the PPP? what do you think?--82.213.38.2 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That whole section is about the financing of the project, so I don't see it as confusing. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I came across this article, where it says that the end of it that Bayti (the developer of Rawabi) in owned by Massar & Qatari Diar. There is no mention that the PNA is also an owner or even a developer http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20110309061331/Palestine%3A%20Rawabi%20Regional%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20Plant%20Feasibility%20Study%20Launched --82.213.38.2 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

here is the quote "Rawabi's developer, Bayti Real Estate Investment Company, is jointly owned by Qatari government-owned Qatari Diar (www.qataridiar.com) and Palestinian Massar International (www.massar.com), two companies with unsurpassed real estate development experience in both regional and international markets"

http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20110309061331/Palestine%3A%20Rawabi%20Regional%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20Plant%20Feasibility%20Study%20Launched --82.213.38.2 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. We know from other sources that the PNA is involved, though not as a developer. That's already reflected in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

But under the financing title, its says that the PNA is also an owner! "The project involves a public-private partnership between the Bayti Real Estate Investment Company, jointly owned by Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company (the Qatar Investment Authority's property investment fund) and Massar International,[21] and the Palestinian National Authority.[22]"--82.213.38.2 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says that it is owned by Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company and Massar International, and that the project is a partnership between these owners and the PNA. The comma after "Massar International" is important. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Question

I wanted to ask a very simple question. Based on the wording of the page 'in the West Bank, Occupied Palestinian Territories', is it better to imply that Rawabi is part of the Wast Bank which in itself is Occupied Palestinian Territories. Or state that Rawabi is part of the Wast Bank which is in the Palestinian Territories? I know its a minor question but I would really appreciate an answer for future reference.
Thanks! Seric2 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In its current form the first sentence tastes like soapboxing. In my opinion "in the West Bank." is sufficient. Otherwise, what's next - West Bank, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Western Asia, Asia, Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

this is called exaggeration and do not agree with your response--82.213.38.2 (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that point ElComandanteChe.
Seric2 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean when writing about the city of San Francisco, we should only add California or California, USA?

I do not agree with you at all, as the West Bank is not a separate entity; the West Bank is just one part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories along with East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip. So just adding the West Bank is not efficient, and we should make it clear to our readers that it's a part of the OPT!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think the fact that WB is a part of OPT will escape the reader? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

yes as some people do not even know where is the WB!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people can click on the provided link and learn a lot about WB. Please properly indent your answers. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I normally would not say it is relevant to mention the the Occupied Territories when referring to the West Bank, but this article is about a city that is the first of its nature to be built within occupied land, therefore it places more meaning. -asad (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Asad, what exactly is unique about Rawabi: the fact that is is the first Palestinian city to be built in, I guess, last 50 years, or the fact that it is located in the Palestinian territories? My answer is: the first fact. Per WP:LEAD there is no place for nuances. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I still find NO harm in adding OPT, as the WB is part of it and not a separate entity!

do you identify yourself, with your first name only? or your full name?

so you say San Francisco, CA or San Francisco, CA, USA?

I still find no single reason for not adding OPT?--82.213.38.2 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for keeping something that reads bad (Palestinian-Palestinian), and for what no policy-based reason was provided to keep. The reasons to remove are clear: WP:LEAD and WP:MOS. Please properly indent your answers. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

it does not read bad, because it mentions only ONCE OPT and not many times! therefore, your above opinion is not valid and does not make any sense!

when you mention a city, you have to mention it's location and in which country! it's that simple! WB is not a country, it is part of Palestine. Palestine is the country, and it must be mentioned in every city that is located in Palestine. I do not know why you make a big deal about everything have to do with Palestine! and why you always represent an anti-Palestine point of view and wants to force it on everyone else! You have to be neutral and objective and respect the others!

Mentioning OPT does not offend or harm anyone or anything, and I find it very essential to add it, so readers can know where it's location is!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The policy-based reasons to not have this additional qualification in the first sentence of the lead are:

1. ...the first Palestinian planned city in the West Bank, Occupied Palestinian Territories use repetitive word
2. None of the sources used in the article exclaims that WB is a part of OPT.
3. Lead has to be short. OPT can be mentioned in the Location section.

Please refrain from discussing me or my views here, personal questions are welcome on my talk page. Please properly indent your answers. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying Rawabi is in Palestine

I changed the phraseology to be correct. Palestine does not exist yet and as such, the territory of Rawabi is currently in territory conquered by Israel from Jordan in 1967 and which the Palestinians hope to use for a future state. I'm also accept using the term "West Bank," however putting down Palestine is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.253.62 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

All right. There is a name for this: Occupied Palestinian Territory. Is it something everybody can agree with? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with West Bank. Occupied Palestinian Territory is itself misleading and a highly charged political phrase which shouldn't be in a non political article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.253.62 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me disagree about how OPT is misleading, but let's put it aside. For now West Bank will do. Please don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the page accordingly. I advise to write "per talk" or similar in the edit summary field, so other editors can see the reason for the change you made. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources

More sources on http://www.rawabi.ps/news.php --Pevos (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Sketches-of-Rawabi-001.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sketches-of-Rawabi-001.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 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 To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sketches-of-Rawabi-001.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have sent a request for permission to the authors (www.rawabi.ps). The Guardian had marked it as 'public domain'. --Pevos (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also asked for permission for the image which is used in the Hebrew article. --Pevos (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rawabi. 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/20130209141603/http://www.ameinfo.com/220307.html to http://www.ameinfo.com/220307.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)