Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 18 September 2012

Warning: active arbitration remedies 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 Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information 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. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

East Jerusalem vs Jerusalem

174.112.83.21, there isn't a terminology discussion/dispute about 'East Jerusalem' vs 'Jerusalem' on the talk page or in the body of the article. Why don't you start one ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll start you off...

• both terms can be sourced
• saying East Jerusalem indicates that it's in the occupied part of Jerusalem captured in 1967 referred to as East Jerusalem
• the problem with that is that it indicates that it's in the occupied part of Jerusalem captured in 1967 referred to as East Jerusalem
• saying Jerusalem is more accurate because it reflects the facts on the ground which are defined by Israel's administration of the city as a whole
• the problem with that is that it reflects the facts on the ground which are defined by Israel's administration of the city as a whole.

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

if you think that both are problematic and both can be sourced, then why would you edit in east jerusalem, contrary to the long standing consensus? very classy. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the function of the 'very classy' statement ? If you would like to comment about me or other editors rather than the content please do so on the editor's talk page. Content-wise, a) long standing consensus isn't a policy based argument (see WP:CONSENSUS) despite its popularity b) I prefer 'East Jerusalem' with a link to the article because the term contains more information than 'Jerusalem'. East Jerusalem is a spatial subset of Jerusalem that the majority of reliable sources treat as a separate entity in a whole variety of ways. I also have no problem with the term Jerusalem but if that term is used I think it should be accompanied with the phrase used in the article body "located over the 1949 Green Line, on land occupied during the Six Day War" or something similar to ensure that readers are made aware that it is across the green line and so that the sentences that follow it make sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't frankly see the problem here: East Jerusalem is sourced from the BBC and that's where Gilo is located. Here are a few more sources that clearly state Gilo is in East Jerusalem: New York Times, LA Times and Le Monde. East Jerusalem is more specific than Jerusalem and also communicates issues relating to the legal status to readers familiar with those. --Dailycare (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

absolutely not. east jerusalem is not a subset of jerusalem, it is something completely different. if sources say jerusalem instead of east jerusalem, it doesn't mean that they were just being more general. it is much more complicated than that. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have no policy-based arguments against the edit, we'll re-insert it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

oh shut up already it's clearly a policy based argument. sources say jerusalem. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"it is much more complicated than that" and "oh shut up already" aren't normally considered to be policy based arguments.

• Sources say it's in 'Jerusalem'
• Sources also say it's in 'East Jerusalem' (e.g. Jpost, Haaretz)
• East Jerusalem is apparently not a spatial subset of 'Jerusalem' and is therefore not part of 'Jerusalem' according to you

It is therefore both in 'Jerusalem' and not in 'Jerusalem'. Yes, that is complicated. I suppose it's possible that the meanings of these terms in sources aren't related to spatial considerations or the green line at all. A source might identify a locality as being in 'Jerusalem' or 'East Jerusalem' based on unspecified demographic factors such as whether the majority of residents in a given locality prefer tea or coffee, favour the left or right side of the bed etc but unless the source contains that information and explains their decision procedure it's irrelevant to us. Perhaps you might find this US government map of Greater Jerusalem useful because it shows 'Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem', includes both Jerusalem's municipal boundary and the green line and therefore provides a very simple visual method to reliably identify whether somewhere is in East Jerusalem. The important point of course is to ensure that readers are aware that Gilo is over the green line and there are 2 ways of doing that, implicitly by using 'East Jerusalem' or explicitly by simply saying it's over the green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the exact wording is less important than what's conveyed. However the sources we've seen say Gilo is in East Jerusalem, so that's IMO a better pick, wikilink included. --Dailycare (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got my eye on the "Best Zionist Editor" prize of the hot air ballon trip over Israel so I'm unsure. East Jerusalem (with a link) is simpler and certainly seems to be where the majority of the world considers it to be. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

two editors who have long history of anti-israel edits are not good enough to change long standing consensus wording on this article. dailycare continues to ignore reality that many sources say "jerusalem" and not "east jerusalem"... sean your sarcastic analogy above doesn't seem like a policy based argument to me. i guess therefore it makes everything you said invalid, or at least that's your modus operandi. if you want to find a source saying its over green line, go ahead and add it to the body but no way is there consensus to change jerusalem to east jerusalem 174.112.83.21 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

actually i see it already mentions in the article that gilo is over the green line, so you are complaining about nothing. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made an edit that should please all (IP's action point remains to provide the sources that say "Jerusalem" instead of "East Jerusalem"). --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, share your suggestion on how to include the material (East Jerusalem) in the lead. Also provide the sources you're invoking. We've spent too much time on this tiny issue now. --Dailycare (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

which part did you not understand. i am not making any suggestion about how to include east jerusalem in the lead. east jerusalem does not belong in the lead. the article already addresses the green line issue. is that clear? 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, 174.112.83.21, feel free to compile a list of this long history of my 'anti-israel edits' and drop them off at my talk page for analysis. I wasn't aware that I make 'anti-Israel edits' given that I'm not anti-Israel so it would be quite helpful. You haven't explained why East Jerusalem doesn't belong in the lead. Are you able to do that ? If we go with Jerusalem are you okay with including the fact that it is over the green line in the lead so that the 'X,Y,Z consider it an illegal settlement' sentence that follows it makes more sense ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

no WP:SYNTH please. if you find a source that says "X, Y, Z consider it an illegal settlement because it is over the green line" then knock yourself out. making that conclusion yourself is against wikipedia policy. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my question. If we go with Jerusalem are you okay with including the fact that it is over the green line in the lead ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

it's over the green line. there's nothing wrong with including that as far as i know. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, please present the sources you're referring to that say "Jerusalem" without "East". This is the third time I'm asking and we have five sources saying "East Jerusalem", one of which is the right-wing Israeli paper JP. Also the current source saying it's in the "southern outskirts of Jerusalem" makes a point to mention it's a settlement on occupied land. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking of sources, here is the Guardian ("east Jerusalem"). The source also contains a quotation from the British Foreign Office ("settlements on occupied land in east Jerusalem"). That makes it seven sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP appears to have lost interest as there has been no activity for a few days. Anyhow, IP hasn't presented his/her proposal of how to include the issue and he/she also hasn't presented the sources that have three times been asked for. I'm now reverting to the previous version which has (I know it's a bit clumsy) both Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, at least the latter one being strongly sourced. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

<- 174.112.83.21. so far you have failed to provide any evidence that your views need to be incorporated into the decision making process. If you cannot explain why East Jerusalem is not a suitable term based on policy and backed up by reliable sources then your opinion has zero weight in the consensus. Can you provide evidence to support your objections to East Jerusalem being used ? If not, please say so. Also, see WP:TEDIOUS.Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

i told you above that green line is ok. now you are completely going to another direction. why are you playing games? i'm here to improve the encyclopedia. are you? do you think that the illogical and confusing edit made by dailycare saying "gilo is in jerusalem, east jerusalem" improves the encyclopedia and helps uninformed readers understand? please consider your purpose here. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree with 174, while both Orient House and Gilo remained in the area controlled by Jordan during 48-67, however if you use google maps or something, Orient House is in Palestinian East Jerusalem, while Gilo is an Israeli colony overlooking Bethlehem which is located south of what was pre-67 East/West Jerusalem. Pesky Gilo de-facto functions as fully integrated part of West Jerusalem colony. I'm pretty sure, Sean will not find Palestinian Authority voting ballots in Gilo, during next Palestinian election season. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, I'm asking you (for the fourth time) to produce the sources you're invoking and (for the third time) your suggestion on the wording in the lead. Recall that we have seven sources saying that Gilo is in East Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

dailycare, i guess you haven't gotten the hint. i'm not collaborating with you. i've ignored everything you have said here. if sean wants to respond to my latest comment or anyone else joins in, i'll happily respond. but it's not worth my effort or time to go in circles arguing with you. that much is crystal clear from the things you have posted here. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agada, you are making a case using a model in your head rather than looking at the many sources available.
174, yes, the game is called 'follow the sources and wiki policy'. My strategy in the game changes as I see more sources. The world would be a tiny bit better if you were willing to collaborate with Dailycare, an editor who cares about policy, a rare resource in the I-P topic area and have a go at addressing the questions that have been posed. I genuinely want to know what the policy based problem is with saying East Jerusalem if sources say that. I ask not just because of this article but with an eye to a general solution to these issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I'm making a case of Misplaced Pages as tertiary source and not elementary school textbook, though I'm still learning Wiki holy books. It is not personal, it is communal kind of thing. Do you want to discuss additional sources? Which policy do you suggest to follow? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look towards the top of this thread you'll find several sources that just say East Jerusalem. No doubt there are many more out there. There will also be many that just say Jerusalem no doubt. All I would like to know really is why we can't just saying East Jerusalem per the sources. I'm aware that this term can mean different things to different people but I'm deliberately not caring about that because the sources don't. This seems to be a situation where editor's perspectives are getting convolved with information in the sources in an opaque way. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, The term "East Jerusalem" may refer to either the area under Jordanian rule between 1949 and 1967 which was incorporated into the municipality of Jerusalem after 1967, covering some 70 km2 (27 sq mi), or the territory of the pre-1967 Jordanian municipality, covering 6.4 km2 (2 sq mi). This is not a reliable source I'm quoting. According to first definition, pesky Gilo does fit, according to second does not. However Orient House is in East Jerusalem whatever angle you look on it ;). So probably we should disambiguate, in case of Gilo, to help wiki-reader. Kind of tertiary thing. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Okay, so the inherent ambiguity of the terminology is problematic and we, as an encyclopedia, need to do something to deal with that in your view. That makes sense but it doesn't appear to be a concern reflected in the source's use of the terminology any more than source's use of the term Jerusalem i.e. evidence of a problem is absent from the sources so we may be manufacturing one via synthesis. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides the POV of all of us, using 'east' is confusing since Gilo is 'south of Jerusalem'. Just glancing at the East Jerusalem article seems to challenge the previous higher credibility I gave to WP. Is East Jerusalem the area of 'Jerusalem' that was divided in 48-67, or any area of current day municipal Jerusalem on the 'other side' of the 49 armistice lines? In fact, technically, Gilo is not in East Jerusalem at all and one would have to explain why Gilo is being lumbed into that 'East Jerusalem' area. This argument of mine would certainly apply to the areas south and north of pre-67 Israeli Jerusalem. --Shuki (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But is it really anymore more confusing than saying that a place called 'Jerusalem' is the capital of Israel ?
Is the argument "In fact, technically, Gilo is not in East Jerusalem at all and one would have to explain why Gilo is being lumbed into that 'East Jerusalem' area." any different from someone saying "In fact, technically, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel at all and one would have to explain why East Jerusalem is being lumbed into that 'Jerusalem' area." All of these kind of 'arguing from unspecified assumptions absent from the sources' approachs seem completely inconsistent with WP:V to me and seem to cause endless problems. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not wishing to join this fascinating discussion, but I'll record from a newspaper archive search that Jerusalem Post has many times placed Gilo in "east Jerusalem" (with a lowercase "e"). Since Gilo is actually south of Jerusalem, my interpretation is that JP has to indicate Gilo is on the east side of the Green Line or its stories don't make sense, but it doesn't want to use the formal designation East Jerusalem in case someone mistook its political position. Zero 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how I read JPost's approach to these linguistic remappings of micro-geography too. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sean, are you bringing up the argument that Israeli cannot decide for itself what its capital is? Why do you want to make yourself look dumb? All of the government offices are in Jerusalem, the prime minister and president live there, and the Israeli parliament sits all year round. --Shuki (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I don't mind looking dumb. To clarify, I don't even have an opinion about whether Jerusalem is the capital and I don't care in the slightest because I don't know what capital means in a formal sense. I don't need to know. Luckily wiki policy forbids me from adding unverifiable information or trying to participate in consensus building unless I can support statements with sources. I think you are missing my point or I didn't make it very well. My point is that there is a structural similarity between your reasoning and the reasoning of editors who flat out state that "in fact, technically, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel at all" despite an abundance of sources that say it is. When there are an abundance of reliable sources that make a statement of fact that 'X is the case' it isn't possible for us to dismiss them. We have an abundance of sources that say Gilo is in East Jerusalem. We have an abundance of sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If we don't need to know precisely what a source means by 'capital' when we use that source to justify saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel then we don't need to know precisely what a source means by 'East Jerusalem' when we use that source to justify saying that Gilo is in East Jerusalem. That was my point. There is a symmetry between the arguments. It's about having a consistent process when it comes to WP:V compliance and making content decisions based on rules that are repeatable and deterministic rather than stochastic. It will probably be easier for you to understand my pedantic approach to these things if instead of thinking 'POV pro-pal editor' you think annoyingly compulsive autistic-like behavior. I just want to make sure that we comply with policy in a consistent way that makes sense and I almost never care what the outcome is. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FACTS: International law and treaty clearly gives the Jews title to all the land (including Jerusalem)from the Jordan river to the sea. This is explicitly stated in the San Remo convention, the Palestine Mandate and the Anglo-American Treaty. UN charter, article 80 was incorporated to protect those rights. There are no 'settlers', no 'occupation' and no Palestinians (an invention of the KGB in 1964). Please state facts not Big Lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.238.29 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"occupied"

Just out of curiosity, Jordan "occupied" the territory but Israel "captured" or "conquered" the territory? Interesting. nableezy - 23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about "Gilo remained on the other side of the Green Line, captured by the Jordan kingdom until 1967", per apparent consensus. Capturing is a single action or event, whereas occupation is an ongoing state of being. The statement parses as "captured until 1967", which doesn't make sense. Was it captured in 1967? Was it occupied until 1967? Or is this complex sentence with a ton of phrases missing a comma or other feature? Seems like it could be simplied, or at least definitely made sensible...somehow... DMacks (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 and then by Israel from 1967 until the now. This is a semantic game by some users who insist on not calling the Israeli-occupied territories "occupied". nableezy - 01:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the facts and the ways it gets spunsemantic differences you mention. My only concern is that "captured" as an adjective doesn't make sense here (regardless of spin)...unless you are talking about their status as a "captured territory". Capturing is a one-time thing, being a captured entity is an ongoing situation. "I was born since 1965" (weird use of English language at best) vs "I was born in 1965" (single event) or "I have been alive since 1965" (ongoing status). DMacks (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FACTS: In 1948 Jordan invaded Judea and Samaria and occupied the territory illegaly until forced out in 1967. Israel liberated Judea and Samaria in accordance with international law. Jordan later relinquished all claims to Judea and Samaria. In accordance with the San Remo convention and Palestine Mandate, Israel has title to all the land from the Jordan river to the sea. UN charter, article 80 was incorporated to maintain those rights in perpetuity. There is no 'occupation', no 'settlers' and no Palestinians (an invention of the KGB in 1964). Facts, not Big Lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.238.29 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trees

This is here in case someone else thinks it's worthy of mention in the article. I might have incorporated it myself but, since it thoroughly infuriates me, it's probably best to leave it for an editor less passionate about these things.
שכ' גילה: 810 דירות חדשות יוקמו, מאות עצים ייעקרו
—Biosketch (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Before you get all twisted over this news report, the construction in question is not threatening Park 3000 - Gilo Forest. Leaving aside the new construction at the east end of Gilo, unrelated to this story, this report about the trees refers to an area at the center of Gilo. It is a rise of land surrounded (in a semicircle) by the streets Dagan, Tzvia v'Yitzhak, Yafe Rom and Givat Canada. People living in the (expensive) homes on these streets knew for a long time that the land inside the semicircle was never meant to be part of a nature reserve. It was always assumed to be the next logical area for Gilo's expansion. (Gilo Heh? or is it Gilo Vav?) Imagine living in a house with an emply lot next door. For years you got used to unobstructed views from your living room. When the owner of the land finally decides to build on the lot, what'a ya gonna do? Atefrat (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it not threatening? The second sentence says, "...and it includes cutting down hundreds of trees in the Gilo Woods." The guy Bar Nissim that's interviewed says it'll take a toll on "the animals who live here." So this sounds more like it is about Ya'ar Gilo than about a plot of land in the center of the community.—Biosketch (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the location on Google Maps: If you look carefully at the photo in the Maariv-nrg article, you will see that it was taken from somewhere around Dagan St. or just northeast of it from the edge of Park 3000 facing due southeast away from the forest. The trees in the foreground are on the hump of land within the semicircle (see map). The houses on the foreground left and center are on Givat Canada and Yafe Nof St. Uptown can be seen in the distance on the upper right.

If the writer of the Maariv-nrg article wants to call that plot of land the Gilo Forest for activist encouragement, well, so be it. When all the yelling dies down the houses will be built. (A real problem is the defunct Safdie plan which will eventually be rehabilitated to rape the Jerusalem Forest to the west of the city, but that's a discussion for another talk page). --@Efrat (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

wholesale revert

Hello Sindinero, I don't understand your wholesale revert of my edit. If you had read my edit, you would have seen a number of changes. However I did not take away mention of it being considered a settlement. The lede reads: The international community regards it as an Israeli settlement that is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. Aslbsl (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aslbsl - that's one reason it's generally better to make incremental edits, so that other editors have a clear oversight and better handle on the changes that have been made. I won't do a wholesale revert this time, but I am changing "neighborhood" in the first sentence - as discussed before, this is a misleading characterization. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sindinero, it is good to see that you didn't wholesale revert this time. I think you could agree that ignoring another's contributions doesn't serve constructive changes, and could be conceived as a sign of disrespect.

I appreciate that you've attempted to preserve some of neutral description (and residential area) that previously got caught up in the politics. However the replacement of the term "neighborhood" as a physical description with "settlement", as if the two were mutually exclusive, is puzzling to me. One describes the physical nature of the place, another describes its political nature.

Do you have proof that the term "neighborhood", as you say, is "a misleading characterization"?

I have found the opposite - Pro-Palestinian groups, and even the PLO, describe the physical reality (neighborhood, or town, or city) alongside the political reality (settlement):

• Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO's negotiating department {...} also Jewish neighborhoods like Ramot and Gilo are settlements for all intents and purposes."
• A new Israeli Neighborhood on the lands of Jerusalem city
• "As opposed to the large neighborhoods built in East Jerusalem, Ir Amim uses the term "settlements" in Jerusalem mainly for Jewish construction in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods at the initiative of settler organizations,"
• "In East Jerusalem and its environs, which Israel annexed to the municipality of Jerusalem after 1967, there are 12 large Israeli neighborhoods that are also deemed settlements under international law."
• "This will be the first new Israeli settlement neighborhood established in East Jerusalem since Har Homa. "
• "In these annexed lands Israel built 12 Jewish neighborhoods,"

Additionally, why did you re-add the repetitive history to the lede? If you read what you were re-adding carefully you would see that it doesn't make sense... Best Regards, Aslbsl (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's about connotations. "Neighborhood" does not just refer to a "physical reality" (as in a collection of buildings used for a given purpose), but rather to a social, cultural phenomenon (so that in a large city, it's often a matter of informal consensus where one neighborhood begins and another ends). Because of this, "neighborhood" connotes an organic, ground-up phenomenon for many people that is at odds with the idea of an illegal settlement imposed in militarily occupied territory. For this reason, it's often used politically, to attempt to normalize a contested state of affairs. This is why the word can be misleading in this context, and this is why I feel "residential area," as the more simply descriptive term, is the better one here, if you feel that something is needed additionally to "settlement" in the first sentence. However, a settlement it is, and this needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, which traditionally defines the topic; it's not enough to say later on that it's "considered" a settlement.

I re-added the history to the lead because you had moved it from the lead to "Biblical era." If you read carefully what you were moving, you would have seen that it certainly didn't belong there.

Additionally, please don't remove sources. The Ha'aretz article does contain information unique to the lead, as it describes Gilo plainly as a settlment.

And finally, please see WP:INDENT. Sindinero (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting original analysis, but is there a reliable source that says "neighborhood" is a problem? I've provided sources that show that even the Palestinian government uses the term. Also, why would you re-add a laconic DPA statement? There are already more detailed and higher quality sources. And careful reading of the "history" line shows that it repeats a line already in the lede, as well as using a level of detail which doesn't belong there. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please start indenting your comments, as it makes for a discussion that's easier to follow.

What I said is not original research, but a statement of fact about how language is used. We don't need a reliable source that says that "neighborhood" is a problem, since the reliable sources generally tend to describe Gilo as a settlement. A google scholar search for Gilo and settlement gets substantially more hits than one for Gilo and neighbourhood/neighborhood. It is a settlement; it is to be identified as such in the opening sentence. This is simply how Misplaced Pages works. The later sentence in the lead has a different focus; there the article describes how Gilo is considered a settlement by the international community but Israel disputes this.

"Laconicity" has nothing to do with including or excluding a source. It's a reliable source, and it is one of the clearest statements about Gilo's status. It unambiguously supports using "settlement," and removing it in order to then say that we don't need to call Gilo a settlement in the first sentence is pretty disingenuous.

Finally, see this RfC; while it didn't come to an unambiguous conclusion, it ends with a pretty good rule of thumb. Sindinero (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A) "We don't need a reliable source that says that "neighborhood" is a problem" - no, we do need reliable sources. And your claim becomes an extraordinary one since I've presented reliable sources demonstrating the exact opposite of what you argue. Palestinian government officials and advocates disagree with you; are they not pro-Palestinian enough?

B) The RfC doesn't say what you claim (it actually calls for retaining the original wording, as a stylistic matter), and has been since superseded.

C) I removed the source because it is low quality. It has nothing to do with calling this place a settlement, which my version does using better sources already in the lede.

D) In this dialogue, outdenting harms the readability for me, but I've acceded to your request since it seems to bother you. I hope that you'll find this easier to read.

Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A) you've missed my point. Reliable source policy doesn't work negatively, i.e. by requiring a source to show that a given term should not be used -- rather, we are to conform to the terminology used by reliable sources. In this case, "settlement" far more than the alternatives. None of your posts demonstrate "the exact opposite of what I'm arguing" -- they could only do this by showing that "settlement" is not the predominant term used. Since your sources are examples of usage rather than meta-analyses of it, by definition they can't do this. As a side note, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by linking to WP:OR in every post; what exactly is the original research you're alleging?

B) The RfC I posted, while it didn't result in consensus, recommends a compromise that retains both terms, "settlement" and "city/village" (see the conclusion). Your summary is incorrect: it recommends maintaining not the "original wording," but the original ordering of "settlement" and "city" (or "residential area," in this case). The link you've posted doesn't "supersede" anything, since no consensus or even clear recommendations seem to result from it.

C) The source is absolutely not low quality. Now you're shifting goalposts. Before it was too "laconic."

D) I didn't ask you to outdent your comments, but to indent them. That's not because I have trouble reading them (but thanks for the snark), but because it's common wikipedia practice: the reason for this is that it makes for better oversight over past discussions, especially for editors who may be new to the discussion. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A) You have argued (hence my mentioning of original research) that "neighborhood" and "settlement" are mutually exclusive terms, and that we must favor predominant usage. I have three times asked for sources. What sources support your argument that this place is one to the exclusion of the other?

B) If the 2010 RfC only speaks to order, why did you repeatedly replace one term with another? In any event, the newer discussions linked don't make that case.

C) The source is low-quality because it is laconic. Our other sources already support the same content far better.

D) I meant indent, which is what I did. As I said, I find it more difficult to read.

I'm sorry that you see snark, or the need to accuse me of shifting goalposts or being disingenuous. I understand that political/non-verbal communication may seem heated, but no bad faith is intended to you.

Please again accept my best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is covered by WP:1RR. Remember not to violate it. Violations tend to result in automatic blocks/topic bans when reported. Edit warring over the words "neighborhood" and "settlement" and doing things like replacing "The international community regards it as an Israeli settlement that is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this." with "Israel disputes its designation as a settlement, and it is administered as part of the Jerusalem municipality." while leaving the source there does not usually end well in this topic area. Gilo is an Israeli settlement (across the Green Line in East Jerusalem) and it's also a neighborhood in Jerusalem. A large number of sources support both of these descriptions because neither are wrong. Please try to figure it out without edit warring, POV pushing and violating the discretionary sanctions. If you feel a need to advocate on behalf of a particular POV rather than addressing the issue in a completely objective way, just walk away from the article and do something else. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet I didn't add the word "neighborhood," but how could you know that with your wholesale revert and false claim of 1RR violation? You say you agree that "neighborhood" and "settlement" are both true, yet you consistently remove one. You keep threatening me, but ignore my arguments on talk and mischaracterize both policies and my actions, which anyone who actually reads the edit can see.

And most importantly, you don't speak to the sources. Please "report" me, I would love for your behavior to be examined. Aslbsl (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Shall we rewind a second? I haven't been "consistently removing" one of the two terms. This recent exchange started when you replaced "settlement" with "neighborhood" in the first sentence. I reverted back, and then you reverted back to your version. Trying to compromise, I was the one who introduced both terms in the first sentence with the formulation "large settlement and residential area". You reverted this, deleting "settlement". I tried again to restore what I felt was a version that we could both accept, since it contained both "settlement" and "residential area"; you reverted again. I tried again, you reverted again. So who is consistently removing one of the two terms used? I don't think it's me. I've been attempting to compromise here. Semantically, there's no reason to have both "settlement" and "neighborhood" or "residential area" - a settlement is a kind of residential area, and therefore entails the latter, while the concept "neighborhood" doesn't entail the concept "settlement." In other words, if we just had "settlement," readers would know that it's a place where people live, whereas when we just call it a "neighborhood," people (and many people read only the first sentence, so it's crucial to define the topic there) would never know it's a settlement. I've never suggested that "neighborhood" and "settlement" are mutually exclusive; it's a question of connotations and semantic precision. By the way, to argue something on the talk page really has nothing to do with wikipedia's policy on "original research." Whether or not you feel a source is low-quality, laconic, or anything else, I'm not sure that your removal of that article was at all consonant with wikipedia's actual policy on sourcing. That said, I can see that you didn't violate 1RR in this exchange. I don't think sean.hoyland was accusing you of doing so, so much as reminding you (us) not to. Sindinero (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the page history, you first reverted ElComandanteChe, then Gilabrand, and then you reverted my first edit, so it did not start with me. Be that as it may, I have already complimented your attempt at compromise and have attempted to meet you part way.

I welcome your agreement that "settlement" and "neighborhood" are not mutually exclusive. But an Israeli settlement is not just "a place where people live". It is a specific political term. An Israeli settlement may be a kibbutz and it may be a town and it may be a full-fledged city - the two terms describe entirely different aspects of a place, and both are important.

Also, I find it unlikely that the political controversy would be missed when 3 of the 4 lines in the lede discuss it. It is far more likely that the one descriptive line is lost.

A 1RR warning would be far more legitimate if I had even reverted once, and if it didn't come from someone wholesale reverting. And not participating in talk.

Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Aslbsl, please stop pushing and learn when to stop.

• 15:36, 7 September 2012 this edit removing "Israeli settlement" is a revert i.e. "any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors" (see Help:Reverting). Make sure you understand what a revert is.
• 20:52, 8 September 2012‎this edit removing Israeli settlement again and moving it (along with other changes ) is a revert.

You are quite right that I miscounted the time, however, my revert is still valid given the nature of your editing e.g. changing "The international community regards it as an Israeli settlement" without consensus to do so and while leaving the source unchanged so that the statement no longer complies with WP:V. However, ironically, with the 19:28, 9 September 2012 revert you did violate the 1RR restriction. I'm sorry, I don't understand "And most importantly, you don't speak to the sources". What sourcing issue are you concerned about ? I don't "consistently remove one". I restored Israeli settlement and other standard content that you removed without consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sean, telling me that I am edit-warring as you wholesale revert me makes it sound like you are trying to force a content dispute with policy threats.

Anyhow, my edit was an original rewrite to attempt bridging the gap. It was not a revert, and like the other accusations which I've answered above, the claim that I've excised Israeli settlement is also misleading. Any reader will find that 2/3 of the lede is still dedicated to that topic. What I've done is move it from the first word.

And not only did no guideline at any time call for it to be the first word, something which you've claimed, but even the boilerplate language has lost support. And "widely accepted" is the actual language the BBC source uses. Aslbsl (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Aslbsl, if you read the comment you provided the link to, you'll see that it says "there is no consensus about whether this sentence should be systematically included in all articles (or systematically removed from any articles in which it may be present)". Therefore in order to remove it from here, you'd need to build consensus for the removal. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dailycare, I did in fact read the comment, and you'll notice that I did not systematically remove anything. I simply rewrote the text to A) attempt to move the "settlement" text up in the lede, B) not be repetitive and improve the flow (3 of 4 lines in lede are already dedicated to the settlement issue), and most importantly C) to accurately represent the source. I wrote "widely" considered because that is what the BBC text actually says. Now the content appears in two versions within 4 sentences. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, in this edit you're removing the illegality aspect from the lead, and IMO invoking the comment you linked to, still, doesn't persuade since the comment provides that where the text is present, separate consensus is needed to remove it (which is normal anyway). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dailycare, the most important part of my last comment was that the statement does not accurately represent the source. The body of the (very short) BBC article focuses on establishing that the West Bank is considered occupied. It does not speak to the legal status of settlements in general, or to Jerusalem specifically. Especially in light of the US position, which has refrained from commenting on the legality, and also has distinguished Jerusalem from elsewhere, the boilerplate text is not a helpful description of Gilo. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in that case you can use the template to tag the statement as needing an additional source. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dailycare, if the statement doesn't represent the source, the solution is to rewrite it to fit the source. Especially since, as I pointed out, the US position means that no source will support that statement. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when the wording of that text was designed, a large number of sources were examined. I don't know what you mean by the "US position", are you implying that the US can decide what the world thinks on this settlement? --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I felt so energetic that I looked up another source for this, this one in fact says the settlements are illegal, not just that they're regarded as such, but I'm still OK with the longstanding text anyway. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The BBC's unattributed "legal ruling" doesn't nullify the US position and is at best sloppy journalism that contrasts with what the more detailed sources say. Why should our text ignore the US position? Aslbsl (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The BBC piece is what we call a reliable source. I'm not against mentioning what the US has said of Gilo in the article. I am, on the other hand, against mentioning it in the lead since then we'd be open to mentioning the EU, Japan, China etc. in the lead, too. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

By definition, your acknowledging that the US, EU etc. positions are not the same, means that "the international community" doesn't have one position. This specific BBC piece is not reliable, and is contradicted by numerous other more detailed sources. What is the problem with actually reflecting what multiple sources say? Aslbsl (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That is unequivocally not true, and any number of top quality sources can be given that specifically say that the international community has a position on the illegality of the settlements (some of them are in the first sentence of the article Israeli settlements and international law. nableezy - 06:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And what of the US's position in that same article? Aslbsl (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read that carefully, as the US position is compatible with the rest of the worlds. And either way, multiple sources specifically attribute a position to the "international community". No source disputes that phrasing, except for a handful of internet warriors that we need not pay any attention to. nableezy - 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The settlements are indeed illegal, by international agreement to which Israel is also a party (article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention). This is not really a matter for dispute. This source specifies that Israel contests the applicability of the Geneva convention to the West Bank because they were supposedly not under legitimate sovereignty in the first place. The article on settlements has more detailed information on this; it's not a question of opinion, really - the UN and the ICJ have both upheld the illegality of the settlements. What US position are you referring to? As I understand it, the official negotiating position of the US is that the status of the settlements is to be left to the determination of final status agreements between Israel and the PA, not that Gilo is not a settlement.

I don't follow. Aslbsl (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

ej/Misleading edit summaries

Can somebody explain to me why East Jerusalem is being removed as the location of this settlement? Jerusalem, united now and forever, is not a NPOV way to give the location. nableezy - 10:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody removed it - most of the lede discusses exactly that despite that term being missing. I restored the link to Jerusalem, and moved East Jerusalem one sentence to the settlement discussion. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is purposely obfuscating the location to serve a political agenda. Gilo is in East Jerusalem, full stop. It is not "widely considered" to be in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is the common place name for the portion of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 and by Israel since then. This article has said that in the first sentence for quite some time now. If you wish to change that, gain a consensus. Don't edit-war your changes in. I am restoring the sourced location to the first sentence. nableezy - 06:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, you made an original edit (not restore) adding in EJ and repeating a source already in the next line while accusing people of "intentional obfuscation". Then you claim EJ was removed (it was not) and use the edit to remove other uncontroversial, sourced information. Your edit summaries and Talk are very misleading about what happened. I really hope that this is just the result of confusion on your part. Aslbsl (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that is nonsense. You have once again violated the 1RR. East Jerusalem was removed as the location of this colony, and claiming otherwise is purposely misleading. You removed East Jerusalem as the place name for where this settlement is located and replaced it with Jerusalem. I restored the sourced location of EJ (seen here, here, or here, just to give a few examples). You have twice reverted that, once again violating the 1RR, and given that you were the one to first remove it (here) I suspect your "who me" comment above about others "confusion" is feigned as you well-know that removal was contested, as you have done the same in the past on other articles as well. Self-revert or you will be reported. nableezy - 15:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, I would take you much more seriously if you weren't making dramatic, spurious charges of hiding things, especially when those things (its West Bank location) are still in the article, while at the same time yourself removing uncontroversial sourced information. EJ was unintentionally removed by me a month ago, but the whole political discussion remained - nothing was "hidden". When you re-added it, I did not remove it, as you claim, and it is still in the article. No revert. I did revert your deletion of sourced, uncontroversial information. Aslbsl (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles