Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gilo

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aslbsl (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 8 September 2012 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:51, 8 September 2012 by Aslbsl (talk | contribs) (reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 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)

settlement/colony

gilo is not a neighborhood, it is a settlement/colony built on a land occupied and stolen from christian palestinian residents especially from the christian town of beit jala.

then neighborhoods do not have mayors or city councils such as gilo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.46.197 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


gilo has more than 40,000 residents.... and u r calling it a neighborhood, but beiit jala has around 12,000 and u r calling it a town????? u make no sense!

gilo is not a neighborhood, its a settlement/colony!

since when neighborhoods have a mayor??? and city community center???--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cities and towns have mayors and community councils and centers. But you seem strangely against calling it a town or city, or any other political-division term. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

it is illegal settlement/colony that is being built on a stolen and occupied land and it is ILLEGAL under in the international law and the international community as well--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

stop spreading bias and lies.... u should be objective--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, being obejctive in the sense of WP:NPOV means writing in the article what the best sources tend to say on the subject, in the form of a narrative. Yes, Gilo is an illegal settlement and that's what sources say too. It's also included in the lead of the article already, with sources. It isn't the only thing sources say on Gilo, though, so it shouldn't be the only point of view represented in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (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)

residents VS settlers

every single israeli/zionist who lives on a land that was occupied after 1967 is considered a settlers and not a residents; therefore the residents of the illegal settlement/colony of gilo, are considered illegal settlers under the international law... and even the international community including the UN, US, European Union, Russia... consider them as illegal settlers living on a stolen and occupied land.... they are illegal and living in an illegal settlement--213.6.11.49 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

this is not forum for you to talk, if you want that go to a nother website. do not have your rants here full of WP:OR. if you want to improve article then find some references for facts. thanks. LibiBamizrach (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
They are living there, therefore they are residents. That's the plain definition of the word "residents". DMacks (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for change in lead

I tried to personally change "residential district" to "Israeli settlement" in the article but an abuse filter prohibited me from doing so. What administrator implemented this filter, and can someone change this? The anonymous editor above is partially correct; while they are still residents, the area is an illegal Israeli settlement as it was built on land occupied after 1967 (namely the West Bank). This should be mentioned in the lead of the article; otherwise, the statement about Israeli settlements being illegal under international law seems like a non sequitur. Can someone please change this? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think that if you establish an account the filters will be more lenient on your edits. (of course you can also continue to edit as an IP, there's nothing wrong with that) On the substance side, the lead does mention that the settlement is on the wrong side of the Green line. If you mean changing "West Bank" to "occupied West Bank" in the lead, I have not problem with that. Don't know about the filters though ;) --Dailycare (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I mean changing "residential district" to "Israeli settlement" (with link). You can add in "occupied" if you like and I have no problem with that, but it wasn't what I was suggesting. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
People have debated themselves to death trying to reach consensus for the text in the lead, you can't just barge in and change it to fit your POV. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The source cited does not support the term "residential district". It does support the standard term "Israeli settlement". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why is a BBC article is used as a source at all. Beyond the fact that BBC is known to be biased, the content of that article has nothing to do with what it's being used as a reference for. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly the case that people have argued that the BBC is biased both for and against Israel but what matters is that the BBC are regarded as a reliable source in Misplaced Pages. The report contains a number of statements about Gilo. It refers to Gilo as a settlement and could therefore be used to provide WP:V compliance for the statement that Gilo is an "Israeli settlement" or a "Jewish settlement". It can't be used as a source to support the statement that it's a "residential district". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If people have argued that the BBC is biased, why is it regarded as reliable? Here's an article from another source which has been argued as biased both for and against Israel which calls Gilo a neighborhood, ynet. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
BBC is regarded as reliable because it has a reputation for getting facts correct, although some people will call BBC biased because it isn't biased to their liking. Also the source you provide mentions that the EU refers to Israel's actions in the occupied areas as settlement activity. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The same BBC which reported a massacre in Jenin when infact less than 50 Palestinians were killed there, almost all of them armed? Even when they present real facts, they do so in a biased way. The link I gave links to another article about the EU's policy regarding EJ. However, that other article had nothing to do with Gilo. TFighterPilot (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
If you would like to dispute the reliability of the BBC and argue that it cannot be used you can do it at WP:RSN but realistically that would be a waste of people's time. If you would like to discuss bias in the media this isn't the place to do it. Also, please read the discretionary sanctions which you can access via the link at the top of the page, particularly the Editors reminded and Editors counseled sections, if you haven't already done so. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is not the place to discuss the BBC. You suggest that I am not eligible to debate this subject because I'm Israeli and thus have a POV. By that logic no one else here is eligible because everyone have a POV and no one is truly neutral, if one were, he wouldn't be here. If we are to get back on topic, the main reason why the word Settlement doesn't fit is due to the fact that's it's under Jerusalem's municipal jurisdiction and not an independent one. Think of Maale Edumim for example. It's a large settlement that has many neighborhoods. When referring to a single neighborhood there you wouldn't call it a settlement but a neighborhood inside a settlement. The only difference is that Jerusalem isn't a settlement which is why a special wording is needed for it as well as Jerusalem's other neighborhoods beyond the green line. However, if you wish to change "captured by Israel during the Six Day War" to "occupied by Israel since the Six Day War" I'd have no objections. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't suggest anything. I asked you to read the discretionary sanctions. It's for your own good, trust me. You accused an IP editor who suggested changing the article to something consistent with the BBC source cited that they were barging in to impose their POV. It suggests a battlefield mentality which isn't allowed by the sanctions and will not do you any good if you plan to stick around in the topic area. As to the content issue, you are arguing from first principles. There's no point doing that. We just follow the sources and use the terminology they use to ensure that we comply with policy. No doubt there will be variations but arguing that it is not a settlement won't fly because it will be contradicted by many sources simply because it's an Israeli housing development that is across the green line. I think compromises on these issues have been found in the past on other articles. My basic point though was simply that the current terminology doesn't comply with policy whereas the suggested change does. That's all. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, for interest and some light relief, in Security and Suspicion: An Ethnography of Everyday Life in Israel, Juliana Ochs Dweck says, "Gilo seems like a suburb on the southern edge of Jerusalem, although it is a city-sized Jewish settlement beyond the Green Line in the occupied territories." I think that says it all....it's a bit long though... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The wording used in this article as well as the other ones is "Jerusalem's Ring Neighborhood". That is the consensus in WP. TFighterPilot (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

<- Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this terminology issue in WP although an attempt to find one was made, see Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem. Discussion faltered, editors lost interest/moved on and the matter wasn't closed by an admin. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, let's just delete the whole article and leave only the words "Gilo is a..." which I think we can all agree upon. Other option would be to leave the article as it is and hope the uninformed reader doesn't become a radical Zionist due to not seeing the word "settlement" until the second sentence. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sean, can we not call Gilo a residential district because the BBC doesn't? It's not exactly an industrial zone. People live there and are served by the city of Jerusalem. Being built over the Green Line may give it the label "settlement", but a residential suburb of Jerusalem it remains. Sometimes the BBC does not state things which are patently obvious. We are here to fill that gap. Chesdovi (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be curious to take this thread up again. "Neighborhood" in the first sentence seems really inadequate and problematic, especially since neither of the two sources footnoted for that sentence refer to it as such. The Ha'aretz article begins: "Israel's decision to expand the settlement at Gilo in East Jerusalem is an impasse to the Middle East peace process that must be overcome, a UN official told the Security Council on Tuesday," and the NYT piece calls it an "area" before dubbing it, by implication, a settlement. On WP, we go by the sources, and calling Gilo a "neighborhood," with all that word's connotations, is a huge disservice to our readers, especially those without much knowledge of the area or of the conflict. I suggest changing the first sentence back so that it includes "settlement" - if consensus can't be found for this, even "residential area" would be more neutral than "neighborhood," and we'd have stronger support from the sources cited. Sindinero (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You can put a tag next to "neighbourhood", and I think a source will show up where it's called that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:55, 19 January 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):

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)
Categories: