Talk:Gilo

Gilo a settlement according to US?

According to the latest news I have seen, the United States considers Gilo to be a settlement and not a neighborhood as the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is contrary to past policies though, so maybe we can work that into the article somehow to state that the Obama administration is deviating from the status quo. Also, it is an ongoing issue right now, and very recent news, so I would suggest that we hold off for some time just because things might be changing so quickly. Breein1007 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Reagan administration is the only US admin. which didn't consider the East Jerusalem suburbs to be illegal settlements. I've above outlined four lines of argument to include language to the effect of

"the United States calls Gilo a settlement, but does not always characterize it as illegal".

Comments? --Dailycare (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Reagan administration was certainly not the first, and that wording assumes it was the last, or at least that the Obama administration will be the last. What the US thought 50 years ago or 5 months ago is really irrelevent to the opening paragraph as i see it. Of course that context should be included in the history, but the opening paragraph should reflect the current viewpoint of the situation. According to a long newscast i saw on SBS (Australia) the other day, neither the US, the EU or the international community see any parts of East Jerusalem as a part of Israel.. I have searched hard for this article online and cannot find it.. surey there are other news outlets that reflect this majority POV? I will contact the news outlet if I have to.. but surely in the 21st century it is easier than that.. It mentioned gilo directly in relation to the 900 or so new apartments/establishments/houses approved by the Israeli governent.. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey check this out, Fox of all things: "Obama Calls Israeli Settlement Building in East Jerusalem 'Dangerous'" and it's about Gilo. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-warns-double-dip-recession/ Remove the claim that "United States disputes this"? Or ar least, say the Obama administration considers Gilo a settlement in East-Jer. --Dailycare (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to draw from the statement "We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem" that the U.S. position is that Gilo is "in" Jerusalem. This kind of "how many angels can dance of the head a pin" BS may be fair play in the wild world of Israel-Palestine politics, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. The idea here is to explain, not mislead. Newt ^(winkle) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to iron out a good way to convey the US view in the article, or alternatively decide it's not clear enough to warrant inclusion. Agreeing on the talk page is more collaborative than frequent edits in the article, in my opinion. In terms of sources, we appear to have:

US 'dismay' at Israel over Gilo plan (The Guardian, Nov. 18, 2009) "Obama did not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-warns-double-dip-recession/ "Obama Calls Israeli Settlement Building in East Jerusalem 'Dangerous'" This source is IMO OR-characterized as saying that Obama "refrained" from calling Gilo a settlement.
We are dismayed at(...) the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem

In addition to this, there are many sources cited that appear redundant, and things like the Jerusalem Embassy Act are also mentioned which appear not pertinent to Gilo. --Dailycare (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

One idea that came to mind, is to mention in the lead simply that Gilo is an illegal settlement "according to much of the world" after source 5, and discuss "who said what" in the aptly named "Nomenclature" section. In the Nomenclature section, we might then mention the UN, EU, Israeli and US views, the latter one being perhaps simply that Gilo is referred to by American officials as either a "settlement" or "obstacle to peace" or similar. How does this sound? --Dailycare (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is no opposition, I'll edit the article along the lines described in a few days. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't even need to remind you that there is much opposition to the rehashed attempts and the discussion you are having with yourself here, that has already been discussed elsewhere as well. That's why we are all tired of another singlehanded attempt to overthrown consensus and the apparent failure to pull in other editors to discuss. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also much opposition to the claims that a consensus has been reached, or that a NPOV is used in the current wording of this article or ones like it. Given the US has a new administration, it is not unreasonable to investigate the assumption (proven at least to have some merit) that the Obama administration has a changed stance on this issue in comparison to previous administrations. Further, I am not sure what the inclusion of 'lower middle class' in the opening line has to do with anything, except perhaps that it seems to hold a connotation similar to that of 'neighborhood'? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, how do you propose the US view be represented, and based on which sources? --Dailycare (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

land expropriation

What is the source for "Some of the land was owned by Jewish institutions prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War"? Without a good source, I am going to delete it. Zero^talk 01:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to investigate if there is any merit to it? I would not be surprised, but do feel the term 'some' is a bit of a weak word, and if we can find the figure should include that. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Location of Gilo

According to this map [1], Gilo lies east of the Green Line, within the expanded Jersualem municipal boundaries. According to this source [2], it is located in Area C, while Beit Jala (directly adjacent, less than half a kilometre away) is located in Area A. Gilo is also described as being located between East Jerusalem and the Bethlehem area [3], along with the settlements of Har Homa and Giv'at Hamatos.

This article does not mention these facts or glosses over them in a way that confuses the reader as to where the actual location of Gilo is. I also notice that the article does mention when Gilo was established (i.e. 1970-1980) [4]. Perhaps this information could be added to the article? Tiamut^talk 18:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In a related note, we cannot say it is "in Israel" as it is outside of the Green Line and within territory internationally recognized as Palestinian territory. Gilo is "in Israel" according to only Israel. It is not acceptable to use that fringe view and represent it as a fact. nableezy - 18:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While we can say that Gilo is located within the expanded municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, we must note that those boundaries were unilaterally expanded by Israel into the West Bank beyond the Green Line in an area that is viewed as Occupied Palestinian Territory by most of the world. I would suggest that those editors (such as Gilabrand) who are trying to pass off the Isareli viewpoint as the only one, cease, and instead respect NPOV which requires that we note all significant viewpoints without giving undue weight to minority positions (i.e. in this case, Israel's). Tiamut^talk 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

exercises in futility

Breein1007, please, if you want to sort out the never ending Sisyphus-like terminology issue wouldn't it be better to re-activate the centralised discussion ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are the one trying to edit war the change into the article. The wording has been consistent for a long time. If you want to bring up the issue again, you can call for consensus here. The current sources do NOT support your edit. I will revert again and request that you stop edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...okay, have it your way. You have a point about the current wording in this article. I don't regard it as a point that will help to resolve this issue in all of the relevant articles and I'm not interested in edit wars or sourcing/discussing issues like this at the individual article level because it won't resolve the issues. So, I will say again, if you really want to resolve this issue once and for all, here and in all relevant articles wouldn't it be better to re-activate the centralised discussion to produce a project wide standard ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your Gilo specific CNN source for 'disputed neighborhood' has a giant picture with the caption 'Settlement construction remains an extremely divisive issue in Israel.' plus a sentence that says 'Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to order a total freeze on all new Jewish settlement construction on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, as the Obama administration originally demanded.' Can you explain how and why the term 'disputed neighborhood' was sampled from this source rather than the term 'settlement' ? It resembles a sampling error caused by selection bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, did you read the first sentence of the article by any chance? "Israel approved a construction plan Tuesday for hundreds of houses in a disputed neighborhood on Jerusalem's southern outskirts..." A) I don't appreciate you making comments about my so-called selection bias. B) I'm not the one who put that source there. Comment on the article please. But while we're on the commenting on selection bias train, as for the "giant picture", it sounds like you knew what you were looking for before you even loaded the source. And for the record, there is nothing linking Gilo to settlement in the source. It discusses settlement construction, but specifically does not reference Gilo in that context. I wonder why! Breein1007 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read it. That's why I said the term 'disputed neighborhood' was sampled from this source. And yes of course I knew what I was looking for. I was looking for the terms 'disputed neighborhood' and 'settlement' in an article about Gilo that was being used to support the term 'disputed neighborhood'. It's just data to me. If I think an editor is showing evidence of selection bias in the way they are sampling information I will say so. Nothing wrong with that. Rather than take it personally why not treat it like a helpful suggestion to examine the way you deal with information that you very clearly have demonstrated over and over again that you have an opinion about. And 'there is nothing linking Gilo to settlement in the source'. I'm assuming that you can't be serious. It's an article about Gilo, an Israeli Settlement according to just about everyone. It's unreasonable to think that the word settlement appears in the article because they are talking about things that have nothing to do with Gilo, the subject of the article. You may not be the one who brought the source but you are the one defending the wording in the lead efen though it's based on non-neutral sampling of this source. There's nothing wrong with this wiki article and others opening with 'is an Israeli settlement...'. It's more policy compliant and it shouldn't be such a big deal. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Gilo is not a settlement "according to just about everyone". If you did your research, you would see that the careful wording used in this article is typical of many media outlets for exactly that reason. Gilo's status as a neighborhood in Jerusalem is disputed, and it is not as clear as day as you wish it were. Breein1007 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any of the lead's linked sources supporting "the United States regard it as a neighborhood within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem". Can someone explain please? RomaC (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, I suggest that you simply look at the data, the 'careful wording' from the many media outlets that discuss Gilo which are used in this very article and consider whether or not your opinion about how the media handle this issue is consistent with the data.

• BBC The US and UN have criticised Israel's approval of 900 extra homes at a Jewish settlement to the south of Jerusalem.
• BBC US President Barack Obama has said Israel's approval of 900 extra housing units at a settlement in East Jerusalem could lead to a "dangerous" situation.
• NYT Plan to Expand Jerusalem Settlement Angers U.S.
• Reuters The White House said on Tuesday that it was "dismayed" over Israeli approval to expand the Gilo settlement in Jerusalem and sharply criticized the ongoing evictions and demolition of Palestinian homes.
• The Times US fury as Israel approves 900 new housing units in Gilo settlement

Sean.hoyland - talk 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I suggest you take a look at the section that discusses how various media outlets refer to Gilo later in the article. None of those articles cite the US as calling Gilo a settlement. It is the newspapers themselves that made that classification. Breein1007 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you would you suggest that when I was specifically addressing your "If you did your research, you would see that the careful wording used in this article is typical of many media outlets for exactly that reason." which appears to be inconsistent with the data. I've seen that section and it's WP:V non-compliance for the 'and the United States' statement. Yes, it's the reliable media sources used in this article that classify it as a settlement. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I'm not totally clear on what you're arguing. We have a bunch of RS that decided to call it a settlement and a bunch of RS that decided to call it a neighborhood. That doesn't bring us any further... Breein1007 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

U.S. disappointed with committee’s decision on settlement expansion of Gilo, though they also call it a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem (also once in that page "a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem]. nableezy - 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nableezy. That's an interesting one... first one I've seen that shows any official reference as a settlement. What's interesting is that it's only in the heading, and not in the "official statement" that follows (the actual paragraph). Not sure what to make out of that. I know that we currently have that statement sourced in the article from a different US gov website, and it didn't have the word settlement in the title. Breein1007 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that it is hard, and arguably OR, to make a statement on what the US calls Gilo without a secondary source saying that the US calls Gilo X, or at least without a primary source that says something like "the position of the United States is that Gilo is X". To cobble together various statements from government officials calling it one thing or another and use that to say that the policy of the state is X not the way to go. nableezy - 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Without a source that states "the United States regard(s) it as a neighborhood within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem", we can't have that right up in the first graph. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New Tactics

Since some people have recently realized that the Israeli POV cannot be simply stated as the only one, I have noticed different types of attempts that to be honest, bother me. Attempts to add information on 'created facts' to this page, that are really of questionable relevance, have not been matched by attempts to highlight the other positions on each of these 'facts'. For instance, there are several 'adventure playgrounds' for children in the various areas I have lived in my life -- but none of them are mentioned, because they are not really relevant. Here especially, it seems like such attempts are motivated either primarily, or at least in part, by attempts to inoculate legitimacy, peacefulness and friendliness and immunize previous information. I will attempt to take a look at this, but if anyone else would be willing to take a look at it too, from either 'side' so to speak, I would be greatly appreciative. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to be posting on an article talk page about what you portray other editor's motives to be. If you have a problem with the content, spit it out and it can be discussed. Putting words in other people's mouths and accusing them of "attempts to inoculate legitimacy, peacefulness and friendliness" is completely out of line. It also shows your ignorance in the matter. Have you been to Gilo? Have you ever met the warmongering horned devils who live there? It's clear from your twisted POV that you haven't. On that note, if you can find RS that "attempts to inoculate" illegitimacy, warmongering, and unfriendliness about this neighborhood, go ahead and insert it into the article. Breein1007 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did explain one example of content I have a problem with, and was simply questioning if it is of noteriety, or if similar pages also include information of questionable relevance. I am wondering if you might be able to tell me what 'warmongering horned devils' that live in Gilo you are referring to? Is this your POV or are you trying to put words in my mouth? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's just the sarcasm I used to show how ridiculously inappropriate your comments were. Breein1007

Questioning if something is of relevance to the page or not is of course ridiculously innappropriate. How silly of me. How dare I try and take the dialogue in diferent directions. Still, I would request that you stop misrepresenting me. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 05:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Disputed residential development' Vs 'disputed neighborhood'

Personally, I think leading with 'disputed neighborhood' is less preferable to 'disputed residential development' as neighborhood is an emotive term; it is also one of the positions (though disputed) so using a neutral term in the opening, followed by a proper explanation of each of the positions would be more accurate and NPOV, don't you agree? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, articles about Israeli settlements could simply start with 'is an Israeli settlement'. On the other hand this centralized discussion went for "Housing developments" which is completely neutral in my view. The discussion really ought to be reactivated to try resolve this issue once and for all for all of the relevant articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

An obvious point is also, are they really "disputed", since this looks like the Jerusalem issue with the whole world in one corner and Israel in the other. --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue is clear to me as the light of day on summer solstice at the Arctic circle. This is a continued POV effort to make sure that anything related to Israeli/Jewish 'settlements' is dehumanized and referred to in cold 'non-emotive'(?!) terms. (Good one Colour!) To them, Gilo is not a simple neighborhood (sounds too natural, normal and human), and instead it is a colonial residential settler housing development which they will claim is a neutral compromise. Neutral to what exactly? To them, Jewish people, men, women, or children living on a hill in the 'West Bank' are not a community, neighborhood, village, town, or city - they are plainly illegal settlers living in an illegal settlement. This is clearly POV because there is no other area in WP which is treated as such. Even proven squatters around the world are given more respect than this crew would allow Jews if they had their choice. These evil [Jewish] 'settlers' are singled out and this anti-settlement crew have no parallel policy or instances to point to on WP except for their success using only media and academia references to back up their POV (who can deny ghits and RS?) Dailycare can't even hide his POV in his editing in that Israel's position (and anyone supporting similar positions) should not even be noted since 'no one' else disputes this except Israel itself, and who cares what they think, right? WP:UNDUEWEIGHT would back up that Dailycare claim. Yalla, I can't wait for Nableezy to chime in on this choir as well. --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Shuki this discussion is about an Israeli settlement. You wrote "Even proven squatters around the world are given more respect than this crew would allow Jews". Playing the anti-Semitism card is inappropriate and deeply offensive. Request you strike your comments and focus on content not contributors. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Par for the course for some editors. Oddly it is those same editors that cry about incivility. nableezy - 04:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, this should be about dealing with information in reliable sources and maximizing policy compliance. That's all. It's the same process whether we are dealing with words that represent sets of buildings, people, trees, fish or anything else. It is possible for editors to make decisions by simply applying the policies to the data without using their emotions and personal views. For example, I happen to have absolutely no respect whatsoever for any religions and regard notions such as nationalism and ethnicity as dimwitted, dangerous, backward and bordering on dilusional. Perhaps this is an extremist minority view. I don't know or care because the simple, mandatory policies make it easy to remove irrelevant, unreliable, biased personal views like mine from the editing process. Editors who aren't willing or able to simply focus of the data and policy compliance shouldn't be editing. The sanctions are crystal clear on this point. You can't just keep ignoring them. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I too would like to request you strikeout your comments. As a Jew, I found you implying I am anti-semetic to be deeply offensive. Further, my edits are in no way intending to de-humanize the populations but rather simply bring these articles in line with wikipedia NPOV policy. I think Israel's position is of course of a huge significance to all of these articles, but it is certainly not more significant than the position of the international community, the UN, European Union etc. Do you think that if every other country in the world disagreed with Caliornia when they said Beverly Hills was a part of Los Angeles, that the page on Beverly Hills would simply lead with "a neighborhood of Los Angeles" without mentioning noone else reocognises this fact? I am unsure what your exact position on this is Shuki, and how you would like this and other articles like it to look? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)