Talk:Gilo

Housekeeping

I have removed all the disputed material from this page. All the issues are clearly stated. I have pared down the references to more normal size. I have done away with material that is not relevant to Gilo. I have cut the sensationalism. It's time to go do something else folks. There are many other articles that need improvement. Yalla bye. I think I'll go have a felafel. Best, --Gilabrand (talk) 10:03, 25 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)

Except the article does mention that certain others do not recognize it. Your point is moot. Breein1007 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein, your outraged reaction in the section directly above this, to the comments of an editor who was suggesting the existence of bias ("You have absolutely no right to be posting on an article talk page about what you portray other editor's motives to be...Your comment was out of line. You should review the policies about talk pages. It is not within your rights as an editor on Wikipedia to discuss other editors' motives on article talk pages."), strikes me as inconsistent with your non-reaction, in this section, to the comments of an editor who was suggesting the existence of bias; and suggests you, consciously or not, might be applying a selection bias here. I hope editors in this topic area can edit dispassionately.

Further, still awaiting a response from Shuki. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Roma and Colour, your claims are absurd and in itself offensive to me. I am definitely not playing the antisemitic card here at all and nonetheless, I stand behind my comments of discrimination and double standards with the continued attempt to confuse the reader with mixing municipal and political issues and removing 'emotive' words (the use of that word by you says it all. I suggest you remove that because it reveals your wish to make sure that this neighbourhood is not viewed as a normal place where people live, work and children play). This article is about a municipal entity. It is for all intents and purposes in 2010 a neighbourhood of Jerusalem which cleans the streets, fixes broken water pipes, regulates public transportation, produces cultural events, and common education system it shares as well. I am not denying the political ramifications of its existence, that can and should be developed in the article. Nableezy, that's exactly the predictable comment I expected. Tiamut, I suggest that the pro-'settlement' people do not make any non-consensus changes on this or any article in the I-P area. --Shuki (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pro-'settlement' guys, is Umm Tuba an Arab settlement or Arab neighbourhood of Jerusalem? Let's be consistent. --Shuki (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen Shuki: This is a Wikipedia Talk page discussion on the appropriate first-reference descriptor for a place called Gilo. It's just that. To that end, editors are looking through reliable sources relating to Gilo, status of Jerusalem, Israeli government policy, regional history, the UN and international law, among others. If an editor goes off and rants about "Jews" and their "evil", I regard that editor as a cad. So why do you think you have the right to bandy such language? Are you being ironic? Is your point that it not you who feels Jews are evil, but a "crew" of other editors who do? Wouldn't that suggest those other editors are anti-Semites? Why is this where you are taking the discussion? Is it constructive?

We are instructed to work dispassionately per sanctions that have been placed on this topic area[1]. "An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions." You had a chance, your stubborn refusal to strike your accusations or apologize to editors you have offended is low and deplorable. You are way out of line with this. I hope you will reconsider your conduct here. RomaC (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I realize that you like to pretend that this is analogous to all those other articles throughout Wikipedia. It is not. Gilo is built on occupied territory, this is recognized by nearly the entire world and countless sources of the highest quality say exactly that. Arab localities built in Palestinian territory are not called "Arab settlements" in the sources, Israeli localities are. And can you finally stop playing dumb and acknowledge the simple point that Israeli settlement has a specific meaning? Regarding your delusional complaints about discrimination and prejudice, well you'll just "report" me if I give it the proper response. nableezy - 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, that to some extent I share Shuki's concerns that the article isn't really addressing the 'where people live, work and children play' aspect. For example it doesn't address the issue of people's buildings being demolished to make way for the construction. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hidden intermediate sources

As specified in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, it is not permitted to copy citations from other places without also citing the place where the citation was found (and it better be a Reliable Source). A case in point: "Associated Press, as reported in Yoram Ettinger, 'The Islamization of Bethlehem by Arafat,' Jerusalem Cloakroom #117, Ariel Center for Policy Research, December 25, 2001." Exactly that citation, letter for letter, appears in many web sites, most of them not citable by WP:RS standards. Turning to the original of Ettinger's article, we find that Ettinger does not cite Associated Press with regard to this claim, nor does he mention "Tanzim gunmen" in relation to Gilo. So the citation is wrong and someone (can't be bothered finding out who) has just copied the false citation from somewhere without checking it. Please desist from this practice. The source of the first claim is Ettinger and we have no source for the second. So the only thing left is Ettinger's claim about a motivation that he has no clear way of knowing. It's gone. Zero^talk 06:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotation of "Andreas Reinecke" is also going to go unless someone comes up with a proper citation for it. "From IDF Spokesperson, May 12, 2002" is not a citation. Zero^talk 06:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the original is available and it does not mention AP at all we should not be saying that the source is citing AP. I do not know why Gila keeps putting this back in, but if she might be so kind as to bless us with her presence and explain why this ref or text is appropriate it would be greatly appreciated. nableezy - 19:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Beit Jala-Gilo conflict

I've retitled the section formerly title "Shooting from Beit Jala" to a more NPOV title. I've also significantly changed its content. I've removed information sourced to David Raab at the Jewish Virtual Library. The reason for this is that the article doesn't mention Gilo once, which is after all the subject of this article. I've also removed information sourced to Time Magazine about the tactics of Tanzim militants in other parts of the West Bank. Please remember the subject of this article is Gilo, and not Tanzim militia tactics. I've added information about civilian casualties in Beit Jala that followed Israeli helicopter gunship fire shot in response to shooting on Gilo from Beit Jala. Please, for people reflexively reverting to restore material, I'd like you to consider the relevance of the material to the subject at hand. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a conflict between Gilo and Beit Jala. Unless you concider 9/11 a conflict between the hijackers and the WTC. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. This talk page isn't the place for you to express your (highly offensive) personal views. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a place for you to express your personal offensive views, of course. It's that simple, a man walk in the street and he's suddently being shot at. Is this a conflict? There's nothing more NPOV than calling it an attack. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

'disputed housing development'

The change from 'disputed neighborhood', the Israeli POV to 'disputed housing development', a neutral term agreed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem keeps being reverted despite my edit summary saying 'please go to talk if you want to discuss it'. What's the problem with this terminology ? It's the closest thing to a project wide consensus that we have. The centralised discussion can be reactivated at anytime. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the word 'disputed' included in the compromise at the centralized discussion. Can you help me find it please? Breein1007 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point. In the meantime 'disputed housing development' seems neutral or drop the disputed and just say what it is using the centrally agreed neutral term or something similar. I don't really care or think it matters much. The only thing that matters to me is policy compliance and ending the pointless wars over words. Well, that and fixing the ref format chaos in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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)