Talk:Gilo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Settlements, sources

JimmyJ, I tried to work your additions into the article. In terms of Gilo's political status, It is NPOV to note both the official Israeli position and defacto annexation that it is part of the Jerusalem Municipality, while noting the widespread position that everything Israel built in the West Bank is a settlement. Anything beyond that can be discussed on the Israeli settlement article. Unless the Gilo land consfiscation is qualitatively different than the confiscations associated with all the other West Bank issues, it should also be discussed elsewhere. Another thing that I'd like to point out is that pairing Palestinian POV sources with irrelevant[1][2] Israeli POV sources doesn't create parity. I appreciate the obvious effort that you invested in this article, and I'd be glad to discuss any further issues. (Seeing as you haven't been formally welcomed, I left a greeting on your talk page).Tewfik^Talk 07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik,

When you have universal consensus but with one dissenting opinion (Israel) it doesn't seem particularly controversial to label Gilo a "settlement". In this context it seems more appropriate to state the consensus and then mention in a side note that Israel considers Gilo a neighborhood of Jerusalem. Giving equal weight to arguments in this case seems problematic. It would be like having an article about primates and giving equal footing to Bigfoot when no one in the scientific community thinks bigfoot exists. I agree wholeheartedly that Israel's position should be noted clearly but I disagree that it should be given equal prominence.

In using two sources next to each other I wasn't trying for parity. Wiki's guidlines call for verifiability which I believe I provided. When two sources were used it means that two different facts were in the sentence that required two different sources. That one would be considered Palestinian and the other Israeli would be coincidence. In the example you provided above, both are Israeli. One is Municipality of Jerusalem in collaboration with the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies and the second is the Jewish Agency. All writing has a point of view, including the example above about bigfoot. Verifiability is what puts limits on hyperbole. jimmy

Hi Jimmy,

In terms of the settlement issue, I think its fair to follow the language used in articles like Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Ze'ev, which recognize the defacto status, while acknowledging the international attitudes (i.e., "Since the neighborhood is located in territory captured by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967, it is widely considered an Israeli settlement." In terms of the sourcing, I apologise if I misunderstood your intent, however I'm not sure what statements you were backing up with the two links above, especially as the second one doesn't point to a specific article or statement. All the best, Tewfik^Talk 16:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to be both a settlement and a neighbourhood? Are the two always mutualy exclusive? --74.12.96.125 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move

The title of this page is highly POV. I would suggest that we could get around this by moving this to Gilo and moving the current Gilo disambiguation page to Gilo (disambiguation). This seems to be the only one of the three that is actually known as 'Gilo', which would be reason enough for the move; furthermore, from a cursory look it appears that all the incoming links to the disambiguation page are meant for this page. Palmiro | Talk 17:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we hold on this until the settlement/neighbourhood discussion on Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev is resolved. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks highly unlikely, to put it mildly, that agreement will be reached on Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev. As for this article, even if "neighborhood" wasn't a highly politicised term for places like Gilo, there really doesn't seem to be any need for a disambiguation element in the title. That is, even if you don't find the term "neighborhood" redolent of POV, there is still every reason to move this article to Gilo, for the reasons I pointe dout above.

By the way, I'm afraid I won't be around from now on, at least for some time. Palmiro | Talk 07:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken - I'll move forward with the move. I hope you enjoy your break, but I'd like you to know that whatever divergent opinions we may share, your work is much appreciated. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 14:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the previous version for purposes of moving the page. If/when a consensus emerges on Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev, we can find another formulation. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Neighbourhood?

I dont know why it is refered to as a Neighbourhood, it is most certainly not one. It is a Settlement or Colony, illegal under International Law and the forth geneva convention. There is alot of evidence that the media has tried to 'rename' it a Neighbourhood. Why are such facts constantly removed? Even completely from the basis of discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.144.30 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

That point of view is included, but it is hardly definitive. Tewfik^Talk 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that the CNN memorandum cannot be directly mentioned? To my understanding it deals with Gilo specifically and is thus an important part of the history of the community. So although I have yet to see the full order, I assume it would be of pertinence to the article. — Hestemand 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While the CNN passage isn't what I object to most, I'm not sure that such a large part of the entry should be dedicated to a rather minor historical footnote. Perhaps we should just include a line noting that there was some controversy, while putting the passage into East Jerusalem. Tewfik^Talk 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cut the original CNN paragraph to two sentences, which isn't overtly dominating in my opinion. Cheers, Hestemand 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tewfilk, you have said that the conclusion of Gilo being a 'settlmenent' is hardly definitive. It absolutely is definitive. Israel is the only country in the world that refers to Gilo as a "Neighbourhood", it is not JUST to Palestinians that it is "settlement" but the international community as a whole considers it as such. It should be referred to as a "Settlement" while noting Israel's position on this.

Merge: The shooting on Gilo

The article The shooting on Gilo is really small and unlikely to get larger or more informative. I am suggesting that we merge it into this article, Gilo, Operation Defensive Shield and al-Aqsa Intifada were more readers will encounter the information. It seems like a straight forward merge to me. --Abnn 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should certainly be merged. Of course, different levels of detail should be included in those articles. nadav (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I did the merge into this article. I'll let others determine to what extent it should be merged into the others. nadav (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted quote

If anyone misses the quote from the previous page, I'm copying it here: "Andreas Reinecke, head of the German Liaison office to the PA, protested:

I would like to draw your attention in this letter to a number of incidents which occurred at "Talitakoumi" school in Beit Jala...which is funded mainly by the Protestant Church in Berlin. Over the last few days the school staff noticed attempts on the part of several armed Palestinians to use the school premises and some of its gardens for their activities. If they succeed in doing this, an Israeli reaction will be inevitable. This will have a negative impact on the continuation of the functioning of the school, in which no less than 1,000 [Christian] Palestinians study....You cannot imagine the kind of upheaval which will be provoked among the supporters of this school [in Germany] should they discover that the school premises are used as a battle ground.

"

I don't think this should be included though. nadav (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Settlement and neighborhood

The article already makes clear that Gilo was established on annexed land and that many consider it an Israeli settlement. Saying "Gilo is a neighborhood and settlement" in the lead without explanation is confusing, since "settlement" without any context usually refers to villages, towns, etc, not areas that are integrated into municipalities. If you have suggestions about actual content you want to add instead of just playing around with labels, then feel free to say so. nadav (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how the article lead avoided mentioning the settlement lies in East Jerusalem, as well as avoiding mentioning that it is a Jewish settlement. Seems like pro-Israeli POV pushing to me. I've neutralized the opening. The point you make about its history being made clear in the article leads me to wonder why POV pushers are bothered by neutral edits to the lead. Can anyone explain? , 129.215.149.96 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilo is not in East Jerusalem by any definition. --Redaktor 08:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Er .... lol. Why don't you remove Gilo from the list of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem on the .... wait for it ... wikipedia East Jerusalem article. 129.215.149.99 08:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And even if you don't want to go get rid of that, you should email all those BBC journalists who are clearly misinformed in thinking Gilo is in East Jerusalem. ;) 129.215.149.99 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In the context of that article, "East Jerusalem" merely means the parts of modern Jerusalem that are also in the West Bank. This is already made clear in the article. I'll add East Jerusalem to the see also section. nadav (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, there was me thinking that's what East Jerusalem (rather than eastern Jerusalem) meant. 129.215.149.99 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it could also mean just the Arab parts of that territory or the former Jordanian city. nadav (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the anon wants. The article freely admits the place was built on annexed land. What more is there to say? We're not gonna copy the full text of Positions on Jerusalem here. nadav (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely Nadav. There was a far more sophisticated and thoughtful discussion last year that brought us to this modus vivendi in any event. Tewfik^Talk 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I blind or something?!? Where is did fascinating discussion take place? If it wasn't only in your head, please direct me. 129.215.149.99 09:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's further up on this talk page. Anyways, why did you revert my last version? I added mention of East Jerusalem and kept the sources that refer the place as a settlement. Keep in mind that this is a controversial topic that cannot be glossed over with labels on one article. The topic is covered in depth in East Jerusalem, Positions on Jerusalem and other places. Hence I don't see what's wrong with referring the reader to those articles, since we can't repeat the same stuff in every article. nadav (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It really seems to me like there are people on Wikipedia pushing their own personal or political opinions. Gilo is quite simply an Israeli Settlement, it is considered such by the UN and various other international legal institutions. I think it is quite interesting that references to it as a "settlement" are constantly removed from the opening paragraph, instead replaced with the term 'neighborhood,' one that implies a peaceful and legitimate place of residence.

It seems to me that there are some people, who do not sign up to Wikipedia, and cannot be bothered with such WP niceties as signing their posts, who come here solely to push a POV. Gilo is incontrovertibly a neighbourhood of Jerusalem, unfortunately not always peaceful, as the peaceful neighbours to the south use them for shooting practice. It is considered by some to be a settlement (although every inhabited area is a settlement), and this fact is stated clearly in the second paragraph. But maybe unregistered POV pushers are unwilling to read that far. --Redaktor 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do have an account but i forgot to login before i added to the discussion. Further I noticed your ability to use big words like 'incontrovertibly,' but the use of these words does not make them true. Personally, I do not deny that Gilo is a neighborhood of Jerusalem, and that many people also view it as such, what I have a problem with is the language, its placement and the polarization of this issue. While I do not deny that Gilo is a neighborhood, it is also a settlement and was such long before it ever became a neighborhood and will remain as one until such time as the annexation of the land becomes recognized and legal under international law. Though of course I believe most 'unregistered POV' and I can read beyond the first paragraph, its placement there implies that this is a minor, uncommon or lesser held viewpoint when this is simply not the case. Further its separation suggests that these are two divergently opposing and incompatible viewpoints. Colourinthemeaning 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Colour and thank you for the message. As has been somewhat discussed above, the most neutral formulation is to present the reality. In this case, we note that Gilo, like several other relatively new Israeli-constructed areas in the parts of Jerusalem annexed since 1967, is often referred to as an Israeli settlement. However that does not negate that it is a neighbourhood in the city, and that it is administered as part of the city, and not as an Israeli settlement. I'm not sure what you mean about Gilo having been a settlement "long before it ever became a neighborhood", as it was constructed after the 1967 annexation as a neighbourhood and was never an independent entity within the West Bank. I'm also confused by your comments that "just certain religious or ethnic groups" can live in Gilo, as I'm unaware of anyone who alleges that to be the case, much less any RS. Regarding the "international law" bit, none of the references supported the assertion as far as I could tell, nor am I aware of anything exceptional about this case more than any of the other similar areas constructed since 1967. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Like Redactor, Nadav and Tefwik said, Gilo is in reality a neighborhood of Jerusalem, even if it is called a settlement by others. This article shouldn't confuse a description of the reality with the problems that the international community has with that reality. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertert (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both settlement and neighbourhood should be in the opening lines. Gilo is one of the most famous Israeli settlements, and is widely labelled as such in the media. The whole CNN memorandum thing is well known too, so by omitting "Settlement" from the lead it looks like we're following that and thus makes the article look POV. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, i couldn't agree more! Unfortunately, my attempts in the past to have both labels mentioned in the opening sentence have all been swiftly edited out. I am so glad to hear a voice of reason here on Wikipedia. Robertert, I'm sure its a nice friendly place to live for those that live there, and i assume this is what you are trying to imply with the term, but in reality for those that don't live there - it is a settlement. Tewfik, it was a settlement before it became a neighborhood for the exact reason you highlighted for me, it was constructed AFTER 1967 and also EAST of the Armistice Line and thus outside the declared and sovereign State of Israel. This is the reality. Further, each of the sources I have cited clearly highlight the points made in the article about Gilo under International Law - the annexation of East Jerusalem, though recognized in fact, is not recognized in law by the UN, the European Union or any other nation in the world, at least that I am aware of. This thus denies Israel sovereignty over these territories, as the most fundamental aspect of sovereignty is being recognized as sovereign by other sovereigns. I'm not quite sure of your logic in stating it can't be a settlement because it was never 'an independent entity within the West Bank' as the term settlement does not mean it is independent or that it is geographically isolated. While this can often be true of settlements, these are not the defining factors, but rather the social, political and legal aspects are. My comments regarding who is allowed to live in Gilo refer to the interview process many settlers have to undergo, which inevitably filter out any unwanted residents. Can you tell me this, out of the thousands of people that live in Gilo, how many are Palestinians? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that many people call it a settlement, and the article devotes a lot of space to that, but it doesn't make it so. The Israelis built and run the area as part of the city of Jerusalem, while places like Maale Adumim were built and are run by the Israelis as settlements. Either way, Maale Adumim is politically labeled a settlement, but is still a city, and even if Gilo were politically classified as a settlement, that kind of statement wouldn't change the reality that it is a neighborhood in Jerusalem. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.125.218 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert, if everyone says that color is red, is it red, or is it blue? It can certainly be both a settlement and a neighborhood of Jerusalem, as I accept it is a neighborhood for those that live there - but it is also a settlement, and I wonder what you think makes it different from any other residential area managed by Israel that is east of the Armistice line? As i have pointed out though, neighborhood has certain connotations, so don't you think Suburb would be a better term? Colourinthemeaning (talk)

Colour, what makes it different from other areas in the West Bank is that Israel applied its laws to that area in 1967 (East Jerusalem) and formally annexed it in 1980. The international criticism is precisely because Israel made this area the same as the rest of its territory. More than that, since its construction it has been run exactly the same as any other residential area in the rest of Jerusalem, or the rest of Israel for that matter, while Israeli settlements are subject to Israeli military rule, even if some civilian laws are adopted by them. Also, you mentioned something about Palestinians not being allowed to live there, but I've never heard anything like that. I actually read reports a few years ago about how one of the people injured by the shooting was a Palestinian, and more recently about how Palestinians are moving into many of the newer developments built east of the 1949 armistice line. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.125.218 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong. Israel did not formally annex it in 1980, this was instantly rejected by the International Community, which gives Israel no sovereignty over the territory. You might have seen this if you didn't simply edit out my attempts to highlight all the relative viewpoints along with the sources i provided for them. You also removed a citation from the top paragraph and replaced it with an old one that was previously removed and updated because it is broken. Removing so many sources and the more in depth explanation as to why to it as a settlement is hardly taking a NPOV stance on such a contentious topic - Couldn't you find room to explain the stance of the rest of the world or were you just too emboldened to care? It is really important to highlight ALL the different views here and not just the view of the Israeli Government. If you take a look at the page on Israeli Settlements it states that they are 'communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that were occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War.' Regardless of whether it is a neighborhood of Jerusalem or not, do you deny it is an Israeli Settlement by this definition? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If Israel didn't formally annex it in 1980 then what was the international community rejecting? There is a difference between what the reality created by Israel's actions and the reality that some want to change it to, which is why they have criticised the Israelis, and we shouldn't be confusing the two, or removing mention of the one in favor of the other, especially when the current text already explains both.

I don't know what organization published the definition of an Israeli settlement as being somewhere in the West Bank that Israeli Jews live, but I don't think that a) any organization would say there is anywhere that is illegal for someone to live because of their religion and nationality or b) that predominently Arab areas like Hebron or Ramallah were some Israeli Jews reside are then called settlements. The bottom line is that beyond a political label that is tossed around, there are places which have been always administered as settlements,and places which haven't been, and which have been criticized exactly for that point. I replaced the previous links as they are not broken, while the links that you added are to a number of partisan organizations, are broken, or discuss general topics of the West Bank - not Gilo. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertert (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As i stated Israel has de facto annexed the territory, but it has not legally done so. It occupies it. I think it is worth mentioning that, and why. While no organisation would reject your rather broadsweeping statement a), the UN, Red Cross and many other organisations claim the movement of Israeli citizens into occupied territories is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Nobody refers to Hebron or Ramallah as settlements because they are not - not only did areas exist long before the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, it is the occupiers residential areas (established after the occupation began) that are settlements and not the cities and towns it occupies. You are certainly correct in that there are some places which have always been administered as Settlements - and this includes any Israeli residential development after the 1967 war on the east side of the Armistice line. Replacing broken links with older broken links? That doesn't sound like a fix to me. I don't remember citing any partisan organizations, unless wanting peace is not a bipartisan objective? The UN is hardly partisan, so i assume you were referring to FMEP or the Applied Research Institute? If that is the case I find it it incredibly ironic that you would replace them with a (broken) link to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Surely the MFA is more partisan than an independent organisation? The articles from the UN and other organisations which mentioned the legal arguments and refered to the West Bank should not have been removed simply because they did not mention Gilo by name as they have consequence on every part of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gilo. Gilo is East of the Armistice line and is a part of the 'West Bank,' so how would these UN resolutions magically not apply to Gilo, especially without so much as mentioning it? I know I ask a lot of questions, but I really cannot understand your hypocrisy. Also, can you please answer my question at the end of my last comment.. Do you deny Gilo is an Israeli Settlement by this definition? Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

blanket reverting

This article was in bad shape, and I spent a long time to improve it, by adding a better image, reorganizing, removing unsourced information and insuring neutrality. It is described as a neighborhood, while mentioning the fact that the Arabs and others feel it is a "settlement." I object to my edits being blanket reverted.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand, the article is -now- in terrible shape and you have done nothing but worsen the situation by eliminating and minimising one side of the story while highlighting just that of the Israeli Governments. You said you have mentioned the fact that arabs and others feel it is a settlement, but you have minimised this viewpoint - because it is NOT just arabs that view it as such but the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. You have removed all of the explinations as to WHY they view it as a settlement and not just a neighborhood and removed a handful of valid sources, for no reason. In fact as you have it worded while writing this it reads that only Palestinians and Media Watch groups consider it a settlement - this is incredibly misleading. I object to you reverting this page from one that was being worked and improved on, to a shadow of its former self and simply a mouthpiece for the Israeli Government while ignoring the 3 Revert Rule. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, you state that 'It was built on land annexed by the Jerusalem municipality after the Six-Day War, [2] although some of the land was purchased by Jews, both before the establishment of the State and in the 1970s and 80s.' This may be true, but you have completely removed all references and sources to the large amounts of land that were confiscated from nearby villages. Please stop telling only one side of the story, that is vandalism. By all means make constructive additions but don't just remove facts that don't fit in with the story you are wanting to tell here. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

comments from Gilabrand user discussion page

Just wondering why you reverted my edit on the page on Gilo. You removed many usefull additions including the discourse on the contetious legal issues as well as replaced new sources with old partisan sources and removed any mention of the rest of the worlds view and stance that it is an Israeli Settlement. Are we only allowed to tell one side of the story? Hardly sounds NPOV to me. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove sources, but moved them to the bottom until they can be properly incorporated. There is more to a neighborhood (any neighborhood) than politics. Undue weight was being given here to that. The article definitely needs further work, but at the moment, I think I have introduced a somewhat more balanced picture. I'm not sure you understand the complexity of the issue, from your insistence on labels. Labels are for cans.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If you didn't remove the sources, i'm not sure where they've gone. Because they are completely absent from your revisions. You really dont think it is worth mentioning at all that there is a very contentious legal debate over the areas existence? Mentioning that hardly gives it undue weight, rather only mentioning the view of the Israeli Government is giving undue weight to that viewpoint. I agree the article needs furthert work, but every attempt i have made to further neutralise the point ov view it takes has been completely removed and replaced with simply the view of the Israeli Government. I certainly understand the complexity of this issue, which is why I think it is so important to note that complexity in the article. My only instance for labels are the two that take the most NPOV stance. When you consider one is the view of the entire world and one is the view of one government, Israeli Settlement is the most NPOV label. As the term 'neighborhood' is being used in this sense not just to imply legality but also a peaceful and friendly place, Suburb is a more neutral noun, wouldn't you agree? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC) You are right that various positions should be mentioned, and I have added some info to make it clearer. But I think you are mistaken in reading all kinds of connotations into the word "neighborhood." A neighborhood is is NOT a political term. There are Arab neighborhoods and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and there is nothing political about that. I'm not sure Gilo qualifies as a suburb, since it located in the middle of Jerusalem (as opposed to Mevasseret Zion, for example, which is outside the municipal boundaries). Actually, Gilo is very peaceful and friendly. The shooting stopped long ago, and there was never any war-like atmosphere, either before that or since. All the articles cited here, including those that describe Gilo as a settlement, emphasize that there was no tension between Gilo and Beit Jalla before the Tanzim stepped in. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) You have added 'which claim it is a settlement' but have given no background as to why - and your positioning of the viewpoint there serves to minimize it as it is certainly not just Palestinians and media watch groups who claim it to be a settlement - but also the UN, European Union, and many other organisations. The term neighborhood might not inherently be a political term, but it is being used in this sence as one, to imply legality and a long history. Cant we even mention that this place happens to be located in the West Bank? That is after all, what makes it a settlement and not its location within or outside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. I have no doubt that Gilo is a very friendly and peaceful place for those that live there, but then how many palestinians (or anyone that isnt Israeli for that matter) live in Gilo? If you take a look at the page on Israeli Settlements it states that they are 'communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that were occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War'. Do you deny Gilo is an Israeli Settlement by this definition? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Also, please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gilo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

If there is edit warring, it started long before I ever touched this page - I will continue to edit it as I see fit. I am not an unidentified UFO, like most of the others who are "contributing" to this page. I have a long history of improving articles on Wikipedia, and I will continue to do so. If anyone is going to get blocked, it won't be me. So please don't threaten me. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added information to the article on the points you have raised. I have copyedited the poor prose. I have added images that illustrate the text. What is your problem??--Gilabrand (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My problems: 1. You are still minimizing the view that it is a settlement by insinuating that only Palestinians and media watch groups consider it a settlement when you state that: 'This drew criticism from Palestinians as well as media watch groups, which claim it is a settlement.' 2. You have still not included any information on the fact that the United Nations and European Union view it as a settlement or 3. WHY it is considered a settlement by them. 4. You have used the united states claim which is outdated and no longer indicative of their foreign policy. 5. As i have expressed time and time again, the term neighborhood is an emotive word, Suburb would be a better title as Gilo IS a residential development on the outskirts of Jerusalem. 6. You havent answered my question as to whether you deny Gilo is an Israeli Settlement by this definion, which i am interested in hearing the answer of because I believe it is important to mention that it is BOTH a Settlement and a Suburb (or neighborhood if you MUST) in the opening sentence as both terms certainly apply. So i am really hoping we can agree that it is both, i am happy to compramise on the term 'neighborhood' as long as it is not used exclusively and as long as its nature as a settlement as well as a neighborhood is determined in the opening sentence. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gilabrand"

I noticed you have attempted to fix much of this, but quite frankly your attempts are completely factually incorrect, or downright misleading. You now state that, 'Calling Gilo a "neighborhood," as opposed to a "settlement," has drawn criticism from Palestinians and media watch groups, who say this contravenes United Nations resolutions on land conquered in a war.[5]' Again, it is not just Palestinians and media watch groups who say it is against UN Resolutions but also the UN itself. You have edited this so many times, and i have tried to correct you now so many times I am truly unsure if you even understand the situation or if you are even capable of writing an article that is not so evidently loaded with bias. All of your edits have completely pulled the line of the Israeli Government while so cleverly minimalizing and omitting important information from the 'other sides' that it does not agree with. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblical references, sources

The page states that 'The biblical town of Gilo is mentioned in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 15:51) and the Book of Samuel (II Sam 15:12) as a town in the Judean hills.' The only sources I can find refer to it as Gilonite or Giloh. I am not quite sure what this sentence is getting at - but it seems to be alluding that the town has been there since biblical times - when that is not the case, so perhaps this can be better worded and use the correct biblical spelling so not as to confuse people? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

'Shooting Incident'/'Palestinian Violence'

Another problem I have with your edit Gilabrand is that you replaced the header 'Shooting Incident' with 'Palestinian Violence,' which is a much more loaded term and does little to further illustrate the situation. In fact, it only serves to further spread the uncorrect assumption that Palestinians are violent simply because they are Palestinians. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Gilabrand fixed this part, which Colour was right about. I could also accept a short mention (one line) of Gilo being labelled a settlement in East Jerusalem by the UN or EU if the sources say that in the controversy section, but I'm still against a fullblown repetition of the whole discussion of legality etc. Like nadav said, "The topic is covered in depth in East Jerusalem, Positions on Jerusalem and other places. Hence I don't see what's wrong with referring the reader to those articles, since we can't repeat the same stuff in every article."

I agree with Gilabrand on not inventing things like "suburb" to avoid calling it a Jerusalem neighborhood, since that is what it has always been and the *reason* for any controversy. In response to Colour, I've never seen anyone claim that only Jews are allowed to live in places like Gilo either dejure or defacto, and I heard heard of specific cases that contradict that. --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Robert, im so glad we can agree. I have inserted a properly worded explination of the UN/EU situation, and I will not try and link it to the article on 'Positions on Jerusalem' for those that wish to learn more. I hardly think calling it a suburb is 'inventing' things, especially when I see no other places called neighborhoods on wikipedia except of course, for Israeli settlements - what term is really used to invent facts here? Really, i have heard of lots of sources that claim only Israeli's are allowed to live here - to begin with, the last edit called it a 'Jewish Neighborhood. The UN has directly referred to it as a "Settlement" as has many other organisations including FMEP, the Applied Research Institute and more - that is what a settlement is - any residetial development managed by the state of Israel outside of Israel proper that intentionally or unintentionally houses (a majority) of their people. I would love to see some evidence that non-Israeli's live in Gilo, but no matter how much I have searched for it it is constantly referred to as a "Jewish Settlement" or a "Jewish neighboorhood" (by CNN i will add). Why cant there be residential developments in the West Bank for both Israeli's and Palestinians to live together? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is very disingenious of you, Mr. Color, saying, oh yes, we agree, we can compromise, and then reverting all the information and sources I brought to the article. That is not compromise in my book. I added many pieces of information that you insisted on. I found sources to improve the text. Your information is not sourced, but "tentatively sourced." Your whole attitude is confrontational and snide. You don't know that last thing about Israel, settlements, relations between Jews and Arabs, and mixed Jewish-Arab neighborhoods (of which there are several). I am sorry to have to adopt your militant style, but it's time to face reality. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What information and sources did you bring to the article? Looking at your revisions I can only find a handful of sources that you have REMOVED in favour of one older and more partisan source, and a source i requested for the biblical refferences.. I am very greatful that you have added photos, which is why i kept them and I was in the process of working through any other additions you had made and working them into the version that was last agreed upon by an admin when you again reverted the article. As i have mentioned above here, i have a number of problems with your revisions - most of which you ignored, and those you did not outright ignore you only told half the story for. If you would like to properly source my 'tentatively sourced' citations, then by all means please do, or at least point me in the direction of the help file that will explain the correct procedures for this to me. The entire article in your edits though, is hardly an improvement when you are taking properly constructed sentences, that leave no doubt in the readers mind as to what it means - for instance, when it says 'Gilo was named after a biblical Judean town whose name was preserved by the neighboring Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala.' and replace it with ambiguous half constructed sentences designed to decieve the readers such as 'The biblical town of Gilo is mentioned in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 15:51) and the Book of Samuel (II Sam 15:12) as a town in the Judean hills.' And this is mearly one example. As a Jew i take offense to you telling me i dont know anything about Israel, settlements or the relations between Jews and Arabs. I am certainly aware there are mixed Jewish-Arab areas. It was a rhetorical question though - to which you should know the answer if you have truly done your research and not just researched what you would like this article to say. I find it quite ironic that you find my style militant, yet I have been the one that has been trying to calmly and rationally compromise on this issue and discuss it until we can reach a concensus. Unfortunately, you don't seem to find it necessary to discuss it and just edit out any valueable additions made by me or others and when it is pointed out that you have removed valuable additions you hardly make a conserted effort to reinsert them. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source to back your claim. There's nothing disputable about the fact that these are neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Perhaps Israel's legitimacy to annex the area is disputed. Perhaps some view it as a settlement. Also mentioned. But it being a neighborhood is like it being a house or a street. It's not disputed, and you didn't bring any source that says it is... saying that the annexation of it to Jerusalem was condemned by the U.N or something like that is entirely differnet thing, would be your WP:OR and would still be wrong... Amoruso (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected

As this page has twice appeared on WP:AN3 inside a few days, it is protected for 4 days. Please use the protection time to establish a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Stifle. Robertert, Gilabrand - I have told you what I think needs to be included in this article to make it both truthful and NPOV. Why should all of this not be included? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't accept that everyone either has to agree with you or you keep reverting, especially after you reportedgilabrand for reversions when he didn't violate any rules and then you go ahead and revert four times in a row while telling everyone else they are hiding some truth. All of this because you think we should repeat one part of an existing article instead of a oneline summary and link. At least reply to the substance of what everyone else is saying. --RobertRobertert (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept that everyone has to agree with me - what i wanted was for the issues i had to be addressed and not completely overlooked. I have so far only seen substance in one of your concerns - which i will attempt to address in a second. I find it almost laughable though that you are accusing me of not addressing any of your arguments when you can obviously see a long list above of my concerns of which only a few were addressed, and those that were addressed were all worded in a way to minimize that viewpoint when it is in fact the viewpoint held by the International Community and by the majority of nations in the world. Now, I accept that we do not need to copy the entire article from Positions on Jerusalem but are you really telling me we cannot afford two lines to explain that this is not a one sided story? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that selecting two lines with one position and which doesn't specifically address Gilo is more neutral than the version from before you edited that said simply that because it is in East Jerusalem it is widely considered a settlement, and which links people to the large and complex discussion. That is what is to me one-sided. You also say that you realize being considered a settlement doesn't change someplace from being a neighborhood or city, and then you tell me that it being a neighborhood is the position of a government. --RobertRobertert (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh C'mon, that is the position of the Israeli Government. I was not talking about anyones personal views, or even the media's views - but just that of Governments. How else do you determine what makes a city, town, village, or neighborhood? It certainly isnt personal opinion, at least not on Wikipedia. Should you read the two lines in full - you will realise that it is not telling one position, the sentence in fact tells the position of the Israeli Government, and then the position of the international community. I am certainly happy to have it linked to (See: Positions on Jerusalem) following that sentence, in fact that is what i was about to do before Gilabrand reverted the page. From what I can tell though, you would prefer a sentence that just tells the position of the Israeli Government - PLEASE prove me wrong. What is wrong with 'Although the Israeli Government considers it a neighborhood of East Jerusalem since annexing East Jerusalem into Israel in 1980, this move was almost instantly rejected by the International Community,[10] who considers it an Israeli settlement and Illegal under International Law.' and what would you prefer instead? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What determines a neighborhood are a bunch of houses that pay taxes to and recieve services from a city, and have no local government. Maale Adumim is a city because it has a certain population and certain other qualifications, just like any other city in the world. It being a settlement doesn't change that, just like it doesn't change in the case of Gilo. --RobertRobertert (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So basically, what determines a city or a neighborhood are certain 'qualifications' laid forth by governments? You just wrecked yourself - qualifications for what makes a settlement are laid forth by governments too - and a lot more consider it a settlement. To take the view of only one government would hardly be taking a NPOV in this article, it would be nationalistic and a general disgrace to Wikpiedia. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert, am i to assume you have no problem with the wording of that sentence then mentioned in my post signed 19:30, 29 January 2008? Please if you do, tell me what you think is wrong with it and how it can be fixed. I really want to reach a consensus on this article. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the Pisgat Ze'ev page: "Just because something is supported by governments doesn't mean it's neutral and purely descriptive, and just because the word "neighborhood" is used by the Israeli government doesn't mean it isn't descriptive. Look, this is sad and bizarre and Orwellian. The word "neighborhood" is a purely descriptive term. This isn't the Israeli government; this isn't Israel; we're not Israeli (well, I'm not); we're not speaking Hebrew. This is the English Wikipedia and "neighborhood" is an English word that our English-speaking apolitical readers will understand as a bunch of houses with some stores, which is what Pisgat Ze'ev is. As for Israel and its supporters, they may be a minority, but they are a significant one, which means the term "settlement" is disputed insofar as they have been deemed to be illegal. It is a politicized term. "Neighborhood" is not. You think it is, but that's because you're editing and thinking entirely within that paradigm. I'm not. Most readers won't be either. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)" That is all I am trying to say. --RobertRobertert (talk)

Except, are you Israeli? The term neighborhood is hardly just a descriptive term when it is being used as the anti-thesis for 'settlement'. Unfortunately Pisgat Ze'ev is not simply just some houses and stores, if it was then you know there would be no problem with the term 'neighborhood' being used - you also know the term 'neighborhood' is disputed just as heavily, if not a lot more so than the term settlement. If you wanted to purely describe these places wouldn't residential community be more appropriate? Of course, that is STILL subjective - as those living across the hill will still see it as a settlement, as will the UN and European Union. To me, the only solution is to call a spade a spade, not because it isnt a shovel, but because most people call it a spade - while of course noting the viewpoint that it is a shovel. So please Robert, for now the third time, can you please tell me what is wrong with the paragraph that attempts to explain all sides of the argument? Is it just that you only want one side being told here? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Partisan sources that you supplied also call it a neighborhood.[3] The dispute is about whether it is or isn't a settlement. If its being a neighborhood were disputed, then there would be an alternate term being argued, like city or town, but no one says that. --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert, as i stated over at Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev "Actually, it calls the neighborhood a settlement, - 'The settlement bloc north of Jerusalem contains neighborhoods such as Ramot, Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Ya’akov.' Just because this one 'partisan' source doesn't deny its viewed as a neighborhood by the Israeli Government (and i haven't listed one that does) does not mean the term neighborhood is any less disputed. Why would city or town be used instead of neighborhood? You said yourself, governments determine what constitutes a neighborhood or a town or a city, and none (that im aware of) refer to it as a town or city." Please stop ignoring my legitimate questions though, I am trying to come to a resolution with you before protection expires so that we can both be happy with this page - i would like to know what you would prefer instead of the sentence and what you think is wrong with it - "Although the Israeli Government considers it a neighborhood of East Jerusalem since annexing East Jerusalem into Israel in 1980, this move was almost instantly rejected by the International Community,[10] who considers it an Israeli settlement and Illegal under International Law."??? Once we can resolve this line I hope we can move onto other areas of the article we both had problems with. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"deny its viewed as a neighborhood by the Israeli Government" - no, it calls them neighborhoods. None of the sources say that they aren't neighborhoods. Your opinion might be that their calling it a settlement means that deny it is a neighborhood (and is thus what, a city, town?), but none of the sources say that, and Peace Now clearly contradicts you. I don't know what else to tell you, but this can't just be a battle of opinions. If someone thinks that it is not a neighborhood, then show me, and we can find some way to include it. --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a settlement does not make it a town or a city, as I have stated - both terms are disputed because it is not simply JUST a neighborhood of Jerusalem. As UN Resolution 476 states, '3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;' which means that the changes to the administrative borders that make Gilo a neighborhood of Jerusalem are disputed - thus making its status as a neighborhood of Jerusalem just as disputed as the term settlement. This isn't about my personal opinion, Peace Now doesn't contradict me, or anyone - I am the one trying to get both disputed terms used because one or the other would not be NPOV. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with your personal interpretation of whatever documents, but saying that there is dispute about whether Gilo is a neighborhood is not supported by any source that you've provided, and your own source, Peace Now, even refers to such places as neighborhoods because the dispute is over how legitimate these neighborhoods are, ie whether they are considered Israeli settlements or not. --Robertert (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not about my personal interpretation - Peace Now calls it both a settlement and a neighborhood - which is what I want to do here. Further, you are completely assuming that they call them neighborhoods because the dispute is over whether they are settlements or not - How do you not know they use both terms because both are disputed? I can find another 20 sources that call it a settlement, and plenty more that argue its staus as a neighborhood of jerusalem, either directly or indirectly - but i somehow dont think that will settle this, i have attempted to many times and you ignore my legitimte questions time and time again. Here however, is just one [4] So please, read up, and answer my questions so we can resolve this and come to a consensus on the article. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, i noticed you used the peace now article as a source to revert pages on other parts of East Jerusalem that happen to be considered Israeli Settlements by a number of international organisations. I am confused though, was this because peace now calling it a neighborhood somehow cancels out it being a settlement? I dont understand, you cannot take a source and only use the parts you like, or agree with while omiting the parts you either disagree with, or dont want others to read about. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Provide one good source that says its not a neighborhood - and what is it then? A city? A town? The Peace Now source simply makes it clear that the argument is yours alone, and that their calling it a settlement doesn't mean that its municipal organization stops existing. On the other hand, like I've said so many times and which "you've" ignored, it being a settlement "is" disputed by a significant minority, and your insisting on making that the first word of description might have a place in some political context, but not in an encyclopedia. And your namecalling and rhetoric reflect very poorly on you. --Robertert (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read my reply? Why dont you have a look at the article i linked to, which is a respected site, in which they are called 'disputed neighborhoods'. I think leading with two disputed terms, the first less disputed (as you just admitted) is taking more of a NPOV than simply a heavily disputed term, that is held by a minority, which can serve only to disguise the reader from real facts. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if English is your first language or not, but that source also supports what I've been saying and the previous version of the article since "disputed neighborhoods" means "neighborhoods in dispute" and doesn't mean "neighborhoods is a disputed term". --Robertert (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied it supports what you are saying, but you cant deny it is supporting what I am saying. Yes, english is my first language - as is logic, which seems to a language escaping your arguments completely. Being a disputed neighborhood in nature means that the term itself is disputed. You know very well that the term is disputed, but should I go and find another 10 sources, even academic sources? Will you then be able to accept that both terms are disputed or do you only want one side being told here? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the tag to here. Pro-Palestinian groups ARIJ annd Peace Now both call it a nieghborhood, and no sources disputing that have been shown. On the other hand while many call it an Israeli settlement, the Israelis and their supporters dispute that, as does the defacto administration of the place, and so while the position is important and mentioned in the second line, it shouldn't be the first word in the article. --Robertert (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure how ARIJ and Peace Now referring to it as a neibhorhood somehow undoes or minimises the view that it is also a settlement? Can you explain this to me? Granted, the Israeli Government and administration disagree, but how is this more important than the view of the international community? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither view is "more important" - Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy says "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."[5] There is a very popular view describing it as a settlement and we attribute that view. The problem is that you are adopting it as "correct", and as the first word of description at that. --Robertert (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that its status as a Neighborhood is heavily disputed. You have said that it is a neighborhood because it is part of municipal Jerusalem, but the border changes which make it a part of municipal Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Law have all been disputed by the International Community. So neighborhood is not some neutral, simply descriptive term - like you seem to think it is. In fact, it is outright misleading. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that it being a neighborhood is heavily disputed except Saeb Erekat, ARIJ, and Peace Now all use that term. Who disputes it then? You haven't brought any sources that do, just your own calculation that anyone calling it a settlement must deny that it is a neighborhood. --Robertert (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The UN - as I have told you time and time again Robertert, Resolution 476, which denies the changes to the borders of municipal Jerusalem, which is what makes Gilo and these other places Neighborhoods OF Jerusalem outright disputes it. So if these places arent inside Jerusalem according to the UN, and the itnernational community how can they be neighborhoods of Jerusalem? And if they arent neighborhoods of Jerusalem, how are they neighborhoods at all? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"So if these places arent inside Jerusalem according to the UN, and the international community how can they be neighborhoods of Jerusalem?" No one makes that conclusion in any of the sources. Saeb Erekat,[6] ARIJ,[7] Peace Now[8] and others[9] contradict your reasoning and call them neighborhoods.--Robertert (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer my question, though? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, had you even looked beyond your quick search of the page for the word 'neighborhood' you might see each of those sources you just listed also refer to these establishments as settlements. To each of these sources, they are in effect, both Settlements and Neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Now, that is the position I am trying to lead with in the article, which you seem to dislike and prefer only 'neighorhood'. Don't list sources to support your argument when they dont. Further, those sources dont make that assertion, they are sources for it being both a 'neighorhood' and a 'settlement'. Resolution 476 however, is sourced within the line regarding the international communities rejection of any administrative changes to Jerusalem undertaken by Israel, which is what i was referring to above in my question you ignored. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article that some (actually it says "many" which is POV, so you better not provoke it...) consider the place to be a settlement. However, that term is controversial. Since you provided POV sources to the other side which actually say it's a neighborhood, then neighborhood is obviously not controversial, therefore it's the one used. Present situation seems to be the most accurate, and it stood like this for ages without disruption. Amoruso (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, you obviously dont understand this situation too well. Its status as a neighborhood is heavily disputed by the UN, among others. Where is it a neighborhood of, if it is not a part of Jerusalem? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know, but Israel annexed this area, it's controlled by the Jerusalem Municipality and it's part of Jerusalem like any other neighborhood. If the UN disputes this, feel free to mention it in the article, which is already mentioned btw. Amoruso (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know that, but having annexed something in fact, and having annexed it in law are two entirely different things. It is wikipedia policy however, to 'summarise' the article in the lead to the article, so why is every mention of it being considered a 'settlement' by so many constantly removed from the intro? Further, why is the term 'neighborhood' used as the lead, when it is more heavily disputed than the term settlement, which in effect, is only disputed by Israel? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source to back your claim. There's nothing disputable about the fact that these are neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Perhaps Israel's legitimacy to annex the area is disputed. Perhaps some view it as a settlement. Also mentioned. But it being a neighborhood is like it being a house or a street. It's not disputed, and you didn't bring any source that says it is... saying that the annexation of it to Jerusalem was condemned by the U.N or something like that is entirely differnet thing, would be your WP:OR and would still be wrong... Amoruso (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As you dont know how to Google "UN Resolution 476" i shall post a link to it here: [10] which clearly states that '3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;' So given that the administrative changes which make these establishments a part of Jerusalem have 'no legal validity' according to the UN, how are they neibhorhoods of Jerusalem? They remain neiborhoods to Israel, which would make simply calling them neighborhoods a nationalist viewpoint. This isnt OR. Many scholarly articles will back up the UNs interpretation of its resolutions. Please, tell me, how they can be neighborhoods of Jerusalem if no other government but Israel recognises them as such? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, and please be polite, the U.S resolution is not a binding resolution according to international law. That means it's advisory, not binding. Secondly, even if it was binding, which it isn't, it has no legal validity according to international law. Now we are talking about Israel's action, which means it did something bad... something that it should retract... that's why the U.N usually says Israel should retract its law about the Golan Heights for example etc. However, as bad, immoral, internationally illegal, silly, wrong, anti-arab or anti-islamic or anti-global Israel's actions are, the facts on the grounds are that the place is a neighborhood! It pays taxes as a neighborhoods, you have buses there like a neighborhoods, it is listed as a neighborhood, votes as a neighborhood, has water, electricity like a neighborhood, numbers like a neighborhood, orders pizza like a neighborhood, get it ? The dispute is not whether it's a neighborhood or not. Now get me a U.N resolution that says it's not a neighborhood. Amoruso (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I could as well say: "Now get me a U.N resolution that says it is a neighborhood." Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No you couldn't since Saeb Erekat, Peace Now and ARIJ all call it a neighborhood. No sources saying it isn't a neighborhood have been brought, just the argument that 'that must be what they mean', even if they say the opposite. --Robertert (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, i got you a UN Resolution, Number 476 and you even admitted to me that its legal status as a neighborhood of Jerusalem was disputed. Seeing as it was a law passed by Israel, which attempted to change the status and character of Jerusalem (ie: its borders) that makes these places a part of Jerusalem, I am not sure how much clearer you would like the UN to make it? ARIJ and Peace Now call ti a neighborhood, yes, but they ALSO call them settlements. Plenty of sources citing that it isn't a neighborhood have been brought Robertert, but as I have pointed out on your talk page, each attempt that has been made to include them you have swiftly completely removed them from the article. Mysterious, huh? The debate over binding or non-binding international law and its meaning really has no place here, as its not being supplied to show a violation of any specific international law but rather being used to show the international concensus that these places are not legally neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Amoruso, can you find me one source that says it is not a settlement? I can't find any on the page at the moment. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of going over the same ground over and over again, why don't people write out their preferred version of the lead - which I suppose is the locus of the dispute - and we might discover the wording is closer than we would have thought. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Relata refero, to me the only solution is to lead with both disputed terms, summarise the problem with both in the lead and continue a bit of a longer in-depth description later in the article for each side. So, IMO it should lead as 'Gilo is an Israeli Settlement and Neighborhood of Jerusalem, with a population of 40,000. It was established as part of the Neighborhoods of the Ring project, on land annexed by Israel from the West Bank after the 1967 Six-Day War, and is thus described by most sources as being an Israeli Settlement in East Jerusalem, although this is disputed by Israel. While some of the land was legally purchased by Jews, the majority was expropriated from the nearby towns of Beit Jala, Beit Safafa and Sharafat. Its legal status as a neighborhood of Jerusalem, is disputed in UN Resolution 476 which disputes the border changes made by Israel in the 1980s which make Gilo a part of municpal Jerusalem under Israeli Law.'

I have reworded some of the intro, and included the info about the land expropriation, as I cannot find one source that lists Gilo's size as larger than 3,000 dunams (FMEP (available through scholarly databases) lists its total size as 2,859 [11]). Every source I can find lists 2,700 dunams as being taken from nearby towns, so that would definiately constitute a majority of the land. Now it has been argued before that these sources (FMEP/ARIJ) are 'partisan' organisations, but they are hardly less partisan than the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or other sources like it that have been used to support the land being purchased legally argument. I don't personally deny that some of the land was purchased, but at the moment the articles cites two sources for it: [12] mentions nothing about land being purchased IN Gilo, only outside of it, and mentions some of it was purchased with forged documents. (Le monde diplomatique also refers to it as a 'settlement' and not a 'neighborhood'). The other source (ARIJ/POICA) [13] mentions nothing at all about legal purchases, only the 2,700 dunams that were taken from nearby towns. Can somebody please find some proper sources for the land being purchased? I'm going to try and google. Now granted, my above suggestion could probably be worded a bit better and its just my initial thoughts on an intro, but I think it is at least a lot more NPOV, and really tells both sides without seemingly taking one, as these articles do now. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is only one disputed term, "settlement", and there is no problem with it appearing in the lead in context, which it does now. The argument that "neighborhood" is disputed rather than an objective descripton of a group of houses is based on personal interpretations of what documents disputing Israel's annexation and calling the places settlements 'must actually mean'. Anti-settlement sources like Saeb Erekat[14], ARIJ[15], and Peace Now[16] all use the term without any hint to it changing political status. --Robertert (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The term neighborhood is disputed, too. This is not about my personal interpretation of UN Resolutions, but on the widely accepted scholarly interpretation, and the one that is even given on the page Israeli Settlements. See [17] and [18]. If the annexation of East Jerusalem into Jerusalem (and Israel) isnt internationally recognised, and neither are the border changes, then these cannot simply be neigbhorhoods. They are not simply neighborhoods. You know this perfectly well though, Robertert. They are only neighborhoods according to the Israeli Government, and if we were just to take the view of the Israeli government, while ignoring the view of the rest of the worlds governments, we would be making this an incredibly nationalistic reading page. To the rest of the world, they aren't neighborhoods because they aren't located within Jerusalem. Lots of sources contend [19][20][21][22] [23] that the use of the term neighborhood for these places is deceptive and misleading, and even a form of doublespeak. So now, Robertert, please stop misrepresenting the situation here. You don't answer my questions, you cant find me one source that even denies its a settlement, you wont add constructively to the attempt to build a concensus on this article, you just keep quoting those few articles I have added over and over again, but I added them to show that the terms neighborhood and settlement arent mutually exclusive. They don't prove your point. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The term 'settlement' is, from a Google Books check, very widely used in the literature on the subject, from Anthony Cordesman to Moshe Ma'oz, Menachem Klein, Nitzan Ben-Shaul and many others. What mainstream media means is not clear. Israeli newspapers: That historically and in internationanal law it is defined as a settlement happens also to be true, and to erase this and write 'neighbourhood' suburb is to privilege an Israeli POV over the legal facts. Secondly I hope in future editors can edit point by point, and not complicate the process by large scale one-time changes in the text. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a semantic problem here that is worth pointing out. There are several Hebrew terms for settling and establishing areas of habitation that have not adequately been distinguished from one another in English. "Yishuv," "leyashev" and "hityashvut" - all from the same root "yod-shin-bet," meaning "sit" or "lived," are three words with different connotations, all translated in English as "settlement." A "yishuv" or "moshav" can refer to the establishment of an agricultural settlement (in academic literature, pioneering agricultural settlement enterprises that were under way all over the world in the 19th century are called agricultural "colonies" - with no negative connotations). But "yishuv" can also apply to building a city, town, district or neighborhood. "Hityashvut" as settlements over the Green Line and a word with political connotations has only come into usage over the last few decades. So context is important. As a result, newspaper articles in English on the subject which fail to indicate these distinctions (due to simplistic translations or the author's lack of understanding) can lead to false conclusions. This may not solve the problem, but I think it elucidates where part of the difficulty lies. --Gilabrand (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The semantic problem can be elucidated over at Israeli Settlement. 19th century usage predates the problem of territorial definition that arose with the foundation of nthe State of Israel, and especially after the unilateral expropriations of land with Palestinian title. This is an English encyclopedia, and it follows English usage, which employs 'settlement', a neutral word in any case. We are not only concerned with fine distinctions in Hebrew usage, that might finesse a generic term current in standard English descriptions to allow us to understand Israeli discourse, but also with the international legal qualifications,("the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.") but the Palestinian perspective. In the economy of writing, one cannot divagate in extenso in every article dealing with an Israeli, moshav, yishuv, kibbutz, hityashvut, on the point. The normal practice is to link, and here the link would be to Israeli settlements, with, if needfed there, details on the semantics (from memory there is already something of that order in that article). Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia, yes, but the articles on Israel and Jewish subjects cannot ignore the semantic implications of the Hebrew terminology that is or has been used. May I remind you that editors on pages dealing with such Arabic terms as "jihad" are extraordinarily conscientious about deleting the slightest mention of "jihad" as it is perceived in the public mind today. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And may I remind you that this is an article on 'Gilo' not on the semantics of usage in Hebrew about words for settlement.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Source

Currently the following quote is sourced to "Ariel Center for Policy Research":

"Although Beit Jalla is predominantly Christian, it was infiltrated by Fatah's Tanzim gunmen, who purportedly positioned themselves in or near Christian homes and churches in the knowledge that a slight deviation in Israeli return fire would harm Christian buildings."

I was wondering if there were any other sources for this, as the current source seems to be an advocacy website.[24] VR _talk 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

attempt to change the first sentence

there is no reason to change the leading sentence in the article and in similar articles. This attempt is very POV one sided. Wikipeida as I understand it is about compromise. Many dispute that all the dozens of settlements like Kiryat Arab are settlements. But they're called settlements. They're called settlements because it's a minority opinion not to call themselves settlements. But the neighborhoods of Jerusalem aren't called settlements by Israel. They're often not called settlements by others. They're undisputably neighborhoods. The fact that some might regard them as settlements, if that's even true, is already articulated in the lead. There's no reason but chilidishness to try and distort the first sentence into saying that it's both X and Y, where it's explained that objectively it's X and there's a dispute about Y. Right now it doesn't even explain there's a dispute, it mentions in details that it's regarded as Y because of.... wikipeida is about encyclopedic material and being as accurate as one can be - there's no reason to do this other than extreme POV or extreme political motivation here to try and resort to specific format without any consensus or encyclopedic, or any, significance. 216.165.2.96 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Points that repeat themselves

I think it's adequate to mention in an introductory sentence that Gilo is in East Jerusalem with all the controversy this entails, though it should probably be made clear whether where it fit under the UN partition plan. Repeating this point repeatedly makes the article look biased and tedious to read.

As for "some" and "much" these are ultimately weasel words. Better to be specific and say how many dunams of the total were privately owned by one party or another, what was public land, etc. --Leifern (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"considered" a settlement

This a weasilish attempt to bring down a super-majority view to simply "considered . . . by pro-Palestinians". Gilo being an Israeli settlement is not a "view" of just "pro-Palestinians", it is a fact according to most of the world. nableezy - 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This article is within scope of the discretionary sanctions. I have added a link to the top of the talk page. Compliance is mandatory. Breein1007, your edit here is in my view inconsistent with the sanctions (apart from simply being wrong) and I have reverted it. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And in my view, your opinion is also simply wrong. The United States has referred to these neighborhoods over and over again as just that - neighborhoods. In terms of "international community", that is a weasel term that implies the entire world when this is in fact not the case. It is the United Nations that has made a declaration calling these neighborhoods "illegal settlements". Your revisions with the explanation of "nonsense" are not appreciated. If you want to refute this, then please do so properly.Breein1007 (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The recent edits have been made without discussion or sourcing, and they were major rewordings that altered the meaning and used repeated weasel words to twist the truth and understanding of the article. Here are my comments for the changes I have made to fix these issues:

1) Greater Jerusalem vs Jerusalem - Israel does not consider Gilo to be part of any so-called "Greater Jerusalem". It is part of the municipality of "Jerusalem" - simple as that. If you can find a source that states otherwise, please share it and we can reflect your findings in the article.

2) Grouping Gilo with the "rest of the West Bank" or even the rest of East Jerusalem is an inaccurate and fallacious portrayal of the truth, designed to mislead the reader. International opinions and stances in regards to Gilo and some other neighborhoods are extremely different from that of the rest of the West Bank.

3) "The annexation was deemed null and void by the entire international community, including the United States." This is a flat out lie. You haven't provided any documentation of this, and you won't be able to, because the United States did NOT vote in favor of that resolution. As a matter of fact, in 1995, the United States Congress adjusted their policy to reflect that they did not accept the resolution. They officially stated that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel, and that they should move their embassy to Jerusalem by 1999.

4) "legal stance regarding the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) is the same, although the terminology employed by it and other international media outlets refer to it generically as neighborhood of Jerusalem, with no legal implications." Refer back to #2 - it is wrong of you to be grouping Gilo with the rest of the West Bank, because it is not regarded the same. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for you to use weasel words such as "generically" and add in "with no legal implications" in order to make this classification seem any less important or valid than it is. You have once again used no references, and have no evidence to support your false claims.

5) In your edits regarding Israel's stance about recent expansion to Gilo, you are again inserting POV comments in an attempt to trivialize the information and lead the viewer to accept your bias. "which it asserts now excludes East Jerusalem" - what is the purpose of this statement? Israel has never asserted that East Jerusalem was included in the West Bank settlements. Jerusalem has always been considered by Israel to be its eternal and undivided capital. Your statement attempts to make the viewer believe that Israel is changing their policy and going back on past claims; once again, in an attempt to trivialize the truth of the matter.

While I feel bad making edits that in effect erase 9 consecutive edits by the same user, almost all of the changes that were made are inappropriate at best. Many of them are not simply unsourced and POV, but flat out lies and attempts to rewrite documented history. In the future, I would suggest that editors make use of the "show preview" function before saving their edits. It is very frustrating for other editors to have to sort through 9 consecutive edits within the span of 30 minutes. Take some time to think over what changes you want to make, and make them all at once. With that said, don't forget to think about what you are changing and if you are going to radically edit an article I would advise you to add sources and provide an edit summary.

Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

US position

There has been some editing going on concerning the US position on whether to call Gilo a settlement or a "neighbourhood".

1) Responding to the Gilo expansion, Obama told Fox "I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8366596.stm

2) "the US - like Europe - now seems to be considering as settlements the post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258566462450&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

3) "Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice seemed to be giving the new neighborhoods settlement status in 2007 " (same source as 2) )

4) "the Obama team's call for a complete settlement halt also included a halt to new construction in east Jerusalem" (same source as 2) and 3) )

Based on those four points, there is a clear argument to say the US position is to consider Gilo a settlement. Why else would they be "dismayed" at construction plans there defying their settlement freeze? --Dailycare (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording

The wording "... a neighborhood within the municipality of Jerusalem by Israel, the United States, and other media outlets" is extremely poor. The United States and Israel are not media outlets. Maybe it should say "... by Israel, the United States and certain media outlets." But, really, what does it matter what "media outlets" think, in this context? There are media outlets that advocate every position imaginable. This sentence is about nations' opinions of Gilo.ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree here.. sort of. Israel and the US are certainly not 'media outlets' and you raise a valid point here. But I think 'certain media outlets' remains weak, and really, when it is the majority of them in a global context.. that is what we should highlight here. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [25], Gilo lies east of the Green Line, within the expanded Jersualem municipal boundaries. According to this source [26], 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 [27], 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) [28]. 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)