Talk:Har Gilo

Untitled

The discussion about the legality of Israeli settlements is held on the page of that name, and it doesn't belong on this page, which is simply a community profile. Tewfik 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - Har Gilo is an Israeli settlement on occupied Palestinian territory and illegal under international law. —Babelfisch 04:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Babelfisch, is the article NPOV or the settlement? I do not think that the article is NPOV at all. It is a simple geographical description of a village. --Shuki 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is not NPOV. It is not a "village" or an "Israeli community", and it is not built on "disputed land". It is an illegal settlement built on occupied land. The article is also not about "Israel geography". These issues can't simply be ignored, as Tewfik would like to. —Babelfisch 13:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet, other settlements do not have the NPOV tag, and NPOV refers to the article, not the subject matter. That would be like placing NPOV on Jerusalem because the title isn't Al-Quds. -Preposterous 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Babelfisch, is it fair to give you a week to find sources for your claims? --Shuki 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The article originally stated that the settlement was built on territory conquered in 1967, there is no citation necessary for the fact that this is occupied territory. For the expropriations, I've given references. —Babelfisch 12:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

These issues are not being 'ignored,' rather they are dealt with at Israeli settlement. There is no reason to treat this article differently than any other settlement. And it is hardly appropriate to have nine critical references, especially as five as supplied by two organisations. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to cite my sources, so I've added them.

The legal status of the settlement is highly relevant. It's not sufficient that it is "dealt with" somewhere else, especially when there is no link to that article. א גוטן טאָג, —Babelfisch 10:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik is right. What you're doing is ambushing this article with political views that have nothing to do with the actual geography or substance of the place. I don't know what you have specifically against Har Gilo but it's clearly not the place for it. Amoruso 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Babelfisch, your crusade to chew this Har Gilo extensively is not in place. You need to conform to the category of Israel's geographic stubs... these are short neutral descriptions of the places. Settlement - yes. That's it. There are millions of conflict related issues, but this is a geography stub, and it will remain as such on the issue of geography. And yes Judea is a geogrphical area as well and it describes it. "Peace Now" or any other political opinon about settlements, including this one, have a place in a seperate article pertaining to those issues. Not here. Amoruso 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Ocupied/disputed

Changed "the disputed land" into "West Bank". To keep "the disputed land" as the most NPOV is obviously bogus. Israel is obviously going to dispute the land (that's what occupiers do by definition). Any occupier would do that (else their wouldn't be a reason to occupy it to begin with). But what an occupier thinks is pretty much irrelevant to international judicial realities and thus to Wikipedia. For this reason we don't speak of the Soviet defense of Afghanistan on Wikipedia (as Pravda proclaimed), but of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Since that is the reality. This has nothing to do with a Palestinian point of view (hell I'm a Jew living in Antwerp, Belgium), this is just reality (and no, reality doesn't have a Palestinian bias, but it doesn't have an Israeli bias either). Thus whatever one thinks of the settlements (I personally think they have a right to keep existing there with necessary concessions to the Palestinians), it doesn't stop the settlements from being in occupied territory in international judicial terms. To call it disputed land is Israeli POV. Occupied territory is NPOV, but to please you all I chose "West Bank" so they can look up the status of the West Bank there.84.197.2.233 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it has nothing to do with who you are and if you are Jewish or not. The main point here is not the issue of whether the 'West Bank' is occupied or not, but whether the settlement of Har Gilo has been built on occupied Palestinian land. If you can show how that specific land is occupied, then fine, wikipedia should state that. But until now, you, I, and no one has managed to provide references that show if this is fact or not. Disputed is the most NPOV term possible. The scope of this article is the hill called Har Gilo. --Shuki 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=57&docid=221. It's on land conquered after the 1967 war, thus ipso facto in occupied territory.84.197.2.233 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

84.197.2.233, ipso facto, is Kfar Etzion also on occupied territory? Or how about the destroyed Kfar Darom? --Shuki 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse84.197.2.233 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you base that? Both villages exist on privately owned land that existed during the 'mandate' (before Jordan and Egypt) destroyed and now rebuilt. So is this liberated land now also occupied as well? --Shuki 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I base it on the international consensus that the area conquered during the Six Day War is considered to be occupied territory. Whether Israel recaptured land during the Six Day war that it was given to in the Partition Plan is irrelevant. Since the basis for international consensus isn't the UN Partion Plan (some Pro Palestinians and anti-Semites make that point, that it should be based on the Partition Plan, I hope you aren't trolling). Luckily that isn't the case, else 45% of the former 'mandate' would be considered occupied territory and not the 22% as is now the case. 84.197.2.233 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it quite unbelievable that not only any information the status of the settlement that contradicts point of view of the Israeli extreme right was removed, but also all the references.[1] I'd call that vandalism. Earlier version for reference below. —Babelfisch 09:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Har Gilo (Hebrew: הר גילה) is an Israeli settlement located about five kilometers south of Jerusalem, and 2 kilometers west of Bethlehem. It was one of the first settlements to be built on occupied territory after Israel won the Six-Day War in June 1967. It is part of Gush Etzion, Judea, and has over 150 families.

Har Gilo is located adjacent to the peak of Mount Gilo, one of the most dramatic mountains in the southern West Bank or Judea. The Mount Gilo Field School is located at the peak at 923 meters, and it possesses a nearly unobstructed view of the entire region: to the south lies Mount Hebron, Herodium, and Halhul. To the east lies the Judean Desert, the Dead Sea, and the Moab mountains of Jordan. To the north lies Jerusalem, the Tomb of the Prophet Samuel, and the mountains of Samaria. Visible to the west are the Jerusalem Forest, the Judean Lowland, Tel Aviv, and the Mediterranean Sea.

References

• The Strangulation of Beit Jala (PDF; Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem)
• The enclavement of Al Walajeh Village (Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem)
• The Israeli Colonization Activities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip During 2004 (Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem)
• Meron Rapaport: Land Lords (Ha'aretz)
• Zachary Wales: Orwell in the Holy Land (Al-Ahram Weekly)
• Mary O'Regan: Christmas in Bethlehem (Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel)
• Har Gilo (Peace Now)
• Gush Etzion (Americans for Peace Now)
• Ahmad Jaradat: Violence and Occupation Watch: Report LXXI (Alternative Information Centre)

These references are all highly inflammtoary extremist political articles that have nothing to do with a geography of a place. Do you want me to link thousands of articles from Arutz Sheva and other papers in Israel concerning Arab occupation in the artices of Ramallah and Qalqilya ? These is a place for politics, and a place for geography. Amoruso 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

They're also not references, they're external links, irrelevant external links that stuffing them are against wikipedia policy and are simply spam. Amoruso 09:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussions about the status of the West Bank are held at their article. This is an article about geography which makes note of the fact that it is an Israeli settlement, with all that that may or may not entail. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Even geographic stubs often contain political information. There is political geography, and thats why we have political maps. If you were to wikipedia search England, or France, I find it hard to believe the page would not contain any information on the political structures of those regions. Don't you? Colourinthemeaning 15:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Har Gilo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725133635/http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=57&docid=221 to http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=57&docid=221
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)