Talk:Gilo/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

wholesale revert

Hello Sindinero, I don't understand your wholesale revert of my edit. If you had read my edit, you would have seen a number of changes. However I did not take away mention of it being considered a settlement. The lede reads: The international community regards it as an Israeli settlement that is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. Aslbsl (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aslbsl - that's one reason it's generally better to make incremental edits, so that other editors have a clear oversight and better handle on the changes that have been made. I won't do a wholesale revert this time, but I am changing "neighborhood" in the first sentence - as discussed before, this is a misleading characterization. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sindinero, it is good to see that you didn't wholesale revert this time. I think you could agree that ignoring another's contributions doesn't serve constructive changes, and could be conceived as a sign of disrespect.

I appreciate that you've attempted to preserve some of neutral description (and residential area) that previously got caught up in the politics. However the replacement of the term "neighborhood" as a physical description with "settlement", as if the two were mutually exclusive, is puzzling to me. One describes the physical nature of the place, another describes its political nature.

Do you have proof that the term "neighborhood", as you say, is "a misleading characterization"?

I have found the opposite - Pro-Palestinian groups, and even the PLO, describe the physical reality (neighborhood, or town, or city) alongside the political reality (settlement):

Additionally, why did you re-add the repetitive history to the lede? If you read what you were re-adding carefully you would see that it doesn't make sense... Best Regards, Aslbsl (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's about connotations. "Neighborhood" does not just refer to a "physical reality" (as in a collection of buildings used for a given purpose), but rather to a social, cultural phenomenon (so that in a large city, it's often a matter of informal consensus where one neighborhood begins and another ends). Because of this, "neighborhood" connotes an organic, ground-up phenomenon for many people that is at odds with the idea of an illegal settlement imposed in militarily occupied territory. For this reason, it's often used politically, to attempt to normalize a contested state of affairs. This is why the word can be misleading in this context, and this is why I feel "residential area," as the more simply descriptive term, is the better one here, if you feel that something is needed additionally to "settlement" in the first sentence. However, a settlement it is, and this needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, which traditionally defines the topic; it's not enough to say later on that it's "considered" a settlement.
I re-added the history to the lead because you had moved it from the lead to "Biblical era." If you read carefully what you were moving, you would have seen that it certainly didn't belong there.
Additionally, please don't remove sources. The Ha'aretz article does contain information unique to the lead, as it describes Gilo plainly as a settlment.
And finally, please see WP:INDENT. Sindinero (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting original analysis, but is there a reliable source that says "neighborhood" is a problem? I've provided sources that show that even the Palestinian government uses the term. Also, why would you re-add a laconic DPA statement? There are already more detailed and higher quality sources. And careful reading of the "history" line shows that it repeats a line already in the lede, as well as using a level of detail which doesn't belong there. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please start indenting your comments, as it makes for a discussion that's easier to follow.
What I said is not original research, but a statement of fact about how language is used. We don't need a reliable source that says that "neighborhood" is a problem, since the reliable sources generally tend to describe Gilo as a settlement. A google scholar search for Gilo and settlement gets substantially more hits than one for Gilo and neighbourhood/neighborhood. It is a settlement; it is to be identified as such in the opening sentence. This is simply how Wikipedia works. The later sentence in the lead has a different focus; there the article describes how Gilo is considered a settlement by the international community but Israel disputes this.
"Laconicity" has nothing to do with including or excluding a source. It's a reliable source, and it is one of the clearest statements about Gilo's status. It unambiguously supports using "settlement," and removing it in order to then say that we don't need to call Gilo a settlement in the first sentence is pretty disingenuous.
Finally, see this RfC; while it didn't come to an unambiguous conclusion, it ends with a pretty good rule of thumb. Sindinero (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A) "We don't need a reliable source that says that "neighborhood" is a problem" - no, we do need reliable sources. And your claim becomes an extraordinary one since I've presented reliable sources demonstrating the exact opposite of what you argue. Palestinian government officials and advocates disagree with you; are they not pro-Palestinian enough?
B) The RfC doesn't say what you claim (it actually calls for retaining the original wording, as a stylistic matter), and has been since superseded.
C) I removed the source because it is low quality. It has nothing to do with calling this place a settlement, which my version does using better sources already in the lede.
D) In this dialogue, outdenting harms the readability for me, but I've acceded to your request since it seems to bother you. I hope that you'll find this easier to read.
Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A) you've missed my point. Reliable source policy doesn't work negatively, i.e. by requiring a source to show that a given term should not be used -- rather, we are to conform to the terminology used by reliable sources. In this case, "settlement" far more than the alternatives. None of your posts demonstrate "the exact opposite of what I'm arguing" -- they could only do this by showing that "settlement" is not the predominant term used. Since your sources are examples of usage rather than meta-analyses of it, by definition they can't do this. As a side note, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by linking to WP:OR in every post; what exactly is the original research you're alleging?
B) The RfC I posted, while it didn't result in consensus, recommends a compromise that retains both terms, "settlement" and "city/village" (see the conclusion). Your summary is incorrect: it recommends maintaining not the "original wording," but the original ordering of "settlement" and "city" (or "residential area," in this case). The link you've posted doesn't "supersede" anything, since no consensus or even clear recommendations seem to result from it.
C) The source is absolutely not low quality. Now you're shifting goalposts. Before it was too "laconic."
D) I didn't ask you to outdent your comments, but to indent them. That's not because I have trouble reading them (but thanks for the snark), but because it's common wikipedia practice: the reason for this is that it makes for better oversight over past discussions, especially for editors who may be new to the discussion. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A) You have argued (hence my mentioning of original research) that "neighborhood" and "settlement" are mutually exclusive terms, and that we must favor predominant usage. I have three times asked for sources. What sources support your argument that this place is one to the exclusion of the other?
B) If the 2010 RfC only speaks to order, why did you repeatedly replace one term with another? In any event, the newer discussions linked don't make that case.
C) The source is low-quality because it is laconic. Our other sources already support the same content far better.
D) I meant indent, which is what I did. As I said, I find it more difficult to read.
I'm sorry that you see snark, or the need to accuse me of shifting goalposts or being disingenuous. I understand that political/non-verbal communication may seem heated, but no bad faith is intended to you.
Please again accept my best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is covered by WP:1RR. Remember not to violate it. Violations tend to result in automatic blocks/topic bans when reported. Edit warring over the words "neighborhood" and "settlement" and doing things like replacing "The international community regards it as an Israeli settlement that is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this." with "Israel disputes its designation as a settlement, and it is administered as part of the Jerusalem municipality." while leaving the source there does not usually end well in this topic area. Gilo is an Israeli settlement (across the Green Line in East Jerusalem) and it's also a neighborhood in Jerusalem. A large number of sources support both of these descriptions because neither are wrong. Please try to figure it out without edit warring, POV pushing and violating the discretionary sanctions. If you feel a need to advocate on behalf of a particular POV rather than addressing the issue in a completely objective way, just walk away from the article and do something else. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
And yet I didn't add the word "neighborhood," but how could you know that with your wholesale revert and false claim of 1RR violation? You say you agree that "neighborhood" and "settlement" are both true, yet you consistently remove one. You keep threatening me, but ignore my arguments on talk and mischaracterize both policies and my actions, which anyone who actually reads the edit can see.
And most importantly, you don't speak to the sources. Please "report" me, I would love for your behavior to be examined. Aslbsl (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Shall we rewind a second? I haven't been "consistently removing" one of the two terms. This recent exchange started when you replaced "settlement" with "neighborhood" in the first sentence. I reverted back, and then you reverted back to your version. Trying to compromise, I was the one who introduced both terms in the first sentence with the formulation "large settlement and residential area". You reverted this, deleting "settlement". I tried again to restore what I felt was a version that we could both accept, since it contained both "settlement" and "residential area"; you reverted again. I tried again, you reverted again. So who is consistently removing one of the two terms used? I don't think it's me. I've been attempting to compromise here. Semantically, there's no reason to have both "settlement" and "neighborhood" or "residential area" - a settlement is a kind of residential area, and therefore entails the latter, while the concept "neighborhood" doesn't entail the concept "settlement." In other words, if we just had "settlement," readers would know that it's a place where people live, whereas when we just call it a "neighborhood," people (and many people read only the first sentence, so it's crucial to define the topic there) would never know it's a settlement. I've never suggested that "neighborhood" and "settlement" are mutually exclusive; it's a question of connotations and semantic precision. By the way, to argue something on the talk page really has nothing to do with wikipedia's policy on "original research." Whether or not you feel a source is low-quality, laconic, or anything else, I'm not sure that your removal of that article was at all consonant with wikipedia's actual policy on sourcing. That said, I can see that you didn't violate 1RR in this exchange. I don't think sean.hoyland was accusing you of doing so, so much as reminding you (us) not to. Sindinero (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the page history, you first reverted ElComandanteChe, then Gilabrand, and then you reverted my first edit, so it did not start with me. Be that as it may, I have already complimented your attempt at compromise and have attempted to meet you part way.
I welcome your agreement that "settlement" and "neighborhood" are not mutually exclusive. But an Israeli settlement is not just "a place where people live". It is a specific political term. An Israeli settlement may be a kibbutz and it may be a town and it may be a full-fledged city - the two terms describe entirely different aspects of a place, and both are important.
Also, I find it unlikely that the political controversy would be missed when 3 of the 4 lines in the lede discuss it. It is far more likely that the one descriptive line is lost.
A 1RR warning would be far more legitimate if I had even reverted once, and if it didn't come from someone wholesale reverting. And not participating in talk.
Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Aslbsl, please stop pushing and learn when to stop.
  • 15:36, 7 September 2012 this edit removing "Israeli settlement" is a revert i.e. "any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors" (see Help:Reverting). Make sure you understand what a revert is.
  • 20:52, 8 September 2012‎this edit removing Israeli settlement again and moving it (along with other changes ) is a revert.
You are quite right that I miscounted the time, however, my revert is still valid given the nature of your editing e.g. changing "The international community regards it as an Israeli settlement" without consensus to do so and while leaving the source unchanged so that the statement no longer complies with WP:V. However, ironically, with the 19:28, 9 September 2012 revert you did violate the 1RR restriction. I'm sorry, I don't understand "And most importantly, you don't speak to the sources". What sourcing issue are you concerned about ? I don't "consistently remove one". I restored Israeli settlement and other standard content that you removed without consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Sean, telling me that I am edit-warring as you wholesale revert me makes it sound like you are trying to force a content dispute with policy threats.
Anyhow, my edit was an original rewrite to attempt bridging the gap. It was not a revert, and like the other accusations which I've answered above, the claim that I've excised Israeli settlement is also misleading. Any reader will find that 2/3 of the lede is still dedicated to that topic. What I've done is move it from the first word.
And not only did no guideline at any time call for it to be the first word, something which you've claimed, but even the boilerplate language has lost support. And "widely accepted" is the actual language the BBC source uses. Aslbsl (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Aslbsl, if you read the comment you provided the link to, you'll see that it says "there is no consensus about whether this sentence should be systematically included in all articles (or systematically removed from any articles in which it may be present)". Therefore in order to remove it from here, you'd need to build consensus for the removal. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Dailycare, I did in fact read the comment, and you'll notice that I did not systematically remove anything. I simply rewrote the text to A) attempt to move the "settlement" text up in the lede, B) not be repetitive and improve the flow (3 of 4 lines in lede are already dedicated to the settlement issue), and most importantly C) to accurately represent the source. I wrote "widely" considered because that is what the BBC text actually says. Now the content appears in two versions within 4 sentences. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, in this edit you're removing the illegality aspect from the lead, and IMO invoking the comment you linked to, still, doesn't persuade since the comment provides that where the text is present, separate consensus is needed to remove it (which is normal anyway). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dailycare, the most important part of my last comment was that the statement does not accurately represent the source. The body of the (very short) BBC article focuses on establishing that the West Bank is considered occupied. It does not speak to the legal status of settlements in general, or to Jerusalem specifically. Especially in light of the US position, which has refrained from commenting on the legality, and also has distinguished Jerusalem from elsewhere, the boilerplate text is not a helpful description of Gilo. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, in that case you can use the [citation needed] template to tag the statement as needing an additional source. --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dailycare, if the statement doesn't represent the source, the solution is to rewrite it to fit the source. Especially since, as I pointed out, the US position means that no source will support that statement. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, when the wording of that text was designed, a large number of sources were examined. I don't know what you mean by the "US position", are you implying that the US can decide what the world thinks on this settlement? --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I felt so energetic that I looked up another source for this, this one in fact says the settlements are illegal, not just that they're regarded as such, but I'm still OK with the longstanding text anyway. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The BBC's unattributed "legal ruling" doesn't nullify the US position and is at best sloppy journalism that contrasts with what the more detailed sources say. Why should our text ignore the US position? Aslbsl (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The BBC piece is what we call a reliable source. I'm not against mentioning what the US has said of Gilo in the article. I am, on the other hand, against mentioning it in the lead since then we'd be open to mentioning the EU, Japan, China etc. in the lead, too. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
By definition, your acknowledging that the US, EU etc. positions are not the same, means that "the international community" doesn't have one position. This specific BBC piece is not reliable, and is contradicted by numerous other more detailed sources. What is the problem with actually reflecting what multiple sources say? Aslbsl (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
That is unequivocally not true, and any number of top quality sources can be given that specifically say that the international community has a position on the illegality of the settlements (some of them are in the first sentence of the article Israeli settlements and international law. nableezy - 06:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
And what of the US's position in that same article? Aslbsl (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read that carefully, as the US position is compatible with the rest of the worlds. And either way, multiple sources specifically attribute a position to the "international community". No source disputes that phrasing, except for a handful of internet warriors that we need not pay any attention to. nableezy - 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Those sources say that the US refuses to call Israeli settlements illegal. How is that compatible? How do we reflect that in the text? Aslbsl (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The last official position taken by the US government was done by Carter's State Department, which found the settlements to violate GCIV. That judgment has never been modified or rescinded. For political reasons, the US government does not make a habit of explicitly calling the settlements illegal, though it remains the position of the United States that they are indeed illegal. But you, seemingly intentionally, miss the main point made. That being multiple sources specifically attribute a position to the "international community". No source disputes that phrasing, except for a handful of internet warriors that we need not pay any attention to. nableezy - 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The settlements are indeed illegal, by international agreement to which Israel is also a party (article 49 of the 4th Geneva convention). This is not really a matter for dispute. This source specifies that Israel contests the applicability of the Geneva convention to the West Bank because they were supposedly not under legitimate sovereignty in the first place. The article on settlements has more detailed information on this; it's not a question of opinion, really - the UN and the ICJ have both upheld the illegality of the settlements. What US position are you referring to? As I understand it, the official negotiating position of the US is that the status of the settlements is to be left to the determination of final status agreements between Israel and the PA, not that Gilo is not a settlement.

I don't follow. Aslbsl (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

ej/Misleading edit summaries

Can somebody explain to me why East Jerusalem is being removed as the location of this settlement? Jerusalem, united now and forever, is not a NPOV way to give the location. nableezy - 10:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody removed it - most of the lede discusses exactly that despite that term being missing. I restored the link to Jerusalem, and moved East Jerusalem one sentence to the settlement discussion. Best regards, Aslbsl (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No, that is purposely obfuscating the location to serve a political agenda. Gilo is in East Jerusalem, full stop. It is not "widely considered" to be in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is the common place name for the portion of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 and by Israel since then. This article has said that in the first sentence for quite some time now. If you wish to change that, gain a consensus. Don't edit-war your changes in. I am restoring the sourced location to the first sentence. nableezy - 06:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Nableezy, you made an original edit (not restore) adding in EJ and repeating a source already in the next line while accusing people of "intentional obfuscation". Then you claim EJ was removed (it was not) and use the edit to remove other uncontroversial, sourced information. Your edit summaries and Talk are very misleading about what happened. I really hope that this is just the result of confusion on your part. Aslbsl (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that is nonsense. You have once again violated the 1RR. East Jerusalem was removed as the location of this colony, and claiming otherwise is purposely misleading. You removed East Jerusalem as the place name for where this settlement is located and replaced it with Jerusalem. I restored the sourced location of EJ (seen here, here, or here, just to give a few examples). You have twice reverted that, once again violating the 1RR, and given that you were the one to first remove it (here) I suspect your "who me" comment above about others "confusion" is feigned as you well-know that removal was contested, as you have done the same in the past on other articles as well. Self-revert or you will be reported. nableezy - 15:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Nableezy, I would take you much more seriously if you weren't making dramatic, spurious charges of hiding things, especially when those things (its West Bank location) are still in the article, while at the same time yourself removing uncontroversial sourced information. EJ was unintentionally removed by me a month ago, but the whole political discussion remained - nothing was "hidden". When you re-added it, I did not remove it, as you claim, and it is still in the article. No revert. I did revert your deletion of sourced, uncontroversial information. Aslbsl (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You dont need to take me seriously, AE will sort this out. nableezy - 18:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The location of this place, per the sources, is East Jerusalem, not simply Jerusalem. That is the long-standing text, and it will require both sources disputing that this place is in East Jerusalem and a consensus of editors to change. I am re-reverting the 1RR violation. nableezy - 13:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I'm not even going to attempt touching the lead since it will only lead to trouble. However, I am tagging it since someone needs to fix it. The article actually goes into detail, but the fervor to focus one one thing has left the lead incomplete to both the casual reader and the POV warrior. You guys can slow edit war all you want about individual words but I will slow edit war with this tag until someone actually tries to write a lead that is either good enough for GA or encompasses enough of the subject to be inline with policies and guidelines. Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT nableezy - 14:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
My time is better spent masturbating than wading into the nonsense that is this article. You fix it or enjoy the tag. I have provided the reasoning and that is all I am prepared to do at this point since that is what is mandated. It is a terrible lead so fix it yourself (especially if you broke it).Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
A tag placed without any attempt at fixing the perceived errors and without any actual discussion about any errors may and will be removed. Enjoy yourself and toodles. nableezy - 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Cptnono, this is not a hierarchy where you can dictate to others what they must do. Participate or go away. -asad (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And I reinstated it. The tag is there since he lead is not within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. This tag is there partially for the editors to see that there is something to fix but mainly for the reader since it is an embarrassing lead that they need to know is not appropriate for the project. The article has enough general information and sources to be a GA. However, the lead is so shoddy that it cannot be. It is within the use of tags to use it without fixing it myself. It would be great if I tried to fix it myself but I have a feeling some editors would not like the outcome. You should take the opportunity to fix an article rather than ignoring a valid tag. I thought I provided you with sufficient reasoning but just to make it even clearer: The lead is only about one thing, and that is against our standards. If you do not feel like fixing it than fine, but the tag is there for a reason. Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
So here is a lesson for you so that you cannot accuse me of not discussing it (although I have already and there is nothing in the guidelines or policies that says I need to try to fix it myself):
  • The lead should "...be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many people only read the lead." MOS:LEAD
  • WP:MOSBEGIN (also part of MOS:LEAD). The entirety of the subject is not it being a settlement. However, the reader easily assumes from the lead that that is what is being discussed.
  • "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (WP:MOSINTRO) The lead right now is far from that. Is this article about the subject as a settlement or the subject as a whole?
My laziness or unwillingness to fix your article has nothing to do with the validity of the tag. Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


I added some bold lettering for you: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilo&diff=513980880&oldid=513977835 . Since I also adjusted the Jerusalem wording and even a line outside of the lead, I trust you understand why I don't want to bicker with you since it is a nauseatingly tedious game. Fix it or don't just don't pretend that there is a neutral and informative lead presented to the reader. Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
What I wont pretend is that somebody who calls this a residential area in Jerusalem has any business lecturing anybody else on a neutral lead. Thanks for playing though. nableezy - 18:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

International law- NPOV

I've changed the biased and potentially misleading categorical reference to illegality from the lead. This matter is strongly disputed, and the "international law" often cited is an expression of legal opinion by a majority of the ICJ judges. The ICJ has not been asked to rule in a Contentious Case on this matter, which would arguably create indisputable international law. The "international community" is a weasel phrase and I suggest not using it. There exist a number of authoritative opinions on both sides, so a neutral POV is that the matter is a subject of dispute, and I've edited accordingly Chrismorey (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the standard policy compliant text present in all settlement articles. Your opinion that "international community" is a weasel phrase is irrelevant given its extensive use by sources when they describe this issue. You can have a look at how a fairly large sample of reliable sources deal with the issue here. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilo/Archive_3&oldid=1186437178"