Talk:Gilo/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Gilo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

exercises in futility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waiting to see the supporting source, re the above, RomaC (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No comments, no sources, adjusting the text. RomaC (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New Tactics

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not misrepresenting you. Your comment was out of line. You should review the policies about talk pages. It is not within your rights as an editor on Wikipedia to discuss other editors' motives on article talk pages. Breein1007 (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Breein please see my comment in the section below. RomaC (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I have removed all the disputed material from this page. All the issues are clearly stated. I have pared down the references to more normal size. I have done away with material that is not relevant to Gilo. I have cut the sensationalism. It's time to go do something else folks. There are many other articles that need improvement. Yalla bye. I think I'll go have a felafel. Best, --Gilabrand (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

'Disputed residential development' Vs 'disputed neighborhood'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hidden intermediate sources

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

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

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

Beit Jala-Gilo conflict

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

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

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

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

'disputed housing development'

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

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

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

settlement/colony

gilo is not a neighborhood, it is a settlement/colony built on a land occupied and stolen from christian palestinian residents especially from the christian town of beit jala.

then neighborhoods do not have mayors or city councils such as gilo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.46.197 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

gilo has more than 40,000 residents.... and u r calling it a neighborhood, but beiit jala has around 12,000 and u r calling it a town????? u make no sense!

gilo is not a neighborhood, its a settlement/colony!

since when neighborhoods have a mayor??? and city community center???--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cities and towns have mayors and community councils and centers. But you seem strangely against calling it a town or city, or any other political-division term. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

it is illegal settlement/colony that is being built on a stolen and occupied land and it is ILLEGAL under in the international law and the international community as well--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

stop spreading bias and lies.... u should be objective--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, being obejctive in the sense of WP:NPOV means writing in the article what the best sources tend to say on the subject, in the form of a narrative. Yes, Gilo is an illegal settlement and that's what sources say too. It's also included in the lead of the article already, with sources. It isn't the only thing sources say on Gilo, though, so it shouldn't be the only point of view represented in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

residents VS settlers

every single israeli/zionist who lives on a land that was occupied after 1967 is considered a settlers and not a residents; therefore the residents of the illegal settlement/colony of gilo, are considered illegal settlers under the international law... and even the international community including the UN, US, European Union, Russia... consider them as illegal settlers living on a stolen and occupied land.... they are illegal and living in an illegal settlement--213.6.11.49 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

this is not forum for you to talk, if you want that go to a nother website. do not have your rants here full of WP:OR. if you want to improve article then find some references for facts. thanks. LibiBamizrach (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

They are living there, therefore they are residents. That's the plain definition of the word "residents". DMacks (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for change in lead

I tried to personally change "residential district" to "Israeli settlement" in the article but an abuse filter prohibited me from doing so. What administrator implemented this filter, and can someone change this? The anonymous editor above is partially correct; while they are still residents, the area is an illegal Israeli settlement as it was built on land occupied after 1967 (namely the West Bank). This should be mentioned in the lead of the article; otherwise, the statement about Israeli settlements being illegal under international law seems like a non sequitur. Can someone please change this? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think that if you establish an account the filters will be more lenient on your edits. (of course you can also continue to edit as an IP, there's nothing wrong with that) On the substance side, the lead does mention that the settlement is on the wrong side of the Green line. If you mean changing "West Bank" to "occupied West Bank" in the lead, I have not problem with that. Don't know about the filters though ;) --Dailycare (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean changing "residential district" to "Israeli settlement" (with link). You can add in "occupied" if you like and I have no problem with that, but it wasn't what I was suggesting. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

People have debated themselves to death trying to reach consensus for the text in the lead, you can't just barge in and change it to fit your POV. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The source cited does not support the term "residential district". It does support the standard term "Israeli settlement". Sean.hoyland - talk 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why is a BBC article is used as a source at all. Beyond the fact that BBC is known to be biased, the content of that article has nothing to do with what it's being used as a reference for. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly the case that people have argued that the BBC is biased both for and against Israel but what matters is that the BBC are regarded as a reliable source in Wikipedia. The report contains a number of statements about Gilo. It refers to Gilo as a settlement and could therefore be used to provide WP:V compliance for the statement that Gilo is an "Israeli settlement" or a "Jewish settlement". It can't be used as a source to support the statement that it's a "residential district". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If people have argued that the BBC is biased, why is it regarded as reliable? Here's an article from another source which has been argued as biased both for and against Israel which calls Gilo a neighborhood, ynet. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC is regarded as reliable because it has a reputation for getting facts correct, although some people will call BBC biased because it isn't biased to their liking. Also the source you provide mentions that the EU refers to Israel's actions in the occupied areas as settlement activity. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The same BBC which reported a massacre in Jenin when infact less than 50 Palestinians were killed there, almost all of them armed? Even when they present real facts, they do so in a biased way. The link I gave links to another article about the EU's policy regarding EJ. However, that other article had nothing to do with Gilo. TFighterPilot (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to dispute the reliability of the BBC and argue that it cannot be used you can do it at WP:RSN but realistically that would be a waste of people's time. If you would like to discuss bias in the media this isn't the place to do it. Also, please read the discretionary sanctions which you can access via the link at the top of the page, particularly the Editors reminded and Editors counseled sections, if you haven't already done so. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is not the place to discuss the BBC. You suggest that I am not eligible to debate this subject because I'm Israeli and thus have a POV. By that logic no one else here is eligible because everyone have a POV and no one is truly neutral, if one were, he wouldn't be here. If we are to get back on topic, the main reason why the word Settlement doesn't fit is due to the fact that's it's under Jerusalem's municipal jurisdiction and not an independent one. Think of Maale Edumim for example. It's a large settlement that has many neighborhoods. When referring to a single neighborhood there you wouldn't call it a settlement but a neighborhood inside a settlement. The only difference is that Jerusalem isn't a settlement which is why a special wording is needed for it as well as Jerusalem's other neighborhoods beyond the green line. However, if you wish to change "captured by Israel during the Six Day War" to "occupied by Israel since the Six Day War" I'd have no objections. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't suggest anything. I asked you to read the discretionary sanctions. It's for your own good, trust me. You accused an IP editor who suggested changing the article to something consistent with the BBC source cited that they were barging in to impose their POV. It suggests a battlefield mentality which isn't allowed by the sanctions and will not do you any good if you plan to stick around in the topic area. As to the content issue, you are arguing from first principles. There's no point doing that. We just follow the sources and use the terminology they use to ensure that we comply with policy. No doubt there will be variations but arguing that it is not a settlement won't fly because it will be contradicted by many sources simply because it's an Israeli housing development that is across the green line. I think compromises on these issues have been found in the past on other articles. My basic point though was simply that the current terminology doesn't comply with policy whereas the suggested change does. That's all. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, for interest and some light relief, in Security and Suspicion: An Ethnography of Everyday Life in Israel, Juliana Ochs Dweck says, "Gilo seems like a suburb on the southern edge of Jerusalem, although it is a city-sized Jewish settlement beyond the Green Line in the occupied territories." I think that says it all....it's a bit long though... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The wording used in this article as well as the other ones is "Jerusalem's Ring Neighborhood". That is the consensus in WP. TFighterPilot (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

<- Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this terminology issue in WP although an attempt to find one was made, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem. Discussion faltered, editors lost interest/moved on and the matter wasn't closed by an admin. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, let's just delete the whole article and leave only the words "Gilo is a..." which I think we can all agree upon. Other option would be to leave the article as it is and hope the uninformed reader doesn't become a radical Zionist due to not seeing the word "settlement" until the second sentence. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sean, can we not call Gilo a residential district because the BBC doesn't? It's not exactly an industrial zone. People live there and are served by the city of Jerusalem. Being built over the Green Line may give it the label "settlement", but a residential suburb of Jerusalem it remains. Sometimes the BBC does not state things which are patently obvious. We are here to fill that gap. Chesdovi (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be curious to take this thread up again. "Neighborhood" in the first sentence seems really inadequate and problematic, especially since neither of the two sources footnoted for that sentence[2][3] refer to it as such. The Ha'aretz article begins: "Israel's decision to expand the settlement at Gilo in East Jerusalem is an impasse to the Middle East peace process that must be overcome, a UN official told the Security Council on Tuesday," and the NYT piece calls it an "area" before dubbing it, by implication, a settlement. On WP, we go by the sources, and calling Gilo a "neighborhood," with all that word's connotations, is a huge disservice to our readers, especially those without much knowledge of the area or of the conflict. I suggest changing the first sentence back so that it includes "settlement" - if consensus can't be found for this, even "residential area" would be more neutral than "neighborhood," and we'd have stronger support from the sources cited. Sindinero (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You can put a ^{[citation needed]} tag next to "neighbourhood", and I think a source will show up where it's called that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Trees

This is here in case someone else thinks it's worthy of mention in the article. I might have incorporated it myself but, since it thoroughly infuriates me, it's probably best to leave it for an editor less passionate about these things.
שכ' גילה: 810 דירות חדשות יוקמו, מאות עצים ייעקרו
—Biosketch (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Before you get all twisted over this news report, the construction in question is not threatening Park 3000 - Gilo Forest. Leaving aside the new construction at the east end of Gilo, unrelated to this story, this report about the trees refers to an area at the center of Gilo. It is a rise of land surrounded (in a semicircle) by the streets Dagan, Tzvia v'Yitzhak, Yafe Rom and Givat Canada. People living in the (expensive) homes on these streets knew for a long time that the land inside the semicircle was never meant to be part of a nature reserve. It was always assumed to be the next logical area for Gilo's expansion. (Gilo Heh? or is it Gilo Vav?) Imagine living in a house with an emply lot next door. For years you got used to unobstructed views from your living room. When the owner of the land finally decides to build on the lot, what'a ya gonna do? Atefrat (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it not threatening? The second sentence says, "...and it includes cutting down hundreds of trees in the Gilo Woods." The guy Bar Nissim that's interviewed says it'll take a toll on "the animals who live here." So this sounds more like it is about Ya'ar Gilo than about a plot of land in the center of the community.—Biosketch (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the location on Google Maps: [4] If you look carefully at the photo in the Maariv-nrg article, you will see that it was taken from somewhere around Dagan St. or just northeast of it from the edge of Park 3000 facing due southeast away from the forest. The trees in the foreground are on the hump of land within the semicircle (see map). The houses on the foreground left and center are on Givat Canada and Yafe Nof St. Uptown can be seen in the distance on the upper right.

If the writer of the Maariv-nrg article wants to call that plot of land the Gilo Forest for activist encouragement, well, so be it. When all the yelling dies down the houses will be built. (A real problem is the defunct Safdie plan which will eventually be rehabilitated to rape the Jerusalem Forest to the west of the city, but that's a discussion for another talk page). --@Efrat (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

East Jerusalem vs Jerusalem

174.112.83.21, there isn't a terminology discussion/dispute about 'East Jerusalem' vs 'Jerusalem' on the talk page or in the body of the article. Why don't you start one ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll start you off...

both terms can be sourced
saying East Jerusalem indicates that it's in the occupied part of Jerusalem captured in 1967 referred to as East Jerusalem
the problem with that is that it indicates that it's in the occupied part of Jerusalem captured in 1967 referred to as East Jerusalem
saying Jerusalem is more accurate because it reflects the facts on the ground which are defined by Israel's administration of the city as a whole
the problem with that is that it reflects the facts on the ground which are defined by Israel's administration of the city as a whole.

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

if you think that both are problematic and both can be sourced, then why would you edit in east jerusalem, contrary to the long standing consensus? very classy. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the function of the 'very classy' statement ? If you would like to comment about me or other editors rather than the content please do so on the editor's talk page. Content-wise, a) long standing consensus isn't a policy based argument (see WP:CONSENSUS) despite its popularity b) I prefer 'East Jerusalem' with a link to the article because the term contains more information than 'Jerusalem'. East Jerusalem is a spatial subset of Jerusalem that the majority of reliable sources treat as a separate entity in a whole variety of ways. I also have no problem with the term Jerusalem but if that term is used I think it should be accompanied with the phrase used in the article body "located over the 1949 Green Line, on land occupied during the Six Day War" or something similar to ensure that readers are made aware that it is across the green line and so that the sentences that follow it make sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't frankly see the problem here: East Jerusalem is sourced from the BBC and that's where Gilo is located. Here are a few more sources that clearly state Gilo is in East Jerusalem: New York Times, LA Times and Le Monde. East Jerusalem is more specific than Jerusalem and also communicates issues relating to the legal status to readers familiar with those. --Dailycare (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

absolutely not. east jerusalem is not a subset of jerusalem, it is something completely different. if sources say jerusalem instead of east jerusalem, it doesn't mean that they were just being more general. it is much more complicated than that. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have no policy-based arguments against the edit, we'll re-insert it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

oh shut up already it's clearly a policy based argument. sources say jerusalem. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"it is much more complicated than that" and "oh shut up already" aren't normally considered to be policy based arguments.

Sources say it's in 'Jerusalem'
Sources also say it's in 'East Jerusalem' (e.g. Jpost, Haaretz)
East Jerusalem is apparently not a spatial subset of 'Jerusalem' and is therefore not part of 'Jerusalem' according to you

It is therefore both in 'Jerusalem' and not in 'Jerusalem'. Yes, that is complicated. I suppose it's possible that the meanings of these terms in sources aren't related to spatial considerations or the green line at all. A source might identify a locality as being in 'Jerusalem' or 'East Jerusalem' based on unspecified demographic factors such as whether the majority of residents in a given locality prefer tea or coffee, favour the left or right side of the bed etc but unless the source contains that information and explains their decision procedure it's irrelevant to us. Perhaps you might find this US government map of Greater Jerusalem useful because it shows 'Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem', includes both Jerusalem's municipal boundary and the green line and therefore provides a very simple visual method to reliably identify whether somewhere is in East Jerusalem. The important point of course is to ensure that readers are aware that Gilo is over the green line and there are 2 ways of doing that, implicitly by using 'East Jerusalem' or explicitly by simply saying it's over the green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the exact wording is less important than what's conveyed. However the sources we've seen say Gilo is in East Jerusalem, so that's IMO a better pick, wikilink included. --Dailycare (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got my eye on the "Best Zionist Editor" prize of the hot air ballon trip over Israel so I'm unsure. East Jerusalem (with a link) is simpler and certainly seems to be where the majority of the world considers it to be. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

two editors who have long history of anti-israel edits are not good enough to change long standing consensus wording on this article. dailycare continues to ignore reality that many sources say "jerusalem" and not "east jerusalem"... sean your sarcastic analogy above doesn't seem like a policy based argument to me. i guess therefore it makes everything you said invalid, or at least that's your modus operandi. if you want to find a source saying its over green line, go ahead and add it to the body but no way is there consensus to change jerusalem to east jerusalem 174.112.83.21 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

actually i see it already mentions in the article that gilo is over the green line, so you are complaining about nothing. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made an edit that should please all (IP's action point remains to provide the sources that say "Jerusalem" instead of "East Jerusalem"). --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, share your suggestion on how to include the material (East Jerusalem) in the lead. Also provide the sources you're invoking. We've spent too much time on this tiny issue now. --Dailycare (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

which part did you not understand. i am not making any suggestion about how to include east jerusalem in the lead. east jerusalem does not belong in the lead. the article already addresses the green line issue. is that clear? 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, 174.112.83.21, feel free to compile a list of this long history of my 'anti-israel edits' and drop them off at my talk page for analysis. I wasn't aware that I make 'anti-Israel edits' given that I'm not anti-Israel so it would be quite helpful. You haven't explained why East Jerusalem doesn't belong in the lead. Are you able to do that ? If we go with Jerusalem are you okay with including the fact that it is over the green line in the lead so that the 'X,Y,Z consider it an illegal settlement' sentence that follows it makes more sense ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

no WP:SYNTH please. if you find a source that says "X, Y, Z consider it an illegal settlement because it is over the green line" then knock yourself out. making that conclusion yourself is against wikipedia policy. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my question. If we go with Jerusalem are you okay with including the fact that it is over the green line in the lead ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

it's over the green line. there's nothing wrong with including that as far as i know. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, please present the sources you're referring to that say "Jerusalem" without "East". This is the third time I'm asking and we have five sources saying "East Jerusalem", one of which is the right-wing Israeli paper JP. Also the current source saying it's in the "southern outskirts of Jerusalem" makes a point to mention it's a settlement on occupied land. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking of sources, here is the Guardian ("east Jerusalem"). The source also contains a quotation from the British Foreign Office ("settlements on occupied land in east Jerusalem"). That makes it seven sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP appears to have lost interest as there has been no activity for a few days. Anyhow, IP hasn't presented his/her proposal of how to include the issue and he/she also hasn't presented the sources that have three times been asked for. I'm now reverting to the previous version which has (I know it's a bit clumsy) both Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, at least the latter one being strongly sourced. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

<- 174.112.83.21. so far you have failed to provide any evidence that your views need to be incorporated into the decision making process. If you cannot explain why East Jerusalem is not a suitable term based on policy and backed up by reliable sources then your opinion has zero weight in the consensus. Can you provide evidence to support your objections to East Jerusalem being used ? If not, please say so. Also, see WP:TEDIOUS.Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

i told you above that green line is ok. now you are completely going to another direction. why are you playing games? i'm here to improve the encyclopedia. are you? do you think that the illogical and confusing edit made by dailycare saying "gilo is in jerusalem, east jerusalem" improves the encyclopedia and helps uninformed readers understand? please consider your purpose here. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

i have to agree with 174, while both Orient House and Gilo remained in the area controlled by Jordan during 48-67, however if you use google maps or something, Orient House is in Palestinian East Jerusalem, while Gilo is an Israeli colony overlooking Bethlehem which is located south of what was pre-67 East/West Jerusalem. Pesky Gilo de-facto functions as fully integrated part of West Jerusalem colony. I'm pretty sure, Sean will not find Palestinian Authority voting ballots in Gilo, during next Palestinian election season. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, I'm asking you (for the fourth time) to produce the sources you're invoking and (for the third time) your suggestion on the wording in the lead. Recall that we have seven sources saying that Gilo is in East Jerusalem. --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

dailycare, i guess you haven't gotten the hint. i'm not collaborating with you. i've ignored everything you have said here. if sean wants to respond to my latest comment or anyone else joins in, i'll happily respond. but it's not worth my effort or time to go in circles arguing with you. that much is crystal clear from the things you have posted here. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agada, you are making a case using a model in your head rather than looking at the many sources available.
174, yes, the game is called 'follow the sources and wiki policy'. My strategy in the game changes as I see more sources. The world would be a tiny bit better if you were willing to collaborate with Dailycare, an editor who cares about policy, a rare resource in the I-P topic area and have a go at addressing the questions that have been posed. I genuinely want to know what the policy based problem is with saying East Jerusalem if sources say that. I ask not just because of this article but with an eye to a general solution to these issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I'm making a case of Wikipedia as tertiary source and not elementary school textbook, though I'm still learning Wiki holy books. It is not personal, it is communal kind of thing. Do you want to discuss additional sources? Which policy do you suggest to follow? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look towards the top of this thread you'll find several sources that just say East Jerusalem. No doubt there are many more out there. There will also be many that just say Jerusalem no doubt. All I would like to know really is why we can't just saying East Jerusalem per the sources. I'm aware that this term can mean different things to different people but I'm deliberately not caring about that because the sources don't. This seems to be a situation where editor's perspectives are getting convolved with information in the sources in an opaque way. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, The term "East Jerusalem" may refer to either the area under Jordanian rule between 1949 and 1967 which was incorporated into the municipality of Jerusalem after 1967, covering some 70 km2 (27 sq mi), or the territory of the pre-1967 Jordanian municipality, covering 6.4 km2 (2 sq mi). This is not a reliable source I'm quoting. According to first definition, pesky Gilo does fit, according to second does not. However Orient House is in East Jerusalem whatever angle you look on it ;). So probably we should disambiguate, in case of Gilo, to help wiki-reader. Kind of tertiary thing. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Okay, so the inherent ambiguity of the terminology is problematic and we, as an encyclopedia, need to do something to deal with that in your view. That makes sense but it doesn't appear to be a concern reflected in the source's use of the terminology any more than source's use of the term Jerusalem i.e. evidence of a problem is absent from the sources so we may be manufacturing one via synthesis. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides the POV of all of us, using 'east' is confusing since Gilo is 'south of Jerusalem'. Just glancing at the East Jerusalem article seems to challenge the previous higher credibility I gave to WP. Is East Jerusalem the area of 'Jerusalem' that was divided in 48-67, or any area of current day municipal Jerusalem on the 'other side' of the 49 armistice lines? In fact, technically, Gilo is not in East Jerusalem at all and one would have to explain why Gilo is being lumbed into that 'East Jerusalem' area. This argument of mine would certainly apply to the areas south and north of pre-67 Israeli Jerusalem. --Shuki (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But is it really anymore more confusing than saying that a place called 'Jerusalem' is the capital of Israel ?
Is the argument "In fact, technically, Gilo is not in East Jerusalem at all and one would have to explain why Gilo is being lumbed into that 'East Jerusalem' area." any different from someone saying "In fact, technically, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel at all and one would have to explain why East Jerusalem is being lumbed into that 'Jerusalem' area." All of these kind of 'arguing from unspecified assumptions absent from the sources' approachs seem completely inconsistent with WP:V to me and seem to cause endless problems. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not wishing to join this fascinating discussion, but I'll record from a newspaper archive search that Jerusalem Post has many times placed Gilo in "east Jerusalem" (with a lowercase "e"). Since Gilo is actually south of Jerusalem, my interpretation is that JP has to indicate Gilo is on the east side of the Green Line or its stories don't make sense, but it doesn't want to use the formal designation East Jerusalem in case someone mistook its political position. Zero^talk 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how I read JPost's approach to these linguistic remappings of micro-geography too. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sean, are you bringing up the argument that Israeli cannot decide for itself what its capital is? Why do you want to make yourself look dumb? All of the government offices are in Jerusalem, the prime minister and president live there, and the Israeli parliament sits all year round. --Shuki (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I don't mind looking dumb. To clarify, I don't even have an opinion about whether Jerusalem is the capital and I don't care in the slightest because I don't know what capital means in a formal sense. I don't need to know. Luckily wiki policy forbids me from adding unverifiable information or trying to participate in consensus building unless I can support statements with sources. I think you are missing my point or I didn't make it very well. My point is that there is a structural similarity between your reasoning and the reasoning of editors who flat out state that "in fact, technically, Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel at all" despite an abundance of sources that say it is. When there are an abundance of reliable sources that make a statement of fact that 'X is the case' it isn't possible for us to dismiss them. We have an abundance of sources that say Gilo is in East Jerusalem. We have an abundance of sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If we don't need to know precisely what a source means by 'capital' when we use that source to justify saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel then we don't need to know precisely what a source means by 'East Jerusalem' when we use that source to justify saying that Gilo is in East Jerusalem. That was my point. There is a symmetry between the arguments. It's about having a consistent process when it comes to WP:V compliance and making content decisions based on rules that are repeatable and deterministic rather than stochastic. It will probably be easier for you to understand my pedantic approach to these things if instead of thinking 'POV pro-pal editor' you think annoyingly compulsive autistic-like behavior. I just want to make sure that we comply with policy in a consistent way that makes sense and I almost never care what the outcome is. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FACTS: International law and treaty clearly gives the Jews title to all the land (including Jerusalem)from the Jordan river to the sea. This is explicitly stated in the San Remo convention, the Palestine Mandate and the Anglo-American Treaty. UN charter, article 80 was incorporated to protect those rights. There are no 'settlers', no 'occupation' and no Palestinians (an invention of the KGB in 1964). Please state facts not Big Lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.238.29 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"occupied"

Just out of curiosity, Jordan "occupied" the territory but Israel "captured" or "conquered" the territory? Interesting. nableezy - 23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about "Gilo remained on the other side of the Green Line, captured by the Jordan kingdom until 1967", per apparent consensus. Capturing is a single action or event, whereas occupation is an ongoing state of being. The statement parses as "captured until 1967", which doesn't make sense. Was it captured in 1967? Was it occupied until 1967? Or is this complex sentence with a ton of phrases missing a comma or other feature? Seems like it could be simplied, or at least definitely made sensible...somehow... DMacks (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 and then by Israel from 1967 until the now. This is a semantic game by some users who insist on not calling the Israeli-occupied territories "occupied". nableezy - 01:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the facts and the ~~ways it gets spun~~semantic differences you mention. My only concern is that "captured" as an adjective doesn't make sense here (regardless of spin)...unless you are talking about their status as a "captured territory". Capturing is a one-time thing, being a captured entity is an ongoing situation. "I was born since 1965" (weird use of English language at best) vs "I was born in 1965" (single event) or "I have been alive since 1965" (ongoing status). DMacks (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FACTS: In 1948 Jordan invaded Judea and Samaria and occupied the territory illegaly until forced out in 1967. Israel liberated Judea and Samaria in accordance with international law. Jordan later relinquished all claims to Judea and Samaria. In accordance with the San Remo convention and Palestine Mandate, Israel has title to all the land from the Jordan river to the sea. UN charter, article 80 was incorporated to maintain those rights in perpetuity. There is no 'occupation', no 'settlers' and no Palestinians (an invention of the KGB in 1964). Facts, not Big Lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.238.29 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)