Jump to content

Talk:Gilo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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) 08:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The external link "Israelis leaving Beit Jala, say Palestinians, CNN" is inactive.
The external link "http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20060430/news_1t30jeru.html" should lead to the page http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20060430/news_1t30jeru.html, and not to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060430/news_1t30jeru.html.--77.125.85.13 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who owned the land?

[edit]

Ok, the following is in the article: According to an Israeli municipal planner, most Gilo land had been legally purchased by Jews before World War II, much of it during the 1930s, and that Jewish landowners had not relinquished their ownership of their land when the area was captured by the Jordanians in the 1948 War.(Ref: Rosenthal, Donna (2003). The Israelis: ordinary people in an extraordinary land. Simon & Schuster, New York. p. 397 note 16. ISBN 0-684-86972-1. “According to former Jerusalem municipal planner, Israel Kimhi...”)

But in 1945 we had the following land ownership (these are the villages whose land was confiscated for Gilo):

  • al-Walaja: 17,708 total, 17,507 Arab, 35 Jewish, 166 public
  • Sharafat, East Jerusalem: 1,974 dunams Total, 1,962 Arab, 0 Jewish, 12 public
  • Beit Safafa: 3,314 Total, 2,814 Arab, 391 Jewish, 109 public
  • Beit Jala: 13,307 +737 Total, 12,901 +694 Arab, 397 +0 Jewish, 9+43 public.

Today, Gilo have some 2,738 dunams of land. There is simply no way that "most Gilo land had been legally purchased by Jews before World War II"

I suggest we remove that falsehood. Any comments? Huldra (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:OR. Editors are not allowed to substitute their original research for statements made by reliable sources. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting adding anything, I am suggesting removing something which I believe is false. Please convince me that the info is correct, or I will argue to have it removed, Huldra (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to convince you it is correct, when we have a reliable source saying it is. Another policy for you to read: WP:V Here come the Suns (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is fascinating...it reminds me so much of the discussion on Talk:Walid Khalidi, where some editor insisted on keeping a source, even when if was proven to be unsound. Hmmm, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of some random "urban planner", we should prefer reliable sources. Enter Cheshin's "Separate but Unequal", p56 (I assume you have it). "But Israel's land grab in 1968 was nothing compared with the one that occurred at the end of 1970, when eight separate expropriations were carried out, covering over 10,0000 dunams of land in east Jerusalem. The largest expropriation was for the Ramot and Shuafat Ridge neighborhoods, which totalled 4,840 dunams, followed by 2,700 dunams for Gilo and 2,400 dunams for East Talpiot." This 1970 expropriation is also mentioned by Meron Benvenisti on p250 of "Jerusalem, The Torn City". The B'Tselem report "A Policy of Discrimination: Land Expropriation, Planning and Building in East Jerusalem", May 1995, lists 2,700 dunams expropriated for Gilo on 30 Aug 1970 under the Lands Ordinance, duly announced in the official Gazette #1656. The report mentions the difficulty of identifying the private owners, but says "In the third expropriation (12.280 km2, August 1970), which accounted for about half of all the land that was expropriated after 1967, some 10 km2 were Arab-owned, 1.405 km2 were Jewish-owned, and 0.575 km2 were Jordanian lands." It also says explicitly that Gilo was built on expropriated land and quotes Teddy Kollek (while mayor) saying that Arab-owned land was taken for Gilo. Zerotalk 23:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is original research. Even if it is true, it does not necessarily contradict the claim by the city planner- it is quite possible, likely even, that land originally purchased by Jews was subsequently appropriated by the occupying Jordanian government, only to be later expropriated by Israel. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 4 villages had a total of 35 + 0 + 391 + 397 = 823 dunams of Jewish owned land in 1945. Do you dispute that? Gilo, AFAIK, presently is about 2,738 dunams of land. So how can you get it to be that the "majority" of Gilos land was bought by Jews before WW2? Huldra (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't engage in original research. You need to find a source that says what you want to include in the article. That is the way wikipedia works. But if you want to conduct a thought experiment, you might want to question your assumption that Gilo's land only came from those villages. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lands of those villages as shown in post-war cadastral maps completely covers the area of Gilo and for some distance in every direction. Nothing I wrote above is OR, but even if it was that doesn't matter because OR is allowed on talk pages. If Huldra put her argument against the "urban planner" in the article, that would be SYNTH, but on this talk page it is just a good editor trying to get the facts straight by discussing the reliability of a source. We are required to assess the reliability of sources. Now that sufficient doubt has been cast on the reliability of the "urban planner", the case for including his claim has evaporated. Zerotalk 00:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if those maps show land ownership by ethnicity (which I seriously doubt), and even if those maps are accurate (of which we have no evidence), an editor cannot analyze maps to conclude that a statement made by reliable source is incorrect, that is a clear case of WP:OR. If you think the head city planner of Jerusalem during the relevant years, published in a mainstream press is not a reliable source, you can take it up on the relevant noticeboard. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "OR is allowed on talk pages" is difficult for you? Also, it is no crime to not know what "village land" means, or to not know the relationship between the village lands and the Village Statistics, but we don't have to ignore your lack of knowledge. Finally, by identifying the source as someone personally involved in the expropriations you provide an additional reason for treating him as unreliable. Any mention of his claim should also mention his COI. Zerotalk 01:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Village Statistics, whose own preface states that "they cannot, however, be considered as other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimately be found to differ even considerably, from the actual figures"? That's what you're basing this nonsense on? Here come the Suns (talk)
It doesn't say that. Zerotalk 01:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should go and correct Wikiepdia's article about them, then. Here come the Suns (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You think you can score points here by deliberately misrepresenting sources? Those words are about population estimates, not land ownership. There is no caveat in the VS regarding land ownership, which is divided into Arabs, Jews, etc. Zerotalk 02:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the evidence provided by Huldra, a very detailed map of Jewish land ownership "compiled by J. Weitz & Z. Lifshitz on behalf of the Jewish Agency" shows no Jewish land ownership at the end of 1944 in the vicinity of Gilo. This is an eminently reliable source. Zerotalk 02:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I intend to indulge this ridiculous WP:OR much longer, but even that map clearly shows the area of Gilo, to the southwest of Sur Baher and Ramat Rachel as Jewish owned, in green. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with where Gilo is. Here come the Suns (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The power of wishful thinking. I overlaid this map with the 1944 map in Photoshop before claiming anything. The two loops of Gilo lie either side of the first "a" in the village name "Sharafat". Zerotalk 08:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Making assumption based on maps is WP:OR.You need a reliable secondary WP:RS that says that--Shrike (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is making assumptions. All I propose is to read the map, which is no different from reading a book. Zerotalk 00:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
False. Reading a map and coming to your interpretation of it in order to support a claim not explictly made there is a clear case of WP:OR. Take it to WP:ORN if you believe otherwise. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 27,000 citations to maps in article space, but since I didn't try to cite this map in the article your words have no value. In fact, all your objections to OR on this talk page, where OR is permitted, just show you either don't understand the rules or you are trolling. I don't care which it is; stop wasting my time. Zerotalk 02:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like "Deja Vu All Over Again", see eg Talk:Elyashiv, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking one map from 1944, overlaying it on a modern day map (incorrectly) to reach a conclusion not made in either one. An open and shut case of WP:OR. If you believe otherwise, take it to WP:NOR and stop wasting out time here. Here come the Suns (talk)

Ok, having been informed muliple times that OR is allowed on talk pages, you continue to ignore that or even respond to it. So we know exactly what you are up to. Besides that, the statement "the map does not show Jewish-owned land in the vicinity of Gilo" is a plain reading of the map and not OR of any type. Zerotalk 03:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's exactly where it is clear that what you are doing is NOT a plan reading, because as I wrote above, that map shows the area of Gilo, to the southwest of Sur Baher and Ramat Rachel as Jewish owned, in green. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tiny green spot, about 250-300m in diameter, near where the Gilo Community Center is. It's 2-3% of the area of Gilo, compared to "most of Gilo's land" according to Kimhi. This level of detail, down to very small holdings, emphasises how dubious Kimhi's claim is. Zerotalk 04:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if not anyone can come up with any convincing arguments that the "former Jerusalem municipal planner" statement about the ownership is true, then I suggest we undo the edit here. Again, I am open for open for reconsidering my position, but arguing that it should be included (even if it is false) just because "it is a RS".........well,....that don't impress me much. (← understatement of the month) Huldra (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know how big Gilo was before the expropriations? I thought that there was a procedure for pre-48 claims by Jewish owners or was that overtaken by the expropriation procedure in this case? I guess what I am saying is that there should exist some evidence somewhere of ownership and land expropriated (there is 2,700 dunams taken for Gilo on 30 August 1970; Official Gazette (in Hebrew) 1656 (1970), p. 2808. but I can't read or even find that). I tend to agree with you that at best this is an uncited claim (given in the notes of an RS) that seems contradicted by other available evidence.Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gilo didn't exist before the expropriations. Whether the tiny fraction that was owned by Jews was treated differently or not is an interesting question that I don't know the answer to. Zerotalk 00:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then, even if we took Huldra's 823, which is a maximum figure, it's still not "most". So the claim made by the planner cannot be correct.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of ARIJ sources

[edit]

User:Shrike here removes ARIJ sourced material, with the edit-line "no consensus exist for this the WP:ONUS on those who want to retain the material."

Might I remind you on the lengthy RfC last year...and Shrike: you participated in that RfC(!) ...where the admin closing the discussion says, (among other things): "had I materials as detailed as these about any of them, I would have thought I struck gold" [...] and: "I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links". (Which is exactly what I am doing. Shrike: please revert (or start a new RfC, if you want to try to have it undone), Huldra (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned RfC was about including ARIJ sources as external links in articles, not as reliable sources for facts in articles. Referring back to it in the manner done above is misleading, at best. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You did note the sentence: "I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links"? If you disagree about using ARIJ as a source in the article, then please start a new RfC, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and you should feel free to start a new RfC about using these sources in articles, using that comment as a reference point. But to refer to an RfC about external links as if it was about using ARIJ in articles is misleading, at best. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No actual reason has been given to not include this information. Zerotalk 00:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one has been given, in the edit summary ("no consensus exist for this"). You may disagree with this, but don't misrepresent the facts. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone not liking something doesn't prove lack of consensus. Zerotalk 02:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors objecting to the content on the talk page do prove it, though. And as I wrote, while you may disagree that a lack of consensus has been demonstrated, you may not misrepresent the facts - a reason has been given. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, in summary, when Huldra and I wanted to challenge a source we provided three explicit arguments against its reliability. When you wanted to challenge a source, they best you could come up with was "there is no consensus". Anyone can do that with any source at all; it has no value and can be ignored. Zerotalk 04:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have me confused with someone else. I have not removed the ARIJ source from the article - I think it can be used, properly attributed to its advocacy source. But I do object to editors like you and Huldra misrepresenting the nature of other editors' arguments or the nature of previous discussions. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to come here & expound on my closing of an RfC that involved using ARIJ as a source. As Here come the Suns correctly notes, my comments there applied only to including ARIJ in the "External links" section: just because a source might meet the standard for being an External link it does not follow that it is a reliable source. And I need to add, nor does it exclude it from being considered a reliable source. One is orthogonal to the other. However there is a larger issue here, & I am going to continue this as a third opinion on the matter.

Someone decided that a given passage should not part of this article, based on a citation to ARIJ: "no consensus exist for this the WP:ONUS on those who want to retain the material". This implies that ARIJ has been determined an unreliable source -- at least for this passage. I looked for some discussion that came to this conclusion. Except for the RfC, I could only find one discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which failed to come to any conclusion on the matter. So unless I'm missing something, there is no reason not to accept ARIJ as a reliable source. Further, looking at how the ARIJ was used as a source, anyone can see the content was not presented as objective truth, but as a claim or assertion by the ARIJ. This makes sense, documenting a claim made against the Israeli authorities -- not necessarily what actually happened, but what one side believes happened. After all, it is obvious that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are controversial topics, & while there is more to each story than people might be comfortable admitting, it is part of the subject. (Much as while the topic of displacing Native Americans for White settlement is uncomfortable for many US citizens, injustices happened & should be included.)

Beyond this, all I can do is reiterate what I wrote a year ago: the parties involved need to start talking to each other instead of past each other as they have been doing. Otherwise, this dispute may end up unpleasant for many people. (This is not a warning, simply an observation.) -- llywrch (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, The burden of proof is no on those who want to include also WP:TO only can be given when there is only two participants. Shrike (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto have to do with this? -- llywrch (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have that the 2700 dunam expropriation in 1970 came from Beit Jala (1120) and Beit Shafafa/Sharafat (1529) which along with al-Walaja (45) comes to 2694, close enough. Why is this data being contested if it comes from RS?Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not (it was only the Bethlehem bit that was reverted which I think is part of the Beit Jala figure anyway. So the discussion is really just about the Mandate era claim which even if true seems not that significant in relation to 2700 expropriated?Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

[edit]
41.128.168.228 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

free palestine

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilo&oldid=1207264884"