Jump to content

Talk:Jerusalem Light Rail

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

Materials

[edit]

Articles that I didn't have time to go over:

Changed paragraph

[edit]

Hi all, I rewrote this paragraph

Special cars have been commissioned from the French [[Alstom]] company to meet Israel's special security needs, with bulletproof windows and a sleek design with no mechanical parts visible and hence less vulnerable to Palestinian terrorism.

To read

Special cars have been commissioned from the French Alstom company to meet Israel's special security needs, with bulletproof windows and a sleek design with no mechanical parts visible and hence less vulnerable to terrorism or sabotage.

Please let me know if this violates consensus... It would also be helpful if Alstom or the Light Rail Website had further details... For example, is it designed with a "blow-away" roof in order to permit explosions to escape rather than fill the car? V. Joe (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

occupied to disputed and such

[edit]

changed a few words (east jerusalem issues are especially contentious and should be kept neutral as possible. many see west bank as occupied and east jerusalem as not for example. and there's a new court ruling that threw the plo as a plaintiff in the case against the french companies. please do not rv, and i'm refering to a user meteormaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've parked your suggested new version here because your wordings are not in the reffed sources, and because your claim that your version is more NPOV seems insufficiently supported.

The project has aroused controversy because the path of the rail line is planned to run through some disputed areas in Jerusalem annexed by Israel after 1967.[1] In consequence, a Dutch bank divested from Veolia Environnement, one of the French companies in the consortium hired to build and operate the rail system.[2] Both Veolia and Alstom are facing possible legal action in the French courts.[3] Some Israelis argued that the project will bring economic prosperity to the Israeli Arab population on route of the train and thus will attract more Arab residents and businesses into the Jerusalem area. [4]

MeteorMaker (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's insufficiently supported at all. The sources themselves you mentioned as reffed have pov usage of words perhaps, and they can be used in wiki using the npov wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're also not being accurate at all. the sources don't say occupied. one link doesn't even work. the other link used the term "occupied" only by the advocates against the rail. in fact many links say exactly the opposite, even by advocated against and say disputed sector. [1]... so i think that's basically it, we're just using the NPOV. you should not EDIT WAR over a little thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "disputed areas" and "Israeli Arabs" are more NPOV than "Israeli occupied territory" and "Palestinians" seems to be little more than your opinion. It's a violation of WP:WEASEL to substitute "some Israelis" for Israeli settlers, particularly as the source uses that exact term. You should not remove sourced content, like you did with the line "Settlers claimed it may block their attempt to Judaize Jerusalem.[4]". Re "Veolia and Alstom are facing possible legal action in a suit by the Palestinian Liberation Organization", I believe the case is currently going PLO's way and that Veolia has lost large contracts recently because of the badwill. I'm currently investigating the case and will update the article later. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrong... the settler language is not sourced i think, because the article is missing. East jerusalem residents of jerusalem are not settlers. it is POV to call them settlers or occupiers. It is NPOV to use the term Isralei Arabs (read article) and it is certainly NPOV to use the word disputed (probably the most npov word in the world). the case is still pending review, but the plo plaintiff was thrown out. read it here. [2] it's in hebrew but quoted from WSJ apparently. I'll update more from WSJ source. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first line from the source: "One of the main opponents to the Jerusalem Light Rail Project (JLRP) project, are the Jewish settlers who reside in West Bank settlements around Jerusalem." (OK, it uses the term "Jewish settlers" rather than "Israeli settlers" — I have no problem with changing to the former.)
"Palestinians" refer to the non-Jewish population of East Jerusalem. By calling them "Israeli Arabs", you imply that EJ is a part of Israel, which certainly is neither NPOV nor true.
There is no consensus that "disputed" is more NPOV than "occupied", and by changing the article text, you are assuming the responsibility for backing up your claims.
Re PLO, yes, that section needs to be updated. I'm looking into that. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added a new source, with the edit summary "added another source using the term jerusalem arabs. please read WP:NPOV" [3]. The source is pretty good, but I don't understand your implied claim that it somehow supports using your incorrect term "Israeli Arabs" for the Arab population of East Jerusalem. It doesn't even, like you claim, use the more correct term "Jerusalem Arabs". What it does use is the term you wanted to remove, "Palestinians", four times. In response to your somewhat misplaced request "please read WP:NPOV", I say "please read your own sources". MeteorMaker (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a lot of misrepresentations here. The term Israeli Arabs can be used in wiki to talk about east jerusalem members. the article states that they're a special case, but it's more NPOV than "Palestinians" since they hold at least israeli residency and some citizenship. The general article is named Arab citizens of Israel and NOT Palestinians of Israel and the difference in general is the citizenship issue with which the east Jerusalem is somewhere in the middle. The WSJ article talked about the PLO position as palestinians, not as the residents. And your misrepresentation here is very irritating, because you'd notice they called Shuafat an Arab district of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian village or so. Therefore you made a lot of misrepresentations, and the recent one is the total RV which you called partial... it said "in jerusalem, arabs". if you like the term "jerusalem arabs" we'll use it... hope that settles it.216.165.95.70 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, "In Jerusalem, Arabs and Jews Finally Agree" becomes "Jerusalem Arabs" becomes "Israeli Arabs"? That appears to be two pretty humungous misrepresentations bundled together. Not how we quote sources around here. However, even though the source doesn't use it, "Jerusalem Arabs" is a reasonably accurate term as long as it doesn't link to Arab citizens of Israel, since no sources use that term, and EJ is not in Israel anyway. "Shuafat is an Arab district of Jerusalem", yes that is correct, but it's not an Arab district of Israel.
The WSJ article talks about "the gulf separating Israelis from Palestinians", "the capital of a future Palestinian state", "the site of a Palestinian refugee camp", "a Palestinian who works in Shuafat", "an angry Palestinian [who] hijacked a bulldozer", and " Palestinian militants" and nowhere "the PLO position as Palestinians, not as the residents" (whatever that means). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again, jerusalem arabs is the term you wanted, that's how it was used... maybe i read that sentence wrongly in the beginning, it doesn't matter... it's a strawman argument to argue over that. Jerusalem arabs is ok. it doesn't matter if East Jerusalem is in Israel or not. It is actually, but the legality of it in international law is disputed (probably only important for articles dealing with politics and not articles dealing with the facts on the ground). They're still Israeli Arabs because they're holding citizenship (some of them) and some just permanent residency, something palestinians don't. like your either confusions, you're confusing geography and persons. if you read the the Arab citizens of Israel article you'd see it's EXACTLY the article to wiki link to since it discusses them. there is no such talking in the lead about Jerusalem Arabs under the article Palestinians! and you noticed too that's how wiki is, and what you did? You went to the article List of Arab localities in Israel and tried to change it, because you don't like it... well, don't like it is not a wikipedia guideline as far as I know. Again confusing geography and people and what not. The WSJ by the way repeatedly says "arab districts" or arab controlled areas of jerusalem. It called Shuafat an arab district (the site of a palestinian....) which is exactly what we're talking about, it's in Jerusalem now and it's arab areas/districts, it says it all over the article. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
East Jerusalem "is in Jerusalem now", and was not in the preceding 3,000 years? Hm. You seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions: "Arab districts" now becomes "Arab districts in Israel" even though the sources don't say that at all. The people who live there may have had Israeli citizenship forced upon them, but very few have accepted it, and no country in the world has recognized Israel's annexation (which the UN refers to as illegal). It's disingenuous to call them as "Israeli Arabs", which you apparently still prefer the article to do.
Some friendly advice: It's apparent from your comments that you need to read WP:NPOV more thoroughly. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again with misrepresentaitons and strawmen arguments... I never said "east jerusalem is in jerusalem now", i said those arab districts are, previously palestinian villages. and they're Israeli arabs if they're holding arab residency cards, some hold actual citizenships... so yeah they get social insurance and they are part of jerusalem. they will agree so too since they sign that they are when they get paychecks from social insurance for example. obviously you don't know what NPOV is, don't know what's the situation in jerusalem, and you have a whole bunch of issues in wikipedia questioning your conduct... perhaps you should take a break sometime and stop fighting then. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you said Shuafat (which is in East Jerusalem) is in Jerusalem now. Sorry if you felt strawmanned. In your estimate, roughly how large is the percentage of East Jerusalem Arabs that have accepted Israeli citizenship? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter for this purpose here. All of them have permanent residency and since there's no Permanent Resident Israeli Arabs, it's the same. If you know what it means, they have exactly the same colored ID's (called blue ones in Israel) so they have total freedom of movement, work permit etc, obviously in sharp contrast to the term you'd prefer? Palestinians.216.165.95.70 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't identify themselves as Israeli Arabs, and haven't accepted the citizenship, and aren't referred to as Israeli Arabs anywhere except Israel, we should obviously not use that term. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they do identify as Israeli Arab permanent residents... this was just explained to you. I'm not saying they're necessarily referred to as Israeli Arabs, just that the Israeli Arabs article (Arab Citizens of israel) is the best article discussing their status. We just used the term Jerusalem arabs anyway, and it was never the important point of any parties hereto... just the removal extreme pov and bad sources. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whole source (entrepenur) was POV

[edit]

thanks for the link. the article is a translation of http://www.albawaba.com/ as indicated. they call it apartheid, they call the Jerusalem residents jewish settlers, it's very POV and so should not have been included at all. I think by changing to jerusalem arabs it is not NPOV. there is no point in arguing that occupied is NPOV since Israel disputes this. This btw in contrast to west bank where in some contexts it's not disputed. In jerusalem it's very much contested and you can read about in East Jerusalem for example. btw, funnily, even this ridicolous pov source (the judaizing part and the religious issues are extremely non factual and are pure propaganda), funnily calls them Arab Jerusalemites. so that's it then... 216.165.95.70 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you haven't had time to peruse WP:NPOV yet. Contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in it that allows us to remove reliably sourced and attributed quotes because we may find the quoted persons themselves partisan, and nothing that requires us to use one side's terminology in preference to the other, or in preference to a more widely used and more neutral alternative. And again, you shouldn't remove well-sourced material simply because you don't like it. In any case, there is no consensus for your changes. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's you who apparently has no idea what NPOV is. It doesn't matter if the source is reliable - that's a different wikipedia convention called WP:RS. It matter if the article is presenting one point of view, and this case a very extreme one. In this case, the source was not reliable at all to begin with making your argument moot. It's now clear to all parties, except you, that we're in NPOV zone. in fact, it's you who said the jerusalem arab term is more correct, and we used that... looking at your edit history I hope you're not being argumentative just for the sake of argument... you don't have to "win" every argument, this is not a contest, it's how to have good articles... 216.165.95.70 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually MeteorMaker, you are incorrect. Al-Bawaba is not a reliable source. I am sorry that I cannot take a source that can't spell 'Judaize', and considers Israel part of the Mediterranean Sea (see their logo) seriously. You are also directly quoting the source for controversial statements, which is in direct contradition to WP:NPOV and numerous other Wikipedia policies. You are not supposed to quote the source directly, but paraphrase it to comply with NPOV and consensus, and, among other things, there is consensus to use the term Palestinian Territories or Disputed Territories (or the more specific West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem), not "Israeli-occupied territories" or a version thereof. None of what you added to the article was neutral, and I am also disappointed that you came to this article to make controversial edits, instead of actually improving the article. If you are not sure how to improve the article, I will let you know that it is missing the following:

  1. Information about planning of other lines, and the recent freeze by Nir Barkat
  2. Information about the proposed spur to the southern Old City
  3. Information about the actual conception of the railway and the tender, and how CityPass came to win it
  4. Archaeological digs near the Old City
  5. Information about stations and a map of the line
  6. Information about the proposed schedule and how the line will operate when it's completed

And of course, a lot of other things that I can't think of at the moment. --Ynhockey (Talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should not be quoted directly, unless there's a good reason to do so. For example, if a source is highly notable for a certain opinion, or if it's a very short quotation that cannot realistically be paraphrased. Not in this case. In fact, Al-Bawaba's non-reliability is surpassed only by its non-notability—it does not appear to be a mainstream media source, or a published source. Especially, sources should not be directly quoted if they are clearly biased. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE, but simply reading them is not enough. Please take the time to understand what they're talking about and why they were actually written. --Ynhockey (Talk) 23:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken on several points, Ynhockey (and I on one — bear with me).
  • I "came to this article to make controversial edits" — wrong, I reverted to the existing version when Anon made his/her incorrect edits.
  • "Al-Bawaba is not a reliable source" — firstly, it's the Entrepreneur's reliablity you should question, not Al-Bawaba (because the Entrepreneur finds the source reliable enough to quote). Secondly, the support you offer for your opinion that it's not a RS is laughable — one typo and one very creative interpretation of their logo (I can only see letter "A" with a ring around it).
  • "You are not supposed to quote the source directly" — again, not my work, though I see no problem with 9 words (of ten) in sequence from a source.
  • "You are also directly quoting the source for controversial statements" — nope, the source is clearly the Israeli settlers, whose opinion Al-Bawaba reports on, making it a secondary source.
I concede I confused this edit with one I made at about the same time in another article (with a direct quote from a PA official) when I said "reliably sourced and attributed quotes" though. Not that that matters much. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the reason it's not a reliable source is because Jordan does not have freedom of press (I thought you'd figure that out, sorry for not being clear), so the mass media from there is not reliable. In addition, it's a part-blogging site, which seriously casts doubt on its editorial oversight/standards, in fact it's not clear whether this site has any editorial oversight. The things I stated above were just indications of why I personally can't take it seriously at all (either as an RS for Wikipedia, or as a source for learning something new personally). They actually spelt Judaize wrong twice, and then got it right once.
About Entrepreneur: Who said anything about them? Just because they copy&paste an article from another website doesn't make it reliable. Google News includes articles by a lot of news sources, some of them completely unreliable—doesn't mean anything. The article is from Al-Bawaba, not The Entrepreneur. You can tell by the copyright notice.
About not coming to the article to make controversial edits, thanks for clearing that up. I therefore hope that this was an isolated case, and look forward to your contributions to the article based on the above points I raised (or any important point that was missed not related to I–P). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to note that I reverted to a version by yourself, and that you apparently had found no fault with the article. I need your opinion on a couple of things:
  • Are Palestinians who live in EJ "Arab citizens of Israel"?
  • Is there consensus for the term "some disputed areas" over "occupied territory"?
  • Is changing "Israeli settlers" to "some Israelis" compliant with WP:WEASEL and WP:RS?
  • Is a source that reports on the opinion of a group of people a primary or secondary source?
  • Is the freedom of press requirement actually in WP:RS?
  • Is The Entrepreneur a news search engine like Google News, or is there an editor involved in the article selection process?
Thanks. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firsly, let me clarify that I don't really care about your edit-war with Mr. Anon, I care about the other edit you've made to the article, which I outlined above. In reply to your points:
  • They are not Arab citizens of Israel, but by many interpretations they are Israeli Arabs. Arab citizens of Israel was a term invented by a number of Wikipedians anyway, and it shouldn't be used in place of Israeli Arabs. Paiting all Arab residents of Jerusalem as Palestinians is just as POV as painting all Israeli Arabs as Palestinians. In short, there was nothing wrong with the original version, but if don't like the fact that it linked to Arab citizens of Israel, 'Arab residents of (East) Jerusalem' might be more appropriate.
  • I guess that depends on the article, but there is general consensus to avoid using "occupied" in most contexts. It depends on what specific region you're referring to--if you're referring to all the territories, they are usually called Palestinian Territories or Disputed Territories. If you're talking about a specific area, call it by that name and don't try to generalize. Yes, Israel is in Asia, that doesn't mean we can replace 'Israel' with 'Asia'. That seems to also be your problem in the ArbCom case, by the way. The original version said 'certain areas in East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel', that's as factual and neutral as it gets. Don't change it.
  • Some Israelis vs. Israeli settlers--Since al-Bawaba isn't a reliable source, the entire statement should just be removed. I'm not sure why it was there from the start, but it was probably a result of other editors who had no interest in the light rail coming to the article and inserting stuff about the conflict.
  • Not sure what specific case you're talking about. In general, it would be a secondary source, but in case you're implying that it's relevant to al-Bawaba, it's not.
  • It doesn't say so literally, as it doesn't say many other things. It's important however that you read and understand WP:RS, and also WP:V and WP:NOR. All of the pages have interesting information you should know. The reason that press from countries with no freedom of press is unreliable, is because there are certain censorship laws which create a conflict of interest and reduce the viability of editorial oversight, because the state has the final say in the content itself. This is for example why we don't cite the IDF Spokesperson's website (a professional news source with editorial oversight) even for non-IDF-related facts. Moreover, in this particular case, al-Bawaba also seems like a borderline-self-published source with shoddy (and shady) editorial practices.
  • That's not relevant to this case at all. I realize that the Google News comparison might not have been perfect, but the similarity is that the articles are copied verbatim. While there may be a filtering process for articles in the Entrepreneur (not quite transparent how this works from the website itself), it's a fact that they didn't change a word of the al-Bawaba articles, therefore, the article is from al-Bawaba. It simply was not written or edited by anyone in the Entrepreneur, as much as you seem to insist it was. Moreover, if the Entrepreneur is solely an aggregate news source, it should not be cited at all, regardless of where they take their articles from.
Finally, I am still looking forward to your constructive contributions to the article. --Ynhockey (Talk) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of time ATM, so I'm signing off for today with the note that there still seems to be some confusion on your part which version was the original when Mr Anon entered the stage. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the long posts above were not clear enough, let me clarify my position: This version (referred to as 'original') is fine, except for the bits cited from al-Bawaba. This is your edit that I have a serious problem with. --Ynhockey (Talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kershner, Isabel (June 5, 2007). "Jerusalem Light Rail Raises Questions about the Divided City". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  2. ^ Rapoport, Meron (December 6, 2006). "Dutch Bank Divests Holdings in J'lem Light Rail, Cites Settlements". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-01-23.
  3. ^ McCarthy, Rory and Chrisafis, Angelique (October 26, 2007). "PLO Disputes Jerusalem Rail Plan". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-01-23.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference entrepreneur was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Label of Jerusalem as a settlement

[edit]

It appears that an editor is trying to insert a passage that labels parts of Jerusalem as "settlements", the UN–Swedish-preferred terminology, therefore violating WP:NPOV. This is especially redundant since the previous sentence already says the same thing. Thirdly, the new sentence is misleading since it does not mention that the light rail also serves Arab "settlements east of the Green Line", such as Shuafat and Beit Hanina, and therefore makes it appear as if the LRT was built for Jews-only. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This addition is taken from the source [4], which I believe represents the commonly held view in the UK about developments in east Jerusalem. This is in the "criticism" section, so to understand the international criticism this view does need to be presented somehow. I thought it was additional info to the previous sentence "passes through territories captured" by indicating that some of the major destinations are also east of the green line. Rwendland (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true, but you have not addressed any of my concerns. The first concern is the term "settlement" to describe parts of Jerusalem, which is not a universally-held view, and therefore cannot be stated as fact. The second concern is that the whole addition is redundant because it's a repetition of the previous sentence; and the third concern is that it implies that the light rail will only serve Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and not Arab ones (a blatant falsehood). —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a think about rewording it - I certaintly don't intend to imply it only serves Jewish neighborhoods. Unfortunately don't have time today. Rwendland (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at rewording, though it is tricky to do while remaining concise. I hope you think this is suitably improved. Rwendland (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is supposed to be about a light railway which moves people of all nationalities and faiths around Jerusalem. No part of Jerusalem is a settlement. Anyone who has studied the international law of San Remo and the Palestine Mandate will find the truth. The truth cannot be found at the UN which routinely abrogates its charter, article 80 in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.239.42 (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

request to edit the roue map

[edit]

since the light rail will now include the extenstion the route map needs to be edited to include those stops.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the extensions have been approved on paper, but it is unclear when construction will start and who will do the construction. I think we should therefore wait a bit, but feel free to add the new stops if you know of a reliable source that has this information. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-class?

[edit]

Someone recently upgraded the article to B-class, but I believe that this should be reverted because the article, while constantly improving and well-sourced, is missing a lot of important information and is overall short and non-comprehensive. I have provided a few relevant articles above and will try to significantly expand the article if I have time (can't promise anything). I hope also that other editors pitch in to improve this important article representing one of Israel's most important current transportation and infrastructure projects. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including occupied in reference to East Jerusalem

[edit]

I am sure anyone opposing knows the number of reliable sources that can be brought to this discussion to show it that it is commonly referred to as occupied East Jerusalem when giving attribution to a legal or political situation. So my question then becomes, what exactly would be the reason not include "occupied"? -asad (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, how is this or any other designation relevant to the article? Is it important for understanding the Jerusalem Light Rail? I'm sure that most people reading about this project already know that East Jerusalem is claimed by the Palestinians, and for the few who don't, we have a link to the main article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is entirely relevant to this article. Many view this light rail as another attempt by the Israeli government to solidify its control over occupied territory an further annex land. This is a huge investment and a lot of money is being poured into a project in occupied territory. If Israel suddenly decided to create a railway system linking its major settlement blocks in the West Bank, would not include the term occupied? East Jerusalem is no different. I can't for the life of me see how including the term detracts from the content of the article. -asad (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One side declares sovereignty, the other calls it occupied. The word occupied expresses just one side, hardly NPOV. The very same sentence already includes the words: "considered illegal Israeli settlements by some international bodies." with links to the relevant political discussions. --@Efrat (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Describing it as "occupied" is in fact very NPOV. As you will have nearly the entire world agreeing that the area of East Jerusalem is occupied on international law, and you will have Israel on the other side saying it is "not". This is made fact by the virtue of multiple UN security council resolutions, in particular 242 and 476, the 2006 International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the separation wall and the matter of almost every single country in the world having their embassy's in Tel Aviv. Hardly POV. -asad (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming weight to one side does not make it NPOV. In any argument, as long as there are two points of view, either one is by definition POV. Anyway, your POV is well documented in the continuation of the sentence. --@Efrat (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a violation of NPOV according Wikipedia definition of WP:UNDUE, that "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." If there was not a more of a clear cut case of a minority POV as this, than I don't know what is. What do you mean by my "POV is well documented in the continuation of the sentence." ?? -asad (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So according to you, writing East Jerusalem is a minority view and therefore WP:UNDUE? Please explain. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...continuation of the sentence? Sentence using the name 'East Jerusalem' in the paragraph "Controversy", where this entire discussion by definition belongs: "..considered illegal Israeli settlements.."-(all POVs fully discussed) / "..by some international bodies."-(links to 'Positions on Jerusalem' - all POVs fully discussed) Earlier in the article, a location is (simply) named without political positions. Most people don't keep repeating the word 'occupied' every time the say 'East Jerusalem'. --@Efrat (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ynhockey, this was the sentence before the one I quoted:
"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."
Efrat, I could be wrong, but is there a policy not to include a relevant word because it would have been discussed by clicking on the Wikilink? I am not proposing to repeat the world 'occupied' every time we mention East Jerusalem, but it is very relevant in this lead sentence because it is only being mentioned because the project has received international criticism. You really seem to be confused about what POV and NPOV means, please re-read the section on WP:UNDUE that I provided above. -asad (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I don't like “occupied East Jerusalem”, it sounds wrong. It sounds wrong because it treats East Jerusalem as a separate entity, which it isn't. According to international law it is part of the Israeli occupied West Bank. The fact that it was annexed by Israel doesn't have any effect on its legal status. My suggestion for the lead: “... and internationally for passing through parts of eastern Jerusalem, annexed by Israel after 1967.” That should please everybody and make it clear, why it is internationally criticised. Ajnem (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the content of Wikipedia articles are not based on what you like or dislike. Your proposal is very POV heavy and gives no indication that is complies with WP:UNDUE.
1) East Jerusalem (capital 'E'), is the word used to refer to the parts of Jerusalem that Israel occupied in 1967. This is according to the UN, the US, the UK, the EU, Russia, nearly every other country in the world, a relevant legal decision used by the International Court of Justice in 2005, the International Committee of the Red Cross and most all prominent Human rights organizations - global, Israeli and Palestinian alike. It it is also used as the official term used to refer to the area by news organizations such as the BBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, etc. Finally, if you Google "eastern Jerusalem", the search will yield about 244,000 results. If you Google "East Jerusalem", the search will yield about 6,220,000 results -- that means there are about 250x more results for the term "East Jerusalem" than, your term, "eastern Jerusalem". Again, WP:UNDUE makes it abundantly clear which term would be preferred in Wikipedia.
2) For the same reasons above (the countries and the news sources provided, and the Google test -- which is 3 to 1 in favor of occupied "East Jerusalem" to annexed "East Jerusalem") the more common term in referring to East Jerusalem would be "occupied East Jerusalem" not annexed "East Jerusalem".
So, the correct way (in line with WP: UNDUE) to phrase what you have just written would be, “... and internationally for passing through parts of East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel after 1967.” -asad (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Do you read what others write, or are you only interested in your opinion? But to make a long argument short, give me examples (with refs) where Haaretz writes “occupied East Jerusalem”, the same for the New York Times, CNN and others. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope? Is that your only answer? Could you please address the overwhelming sources and explain how your proposal wouldn't violate WP:UNDUE? Here are your examples (you can control+f) find the names: Haaretz - [5], [6]. CNN - [7], [8]. New York Times - [9], [10], [11]. -asad (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assad112, you didn't answer the following question:

So according to you, writing East Jerusalem is a minority view and therefore WP:UNDUE? Please explain.

Can you give your opinion on that? Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Ynhockey, I guess I didn't make it clear enough. Not to include occupied EJ would be avoiding giving due weight to the subject. Not to include it on the reasoning of Israeli POV, that is EJ not occupied and that J'lem is one entity, would be giving undue weight to that specific POV. -asad (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the reasoning behind this. I see that you are opposed to saying "disputed East Jerusalem" because according to you, there is no dispute that it's occupied. So why are you opposed to not including any designation at all? Simply East Jerusalem, as in my edit. It has a link to the main article too. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier in the sentence, a reference is given to the project being criticized internationally for "passing through parts of East Jerusalem". If we added a bit about the occupation of EJ is 1967, it would give more relevance to the criticism. We would only be essentially adding a few words that the wikilink already contains. There is nothing controversial about it. But it will bring more depth and understanding to an uninformed reader who is reading the sentence. -asad (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I understand your argument now. Even so, unfortunately I do not agree. Firstly, it is quite controversial, since East Jerusalem specifically was annexed by Israel. If anything, "disputed" is both more neutral and more accurate than "occupied". Secondly, as I said before, I am sure that more people know about the status of East Jerusalem than about the light rail. In the unlikely case that someone doesn't know, this is why there's a link to the article on East Jerusalem. Linking to main articles like this has been one of the staples of Wikipedia since its inception, and I don't see why we should do differently now. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to open up an RFC if you don't mind. I appreciate your sincerity and your patience, but I just don't see us coming to an agreement on this. -asad (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, contrary to what is said above, “disputed” territories is neither neutral nor accurate, but POV pure and simple. It's the term used by the State of Israel [12] and cherished by the Settler Organisations [13], [14]. The sentence in the lead either reads “occupied East Jerusalem”, which I don't like for stilistic reasons because it is a pleonasm - but asad has a point, if CNN, the New York Times and the EU Observers don't mind using it occasionally, so can Wikipedia. If my earlier suggestion “annexed by Israel ...”, which describes both the factual status and the fact that it is illegal, is rejected, the only possible compromise I see is plain East Jerusalem, but “disputed” is out of the question. Ajnem (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "occupied" is only being proposed here because it is relevant to the context of the sentence and is backed up by numerous sources. -asad (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really mean it's necessary, and we should not use loaded POV terms when it's not absolutely necessary. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ynhockey, but WP:UNDUE doesn't follow your notion of claiming the word is "loaded pov". I propose this: "During construction, the project has been criticized locally for the numerous delays, poor financial management and for generating air and noise pollution. The project has also come under criticism for passing through East Jerusalem, which the international community views as occupied territory." -asad (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The 'international community' can say what they like, but international law and the palestine mandate are very clear on the issue. There is no occupation, the land was liberated from Jordanian occupation in 1967; there are no illegal settlements, as the San Remo convention and Mandate require the encouragement of Jewish settlement on all the land; and no East Jerusalem as Jerusalem was re-united in 1967. Attempts to deligitimise Israel through these pages are racist and disgusting. [Fivish London] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.239.42 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Highway???

[edit]

Now that I look at the map, "Ancient Levant routes"[15], depicting (in brown) "the King's Highway", I see that: Jerusalem was not a central point on the King's Highway. At most, one can say that it was centrally located between the King's Highway and the Via Maris. According to the Bible, in Numbers 20 and 21, the King's Highway was the route that Moses and the Israelites would take through Edom on their way to the promised land. Later, after settling Jerusalem, the Israelites may have used and fought over the highway on their eastern periphery, but it certainly did not go through Jerusalem.

What's the connection between the King's Highway and Jaffa Road with its new Light Rail? Is there a map of the King's Highway showing a major branch road to Jerusalem? And if there is, Jaffa Road would most certainly be a branch off of the Via Maris. Are there reputable refs that support saying that Jerusalem was a central point on the King's Highway? The map would seem to disprove that assertion. --@Efrat (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a question of truth, but of verifiability. The source says that it was on the King's Highway. Probably the Wikilink is just misleading, and the source is talking about a different highway because it says that it was in the mountains, which is obviously not true for the King's Highway. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source, (Daniel, R.; Render, M. (2003). "From Mule Tracks To Light Rail Transit Tracks...) is the only one that I could find which places J'lem along a Kings Highway. Who are Daniel and Render? Certainly not biblical scholars. Should one obscure article written by two Transportation Engineers be an acceptable source for biblical/historical facts. Maybe the Daniel/Render article is just simply wrong. I would certainly accept what they say about traffic flow and sidewalk setbacks as being within ther area of expertise. But they themselves give no references to back up their historical assertions.
As far as I can tell, Jerusalem was an important point along the "Ridge Road" (aka, The Way of the Patriarchs), distinct from the Via Maris (the Way of the Sea) and the Kings Highway (east of the River Jordan). It seems to me that the problem is much worse than just a misleading link. The assertion that "Jerusalem was a central point on the King's Highway" (even though it has been a part of this article for so long) has never been correct. --@Efrat (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they couldn't be wrong, and I agree of course that they are not Biblical scholars. As I said though, it's a question of verifiability. I am sure you can find sources for your statements. When you do, please change the section as you see fit. But no original research please. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done --@Efrat (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veolia's divestment

[edit]

An editor has alleged that Veolia's attempts to sell the JLR, first to Dan in 2009, later to Egged, were "part of a strategy to exit the transportation market". But that is incorrect, as the decision to exit the transportation market dates from late 2011, as the various citations make clear. I appreciate that some of my earlier language was not ideal and I apologize for that. Nescio vos (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fares information missing

[edit]

Information is missing in this article on the fares system. I believe that this is the last major piece of information that's missing, and if we add it we can make a GA run (with some effort). Who can add it? —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to Atefrat for adding the section. I have tweaked it and it's in pretty good shape, although I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to include the actual prices. In any case, I believe the article is ready for a GA run. I will make some tweaks and try to expand the lead to better summarize the contents, and eventually nominate it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources missing

[edit]

We are missing sources for the "Bus and train connection" section and the "North–south BRT line", as well as part of "Rolling stock". I realize that the first one is naturally difficult to source, although if someone can find an official announcement for the recent reform in the lines it should provide most of the information. The other two are fairly technical and there's no reason not to source them. I will do my best to find sources as time allows, but am sure that others here can help :) Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 06:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the name in English?

[edit]

Why is it called light rail, instead of tram? Kelenbp (Talk) 09:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name for the system is tram. It is called light rail (which it isn't really) because Hebrew has no word for tram. --Redaktor (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redaktor

We do have word for a tram "חשמלית"

I don't know why it's called light rail except that it is a light rail Red Gabriel (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias regarding East Jerusalem

[edit]

This article is full of bias, which of course is not acceptable. In the infobox, it is stated that the locale is Jerusalem, Israel but as mentioned in the article, it also goes through East Jerusalem. In the section Controversy, it is written that "The project was criticized because the route passes through territories that Israel captured during the Six-Day War and annexed and incorporated into the Jerusalem Municipality, such as French Hill and Pisgat Ze'ev, whose status is controversial". There is no mention of the fact that they are settlements and that the territory is occupied, only that it was "captured" and that the territories are "controversial".

Wordings like "It runs from Pisgat Ze'ev in the northeast", "Neve Yaakov in the northeast" and "French Hill in north Jerusalem" are withholding the fact that they are in East Jerusalem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are heavily biased and completely wrong.101.160.21.149 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/jerusalem/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014 riots

[edit]

Very inaccurate passage. First of all the riots are an ONGOING thing as far as stone throwing by Arabs from east Jerusalem. It's happening still today in 2015 and never stopped. There isn't one window of the light rail that isn't smashed by stones and a lot of money goes for repairing the damage caused by the Arabs. Secondly, the Arabs in east Jerusalem definately do not reject the light rail. They use it more than the Jews. Anyone who actually been to Jerusalem and used the light rail knows that it is filled with Arabs. It would be nice if this passage will be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.139.42 (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Lines, New pages

[edit]

I have started to separate the different lines (red etc) as the individual lines should have separate pages, for the system as a whole and for the individual lines. More needs to be on done on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeetg (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such a move should be done in the future, but now there aren't enough sources available for individual lines for them to have their own articles. All future lines are still in the very early stages of planning and construction, so more information should be added to this current article until there is enough for it to be merged into a new one. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

settlements

[edit]

I intend to restore the description of settlements as settlements. I will not try to overwhelm the article, but pretending these are random neighborhoods is silly. As far as sourcing, see for example here. nableezy - 17:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Operator - Kfir instead of CityPass

[edit]

It was recently announced that the rights to operate the Jerusalem Light Rail will be transferred to a different company called Kfir (aka TransJerusalem J-Net, a partnership between two companies - Shafir and CAF) on April 16th, 2020. I request the permission holders to update the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrezlatin (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021, not 2020, and already transferred and started operation. he:כפיר (חברה), d:Q106687542. Also the fares table is long outdated, multi-ride contracts were cancelled last year (voy:Public transit in Israel). --Arseny1992 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

[edit]

I find this section written in a biased and purposely misleading fashion.

--Original--- In July 2014, Arab rioters caused substantial damage to three stations in Arab neighborhoods as well as other system infrastructure, and left graffiti with "Death to the Jews" and other slogans.[1] Rioting and incessant "rock attacks" inflicted on trains in the Beit Hanina and Shuafat areas have made the train route subject to closures restricting passengers to stations south of Givat HaMivtar. ---End Original ---

Interesting to note that the content of graffiti is mentioned but not what triggered the riots. What triggered the riots as is noted by ALL references mentioned is that a Palestinian teen was found murdered. So either remove this section entirely or add the reason.

--EDITED In July 2014, Arab rioters caused substantial damage to three stations in Arab neighborhoods as well as other system infrastructure, and left graffiti with "Death to the Jews" and other slogans after a Palestinian teen was found murdered.[1] Rioting and incessant "rock attacks" inflicted on trains in the Beit Hanina and Shuafat areas have made the train route subject to closures restricting passengers to stations south of Givat HaMivtar. --END EDITED 142.114.114.248 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tram?

[edit]

Is it really light rail or just a tram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.85 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations; Updating needed

[edit]

Why can most of the citations only be edited in source mode? Is there any reason not to allow the use of Visual Editor?

There are several sections where the text doesn't appear to have been edited since 2011 or 2012 and tenses need editing. Citations need adding in some places. Mcljlm (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference inn-damage was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem_Light_Rail&oldid=1203091880"