Talk:Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Bizarre translation

The idea of creating such an article is not a bad one, but "neighborhoods of the ring" sounds like something out of Startrek or Harry Potter. There must be a better translation than that. I would have a look at the English newspapers in Israel and see how they refer to them. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I opted for a literal translation because it's more fun. Sorry you disapprove so strongly, but it's a minor issue at this stage (see below). Thx. El_C 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-comment

You should have noted that you removed the settlement bit, Gila, which I had as "aiming to surround it with sizable Jewish settlements," and at .He as: "ומטרתן הייתה להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות." I'm disappointed you made no mention of it ("copyed" is misleading). El_C 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you mistranslated that, probably the reason Gilabrand removed it. שכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות is "large Jewish residential neighborhoods". The Israelis certainly didn't establish them as settlements. They expanded the borders of Jerusalem in 1967 and established the places within that city and subject to full Israeli civil law. I'll make note of the international positions even though I think it is overmentioned here. --Robertert (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and now I see you not only removed that in the "copyediting," you also removed "At the end of the war, the security doctrine held that the centre of the city needed to be surrounded by large residential neighborhoods, where thousands of Jews would live, taking advantage of undeveloped areas to build apartment buildings as quickly as possible. The building plan emphasized on satellite neighborhoods that would encompass Jerusalem [etc.]" which was at .He as "בתום המלחמה הייתה תפישה ביטחונית לפיה יש להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים גדולות, בהן יתגוררו אלפי יהודים תוך ניצול כל שטח פנוי לבניית דירות רבות בזריזות מרבית. מדיניות הבינוי שמה דגש על שכונות לווין [etc.]" How do you account for this? El_C 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was not sourced as far as I could see - it was a rehash of ideas that are often bandied around. When you write "security doctrine" - where is that doctrine, whose is it? There is too much vagueness that people accept as the word of God. What does "as quickly as possible" mean? A translation from Hebrew Wikipedia is not a source. I appreciate the fact that you have started this article, and are trying to find a solution to the dispute, but more work needs to be done based on solid sources (not Peace Now, now Arab media sites, not "universally accepted truths"). If you can add such material, you will deserve a medal.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The point you're ignoring is that this was a direct translation/quote from the Hebrew Wikipedia. You undid key content segments, fundamentally related to the dispute which caused you to be placed under editing restrictions, with the misleading "copy editing" summary. That is not acceptable. If this is going to be your approach, further restrictions will be added to you, specifically. Thx. El_C 10:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This, incidentally, is why I opted for such a clumsy, literalist translation style from the pro-Israel Hebrew Wikipedia: you can't really argue that I wrote "security doctrine" (תפישה ביטחונית) or "as quickly as possible" (לבניית דירות רבות בזריזות מרבית). But you will adhere to intellectually-honest editing, including talk page discussion for all content removal, with clear summaries. I'm genuinely surprised, because I got the impression you were more thought-out. Let's hope it proves an unusual mis-step. El_C 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, too - I thought you were more versed in the ways of Wikipedia. A unsourced "literal" translation from Hebrew Wikipedia (which is obviously a mistranslation, as noted by Robert above - shekhunot are not settlements) is not an acceptable source. Granted, this is just the beginning of an article, but I am surprised by your response, to put it mildly. The reason for starting this article was to get the facts straight, not write another article with the same POV approach for people to battle over. I have been an active editor on this site for a long time, and I think I have contributed greatly to making it a better resource. I've had plenty of thank-yous from editors across the board, and the articles I have worked on have gone on to be featured articles. So think well before you carry out your threats. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that what El_C is saying is that you should have left a more substantial summary of the edit, i.e. make sure it was understood that you were changing a potentially controversial part. I personally agree with the edit for the reasons I said above, but it would help if you explained yourself at the time of the edit. --Robertert (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to swallow that she still doesn't acknowledge that to have been an error. As for the content, I thought it was an okay compromise; but if not, oh well. I think, eventually, both sides will need to compromise more than they have. Now, I provided you with this skeleton article to start to settle your dispute in, because, Gila, it's a central one, thereby preventing you from doing the same thing across five or more other articles. That is the logic behind it. And I expect no "thank-yous" for my efforts, just for everyone to adhere to the rules. El_C 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Settlements was my addition, yes, other than that, it was all translated. At any rate, the last thing that would be in your interests is for me to leave you to your own devices. But by all means, ask me to leave (you'll still be subject to the restrictions, that doesn't go away), continue to remove key content with misleading summaries, and see where it gets you. Hope you choose wisely. Thx. El_C 11:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
And I certainly am prepared to act on my warning —I hope not to, but I won't hesitate. El_C 11:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Progress

As I said before, if there is nothing different done (moderation perhaps) then we're going to end up in the same place. When Colour says that "neighborhood" is a disputed term and no one neutral can confirm or deny or whatever whether the sources support that, then what else will resolve that deadlock? --Robertert (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing on Wikipedia. If the four(?) of you are unable to compromise, it's likely to lead to further censur, perhaps topic ban. El_C 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It can't be that the only solution to resolving disputes is to punish everyone. I saw evidence that your friend HG moderates disputes and there must be some structure for it. I can understand if you don't personally want to even though I would prefer you did, but then refer this to someone who does. --Robertert (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be punishing, in that event, it'd be protecting Wikipedia. Again, it has nothing to do with me wanting or not wanting to do anything, and HG does not "moderate" — there's no such thing as moderators on Wikipedia. If both sides agree, you can enter into some sort of "forced mediation." Other than that, there's this, where you try to discuss and reach a compromise. I made a few suggestions on that front, which you may adopt, modify, reject, or whatever you wish, but it is up to both sides to agree. Thx. El_C 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've presented sources that support my case, which Colour says don't, and I've explained why I don't think the sources support his position. Unless a third-party like you or the "forced mediation" are going to verify what the sources say this will be a "he said/she said", albeit a ridiculous one. Are you able to look at the sources and offer an opinion? If not can you show us how to get to the mediators? --Robertert (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reading material

Here is an article that explains the anti-Zionist political POV that "editors" on Wikipedia are introducing all over the place, the more the merrier, and administrators, in the interests of "peacemaking" and "mediation," blithely allow: http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/reason.html--Gilabrand (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settlements

Just wondering why the initial information about them being established as settlements has been removed. Whether Israel intended for them to be neighborhoods of Jerusalem or not, it knew very well the international community would view them as settlements given that they were established on land East of the Armistice Line. This article seems to have been toned down, to such a point, that only people who are quite well acquainted with the situation would actually understand its full implications and intentions. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)