Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev

Legality

Why does it trouble someone so much to have people learn that any Israeli settlement outside the green line, including Pisgat Ze'ev, is widely considered illegal? The only government in the world that thinks otherwise is Israels itself, any other still follows international law on this subject.

Legality of the settlements is discussed in that article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that individual articles are not the right place to discuss, let alone make statements about, the legality of settlements as a whole. However, presenting settlements as "Jerusalem neighborhoods" (a formula used only by the Israeli government and its supporters, to the best of my knowledge) and only later making a slight reference to them as being widely regarded as settlements (the term by which the rest of the world knows them), isn't entirely objective either. I have tried to address this, while retaining some of the pro-settlement phraseology (Jerusalem suburb, separated from the West Bank...) - hopefully this can work as a compromise. Palmiro | Talk 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, there's no reason to have the political label precede a basic description of the topic of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(copied from SV talk) SlimVirgin, please see my comments posted yesterday on the talk page of this article. I might add that the term 'settlement' is not at all politicised, whereas the term 'Jerusalem neighborhood' used for settlements reflects a very strong pro-settlement/pro-Israeli government POV. We shouldn't do that. Nevertheless, in order to avoid just this sort of revert war, I left in other references to "neighborhood" as well as other elements speaking of a decided pro-settlement/pro-Israeli government POV. Palmiro | Talk 12:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Palmiro, I saw your comments. "Jerusalem neighborhood" is about as straightforward a description as you can get. It's sad that you see it as political. Remember that we're not writing for the small number of people who have strong political views about this, but for the overwhelming majority who don't even know what an Israeli settlement is. They need to know, first and foremost, that Pisgat Ze'ev is the name of a bunch of houses (a neighborhood) in a city called Jerusalem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know how to answer this. Almost all articles on Israeli settlements start off by defining them as such. It's very salient indeed that we're not writing for people who have strong political views on this; that makes it all the more important that we are neutral and factual, and do not use terminology that comes straight from one side of the conflict.

Sorry about the rather inaccurate edit summary last time, by the way (sp) - I was fixing the spelling in my compromise version, got an edit conflict and didn't change the edit summary when I changed the text around. I made another edit to prodice a new summary but forgot to actually add any spaces or whatever. Palmiro | Talk 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries about the edit summary; I guessed it was something like that. Jerusalem neighborhood is 100 per cent neutral and factual, because it's purely descriptive. We go on to say that some/most people regard it as illegal under international law, but this is disputed, Palmiro, so it can't be the point that introduces the article. You say it's "only" disputed by Israel and its supporters, but "only" isn't accurate, because that's millions of people all over the world. It's a significant-minority position, not a tiny-minority one. No one could possibly deny, on the other hand, that it's a Jerusalem neighborhood (i.e. a bunch of houses with some stores). If articles about other neighborhoods start off with a political label, all I can say is that they ought not to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are conflating two issues here: whether it is illegal under international law, and whether it is a settlement. As you can see from my first comment on this talk page, I agreed with Jayjg that this article was not the place to go into whether it was illegal or not. It is the position of the Israeli government, by the way, that settlements are not prohibited under international law, and the Israeli government holds this to be the case for settlements in the Golan and the rest of the West Bank just as much as for those in East Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, "Jerusalem neighborhood" is not neutral and descriptive. It is a term for E Jlem settlements which is used by the Israeli government and its supporters to avoid referring to them as settlements. Even if supporters of the Israeli settlement poilcy worldwide are to be counted in the millions, I am fairly sure that they are still a minority, and I do not know that any foreign government considers the East Jlem settlements not to be settlements. In other words, "settlement" is the neutral and descriptive term taking into account the reasons why these places are of importance and the context in which the terminology is used. As I have said before, in trying to render this page more neutral without starting a fight, I actually left in a good deal of phraseology that I think most people would regard as pro-settlement, and I don't see how it can lean any further towards the pro-settlement POV without being a flagrant violation of NPOV. Palmiro | Talk 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is supported by governments doesn't mean it's neutral and purely descriptive, and just because the word "neighborhood" is used by the Israeli government doesn't mean it isn't descriptive. Look, this is sad and bizarre and Orwellian. The word "neighborhood" is a purely descriptive term. This isn't the Israeli government; this isn't Israel; we're not Israeli (well, I'm not); we're not speaking Hebrew. This is the English Wikipedia and "neighborhood" is an English word that our English-speaking apolitical readers will understand as a bunch of houses with some stores, which is what Pisgat Ze'ev is.

As for Israel and its supporters, they may be a minority, but they are a significant one, which means the term "settlement" is disputed insofar as they have been deemed to be illegal. It is a politicized term. "Neighborhood" is not. You think it is, but that's because you're editing and thinking entirely within that paradigm. I'm not. Most readers won't be either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And more

A few points, if I may, to take into consideration when writing an article such as this:

• The word 'settlement' was never originally a political word, but one can argue that it has become 'political' in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As such, the word 'neighbourhood' may also be considered a political word by default, since it is a 'counter talking-point' to the word 'settlement'. This has already happened to the word 'community', which is the Israeli official counter talking-point to the word 'settlement'.
• Most maps of Jerusalem neighbourhoods are multi-coloured, showing Jewish ones in one colour and Palestinian ones in another colour. If Pisgat Zeev is a neighbourhood, it is certainly considered a 'Jewish Neighbourhood'. The maps that are not multi-coloured do not show all the 'neighbourhoods', such as this map, and are incomplete or dishonest.
• Obviously, not all Israelis consider the Jerusalem settlements as 'neighbourhoods' but in fact 'settlements', there are many Israeli opinions on this matter.
• Most people who have heard of "Pisgat Zeev" will definitely be familiar with the 'settlement' paradigm. To deny this is like saying that most people who look up the definition of 'french fries' will never have heard of a hamburger.
• Pisgat Zeev is widely known, in the English language, as an Israeli settlement.
• It is not what Pisget Zeev is that makes it a settlement, it is where it is. Any city or town introduced in Wikipedia usually has the location in the opening sentence, doesn't it?
• Remember that the word 'settlement' isn't really POV just because it is apparently politicized. My understanding is that the word is precisely a neutral word, because pro-settlers wish to call them 'communities or neighbourhoods' and Palestinians in Arabic call them 'colonies'. So the word 'settlement' has internationally been used as a compromise description, has it not?
• Following up on this previous point, stating that something is "a neighbourhood that is widely considered a settlement" is redundant, like saying "Hizma is a self-contained group of houses and associated structures with a moderately sized community widely considered to be a village".
• Lastly, is Pisgat Zeev actually a neighbourhood? I thought it had its own municipality and local structure, and as such would not fall into the category of "neighbourhood of Jerusalem" would it? It would be more like a suburb...

Ramallite ^(talk) 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The words neighborhood and suburb can be used interchangeably, and just because something is a Jewish neighborhood doesn't mean it's not a neighborhood, Ramallite. This anti-Israeli POV has to stop because this is going too far. We're not going to usurp the English language. I don't care what the word "neighborhood" (or it's Hebrew equivalent) has come to mean within the fevered world of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is the English Wikipedia, and we're not going to operate within any other paradigm. I can only repeat that a neighborhood in English refers to a bunch of houses with some stores, which may or may not have some local-government structures too, and that is what Pisgat Ze'ev is in the first instance. If you want to add that it's also regarded by some/most/UN/opponents/supporters as blah, blah, blah, go ahead, but that can't be how it's introduced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Nobody is trying to usurp the English language; we are just trying to describe things by the names in whihc they are usually known in the English language, at least by people who are not going out of their way to make a political point. Palmiro | Talk 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, it is you who wants to make a political point right up front! I just want it to be described in the same way it would be if it were in France or England. It's a neighborhood, so we say that. It's in Jerusalem, so we say that. It has legal and political problems, so we say that too. But it does not consist of those legal and political problems so that can't be the first description. The words "Israeli settlement" carry with them a certain connotation. The words "neighborhood in Jerusalem" don't. Therefore the latter is more neutral. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The words "President of the United States" carry with them a certain connotation. The words "a male human being" don't. Therefore the latter is more neutral, and that's what we go with. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, neighbourhood and suburb are not the same thing. The first means it is part of the same municipal area and the mailing address remains "Jerusalem", while the second has its own municipality/social service structure/mailing address/ etc. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is simply about accuracy, not politics or humanity.
• Do not confuse common usage terminology (worldwide, in English) with what you call 'anti-Israeli POV'. You're making the same age old argument against me, that any description of an Israeli policy or government stance is automatically "anti-Israel". Sorry, I don't accept that.
• The word 'settlement' precisely avoids going into "that it's also regarded by some/most/UN/opponents/supporters as blah, blah, blah...", or as we say in Palestine, yada yada yada... And no, I don't want to add that.
• In English, the word "residential area" refers to some houses with people living inside, yet you have been known to sternly object to such classifications in the past when referring to Rafah for example (yeah, a Palestinian area, but I didn't call you an anti-Palestinian POV pusher) because of some argument you made of it being 'misleading' and that there is a lot more to it than a mere 'residential area' because the IDF said there were tunnels there. Well, there is also a lot more to a settlement than a mere community, it normally involves the previous owners of the land getting a military land confiscation order and given a few hours or a few days to vacate only because they are of the wrong religion (along with all the other reasons that a settlement is called a settlement). Plus non-Jews are not allowed to build there. So it is quite a special case of a 'neighbourhood'. As I've told you in the past, I appreciate you don't want to mislead readers with particular choices of words, but I don't like it when you accuse others of ... what is it... usurping the English language in one particular case but then do it yourself in another article. We can all get along better on Wikipedia if we avoid double standards. I'm not comparing the two articles here, I'm pointing out what I see as problems with good-faith discussions. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment "I want it to be described in the same way as it would be in France or England" is puzzling. There are no Israeli settlements in France or England. Allow me to reassure you that were there to be, I would support their being described as such. Palmiro | Talk 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, you're so drenched in your POV you can't even see it. Yes, I know you'll say it's the same for me, but one of us might be wrong. I am using the word neighborhood (or suburb, whichever is accurate) in the way millions of English speakers all over the world use it. Remember that you did call Rafah a "residential area" despite the fact that it has gunmen running around allegedly using tunnels and safehouses, and that's still in the intro at Rachel Corrie. Therefore, please allow Pisgat Ze'ev to be a neighborhood. Just because something is Israeli doesn't make it bad or worthy of special language. I know you think it does, but that's just your POV, and this isn't the article to argue it out on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its fair of you to accuse Palmiro of thinking that "just because something is Israeli..." makes it"...bad or worthy of special language". I won't speak for him, but I don't think Palmiro is stating that "Israeli=bad". Ramallite ^(talk) 17:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It always seems that way to me, that anything Israeli is seen as deserving of special language and singling out, to the point where ordinary English words aren't allowed to describe how they live. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple English is good, and the status of East Jerusalem is undoubtedly different than that of the West Bank for two reasons:

1. East Jerusalem was never envisaged as part of an Arab state, and

2. East Jerusalem was (unlike the West Bank) annexed by Israel.

Pisgat Ze'ev is administred by the municipal government of Jerusalem in exactly the same way all other Jerusalem neighborhoods are administered. For once let's just use simple language to describe a complex situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that referring to Pisgat Ze'ev (and other Israeli neighbourhoods constructed in disputed parts of Jerusalem) as something other than a settlement is not limited to sources with an Israeli POV. Here are some criticisms of international media for using such formulas [1], [2], [3], as well as an article from CNN [4]. Additionally, Jayjg is correct in his assertion that Pisgat Ze'ev (and Gilo and Har Homa, for that matter) are not at all distinguished from other parts of the municipality. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple English is certainly good, but politically-motivated whitewashes are not. As for User:SlimVirgin, of all people, accusing me of being "drenched in my own POV", well, anyone can take a look at things like the Rachel Corrie talk page and decide for themselves on the matter. As for this user's despicable insinuations of racism, the record will show that I have never made any edit to any article regarding places inside Israel to describe them in any way different from how similar places in other countries are described. However, things have to be described for what they are. Pisgat Zeev is notable, above all, for being a settlement. And nobody except the Israeli government and its supporters, as far as I know, claim that East Jerusalem settlements are not settlements. The municipal administrative arrangements are not an issue. Palmiro | Talk 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(Restoring part of a comment Palmiro deleted) The record will show that I have never made any edit to any article regarding places inside Israel to describe them in any way different from how similar places in other countries are described. However, things have to be described for what they are. Pisgat Zeev is notable, above all, for being a settlement. And nobody except the Israeli government and its supporters, as far as I know, claim that East Jerusalem settlements are not settlements. The municipal administrative arrangements are not an issue. Palmiro | Talk 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, you're not seriously trying to tell me you regard me as editing with as strong a POV as you. I have never seen you make any edits that were arguably pro-Zionist. I've edited lots of articles around this area, and I've made edits that could arguably be said to represent different "sides." I've never seen the same from you. If I'm wrong, please show me some examples. As I see it, you're one of three editors who is a persistent and serious problem in this area.

As for your usual "nobody except the Israeli government and its supporters," please quit your insults. That's millions of people all over the world you're dismissing. Stick to NPOV. The opinion of "the Israeli government and its supporters" counts, and means you should use neutral descriptions when they're available, as they most certainly are in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Given your consistent failure to assume good faith, and your perpetual and irremediable bias, and lately most unpleasant insinuations, I do not think there is any point in my continuing a dialogue with you. I have tried my best not to descend to your level. I will only note in passing that I have no difficulty collaborating with other editors who sympathise with Israeli positions; this suggests that the problem lies with you rather than with me. Palmiro | Talk 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if you've made any edits (or arguments on talk pages) from what could be seen as a pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist POV, I'll be happy to look at them and admit that I'm wrong. All I can say at present is that I've never seen you do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point of view from which Palmiro is coming from on this one, but I must agree with SlimVirgin that the description of Pisgat Ze'ev as a neighborhood/suburb of Jerusalem should precede the way it is viewed in the political arena. To do otherwise is to imply up-front that Wikipedia stands for certain standards of right and wrong, morality and immorality, legality and illegality, and that is POV. I happen to live in Neve Yaakov, which is adjacent to Pisgat Ze'ev, and I can tell you that no one here believes they are living in an Israeli settlement. The former Gush Katif? Definitely a settlement. Ariel, Emmanuel, Tekoa and Tapuach? Definitely settlements. But Pisgat Ze'ev? C'mon, this is a huge, beautifully landscaped, upper scale housing, 50,000-strong, tax-paying Jerusalem neighborhood. To describe it in any way other than a neighborhood is nothing short of POV. But I certainly agree with placing in the second paragraph something that has been unexplainedly merged into an excessively long first paragraph—that is, the perception of many that it is located on illegally-gained land. The reader of the first paragraph will certainly see the second paragraph, and can draw the proper conclusions for himself. Yoninah 20:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, I was writing a reply - I'm withdrawing from Wikipedia for the moment, but wanted to answer you and a few other people who had made comments more or less directed at me in the past bit - but a bad internet connection swallowed it. First of all, thanks for your courteous and detailed comment, and it's a shame not all other users are capable of behaving in this way. To recap my points briefly, I think Ramallite's remarks above, at the beginning of this subsection, answer your points fully, as far as I am concerned at least. I quite understand where you are coming from though. As for your remarks that PZ is "a huge, beautifully landscaped, upper scale housing, 50,000-strong, tax-paying Jerusalem neighborhood", well, I don't think anyone is denying that. And I know that the East Jerusalem settlements are very different from the ones elsewhere on the West Bank, not least in being part of what Israeli claims as sovereign Israeli territory and in being inhabited by ordinary Israelis where many of the West Bank settlements are inhabited by ideologically motivated settlers, often from the religious nationalist tendency (though this is not the case for all E Jlem settlements, notably the ones in the Old City's Christian and Muslim quarters and Siloam). But this isn't really the issue here; the important thing is that the settlements are known to the world as such, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, and you may not like this, we may all wish that things were different, but the unfortunate fact is that their importance to the rest of the world derives most of all from the fact that they are settlements. Palmiro | Talk 07:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a neighborhood, nobody regards it as a settlement, nobody will even contemplate to give it away. Ramalite and others were confusing with Giv'at Ze'ev Perhaps, not this article. This is just a misunderstanding. Amoruso 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See here for some people who do. Palmiro | Talk 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course SOME do. But SOME also call Tel Aviv a settlement. What matters here is common usage, since this neighborhood is not in "problematic" areas they're not... Givat Zeev is regarded as settlement, it's by wikipedia's name conventions and usage. Settlements are those which might be dismantled etc, this is and will never be on the table, it's just not viewed as that. The only rational to put it as settlement is because it marginally resides on areas after 1967 which is just silly. Amoruso 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course some people, whether National Religious types or Hamas types, think Pisgat Zeev and Tel Aviv are the same. It's not so surprising, this isn't the only conflict where the extremists on both sides have a lot in common with each other. Palmiro | Talk 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So I think that an entire Jewish neighborhood built on SAND/MUD (there was nothing here) (like all northern jerusalem in question here) which happened to be a bit into the 1967 borders but it's in jerusalem, annexed and never been discussed as a settlement except in the sense that it's after 1967... shouldn't be included, it's too controversial. Amoruso 03:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The UN still see's it as a settlement, and has declared the annexation of Jerusalem into israel null and void. Both 'Settlement' and 'Neighborhood' are political terms - but both should be used to desribe what this is in full. 'Settlement' has become a political term, but 'neighborhood' is just as much of a political term, because what classifies as a neighborhood is determined by governments - they set the maps and municipal boundaries and they determine what population determines a neighborhood and what population determines a town or city - and no, not just the Israeli government but also the rest of the worlds governments (See Sovereignty). To mention one governments position and not the view of the rest of the governments in the world (or at least a great majority of them) would make this page a terribly disguised national agenda. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My revert

I'm sorry for using rollback on you there, Ilike2beAnonymous. I saw the user name and the upper-case letters in the edit summary and assumed it was a new account causing trouble. In fact, having reviewed your contribs, I see you're an established editor and that this was a genuine content dispute. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

We have "neighborhood" and "neighbourhood" in this article. The usual thing is to use the spelling used in the country itself, and I believe Israel uses American English spelling, so it should be neighborhood. Whichever way we go, it needs to be consistent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please talk out your differences, solicit consensus, let me know when you're done - I'll implement. - crz crztalk 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the article makes note of the disputed POV that it is a settlement, as well as the disputed Israeli position that East Jerusalem is legally different from the rest of the West Bank, as well as the reality that it is administered as such by Israel. Attempts to replace every mention of the word 'neighbourhood' with 'settlement' make as much sense as replacing every mention of the word 'city' in Ariel with 'settlement.' Israeli settlement is a political status. Being an Israeli settlement does not make an entity cease to be a village/town/city. This has seen plenty of discussion above. Tewfik^Talk 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected - crz crztalk 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected again - crz crztalk 13:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to invite whoever is continuously reverting to engage in discussion here... Tewfik^Talk 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have solicited input from others for a block for this person on ANI, and will likely block him soon for an extended period of time. Would like one more uninvolved person to weigh in. - crz crztalk 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two sides to this edit war. If one side is to be subjected to blocking then so should the other. It should be obvious from the discussion above that many contributors regard the Amoruso-et al version as utterly biased. The Amoruso et al version may have on balance slightly keener edit warriors taking up the cudgels on its behalf, that doesn't mean it commands consensus. And I think it should be clear from the earlier discussion above that asking people to engage in discussion or solicit consensus is coming about six months too late. You could have done that before vicious personal slurs persuaded us that editing this article or talk page wasn't worth putting up with the nastiness that came with it. Palmiro | Talk 22:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of this is (or was) occurring on Talk:Har Homa, which is a parallel situation to this article, but is still awaiting responses. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about you, I just haven't had so much time for complex arguments recently. However, this is about the replacement of every mention of Pisgat Ze'ev's physical nature with "settlement," which is far more clearcut, and which wasn't a position that you advocated on Har Homa (unless I misunderstood - always a possibility). Tewfik^Talk 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the term "neighborhood" is not by any means a simple "mention of Pisgat Ze'ev's physical nature"; as pointed out above, it has acquired distinct political overtones when used to refer to those residential areas that are known to most of the world as Israeli settlements. Secondly, it appears to be the case (though I haven't checked) that as Amoruso and ILike2BeAnonymous have gone their merry way, both of the alternating versions have grown increasingly, em, uncompromising. It's still outrageous that the edit-warrior in chief on one side should be blocked while his counterpart on the other side, who's been wreaking havoc across Wikipedia's Middle-East coverage and not just here, remains unsanctioned. Palmiro | Talk 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe that places considered Israeli settlements should have all mention of village/town/neighbourhood/city stricken and replaced with "settlement"? Pisgat Ze'ev's status of a "settlement is in any event disputed, though mention is clearly made. Tewfik^Talk 01:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another county heard from

It seems to me that the dispute over the term "settlement" is one whose connotations will be lost on most readers, but that the phrase "located in territory captured by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967 and subsequently annexed (first through the Jerusalem annexation directorate of 1967, then through the Jerusalem Law of 1980)" could be featured far more prominently in the article. This is, after all, less controversial, and makes (far more clearly) the point that some are trying to make through the word "settlement". - Jmabel | Talk 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How to make this a neutral article

I think that the first step towards removing the scales of justice icon on the top of this page is adding a settlement section.

Users can find out more about Pisgat Ze'ev (minus postcard and travel guide tidbits) from the talk page then the article right now and that's sad.

Settlement section The settlement section should present both sides of the settlement issue. It should touch on the politicality of the words "neighborhood" and "settlement". It should discuss all of the things that have been issues in here--because if you are fighting about them, and if millions of people are fighting about them, it might be important to the article.

Category placement isn't exclusive Also, is there any reason that this article can't go in both the "Neighbourhoods of Jerusalem" category and the "Settlements of Jerusalem" category?

Neutral language--what to do about neighborhood First, I want to ask a question that someone raised on this talk page before. Technically, what is Pisgat Ze'ev? I know that words like suberb and neighborhood are often used interchangeably, but these words do have individual definitions. Obviously we couldn't get more neutral than if the answer was municipality.

If neighborhood is the correct term, or if we just can't find a correct term, then there are two things. One, we use the word way less often. Not because it's not neutral but because it's used too often, too close together in the article. For a lot of sentences it would be perfectly simple to substitute a pronoun or Pisgat Ze'eve (or whatever is being referred to) in the place of the word neighborhood. It would read better too. But, that still means that we are using the word-that-must-not-be-used. I say we can. Read on.

Arguement for why neighborhood can be used as a neutral term

The words settlement and neighborhood may be carrying a lot of baggage nowadays, but they still have dictionary definitions. Whatever baggage the word has, doesn't mean that these places aren't neighborhoods. They can in fact be both settlements and neighborhoods--the words mean two completely different things and they are not exclusive. Something can be a neighborhood and not a settlement and something can be both a neighborhood and a settlement and I suppose it's possible that something could be a settlement but not a neighborhood. So, which is more appropriate to use for the article? Well, think about this. If a realtor is telling you about a piece of property and you ask where it is--they are going to use the term neighborhood, not settlement to tell you where it is. In this case, we need to use the term that the people use when not referring to politics. Neighborhood is a neutral word--that's why Israel uses it in a political context. And perhaps Israel shouldn't use it, perhaps the term neighborhood shouldn't be used in the context of politics. But this article covers more than politics, has a section to deal with the politics of the area, which should soon be expanded to cover more, including the politics of settlement v. neighborhood. TStein 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence

This sentence doesn't make sense:

"The neighbourhood is divided into five sections whose construction followed the original Center (1982), West (1988), East and North (1990), and South (1998)."

Followed the original what? TStein 11:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: They meant to say the following: Center was the first section built ("original") in 1982. The rest of the sections were named (by relative geographical location), in the years indicated. 147.234.2.2 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Category Updates

I've started my great plan for accuracy and neutrality with some category updates.

I have added the following categories:

• Israeli settlements

Pisgat Ze'ev is both a Neighbourhood of Jerusalem and an Israeli settlement. Now it's in both categories as well.

This was reverted saying that it is not an Israeli settlement. According to Israeli_Settlement:

Israeli settlements are communities built by Israelis in territory captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in:

* The West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority;
* East Jerusalem, now incorporated within the municipal borders of Jerusalem (not recognized internationally[1][2]), and

* the Golan Heights, which is de facto annexed to Israel.

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Duh

This was reverted saying that this page is not about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. No, it's not, but it includes important information on it. This category has a lot of articles in it including other places. But, Israeli Settlements is a subcat, and I'd be ok with only having Israeli Settlements as a cat and not both. But I'd like to hear some input.

• Disputed territories

Israel refers Pisgat Ze'ev et. al. as "Disputed Territories". The PA refers to them as "Occupied Territories". Well, everyone agrees that there is a dispute going on, but not everyone agrees that they are occupied. Plus, there is no Occupied Territories cat. Everyone can agree that a dispute exists, so let's just go with this.

• Arab localities in Palestine 1948

I was fairly sure, and the article makes it sound like Pisgat Ze'ev was an Arab locality until the 6 day war. I map checked it anyway though. Y'all seem to be revert happy here.

Pisgat Ze'ev map
Jerusalem pre 6 day war This map just shows where the no man's land ends--Pisgat Ze'ev area not on map.
1947 UN partition plan
1947-1967 Armistice Lines

This was reverted with the edit summary "it's not an arab locality in 1948" No, it's not. Pisgat Ze'ev was built in 1985. But the land it was built on was an arab locality in 1948 according to this article, other wiki articles and the maps I provided, and that's what this category is for as can be seen in the very first (alphabetically) article in the category: A-Tur. In fact, a large number of the articles in the Neighbourhoods of Jerusalem category are also in this category, because a large number of them were annexed after the six day war.

I have reverted the edits. Please don't edit war with me. There's a perfectly good talk page here and I comment when I edit.

TStein 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate not to sound polite, but if you lack so much knowledge about issues, I suggest you don't edit the articles... Arab locality means that there was an arab town there before 1948, it doesn't mean an area that was not supposed to be under Israel in the partition plan. If you can't understand it, I suggest you don't fight over these things. As for settlement category, see discussion above ( a good idea to check history on such issues instead of acting solo), as for conflict cateory, we can add all geographical places for the conflict but we don't, because there are seperate articles dealing with the conflict extensively. Cheers. Amoruso 06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Category:Arab_localities_in_Palestine_1948 cat makes sense. The others are highly problematic. JoshuaZ 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

See my response to Amoruso TStein 07:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I read a great deal of this talk page before starting to work on this article. If I recall, most of the settlement talk ended up being about neighbourhood v. settlement--not both in their proper places. I don't want to get into the whole legality issue again, which is why I cited the wiki Israeli Settlement article. According to that article, which does not have a tippling scales of justice sign, Pisgat Ze'ev is a settlement.

Well...I haven't gone through and read every Arab locality article, but if that's the case, then you need a different name for the category:

"In geography, a locality is a place. This is the primary meaning of the term, from which other uses derive.
Specifically, the term "locality" is used by the United States Board on Geographic Names to refer to the name of a place that is neither a legally incorporated or defined entity (like a township or city), nor a specific geographical feature such as a river or mountain."

I must say, the lack of organization in Project Israel is driving me crazy. I dislike excessive categories, but I think that a user should be able to go to one category and find a list of all articles (places) that were originally not Israeli territory. Now maybe the solution is to have some category like that that includes Israeli settlements and Arab localities in Palestine 1948 and the few other cats, and so only a few specific articles would have to be in multiple categories, but there should be some solution.

I'll leave this open to debate here. Whether the article should go in "Arab localities in Palestine 1948" or if some alternative solution should be proposed. In the meantime, I'll remove this cat.

As for the conflict issue--having reviewed the category more carefully, and given that the Israeli settlement cat is a sub cat--I agree.

OK--STOP REVERTING!!! I understand that y'all revert first and talk and think later. But please, this isn't a matter of national security, and the two of you are starting a revert war. Try to comment before reverting and waiting for a response and actually using this as a talk page! Now, having listened to your comments, I am going to do the following.

• I am going to remove the Israeli-Palestinian conflict category. Looking at the articles in the category it isn't appropriate, at least not at this time. I do want a lot added to this article and this issue can be revisited then, when we have more than one line on the issue.
• I am going to add back the Israeli settlement category. I understand that Israel and it's allies do not consider these neighbourhoods to be settlements. And that's one of the reasons I want information to be added to the Settlements section of this page dealing with this political issue. But, these are widly regarded as settlements, and according to Wikipedia, it is a settlement. If you have a problem, than go to Israeli_settlement and state your opinion on the talk page. Say there that it should be stated that they aren't settlements--they are only widly regarded as settlements. That the category name shouldn't be Israeli settlements, but neighbourhoods widely regarded as Israeli settlements. Until Wikipedia changes to either reflect you, or a change in the world, we are going to follow something that has already been decided. We aren't deciding it here. You have an issue, take it up with the article on it--not this one!
• I am going to remove the "Arab localities in Palestine 1948", pending further discussion on this page. TStein 07:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CAT - when the issue is controversial, we can't add the category. It's not controversial to classify Kfar Darom for example as settlement nor Kiryat Arba whether we like it or not, but because this area is annexed to Jerusalem it's not regarded as a settlement. It might on the other side of the green line but that doesn't make it a settlement, it's a neighborhood of unified jerusalem. So that's why this cat is wrong. As for the arab locality, I don't understand how it even remotely fits - no Arab lived in the area of Pisgat Zeev. It's not a locality of an Arabs simply because a Partition plan placed it on one side or the other, a locality is a place where the actual article in question was previously Arab dominant before 1948 as a village/town etc. It's simply not even remotely related to the article. Amoruso 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to quote myself from earlier--it would help it you read my comments so that I didn't keep doing this.

"Well...I haven't gone through and read every Arab locality article, but if that's the case, then you need a different name for the category:

"In geography, a locality is a place. This is the primary meaning of the term, from which other uses derive.
Specifically, the term "locality" is used by the United States Board on Geographic Names to refer to the name of a place that is neither a legally incorporated or defined entity (like a township or city), nor a specific geographical feature such as a river or mountain."

"

It's all well and good that these Wiki categories are intended for a specific thing, but if that's what they're intended for, then they need to have clear, specific names that limit them to the specific thing and nothing else. TStein 11:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your parade, but with all your good intentions, you'll never avoid all the incessant rant above. When it really comes down to it, the outstanding majority of Arab Palestinians consider any non-Arab Israelis, and especially Jewish ones, living in Israel as "occupiers" of "settlements" of Palestine (Please go ahead - take a poll!). That given, the degree of tolerance for their existence is all a matter of how radical their political/religious beliefs are, regarding which color line to go by (e.g. green) or following which war (e.g. 1948, 1967). And if you don't believe the Jews angle on this, just ask any of the Christians that fled from Bethlehem (or the persecuted remaining few) ever since the Moslems took over that city. You wonder why Christmas in Bethlehem just aint what it used to be? It's sad. Very sad. 147.234.2.2 15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pisget Ze'ev and Neve Yaakov not contiguous to the rest of the annexed settlements?

The article currently says: "The neighbourhood was built to expand the Jewish population in East Jerusalem, and it constitutes a contiguous Jewish area along with Neve Yaakov, which until the establishment of Pisgat Ze'ev, was isolated from other Jewish neighbourhoods." This hints at the following issue, but doesn't really make mention of it, so I suprised when I read the following:

"The current residential clustering of the Jewish, Arab, and other populations indicates a pattern of separation rather than integration. More than 60 percent of the Jewish population is concentrated in the western part of city, in the area that was under Israeli rule prior to the reunification of 1967. The remaining Jewish population resides in ten new neighborhoods in areas annexed to the city after the Six Day War. Many of these are contiguous to the earlier areas of Jewish settlement, the main exceptions being two large neighborhoods in the northeast (Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Zeev) and one in the south (Gilo), which are separated from the main Jewish area by Arab residential areas."

Shouldn't this be in the article somewhere? It's not really in the passage that I referred to--especially when you read the entire article and read that Pisgat Ze'ev is located in territory that was taken during war. If the reader thinks about it at all (which isn't likely since it's barely hinted at), they're likely to think that Neve Yaakov was isolated from the main Jewish population until the war. This article makes it sound like with the annexation of additional lands including the land that Pisgat Ze'ev is eventually on, Neev Yaakov is now connected to the main Jewish population by way of Pisgat Ze'ev. In fact the citites are isolated from the main Jewish population--they are just isolated together.

The fact that Pisgat Ze'ev (along with Neve Yaakov) are seperated from the main Jewish area in Jerusalem says something. At the very least it's a demographic statement that along with the geographic information we already have in the article gives the reader a better understanding of the neighborhood and surrounding area. Most likely, this information has an impact beyond that, and doesn't belong in the background information section. Most likely, this information belongs in the settlement section with information on the political and socio-economic implications of the neighbourhood's physical location and demographic make-up. TStein 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The neighbourhoods are not isolated at all. In fact, the new planned light railway train will go to Pisgat Zeev. Pisgat Zeev is connected to neve yaakov which is easily connected to Ramot, French Hill, Mount Scopus, Givat Hamivtar, Ramat Eshkol, Maalot Dafna, and from there the Bar Ilan main road of Jeusalem to Jaffa to the central bus station. It's not isolated at all, on the contrary. Amoruso 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Population not distance

Looking at a simple map, I can't see it either, but on the maps that I was looking at and that I linked to earlier, the neighborhoods are just dots. This is talking about population density, the title of the article I cited is "The Demographic Dimension in Conflict Resolution: The Case of Jerusalem" , and the the section heading that comes immediately before the paragraph I cited is titled "Spatial Distribution and Demographic Patterns". In order to tell me that this data is incorrect, you're going to need to pull out population maps--something I haven't been able to find easily. I've been able to find a few, but not good ones and ones that don't cover the whole area. They do show a lot of Jewish and Palestinian neighborhoods almost on top of one another, and this very article says that Pisgat Ze'ev is boardered by Palestinian villages. I'm not saying that there's a continent separating Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Yaakov for the main Jewish communities. Maybe there's just a small strip of Palestinian neighborhoods--I can't really say without looking at the right kind of map. But neither can you. TStein 06:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well my friend, first of all settlement is cntroversial therefore not added per above, second you added lots of wrong categories like "conflict" and "1948 localties" which are simply not true or relevant. Thirdly, Neve Yaakoc and Pisgat Zeev are connected by a road to the French Hill Neighborhood which also includes a nice bridge, it's then connected to Ramot from one side and from the other to Givat Hamivtar, Shedrot Eshkocl and onwards. From the south, road number 1 connected the area all the way to the region of the old city and of Talpiot, and of course the central city on the right. These are the facts of the place. The Palestinian neighborhoods are on the east you mean, outside of Jerusalem. Shoafat is indeed south of Neve Yaakov and is a seperation but it's annexted to Israel so it's just like Jaffa for this matter, it's part of Jerusalem no matter if it's more concentrated with Israeli Arabs or Israeli Jews - the road to the east bypasses Shuafat with the bridge I mentioned (not necessary to go on the bridge, it's a direct nice road), directly to Pisgat Zeev and Neve Yaakov if that's what you meant. Amoruso 06:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Settlement seems to only be controversial in this article, and I still don't understand how settlement is controverial. Yes, the Palestinian neighbourhoods referenced in this article are to the East, but not the point I was making. Please read the reference I inlcuded and the comment I left after that. This isn't an issue of physical proximity or of roads or anything else. This is a population issue as referenced above. I can look at a map just as easily as you can and see where the little neighbourhood dots are and where the roads are and everything else. But, that's completely irrelevant to what I cited--it's apples and oranges. It would help if you actually read what I cited and what I wrote before responding telling me why I'm wrong.TStein 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Settlement is controversial for any area which is a part of Jerusalem, and I think it's pretty obvious why calling a neighborhood of Jerusalem a settlement that most Israelis don't even know on which side of the Green Line it is, is controversial. As for the population issue, I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Amoruso 09:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a game of "let's avoid hurting the feelings of the Israelis". Besides, this is supposed to be a neutral article--not coming from the heart of Israel or anywhere else. Most of the talk page opinion about why the term settlement is a controversial issue seems to be personal opinion, or based on original research. Back it up. Show me that in the mainstream media the term "settlement" in re neighbourhoods of Jerusalem is controversial. If this was the Iraq War page, I could easily show someone that the term "civil war" in re Iraq was a controversial issue. In fact--I wouldn't need to gather links to the White House press briefings or other news links, because there are a myriad of reports and articles which have done that for me--they've reported the controversiality of using the words "civil war" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. Heck, I could link to a Daily Show episode. But I someone ask why it's controversial, they get personal opinions and the inevitable statment that it is--it's obvious and everyone knows it.

Population issue: Basically, I quoted from and linked to an article about the demographics in Jerusalem. The section I quoted from looked at population data in Jerusalem and noted that "The current residential clustering of the Jewish, Arab, and other populations indicates a pattern of separation rather than integration." The author says that 60% of the Jewish population is in the Western part of the city ("the area under Israeli control prior to 1967"), the other 40% is in the 10 new neighbourhoods created post 1967. Then, the author says that most of the new neighbourhoods are contiguous to the Western part of the city. There are two notable exceptions. One of the exceptions is the two contigious communities Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Zeev. According to the author, they "are separated from the main Jewish area by Arab residential areas". Was that clearer? The original text is still above. TStein 10:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's like I thought then and explained to you. The source is obviously wrong or outdated. Amoruso 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you understood the source to begin with, then why did you reply with information about roads? The source doesn't say that you can't get from one neighbourhood to another easily--it simply talks about population data. If you do in fact believe this information to be outdated, can you reply with newer population data--a map, a newer article, something that says that this information is no longer true? Information about light railways, and bridges and bypasses and direct roads is totally irrelevant. TStein 11:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I understood this source and what I replied with was very relevant. If you can't see how what I said was pertinent to the issue I can't help you. Amoruso 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My reply to you was very simple. I was asking a genuine question. While the system of transportation that exists in an area is often a reflection of population patterns, it's also often a reflection of a great number of other things, including physical proximity. I'm not saying that Pisgat Zeev and Neev Yaakov are isolated in the way that it appears that you think I'm saying it. I'm simply saying that according to this source, they aren't a part of the contiguous Jewish community in Jerusalem. This article says that the neighbourhoods of West Jeruslam are contiguous with the 10 new neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem--all except Gilo, and Pisgat Zeev, which makes a contigious community with Neev Yaakov. Maybe this doesn't have an affect on the area. Maybe there are only small Palestinian communitites between Pisgat Zeev and Neev Yaakov and the rest of the Jewish community and it doesn't make much of a difference. Maybe someone could and would really walk from Pisgat Zeev to French Hill or Ramot on a regular basis. Maybe the population of the city has drastically shifted in the last five years. But, I completely and totally fail to see how the transportation system is a direct refute of a source of population distribution.

And now I am going to be uncivil for a minute. I am very, very, very tired of the responses I am getting on this thread and that have apparantely been going on for awhile. If I can't see how this is pertinent to the issue you're right by default? Maybe you could instead answer my question or explain why it's pertinent to the issue. Maybe people could provide sources for their statements on this talk page instead of providing their opinions as fact and saying that it's "known" that what they are saying is true. There's a reason that this article has it's neturality disputed, and it's because most of the people on this talk page seem contended with revert wars and stating their opinions as fact and letting other people know that they are foolish and ignorant instead of spending a few minutes providing good sources to back up their statements. If everything that you are saying is true, then it should not be hard for you to find sources showing that the population doesn't reflect what my sources says that it does. You should be able to find articles talking about the new transportation developements, and they should refer to population. You should be able to provide sources that show that anything officially annexed is in fact not a settlement. But everyone seems so convinced of how right they and how superior they are that reading this talk page is like listening to little kids have a "yes", "no" arguement. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, give me a source! TStein 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Hi TStein,

I want to first of all thank you for making use of the Talk page - that is really the best way to construct a good article, especially on topics with a bit of controversy.

As for my edits, I saw your comments, and I rewrote both sentences you pointed out as having structural problems. As for the creation of a section to describe settlement status and the discussion on this page, I'm not sure that it is all relevant, but the sections that are should be discussed on Israeli settlement. Moreover I relinked Hizme and Anatah, as that is a strategy that encourages users to create articles and contribute content. I also replaced your note about the language with the proper template, and since this was all before I noticed your latest edits, I was also in the midst of adding some content to the section dealing with the Israeli West Bank barrier. In terms of categorisation, I tend to agree with Amoruso that while mention of the point-of-view that Pisgat Ze'ev is a settlement should be made in the article, which it is, categorising it is not so clearly correct, since Pisgat Ze'ev was annexed by Israel and is not considered by it to be a settlement, as opposed to any Israeli area in the West Bank outside Jerusalem. And while I appreciate that the Wikipedia article on the subject could imply that that might be the definition, Wikipedia is not considered a WP:Reliable sources, nor is this issue agreed upon there. As I said above, I am trying to get a clear directive on how to approach disputed categorisation. Anyways, hope to continue discussion. Tewfik^Talk 08:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict with myself?)

Settlements aside for a moment--that doesn't explain your removal of the Disputed Territories Category--that's the only added category that no one has disputed, and with good reason. Israel does consider the territories disputed territories--in contrast to the PA's term "occupied territories". I see no problem with this term, and no forseeable dispute.

I created a settlement section originally because the annexation of Pisgat Ze'ev doesn't really belong in construction or expansion. I suppose technically it is the expansion of Israel or Jerusalem, but Construction and Expanion refers to Construction and Expansion in re Pisgat Ze'ev, and not anything else. The reason I organized the page that way was because I didn't understand the purpose of "The West Bank Barrier" being a separate section. All of the information in that section is construction or expansion information--what's the purpose of a separate section? I could see it as a subsection of Construction and Expansion, but it being a separate section is just silly. At the same time, the annexation/settlement section--while it flows nicely--really doesn't belong there. And, if we were going to have two line sections, it made more sense to me to have the annexation section separate then the West Bank Barrier separate. At least, this would place more emphasis on the one line that we did have about the politics of the area--something that a user on the talk page had asked for. Plus, this set up the section nicely for additional information. The Israeli Settlement page is great, and I wasn't trying to duplicate it here, but I thought a little additional background information would be good. Plus, settlement information specific to Pisgat Ze'ev could go there as well.

I don't want to get into the specifications of the differences between settlements and what is and isn't a settlement. But, you have a large number of Israeli neighbourhoods that are disputed territories, that are not legal Israeli territories--whatever terminology you want to use, that aren't under the settlement category. Frankly, the categories for ProjectIsrael need serious work everywhere, but some sort of decision needs to made here. If they aren't going to be classified under the Israeli settlement category by Wikipedia--then we need to figure out what they are going to be classified as and create a category. This is more than a little ridiculous. TStein 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As for disputed, if we are to be honest here, and if you're familar with the Arab Israeli conflict you'd know that this territory will never be evacuated by Israel. Generally speaking, it's obvious that the territory itself is not disputed. Hamas disputes this territory as well as any territoty of Israel, while if you're looking for a peaceful arrangement, the issue of Pisgat Zeev never even came up in the discussions of Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat. I really wonder who today sees this area as settlement except to say that it was captured in 1967, it seems quite academic as of now. This is differnet from some neighborhoods near the Old City who are more problematic in some people's eyes, this area is no longer seriously disputed except by Hamas but then we need to add Sderot as well and all the way to Tel Aviv surely. Amoruso 09:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the territory will ever be evacuated by Israel. Nor do I think that it will even be brought up in re Israeli evacuation in any meetings that have a chance of leading to a peace agreement. And to historians and academics and people trying to look at the present and find a peaceful future--it does loook academic--but that doesn't mean that it isn't seen as disputed. The problem with Israel, is that these terms don't mean the same things that do for the rest of the world--and they don't even necessarily mean the same thing from one city to the next within Israel. If you use the words disputed territory anywhere else in the world--it means that the border is not defined or recognized and that who controls the territory and who will control the territory is still an issue. And for some some territories within Israel--that definition does work. But, that term has been applied to all of the territories that Israel and the PA can't agree on, simply because the PA refers to them as occupied territories. Like calling "settlements" "neighbourhoods", the Israeli government once again is using a relatively neutral and perfectly factual term: "disputed territories". If there was no dispute there would be a lot less violence. But, you are correct, "disputed territories" doesn't mean the same thing in Israel as it does in the rest of the world, and there's a whole range of meaning within Israel itself. I wouldn't get opposed to a new category--"Israeli disputed territories", a category that includes everything that's disputed, but I am wary of breaking down categories past a certain point. Would that work? TStein 10:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you addressed the issue. The point I was making is that realistically speaking, pisgat zeev is no more disputd than Tel Aviv. Would you want to add disputed category to Tel Aviv as well ? We should keep the settlement category for those places that are commonly known as settlements and not for those that practically aren't settlements at all. Amoruso 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation/Settlement

First, thanks for the revert on the wiki citation...I was pretty sure that you couldn't link to a Wiki article but when I went to check--the citation page said nada.

Second, it's fine for you to look at my edit and add citation needed again--saying that you specifically want a citation that refers to Pisgat Ze'ev, but, there was no point in reverting it. The citation was still appropriate for the section--whether or not you wanted another one.

Also, don't take this as an opportunity to go back and change the original language of the text which has already survived multiple revert wars. This page won't improve if users can't do anything without sparking a revert war.

I've added a reference for both Pisgat Ze'ev as a settlement, but it's very hard to find a reference that does that and addresses the broad issue really well so I'm including one of my previous references as a secondary reference even though it does not have Pisgat Ze'ev. TStein 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see that we're here at the same time. While references are certainly a good thing, I don't believe anyone here is challenging that a position exists that believes that Pisgat Ze'ev is a settlement. The issue is only that that position is disputed, but you probably didn't have a chance to read my comments above yet

. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you missed someone adding a CN there. And the first round of reverts saying that my refs weren't good enough :) That's why I was adding the references in the first place. TStein 09:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, i think i've missed something here. "A position exists which holds that it is a settlement."? I fail to see how that position is less dominant than the view that it is a neighborhood when the only government in the world that says it is a neighborhood is Israel, and every other government in the world says it is a settlement. Isn't in this case, calling it a neighborhood and then almost as a footnote mentioning it is 'viewed by some' as a settlement giving too much weight to a minimally held position and not enough weight to a majority held one, resulting in an article evident with national bias? Further, im confused why the nearby Arab towns are referred to as Villages, is this to make them sound more primitive and less developed? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an article with all of the details and legal points of East Jerusalem, and that is where an extended discussion should take place. This article already mentions that view in brief. I still don't understand why you keep removingmention of it being a neighborhood. What is it then, a city, town, country? Whether or not it is a settlement doesn't make it a separate municipal entity, and I don't undertand why you keep treating the two concepts as mutually exclusive when you outright said that they aren't. --Robert 79.177.100.134 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please log in to see my comment on your talk page. Your wholesale revert (which also removed my {{citation style}} is highly problmatic. In fact, I am inclined to add you the arbitration restrictions right now. El_C 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert, neither I nor El_C removed the term neighborhood. In fact, the only words i removed were settlement so that it doesnt keep using it over and over again (as i assumed you had some kind of problem with this from your removal of it from the first sentence). It is both an Israeli Settlement and neighborhood of Jerusalem - just like i said they are not mutually exclusive, but I am not the one who keeps removing the references to one of those terms from the opening sentence. I never have said, or even insinuated that it being a settlement makes it a seperate municipal entity - but being a neighborhood does not stop or cancel out the fact it is also a settlement. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say El_C did that - I thought you did but I misread and admit that was a mistake. Nevertheless, you still decided that it is definitive that not only is Pisgat Ze'ev a settlement, it is an illegal settlement. Are there legal settlements? Stop selecting specific positions from the East Jerusalem article. Readers should be able to follow the link and see all sides. --Robert 79.177.100.134 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not definitively decide anything - this was decided by the UN, The European Union and all these other organisations. The fact you are unwilling to recognise this, and the difference between the view of the Israeli Government and the view of the rest of the worlds governments (and how each is just as much a perspective as each other, the latter being a more held and common perspective) makes me truly question the motives behind your evident bias. I have and will make no comment as to the legal nature of these settlements - but the UN has, and its certainly worth noting that if it is worth noting the position of the Israeli Government. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"makes me truly question the motives behind your evident bias" - I'm not even going to reply to that. What I will do is point you to a comment that perhaps says what I've been trying to say better than I have until now: "Just because something is supported by governments doesn't mean it's neutral and purely descriptive, and just because the word "neighborhood" is used by the Israeli government doesn't mean it isn't descriptive. Look, this is sad and bizarre and Orwellian. The word "neighborhood" is a purely descriptive term. This isn't the Israeli government; this isn't Israel; we're not Israeli (well, I'm not); we're not speaking Hebrew. This is the English Wikipedia and "neighborhood" is an English word that our English-speaking apolitical readers will understand as a bunch of houses with some stores, which is what Pisgat Ze'ev is. As for Israel and its supporters, they may be a minority, but they are a significant one, which means the term "settlement" is disputed insofar as they have been deemed to be illegal. It is a politicized term. "Neighborhood" is not. You think it is, but that's because you're editing and thinking entirely within that paradigm. I'm not. Most readers won't be either. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)" --Robertert (talk)

Robertert I assume you edited Neve Yaakov because you were warned from editing this page, and you can see my response to your above comments over at The Gilo talk page. However, you state that 'many organizations label it a settlement and we say that, but there is no reason to lead with a disputed term when we can supply a simple description while giving context to the dispute' which is such a flawed statement and I think highlights your misunderstanding of this topic. In calling it a settlement, these organisations and governments are disputing that it is in fact a neighborhood of Jerusalem. Each term is disputed, and as you have even pointed out above, it is the term 'neighborhood' which is disputed more heavily and by a wider range of governments and international bodies. Saying that in this context, the term 'neighorhood' can supply a simple description while giving context to the dispute is just laughable. Context is more than one viewpoint and omitted or disguised historical facts and half truths. It can supply a simple description of the position of the Israeli Government, but it cannot provide a simple description of the dispute unless both the term 'settlement' and 'neighborhood' are used together. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Partisan sources that you supplied also call it a neighborhood.[5] The dispute is about whether it is or isn't a settlement. If its being a neighborhood were disputed, then there would be an alternate term being argued, like city or town, but no one says that. --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it calls the neighborhood a settlement, - 'The settlement bloc north of Jerusalem contains neighborhoods such as Ramot, Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Ya’akov.' Just because this one 'partisan' source doesn't deny its viewed as a neighborhood by the Israeli Government (and i haven't listed one that does) does not mean the term neighborhood is any less disputed. Why would city or town be used instead of neighborhood? You said yourself, governments determine what constitutes a neighborhood or a town or a city, and none (that im aware of) refer to it as a town or city. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"deny its viewed as a neighborhood by the Israeli Government" - no, it calls them neighborhoods. None of the sources say that they aren't neighborhoods. Your opinion might be that their calling it a settlement means that deny it is a neighborhood (and is thus what, a city, town?), but none of the sources say that, and Peace Now clearly contradicts you. I don't know what else to tell you, but this can't just be a battle of opinions. If someone thinks that it is not a neighborhood, then show me, and we can find some way to include it. --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets continue this at Talk:Gilo no need to have it going in two places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Arab Locality?

Why is this talk page in the category of Arab localities in Palestine 1948? Whatever the discussion is about, the town is certainly not an Arab locality in any year. - Al Ameer son

Funny, i think some Arabs might see it a bit differently - I mean they do claim that Pisgat Ne'ev was built (at least in part) on Arab land, do they not? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Adopting a Point of View

The blind reverts are removing information, but more importantly, are adopting a political position as "true" instead of attributing it. As the neutral point of view policy says,[6] "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively." Accusing me of bias doesn't change that. --Robertert (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you haven't replied, but the edit summary of "Attributed? That's what the references are for" shows that you should follow the link to the protocol that I provided. References are also crucial, but the protocol I pointed out still needs to be honored. --Robertert (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't attempted to reply to the Wikipedia protocols at all and are still arguing along the lines that one side is "right". --Robertert (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have show this and they do not provide sourcing to their case. --Arzkibar (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Except Robertert and Arzkibar are the same person, now arent you? See here. So dont go trying to pass off like you have other peoples support here Robertert. I do not argue that one side is right, in fact, I have been the one trying to have ALL SIDES told here, and give and equal time to each. I source everything I add, and if i forgot I usually add it within a minute or so. You're the one going around making claims unsourced in your edits, so don't go accusing me of that Robertert. Stop misrepresenting the situation. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly "In Context". You have minimised the opposing viewpoints (it is not just 'some' sources that view it as a settlement), removed valuable sources (UN and more) and just reverted this to a shamefully nationalist page Robertert. You use the disputed term neighborhood without any mention of the dispute over it, the legal problem or the international communities view on this, and yet you go out of your way to minimise the (yes disputed) viewpoint that it is a settlement, which when it comes down to it is only disputed by Israel. Please Robertert, I urge you to fix up this page. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the text deleted by Robertert. The sources clearly indicate that the site is viewed as an Israeli settlement by the international community. I would urge Robertert to cease downplaying the prominence of that view, which is indeed the majority viewpoint. I note that he is also doing this at other pages like Gilo, with the assistance of sockpuppets, and would like to request that this disruption cease. Tiamut^talk 09:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Had you read before reverting you would have realized that "you" are deleting text. That and the settlement issue is already discussed in the version before Colour decided that Saeb Erekat, ARIJ and Peace Now are apparently too pro-settlement with their description of a bunch of houses as a....."neighborhood". Unless you agree, there is no reason to replace that objective description with the disputed "settlement" as the first word, especially when the entire political status including the view of many that it is a "settlement" is already included in the next sentence. --Robertert (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Robertert, the term neighborhood is disputed too, though. See the bottom of Talk:Gilo. I am afraid we are going to have to take this to dispute resolution I fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the term 'neighborhood' is also disputed, and is no longer being used on a number of other pages without qualifying in who's opinion it is a neighborhood, I dont think we should lead with that here for NPOV purposes. Does anyone have any objections to a restatement of the opening paragraph similar to that over at Gilo? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an objection. Gilo has intricate wording according to sources specifically about Gilo. If you can find sources that support similar wording for Pisgat Ze'ev, then it's a different story. Breein1007 (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can do that, I will post my sources and proposed changes here a little later. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

'Dumbness'/ IN Jerusalem or not.

Given Pisgat Ze'ev and the other Ring Neighborhoods are only located within the Jerusalem municipality under Israeli Laws that are not recognized or accepted internationally, and that they are only part of Jerusalem because of law that the United Nations calls 'null and void,' how can you lead with it being located (with)IN Jerusalem, as a so-called fact, in line with wikipedia NPOV policy? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to control your obsessiveness. The Arab point of view is repeatedly stated in this article, both in the lead and in the article itself. In fact, it appears in almost every single paragraph. What more do you want???? Can't you use your editing talents for anything positive? I have not seen you add a single piece of information that enhances and improves any of the handful of articles that you keep hovering over. All you do is fight with everybody--Gilabrand (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

First, Gilabrand, I would like you to address the questions I have raised. How can you possibly see edits that 'improve' and 'enhance' wikipedia when you cant even understand how your own edits do not live up to wikipedia's NPOV policy? You simply remove sources, information and other information I add, and I wonder if you ever look at the sources, or just remove them because you know my edits dont sit with your POV. I do not fight with everybody, and I would appreciate it if you could, when next time entering the dialogue, use it to address the issues at hand and not personally attack me. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're one to talk about not personally attacking people. Let's take a look at the post you made on an article talk page accusing people of making edits with the purpose of "legitimizing" Israeli citizens who live in neighborhoods east of the Green Line. Imagine that! Someone attempting to stand up for those evil warmongers. On the topic of this article, it is Israel who decides what neighborhoods are in what municipalities. The UN and EU don't decide for other countries how to map out their municipalities. And that is not to mention the references from INTERNATIONAL sources that mention that these neighborhoods are in Jerusalem. So back off, calm down, and take a bit of your own advice about WP:NPOV. Breein1007 (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I said it seemed to me that part of the intention of them was to create a sense of legitimacy, and that if this was not their intention, this has been, in my opinion, the result. I said nothing about legitimizing the people, and I said nothing about evil warmongerers, so will you please stop putting words into my mouth? Your Rhetoric is offensive. Why does Israel get to decide? Who decides that Israel gets to decide? Do you understand the notion of sovereignty and that it is recognition of sovereignty itself and of decisisions by OTHER sovereigns that makes them so? Where does Israel get to decide what it wants and where does it not? Does Israel get to decide what it calls places outside recognised Israel? What about Bethlehem, what about Beirut, Beijing? Obviuosly it doesn't, so what about this page, and this area makes it qualified to do so, and qualifies it to, as you say 'decide what neighborhoods are in what municipalities'? You are right, the UN and the EU doesn't tell other countries how to map out their municipalities, but then no other country in the world, as far as I am aware, has attempted to increase the size of their municipalities beyond their own borders. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that last statement? Countries are always trying to extend their borders, and the U.S. is no exception (remember Puerto Rico and Guam?). Israel has every right to determine its own borders. You cannot say that Neve Yaakov is "outside" Jerusalem when it's part of the city map. You can say that other nations dispute Jerusalem's right to Neve Yaakov. Both these contentions are included in the first paragraph of the lead. That is NPOV. Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comparisons are highly flawed. NPOV would be to not lead with one particular viewpoint over the other, as both are ultimately points of view. What makes the Israeli map more accurate than others? You know perfectly well it is part of a city map not internationally recognised, and that it is only because other places are part of city maps that ARE internationally recognised that we can state that as fact on wikipedia. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Gilabrand, you have provided no sources in your revisions for it being a 'neighborhood' or being located in Jerusalem. You have provided no source for the Israeli position, or the CURRENT U.S. one. You have blatantly removed sources (reliable ones too) from the lead that use terms that contradict the POV which runs throughout the content of your edits. This is unacceptable. If you cannot fix this, I will be forced to revise it, call for RfCs, Third Opinions and possibly other actions that may be relevant. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing

This diff shows that significant information regarding this locale, including its being a settlement built on land occupied in 1967, have been removed from the article by Aslbsl (talk · contribs). This needs to stop. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements for community consensus on this issue. Tiamut^talk 17:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I only noticed this by coincidence. It would have been helpful if I had been notified. Anyway, what you've said is simply untrue. I did no such thing, and if you read the article, you will see so. As you initially accused me of removing information across many articles before correcting yourself, maybe you should take a step back before jumping to conclusions. I hope that we can work together constructively in the future if the occasion arises. Aslbsl (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that I have been impetuous. However, you have moved the fact that this is an Israeli settlement out of the first sentence and made it a viewpoint. You have also removed that it was etablished on land annexed to Israel and changed its location fom Jerusalem to East Jerusalem. Please read the page I linked to above. Perhaps you would like to amend your edit to the lead? Tiamut^talk 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved it from being the first word in the article, so that I could write a sentence including more basic information, like its relative size, and the city that it is a part of, which wasn't mentioned in the lead at all. The settlement information appears in the next (2nd) sentence of the lead , the one that already discusses the whole political issue, and has links and sources (there is also a boilerplate section in the body on the same topic). I *did not* remove information about Israel's annexation or that it is in East Jerusalem. Again, you haven't read the article very closely. :-) Aslbsl (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that I overlooked some things last night ... not good to edit when tired and I'm sorry if I came off harsh as a result. I've edited the text to reflect how I think it should read in light of previous discussions on this issue. Its idntity as an Israeli settlement is the majority POV and should figure more prominently than its identity as a residential neighborhood. I hope the changes are okay by you too. Tiamut^talk 19:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the intent of your changes to the lead, which removed the link to Jerusalem and broke up a logic of the sentence discussing the political status (something I mentioned above), or how your comments explain them:

You wrote: Its idntity as an Israeli settlement is the majority POV: I did not change or qualify that assertion in any way.

You wrote:and should figure more prominently than its identity as a residential neighborhood: huh? Why should one part of the political discussion already in the second sentence of the lead (and having a whole subsection in the body) be broken off to be the first word of description in the article, and what does that have to do with the rest of its description?

Maybe it was because you were tired, but the whole nature of this discussion (automatic assumptions of "whitewashing" something) makes me feel that political issues are getting in the way of productive editing. Aslbsl (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, I didn't remove the link to Jerusalem -read carefully :). The primary identity of Pisgat Ze'ev is that it is an Israeli settlement in Jerusalem - that is the majority view and it should appear first. The Israeli view that it is n innocuous residential neighborhood is. minority POV nd should not be presented as an undisputed fact in th first sentence of our article. Tiamut^talk 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you've made another change saying that it isn't in Jerusalem? That contradicts the body of the article. Isn't something in East Jerusalem by definition in Jerusalem? Like before, I feel like the politics is getting in the way, here redefining terms so they no longer make sense. I was going to let your edit stand, but this is already a bit strange, and you still haven't replied to my previous question. Maybe you meant to do something else or misread as before? Aslbsl (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed that because its not necessary. Its already established that Israel views the place as part of Jerusalem. The location is easy rnough to understand by its relationship to neighboring places, alo in East Jerusalem. Now I m going to revert your edit. You were WP:BOLD, your change has been objected to and modified. You should not continue to reinstate it. We can continue to discuss alternatives. Please note that his article has a WP:1RR restriction. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct, you didn't remove reference to Jerusalem, but your summary said as much (on a side note, your two comments seem to contradict themselves, saying it both is and isn't in Jerusalem, something I'm still confused by). I still don't understand what you mean about "primary identity". Many, excepting the Israelis presumably, classify it as an Israeli settlement. Who says that is a "primary identity"? And what do you mean about modification? You changed my edit, if I'm not mistaken... Aslbsl (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is in the municipality of Jerusalem as defined by Israel. It is part of the West Bank, as are all East Jerusalem localities, according to the international community. To say it is in the northern sector of the city is to accept the Israeli definition for the city's boundaries which is omething most of the world rejects. Capisce? By primary identity, I mean th way it is known by most of the world, nd hen I said "modification" I meant change, yes. But I did not flat out reject your changes by reverting to the version before your edits. Tiamut^talk 21:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment—there are two issues here: a content dispute and a behavioral problem. I will address both:

• Regarding the content: I don't think there is a justification for the wording "settlement" in the beginning, and disagree with Tiamut's arguments, because:
  • Between the terms "neighborhood" and "settlement", "settlement" might be more widely used in the world to describe Pisgat Ze'ev (then again, maybe not—this has yet to be proven), but it is a disputed term. Israel, a party in the dispute (therefore its opinion holds more weight, as does the Palestinian opinion, as opposed to, say, the Swedish opinion), clearly rejects this terminology. Israeli officials have been very clear on this on multiple occasions. On the other hand, I don't see anyone disputing the term "neighborhood". Indeed it seems silly to claim that Pisgat Ze'ev was not a neighborhood, although this should be discussed more in-depth if there are sources that say that it's not a neighborhood as clearly as some sources say that it's not a settlement. To clarify, I believe that it's enough to show that one term is disputed and another is not (by either primary or secondary sources) to prefer the undisputed term.
  • As mentioned above, there is no proof that "settlement" is more widely used to refer to Pisgat Ze'ev than any other term. Most impartial sources qualify that the term is disputed even if they use it. Therefore we shouldn't take that out of context to say that it's first and foremost a settlement. I don't see any proof on this talk page or elsewhere of some kind of universal and unqualified usage of the word.
• Regarding the behavioral issue: it seems that Tiamut violated 1rr in this article. I ask Tiamut to self-revert on the latest edit and use the talk page to reach a consensus. Also maybe I'm a little paranoid here, but it seems that language like "Capische?" is unhelpful and seems condescending. It does not contribute to the discussion.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey. Nice to see you, hope you are doing well.

I don't believe I violated 1RR. Could you explain how I did?

I didn't use capisce to be condescending either. I can strike it if you think its offensive though.

About the content, the idea that the majority view of Pisgat Ze'ev as a settlement should take second place to its description as a neighborhood is dubious. Israel is the one claiming it a mere neighborhood in Jerusalm while the rest of the world views it as an illegal settlement in the West Bank. Clearly the majority view should be given greater prominence. I believe this has been discussed in many different places before, but we can always revisit the issue with yet another RfC. Tiamut^talk 12:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing ... please see Security and suspicion: an ethnography of everyday life in Israel p. 33: "The reference to settlements outside the 1949 borders as Israeli neighborhoods or subrubs rather than settlements (yeshuvim) is a means of naturalizing the settlements as legitimate Israeli spaces." This book discusses Pisgat Ze'ev in the sentences directly preceding this one. Clearly, your assertion that neighborhood is a neutral term is not one shared by reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Pisgat Ze'ev is both a settlement and a residential neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Ynhockey, you should know that per WP:UNDUE that a minority viewpoint (I.E. that of the Israeli government vs the entire world) should not be given as much weight as the majority viewpoint. This is starting to become tendentious on the part of editors who complain that a settlement is rightly labeled as such. -asad (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're refuting a strawman. Nobody is trying to erase the word "settlement" from this article. Decent editors are only trying to edit an article so that fighting words and contentious wording are not shoved into the readers face at the first and every opportunity. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling an Israeli settlement a residential neighborhood is contentious. It should not even be said in Wikipedia's neutral voice, as it is now, when it is a minority viewpoint. Its a more than fair compromise to include both the majority view description and the minority view description in the first sentence and is perhaps evn then too generous. It is unacceptable for it to be described only as a residential neighborhood in the first sentence, as per the change Aslbsl was trying to make, since that places the minority viewpoint in Wikipedia's neutral voice while attributing the majority viewpoint to the international community as though it is contentious, when it is only so to Israel. Tiamut^talk 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The exact opposite is true. "Neighborhood" and "settlement" are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of whatever contentious wording that would like to be added throughout the article, it still is and always will be a "neighborhood." as the word "neighborhood" is defined in the dictionary. The fact that it is a neighborhood is not a "minority viewpoint."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I clearly walked into a bigger issue here, which maybe explains why Tiamut, you titled the section "whitewashing" and said I made changes that you ultimately agreed I hadn't. Am I correct :-)?

Reading the quotation that you posted, I think I understand why you see a problem describing Pisgat Ze'ev using any nonpolitical terminology. However, a quick google search showed me that pro-Palestinian groups don't share the same philosophy as you do, and have no problem describing the physical reality (neighborhood, or town, or city) alongside the political reality (settlement):

• "As opposed to the large neighborhoods built in East Jerusalem, Ir Amim uses the term "settlements" in Jerusalem mainly for Jewish construction in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods at the initiative of settler organizations,"
• "In East Jerusalem and its environs, which Israel annexed to the municipality of Jerusalem after 1967, there are 12 large Israeli neighborhoods that are also deemed settlements under international law."
• "This will be the first new Israeli settlement neighborhood established in East Jerusalem since Har Homa. "
• "In these annexed lands Israel built 12 Jewish neighborhoods,"

Please consider. Aslbsl (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon scanning some of the discussions here, I found some more examples:

• A new Israeli Neighborhood on the lands of Jerusalem city
• Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO's negotiating department {...} also Jewish neighborhoods like Ramot and Gilo are settlements for all intents and purposes."

Aslbsl (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So we have to use partisan sources to convince an editor that partisans allow for the use of the word "neighborhood" when describing a neighborhood. How amusing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What you should be using are reliable secondary sources discussing the use of terminology, like the one I presented. Aslbsl may not be familiar with our RS policies but Brewcrewer, surely you are? As such, you would know that giving primary source examples of usage to form a conclusion about how terminology is used is WP:OR. What you need are sources saying that neighborhood is a neutral descriptor to counter the one (and there are others) saying that it is not. Tiamut^talk 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says that the word "neighborhood" cannot be a considered a neutral descriptor of Pisgat Zev.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides the source I presented right? You did read the text above it I hope, which makes clear that using neighborhood is expression of an Israeli POV. It is therefore not neutral and not the majority view, which as the source and many others note, is that Pigat Ze'ev is an illegal Israeli settlement. Tiamut^talk 20:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're removing the word "neighborhood" based on the opinion of one Juliana Ochs?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not removing anything right now. Are you disputing the reliability of the source? Or asking for more? Tiamut^talk 22:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something Tiamut, but asking for a source discussing why the word "neighborhood" means "neighborhood" even to those groups that also call them settlements is asking to prove a negative, especially when those groups uncontroversially use the term. Aslbsl (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking for reliable secondary sources that state that Israeli settlements are called neighborhoods by the international community and that this is the majority/ neutral term. The source I presented says the opposite and in order to challenge that POV you need a source that says what you are trying to conclude by your analysis of primary sources. Tiamut^talk 20:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That source won't exist because only one or two sources claim that "neighborhood" is nonneutral, while there are plenty of sources, not just from the international community, but from pro-Palestinian groups, and even a Palestinian spokesperson, using "neighborhood" in exactly that neutral way. Aslbsl (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If its true that neighborhood is a neutral term in wide use to refer to Israeli settlements surely there must be a source that has noted that. Tiamut^talk 22:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be a few arguments that were brought up by Tiamut since my last comment:

Firstly, that there are sources saying that using the term 'neighborhood' is not neutral, for instance the book Security and Suspicion. Admittedly I have not read the entire book, but in the relevant section they seem to be complaining about the use of the term 'neighborhood' in lieu of 'settlement', which they say is not neutral. While I personally disagree, this is not relevant here—no one in this discussion suggested using 'neighborhood' instead of 'settlement'. Instead, the suggestion is to use it before 'settlement'.

I will again point out of the difference: Security and Suspicion doesn't say that Pisgat Ze'ev is not a neighborhood, it says that not qualifying the term when used without 'settlement' somewhere near it is non-neutral. On the other hand, the Israeli position that it's not a settlement, period. If we use 'neighborhood and settlement' instead of 'settlement and neighborhood', we'll be avoiding both problems—it will basically say that it's a neighborhood (which again, no one disputes as far as I can tell), but also qualifying that by saying that it's also a settlement.

I think Aslbsl proved this point above, by demonstrating that both sides (Israelis and Palestinians) use the term 'neighborhood' to describe East Jerusalem neighborhoods.

Secondly, regarding the issue of the international community's opinion—as I said before, and will reiterate: this is not relevant here. Many Wikipedians have tried, and failed, to define 'international community'. If more countries' positions are that it's a settlement than that it's not a settlement, that's nice but it doesn't mean that the term 'settlement' automatically becomes neutral. Not only that, but as I said before, there are two sides to the dispute—the Israelis and the Palestinians. The nebulous concept of 'international community' is not a side in the dispute and therefore has no effect on the neutrality of the term. If most, or even everyone, in the 'international community' agree with the Palestinian position on this issue, that's exactly what that means—not that it makes the Palestinian position neutral. I especially disagree with "majority/ neutral term". 'Majority' and 'neutral' don't necessarily have anything in common.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Tiamut, it's nice to see you too.

When I used majority/neutral, I was using it in the sense of either/or. No position is neutral, but some are more popular than others. NPOV isn't about presenting neutral positions, but about presenting the positions neutrally by giving prominence to majority viewpoints, while leaving space for minority viewpoints. That is why I am not advocating for the removal of neighborhood but instead asking that its inclusion be given due prominence. That means giving prominence to the Israeli settlement identification and listing it first. So unfortunately I cannot agree with your suggestion to lead with neighborhood, but resssure you thst I won't be removing it either. Regards, Tiamut^talk 22:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"No position is neutral" - untrue. If Palestinians and Israelis agree on the same point, it is by definition neutral. Aslbsl (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the world doesn't just consist of Palestinians and Israelis. Much of this discussion has already taken place at WP:IPCOLL. I added the standard content to the lead "The international community considers Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" per WP:Legality of Israeli settlements, a project-wide consensus generated after extensive discussion and formally closed. I believe the "settlement"+"neighborhood" usage combination for Jerusalem related articles probably results from another centralized but less formal discussion Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sean, do you believe that Saeb Erekat et al are expressing a "pro-Israeli" position when they say "neighborhood"? Isn't it possible that if all of these pro-Palestinian groups don't think it is a problem word, that it isn't? Aslbsl (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think what anyone believes matters here. They're just words and sources use both of them (and others) to various degrees. I'm more interested in people not having to spend their time arguing about these kind of issues on individual article talk pages. They affect many articles so they are best addressed centrally at WP:IPCOLL. Some issues have already been addressed. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the sources line up in a rare occasion of agreement here. I don't understand why we can't accept that and move on. I apologize if I'm missing something. Aslbsl (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't line up. Read the centralized discussion Sean linked to above. In the last sections, there is a list of sources from Palestinians and oths disputing the neutrality of the word neighborhoods. This is in addition to the source I provided here and oths that can be provided upon request. Pleae note too these sources are all discussing the usage of the term as non-neutral. Cherry picking examples of Palestinians using the word neighborhood without commenting on what ey mean by that isn't proof of anything. As neighborhood is the Israeli term for these localities, they may just be using the terms to clear up confusion, i.e. stress that they are talking about e same place Israel calls a neighborhood. Tiamut^talk 18:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources are commentators (mostly pro-Palestinian) who comment on the mainstream usage of the word neighborhood, something that confirms the mainstream usage. For some of them, including the Ochs quote above, the problem is not the description "neighborhood", only that word without reference to settlement, as Ynhockey said. This is further confirmed by the non-controversial use of the term as a descriptor by all the pro-Palestinian groups listed above. Aslbsl (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Today, Israel plans to construct colonies/settlements in E1 to encircle Jerusalem with Jewish neighborhood" - from Palestinian Ministry of Information. Please lets not have Wikipedia redefine English, or be more Catholic than the Pope. Aslbsl (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what your statement means. English is my native language so you probably need to make your statement clearer. I don't understand why you made your edits either. There is no evidence of consensus for the edits I have just reverted as far as I can tell. Furthermore, the edits removed an RS together with the content supported by that source. The lead was also changed in ways that are inconsistent with previous discussions about how to handle these issues in all relevant articles, including the project wide standard WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. These things have already been explained to you. Please bear in mind that the project wide standard is enforced and this article is not the place to discuss changes to the standard. Also, you have just broken WP:1RR. I suggest you raise the issue at WP:IPCOLL. If you try to impose your personal view here you will end up at arbitration enforcement. That is how it works in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A) That is a quote. B) You keep referring to WP:Legality of Israeli settlements to justify making "is a settlement" the first word. It says no such thing. If anything, it asks that the "settlement" term be qualified, something you are undoing. C) I violated nothing - you wholesale reverted me while ignoring my talk, and so I don't appreciate being threatened when if anything, you are in the wrong. D) you keep referring me to IPCOL, which is a mostly inactive page, instead of bringing sources to counter the numerous sources that I've produced. Tiamut provided one source for the novel position they are holding, but never more. I feel like this is just a filibuster, I hope I'm wrong.

If you'd like to engage in more discussion and present some sources to counter mine, by all means. If not, then we should move to dispute resolution. Aslbsl (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A) Yes it's a quote together with a statement from you. Its purpose isn't clear.

B) WP:Legality of Israeli settlements defines the standard statement "The international community considers Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." It is a standard that you can't rewrite. The formulation of stating that a location is described as both settlement and a neighborhood and variations of that approach come from various discussions including Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Jewish_Neighborhoods_versus_Settlements_of_Jerusalem. It has not been formalized and standardized but have a look at other articles such as Ramat Shlomo. "Ramot Shlomo is considered an Israeli settlement by the international community,[8][9][10] although Israel disputes this and considers it a neighborhood within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem".

C) This is a contentious issue in Wikipedia, it has a long history and it affects many articles. You need to tread carefully. I am not threatening you when I say you will end up at AE if you mishandle this. That is what will happen. The key thing is that you need to get consensus and ensure that you remain consistent with WP:Legality of Israeli settlements.

D) WP:IPCOLL is the place to resolve issues that affect many articles and to get a wide input from the community. That is why I've pointed you there. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A) ? Its a quote linked to the Palestinian Ministry of Information. It uses the language of "neighborhood" and "settlement". Is this not clear?

B) This is a straw-man. Whether intentionally or not, you keep arguing against something that I am not saying. WP:Legality of Israeli settlements does not state that the first word in this, or any article, should be settlement. It does not state that "neighborhood" is a POV term. Contrast with the extensive usage in Palestinian sources.

C & D) This is the only article on Ring Neighborhoods discussed this way, and violates the consensus on all the other articles.

I await your response, Aslbsl (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

could you please post a request on a subject not listed? i googled rare bird alert. there are rare bird alerts lists online. i need more info. not found defined or explained or anything on this subject, just a reference to a music name. also off sub.

i like to read the rare bird alert lists to find out what rare bird sightings happened in the state i live in. i cant find a online explaination or definition of why these birds are on the rare bird alert list except self explanatory they must have been rare sightings. also i cant find any information on the list and how it got established. i am sorry for interupting your feed that is more important to the world. i cant find anywhere to email my request. this was a last resort. i had no idea no one is in charge of wikipedia till i tried to make this request. i would like to know what makes a bird rare if it is an invasion species or almost exstict species. also i would like to know if rare birds that could be invasion species are "invading" as a natural response to environmental changes and feeding or breeding grounds being disturbed. if a rare bird even if it is a invading species if it is only considered invasive because of lack of understanding and lack of records to how these birds cope with enviromental threats, if they are bieng introduced or if weather patterns could be leading them to differnt places than they were accustomed, does rare bird sitings give better surval outcomes to endangered species or does it endanger them more. i have lots of questions i am not equipt nor trained nor edjucated enough to do the research and write a substantial article myself. could one of the writers find any interest in supplying me and other bird lovers with infor mation in a few or atleast on article that stems from the definition if it can be defined rare bird alert? the list is there cause obviously rare birds exist. i want to know why they are classified this why the list was made and how it is determined what bird qualifies to go on it and as much info as well that you can supply to edjucate me on this subject. thank you for your time please forgive me for my intrusion, i doubt it would be nessacary to cry for help like this again in the next ten years. i usually find more info than i can digest or co relate googling, this is rare for me to find a lack of information available even in wikipedia. i hope you resolve your current goal criteria and conflicts, and hopefully you can put the alert out that this is a hard to find term that is undefined. and personally i doubt the urban dictionary will give me even a true social understanding of this rare bird alert thing i am trying to understand. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.215.35 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Try posting specific questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

removal

I removed the section about the barrier from the lede since a) the barrier has nothing to do with the Israeli municipality, and b) refers to Shuafat refugee camp (s-curve, not even really correct). The camp's exclusion from the barrier is mentioned on that article. Aslbsl (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1)The source is clearly discussing Pisgat Ze'ev. 2)The source provides a map where a clear S-shape can be seen. 3)The source uses the term "S-shape" so it is justified. 4)You have not provided any RS to support your theorizing so until you do we shall have to leave it to one side as your own OR. 5)You have no consensus for your deletion of sourced material (I see it has already been re-added once by another editor).

In light of the above I shall re-insert the referenced material. Dlv999 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, I seem to not have been clear before. Let me restate:

The quote, in the lede, in question: The Israeli West Bank barrier includes Pisgat Ze'ev in the northern section of the Jerusalem Municipality as defined by Israel while excluding Shuafat by running in an S-shape here.[1]

The most important point is that lots of places are included in the Israeli West Bank barrier. The place excluded, in the context of this source, is the Shuafat refugee camp (not plain Shuafat, a different place, as you keep referring to it). And on that article, the issue is discussed. There is no reason to include this information in the WP:Lede to this article, if at all. To do so, among other things, would grant WP:UNDUE weight to a topic not central to the article.

Also, your source does not say that the barrier excludes Shuafat from the municipal borders of Jerusalem. Both the source and the map that you added say exactly the opposite, that both Shuafats are included in the municipal borders.

Hope I was clearer this time, Aslbsl (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your position. Ledes usually contain a brief description of the local geography as described by RS. You seem to want to exclude one particular aspect of the local Pisgat Ze'ev geography as described by RS and I see no justification for this. You do not have a consensus for such a removal so I intend to revert.

You also make some specific points about whether the statement accurately reflects the source. I am not entirely convinced that the points are significant, but rather than debate the issue, I think it is easier to just amend the sentence to address your concerns. Also, I was not responsible for adding this material, my involvement was because I felt your removal was not justified by your previous comments. Dlv999 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to want to exclude one particular aspect of the local Pisgat Ze'ev geography - no, you are including Shuafat's geography, in the lede of a different article. It is a germane peice of information, and already exists in the relevant place. Again this grants WP:UNDUE weight to discussion of a related, but different topic. Aslbsl (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of edit

My legitimate, good faith edit to this article was vandalized by sean.hoyland, a user infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. Any further attempts to reverse any of my good faith edits will result in taking appropriate action to enjoin any vandalism. Z554 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:VANDAL. I suggest you report me at ANI or arbitration enforcement. I can report myself if you like. Your edit can't possibly be regarded as good faith. It's the usual kind of disruption that damages articles about settlements. Why for example would an editor acting in good faith remove the line (diff) "The land was later expropriated along with Palestinian land to build Pisgat Ze'ev" with the edit summary "Haaretz article does not provide specifics about Arabs claims" when the line is fully supported by the source cited, Haaretz ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Z554, your edits ignored the cited sources, removed well-sourced material, and systematically removed anything not toeing the Israeli right-wing's party line. This is an encyclopedia article, not a production of the Israeli foreign ministry. You also violated the 1RR, if you revert again I will report you. nableezy - 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and refugee camp is not a euphemism for Arab town. I dont even know how to respond to something like this in which you both dishonestly claim the source doesnt back up the sentence by saying They were eventually expropriated, together with Palestinian-owned land, to build Pisgat Ze'ev and make the, honestly, outrageous remark that refugee camp is a euphemism that is equivalent to Arab town. nableezy - 17:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

nableezy posted an obvious attempt at intimidation on my talk page, and is another editor infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. He is also quite a comedian, stating on the Jerusalem talk page that he has "no conflict of interest with this topic". This is blatant dishonesty, in other words, a lie. It appears sean.hoyland and nableezy are working in tandem. It is against protocol to make threats against an editor who makes legitimate, good faith edits. Intellectual dishonesty has no place here. Z554 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean intellectual dishonesty like claiming that a source doesnt support what it clearly does? Or am I missing something? nableezy - 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My legitimate, good faith edits were vandalized by a POV editor. Don't ever threaten me or another editor again. Ever. Z554 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Z554, try to understand that your actions damage the integrity and value of information in an encyclopedia. You are disrupting a charity. It's wrong. Try to stop. Consider this. Why would an editor acting in good faith remove "an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem" from an article about an Israeli settlement that is in East Jerusalem together with the source that supports that information ? Why would an editor acting good faith change "Shuafat refugee camp" to "Shuafat" when the source cited is talking about the Shuafat refugee camp. Why would an editor acting in good faith remove the phrase "The international community considers Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" from both the lead and article body, standard text present in all settlement articles, but just leave the Israeli government view. Bizarre, no, deleting the view of the international community and just leaving the Israeli government's view despite Wikipedia content being covered by the mandatory WP:NPOV policy. These kind of actions are typical instances of disruptive editing in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. You should ask yourself whether you suited to editing in this topic area and are able to make rational policy based content decisions about this subject. The evidence says no. You aren't making legitimate and good faith edits in a righteous and noble battle against POV pushers and vandals intent on damaging the Jewish state and Wikipedia content. You are simply disrupting a charity, making evidence-less attacks against other editors and I have to say, making Israel supporters look bad. Unless you can provide compelling evidence to support the statement "POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state" you should strike it. You are welcome to put the evidence on my talk page. If the evidence is compelling you should file an arbitration enforcement report, but if you continue to disrupt the project and make statements like this without providing evidence I will be obliged to file an arbitration enforcement report. The discretionary sanctions are there to prevent this kind of disruptive behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a well documented record of POV behavior on the subject of Israel. You have no authority, now or at any time in the future, to lecture me or any editor on what is proper or improper behavior. Z554 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to stop, yes or no ? Your response will determine whether I file an arbitration report. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Z is currently blocked, and somethign has been raised at ANI (probably a better forum than ARb for this type of problem). Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Repetition

Repetition of the sentence "The international community considers Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." is not good article writing. Can article regulars remove the less appropriate copy of the sentence? Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Better now? nableezy - 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Kh Adasa?

Does this place include Kh Adasa? On the 1940s map Kh Adasa is less than 0.5 km south of Ras at-Tawill. If it is included in Pisgat Ze'ev, then we should include information from:

• Pringle, Denys (1997). Secular buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: an archaeological Gazetter. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521 46010 7. (pp. 17 - 18)
• Pringle, Denys (2009). The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: Volume IV The cities of Acre and Tyre with Addenda and Corrigenda to Volumes I-III. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85148-0. (p. 234)

Huldra (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Kh Adasa is included, but I don't have something that shows actual boundaries of Pisgat Ze'ev. Zero^talk 03:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I also suspect Kh Adasa is included, but unless I have some actual sources on the Pisgat Ze'ev boundaries I can hardly include it. And some of the stuff in the article at present (about the Byzantine monastery at Ras at-Tawil) is less that brilliantly sourced, to put it very mildly, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)