Talk:Har Homa

I agree. It is idiotic to put squres in place of letters. They did that to many articles. JTF 23:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, I renamed the articles, and I also renamed many of them back or (failing that) put this renaming template here. And FYI, they are not squares. It's supposed to look like Har {{semH.}}oma (I am using the {{unicode|template}} here), but many people with obselete systems (like Windows 98 or earlier) or obselete browsers (like Internet Explorer) often cannot view them properly. This can be remedied by:

1. Installing a Unicode font that supports the characters, such as Arial Unicode MS or Code2000. Windows XP's version of Tahoma already supports most of these characters.
2. Use a more standards-compliant browser, such as Mozilla Firefox. IE's standards noncompliances are well documented.
3. If you need to use IE, use the {{unicode|template}} to increase the chances of displayability, as long as you have the fonts mentioned above installed.

- Gilgamesh 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. What about people who usually access WP from environments such as work or internet shops where they may not have any much control over their browser etc? Palmiro | Talk 05:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then they should take it up with the establishment. Fix the browsers, fix the systems, don't "fix" the text. - Gilgamesh 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And if they can't be bothered, or don't realise that that's the problem and it can be fixed, or are too shy, or the establishment tells them to @#�# off? I think we have to make allowances for the needs of users, and not assume that they are all massively computer-literate and provided with up-to-the-minute standards compliant computing equipment. Palmiro | Talk 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been using computers in extremely cutting-edge ways since I was a child, and to be perfectly honest, I do not have the relatability nor the inclination to cripple reasonable standard technology for the sake of a grandma's Windows 98 with IE and sixteen Basic Latin fonts. The fonts and the character supports will come, steadily but surely, and visitors will catch up as it becomes the norm (via OS service packs routinely upgraded, etc.). For yourself, I recommend finding a good font and installing it. Try googling "unicode font" or something similar. - Gilgamesh 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Gilgamesh, do you have an actual justification for this article name? Yes, I know the difference between hey and chet, but do you think there is a single road sign or map that writes it that way? How is it usually written in academic texts? (I'll tell you: "Har Homa" almost without exception.) Your unicode looks ostentatious. That's my opinion. --Zero 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Har Homa or Homat Shmuel ?

On the "Har Homa Website" (Hebrew only) mentioned at the end of the article, there is no Har Homa, but Homat Shmuel (chomat shmu'el).

Was there a change of name meanwhile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.54.175 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ICJ and Jerusalem

Zeq claimed in an edit summary, refering to the International Court of Justice: "The court never rulled on this area or on anywhere in Jerusalem. If anything the court considered all of Jerusalem (including west) as land that does not belong to any country." As usual, Zeq doesn't have a clue. In section 78 of the court ruling we find:

The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

In section 120 we find:

The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

--Zero 13:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Zeq 14:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?

There is now an NPOV-dispute tag on this article, but no indication here on the talk page of what the problem might be. Maybe that could be indicated? Palmiro | Talk 04:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

settlement/neighbourhood clarification

Would there be consensus for using a formulation similar to that employed on Pisgat Ze'ev, which would state the reality that Har Homa is a Jerusalem neighbourhood (in the practical sense), while noting that because it was constructed on land captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, it is widely considered a settlement? While I realize that this is a contentious issue, I believe that such a formulation would more clearly convey the nature of Har Homa's status. Tewfik^Talk 03:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support such a formulation. (especially since 2/3 of the lands in question were owned by Jews prior to the occuption of the area by TransJordan) Isarig 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Har Homa is a settlement, and a particularly notorious one; let's not give in to politically motivated euphemisms. Palmiro | Talk 10:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If land ownership (i.e. holding of title deeds) prior to 1948 is the basis for reclaiming land in the region, hell, I'm sure quite a few Palestinians would be glad to hear it! Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not recommending this because of the land ownership, but rather to provide the clearest understanding of what the reality on the ground is. Simply calling it a settlement is misleading, as Har Homa is administered for all intents and purposes as a neighbourhood of the Jerusalem municipality. Of course, it is still extremely relevant to note the wide understanding that it is considered as [il]legitimate as all Israeli construction in the West Bank, and thus use some formulation of what was already used on Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Yaakov (ibid). Tewfik^Talk 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment was in response to the "2/3 of the lands" comment above. Anyway, here's my opinion on the matter: No country in the world (as far as I know) recognizes Israel's sovereignty over the part of Jerusalem occupied in 1967. That is yet to be negotiated. The international community (including Israel's closest friend, the US) regards these buildings as settlements. Israel, whose rights over the land in question are yet unrecognized, is the only party that refers to these areas as 'communities' - not to forget that they are 'Jewish-only' communities at that (even Israeli Arabs are not allowed to live in them, so if you want to talk about the reality of it in the practical sense, this fact would also apply). Therefore, if we want to follow Wikipedia rules of naming conventions, the regular English language definition, which is 'settlement', should take precedence. The Israeli POV is certainly welcome in this article, but it would be POV and less accurate to define Har Homa from the internationally unrecognized Israeli definition first (i.e. a community), and then state later that it is 'widely considered a settlement' as a secondary statement. The widely recognized English language definition, settlement, takes precedence on Wikipedia according to the rules as I understand them. The Pisgat Ze'ev article (and others like it) are written purely from an Israeli POV, and if the attention of other WP editors was brought to it, it would probably be changed as well. Har Homa is more known because it was a point of high contention since it is on one of the last spots that was open between Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, and was a point of friction between Bibi's government and the Clinton administration. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim that Israeli Arabs are not allowed to live in the new neighborhooods of the part of Jerusalem occupied in 1967? Isarig 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, you say "Simply calling it a settlement is misleading, as Har Homa is administered for all intents and purposes as a neighbourhood of the Jerusalem municipality." I must say that that is a non-sequitur. All Jewish settlements established in the territories Israel conquered in 1967 are generally considered settlements, regardless of what municipal administrative arrangements exist. Ramallite is entirely correct in this regard. Palmiro | Talk 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, although this is a discussion page and not the actual article where things need to be sourced, I will retract what I said above, since I was actually thinking of 'building' and not 'living' when I wrote what I did. My apologies. What can be sourced is that Palestinians are not allowed to build in areas slated to become Jewish settlements (or hardly anywhere else in Jerusalem, for that matter). There is no official government policy that prohibits Palestinians from living in settlements as far as I know, but there is a system of underlying discrimination where Jewish citizens will receive preference in matters such as leasing or buying property (e.g. a Jewish landlord will generally not want to lease an apartment to a Palestinian tenant). This is more "common experience" than actual policy, but one has to be living on our side of the "fence" to experience this. On the other hand, not too many Palestinians will attempt to take residence in settlements, since that would be lending legitimacy to them. Having said that, there are few reports of Jerusalem Palestinians moving into settlements in the Jerusalem area because of the crunch caused by the wall, where Jerusalem Palestinians have moved back into the city in order not to be outside the wall especially as it is widely believed among us that Israel intends to withdraw residency (the blue ID card) from any Jerusalem Palestinians who resides on the other side of the wall. This has caused housing prices to increase dramatically, so Palestinians have actually found it cheaper to move into Jewish majority areas. (My personal belief is that this is just another example of the mother of unintended consequences that will arise out of this wall). As for discrimination on Palestinian housing and residency rights in Jerusalem, this information is easily sourced. [1][2][3][4]. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev and the reverts of the other "annexed" Jerusalem neighbourhoods to a neighbourhood characterisation reflect on some sort of consensus on the issue? At the very least, would anybody object to standardising Har Homa to the language presently employed on all the other articles? Tewfik^Talk 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As no one has objected, and the other disputed Jerusalem articles have remained as "neighbourhoods," I've edited Har Homa to match the others. I removed the section detailing the illegality of settlement, as it is dealt with in said article, though I noted, as in the other articles, the widely held definition of Har Homa as a settlement. I moved the UN/SC link to an "External links" section. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Setttlement category

Sorry, I see I missed a small row here. Let me point out that the Arbitration Committee has stated that in cases of dispute, two valid and relevant categories may exist on the same page, citing the case of Golan Heights which is categorised under both Category:Geography of Syria and Category:Geography of Israel. The last thing I want to do is restart that ugly row about the terms to use for East Jerusalem settlements, but I think on the basis of this precedent the people who object to them being termed settlements should nevertheless acquiesce to their being included in the category Category:Israeli settlements. Note that turning Category:Neighbourhoods of Jerusalem into a subcategory of this category would not work because, on standard definitions, no West Jerusalem neighbourhoods are Israeli settlements and a lot of E Jlem neighbourhoods aren't either. Palmiro | Talk 21:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Their is no parity between the two claims that would require a compromise including both. "Neighbourhood" is a factual term for a group of buildings. No one disputes that it is a neighbourhood, any more than they dispute that a bypass road is a road, or that [[Ariel {city)|]] is a city - the dispute centers around their, and Har Homa's political status, which is where the designation of Israeli settlement comes in. It is duly noted in the article that many consider it an Israeli settlement, but in a case where it is greatly disputed, here by the Israeli government (Jerusalem Law), it cannot be categorised as such, in the same way that Hamas is not categorised in Category:Terrorism. Tewfik^Talk 04:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The status of the Golan Heights as part of Israel is a far more political, and far less widely disputed claim, than the description of Har Homa as an Israeli settlement, which is quite matter-of-fact for most of the world, so I don't see how you can deny the validity of the comparison. Palmiro | Talk 07:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The dispute around the Golan Heights is who it belongs to, not whether it is piece of land. The two options are "Israeli" or "Syrian," and the ArbCom ruling said include both. However, the dispute with Har Homa isn't who it belongs to, but what its legal status is. It cannot both be and not be an Israeli settlement, which is why we discuss the various POVs in the article, but do not categorise definitively as an Israeli settlement, just like we do not categorise Hamas as a terrorist group. Tewfik^Talk 08:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik, I tried to explain this earlier on your page. Yes, Neighbourhood is indeed a factual term for a group of buildings. But so is a settlement, which can mean (according to the dictionary which Wikipedia is not) a place where people establish a community, a place or region newly settled, a small village, or "a place, typically one that has hitherto been uninhabited, where people establish a community" (Oxford). Now you have chosen to emphasise the normal English definition of the word 'neighbourhood' but stress the political connotation of the word 'settlement'. The problem is that this is very typical of the pro-settlement anti-peace Israeli POV; in other words, Palestinians see the use of the word 'neighbourhood' as deliberate white-washing. That's not my fault, that's just the Palestinian POV. So instead of fighting over which POV to have here, we can have both. Or neither. But I find it surprising that you insist on using the non-political connotation of 'neighbourhood' while arguing against 'settlement' because of it's political connotation, when you must realize that this is exactly one POV that just happens not to be neutral. And another thing: I don't think I ever remember Hamas saying that they are not a terrorist group. In fact, in many interviews, their leaders are fond of the phrase "if terrorism means fighting for one's land, one's justice, and one's freedom from oppression, then we are terrorists" (paraphrasing). So the reason that the terror category is not listed in the Hamas article is not because Hamas doesn't want it, it's because certain WP editors don't want it. Lastly, you say that the 'dispute over Har Homa isn't who it belongs to". I find that very very surprising: Are you actually trying to convince us that a- the residents of Beit Sahur don't dispute that the land belongs to Israel because it was forcefully taken from them, and b- that who Jerusalem or East Jerusalem belongs to is not disputed? Come on.... Ramallite ^(talk) 14:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

many people similarly see the term "militant" as deliberate whitewashing of the the term "terrorist". Can we apply the ArbComm ruling which Palmiro invokes to add the category "Terrorist" or Terorist Organization to the various articles on palestinian terror groups? Isarig 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Invoking ArbComm rulings in this case would require adding both "Terrorists" and "Freedom Fighters" or what have you... Please consider the other arguments as well... Ramallite ^(talk) 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Either I am not being clear, or people are deliberately ignoring my arguments above. The problem isn't that 'settlement' is POV, the problem is that 'neighbourhood' is POV as well. This might make no sense to many, but to people familiar with the war of words in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this has just happened to become a big deal. So, in response to Isarig, although the comparison of the two is inappropriate, and my arguments are not about ArbCom rulings but about NPOV in this case, yes, go ahead and add terrorists to anything you like. Just don't be surprised when the sentiment is reciprocated by people of the opposing POV (and I definitely do not mean myself here because I'm not on WP to bash my adversaries like some people seem to enjoy doing, I'm here to make sure NPOV is maintained). Ramallite ^(talk) 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thta actaully sounds fair. So, can I count on you and on User:Palmiro to come to my support when I insert the terrorist category and it gets reverted by someone. You will re-add that category? Isarig 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not! 1- I don't agree that the two situations are comparable, and 2- if I were to create and insert a category "freedom fighters" and somebody removed it from Hamas, could I count on you to reinsert it? Did you see the comment 2 paragraphs above immediately under your next-to-last entry? What you can count on me to do is not remove "terrorist" from Hamas if you add it, because I don't care enough about "screw you" type edits (I'd remove it from articles about individuals when appropriate, but not Hamas). Like I've said before, I usually don't involve myself in propaganda and demonizing-style articles/edits unless there is a NPOV problem. If I were you, I'd be more concerned with making sure "neighbourhood" stays in this article, rather than trying to remove the "settlement" category. I'd also be more involved in pro-Israel editing, not anti-Palestinian editing. With all the accomplishments, the industries, the philharmonic orchestras, and the recent nobel prize winner and all of that, surely there is a lot more you can do than involving yourself in anti-Palestinian edits on WP. I trust you know the difference. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This is not a discussion about two differing POVs - I dispute your contention that describing Har Homa as a neighbourhood is a political POV that has anything to do with to whom it may belong or what its legal status is. While the Jewish areas of Hebron (or even the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City, may be classified as Israeli settlements with all that that entails, that does not make their physically being neighbourhoods disputed. Would you say that Ariel's settlement status now means it cannot be a city? Anyways, if you truly believe that Hamas should be categorised differently, perhaps you should drop a note on its Talk. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the very notion that you 'dispute' my contention that "describing Har Homa as a neighbourhood is a political POV" by definition means there is a dispute. Now why are you right and why am I wrong? I have provided you with only a couple of sources from reliable (though biased, but who isn't) sources to show that there is a dispute over such words. Also, you are making less sense above because you seem to be arguing with me about why I'm trying to remove 'neighbourhood' - I am not and you know it. I just don't want to see the opposing POV, settlement, removed either. I don't care that Ariel is a city - it is - and I don't really care that the Israeli political POV of 'neighbourhood' is presented here, but I would like to see the opposing POV as well. The notion that Israeli construction in East Jerusalem is considered "settlement" activity is not something I created, it is a widely held contention, perhaps one that you might not agree with, but oh well, such is life. It is you and Isarig who brought up the Hamas comparison, I really don't think it's fair to pin it on me now as though it was my idea. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, I think it is extremely unhealthy that you view this as "anti-Palestinian" "screw-you" editing. Please assume good faith. Tewfik^Talk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but trying to convince me that I should swallow a blatant right-wing Israeli POV that Har Homa is not a settlement is a prime example of a screw me sort of statement. I always edit in good faith, and although personally I am opposed to white-washing words such as "neighbourhood" and "fence", I don't remove them because I know they mean something to the other side. I just wish I got the same kind of respect. But then again, I'm only a Palestinian... screw me... ;) Ramallite ^(talk) 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Israeli construction in E. Jerusalem is widely considered Israeli settlement activity - as a matter of fact the article says so. We dispute categorising it as an Israeli settlement since that is disputed, (again I refer you to the Jerusalem Law for the Israeli government's position since you seem not to think for some reason that Israel disputes this) and categorisation is limited to undisputed classifications (that is where Hamas not being categorised as a Terrorist group comes in, whatever you think it really should be). You are additionally trying to present "neighbourhood" as an Israeli POV that needs to be countered. I can defend removal of the settlement category - I would like to see how you could defend the removal of the "neighbourhood" category as not "screwing" me. Tewfik^Talk 17:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

First, the war of terminology (with the words in question above) is covered even in Wikipedia (and also other places), which though cannot be used as a source, is indicative of your opinion being your own. There are lots of sources that say only Israel refers to Jerusalem settlements as neighbourhoods when they're otherwise considered settlements. So the liberal use of "neighbourhood" is not universally acceptable (or as you would say, disputed). If we do not include disputed words as categories, then this would go too. Second, your defense of removing the "settlement" category is just that "Israel doesn't think so" (and you didn't provide an Israeli government source for that assertion). Well, I can counter with the removal of the "neighbourhood" category with the similar defense that "The Palestine Liberation Organisation doesn't think so" and "The Palestinian Authority doesn't think so", which are also true. But, I do not appreciate your accusation that I will remove something I told you I wouldn't. I told you I do not want to remove "neighbourhood", but you are presenting a straw man argument by stating that I have to defend doing so. That is highly disingenuous and unprofessional. And for editing to make a screw you point, you may work like this, but I don't. You said on my talk page that you were "open to any feedback" I may have - well obviously you are not, so don't tell me you are. THAT, plus making the straw man argument you just made, are a screw me. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that nowhere in the WP policy on categorisation does it prohibit adding categories that are disputed, but they may be labeled as such. So saying "categorisation is limited to undisputed classifications" is really not accurate. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Two thoughts: first, in U.S. English a neutral term for many housing units, especially new ones, would be "development" or "neighborhood" but certainly not "settlement" despite that "settlement" may have a consistent definition with new housing units. No one would ever, ever say, "there is a new settlement going up on the north side of Houston", or "I'm moving to the settlement past Rt. 1 in Chicago". They would say "development" or "neighborhood" or possibly "sub-division". Never "settlement"- this is not a normal, customary usage of the word. Second, in the Israeli-Palestinian context I think common usage by many people (not all people) is that any housing for Israelis over the 1949 Armistice lines is called a "settlement". Therefore, it is proper to categorize Har Homa as an "Israeli Settlement" because NPOV requires all views even though this is not the view of many people. This should be noted in the text. The text that currently reads, "Because it is located on land conquered by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, it is widely considered an Israeli settlement of East Jerusalem" notes this but should be changed to a more neutral construct like, "Some people call it a 'settlement' because it is built beyond the 1949 Armistice line. Other people call it a 'neighborhood' because it is built within municipal Jerusalem" or something like this. SeattliteTungsten 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So add the category but mess more with the text? That's perfectly fine with me - again, I don't remove things I don't like just because I don't agree with them, I much rather add the opposing perspective to keep NPOV whenever possible. The middle east is certainly not US English. In fact, many propagandists use the same argument, that "well, it's a neighbourhood isn't it??" to justify diluting the 'settlement' definition precisely as a propaganda mechanism. I can appreciate why many in the US may not fathom this, but that's the whole point, the fact that they don't fathom this is the reason many would insist on the word "neighbourhood" (which, AGAIN, I don't want to remove) because of the image and general meaning it conveys. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not presenting any straw-men. I only replied to your arguments 'that if one category was removed, then both should be removed,' and I several times provided a wikilink to Jerusalem Law, though it seems you actually provided your own links alluding to the Israeli government position. If you need a better source then I will find one, though I am frankly quite surprised that you aren't aware that Israel's position is that East Jerusalem was annexed. I never accused you of anything, and I also never said my argument was meant to "screw you." I did point out that your constant referrals to my edits as 'screwing you' were out of place, and that indeed, your POV was not the only one capable of being 'screwed.' I suggest you reread my comments and cool down, as I am indeed "open to your feedback," if I don;t necessarily agree with you.

Returning to the discussion, if Har Homa were not in Jerusalem and was indisputably an Israeli settlement, it would still be a neighbourhood/village/town/city. That isn't an Israeli POV, but the reality of what a bunch of houses and people is. Now as you say, that many people believe it is an Israeli settlement is noted in the text - the single point which I have attempted to make clear is that categorising it as such when it is disputed is unfair, as regardless of any vagueness in categorisation, this is an operative principle in categorising other things with multiple POVs - like the example of Hamas. It isn't categorised as a "terrorist group" or a "freedom fighter" group for good reason, and not for lack of editors attempting such inclusion. Tewfik^Talk 20:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ramallite, you say "So the liberal use of "neighbourhood" is not universally acceptable (or as you would say, disputed). If we do not include disputed words as categories, then this would go too". Surely "neighbourhood" is the only neutral category to define the place, regardless of whether settlement category should be added or not - we need SOME category. You do realise a "liberated territory" category is possible in theory ? Amoruso 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SeattliteTungsten has beautifully illustrated why the word 'neighbourhood' is insisted on by those who don't like to call it settlement, because of the benign and friendly and 'harmless' sense the word brings with it. There are many sources to illustrate this, including an article on Wikipedia but also reliable source publications that attest to the deliberate use or misuse of words in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am more convinced than ever that some editors above are 1- not oblivious to this fact, and 2- are deliberately pretending to ignore it. The word 'neighbourhood' when it comes to this conflict has acquired a political connotation, and keeping "Israeli Settlement" in this article will present as the opposing POV to that. Otherwise, we can expect to be edit warring on this page every time somebody notices it and comes in to start it all over again. Amoruso does not have a case with me at this point because s/he has been going around adding disputed categories all over the place (that I haven't responded to or cared about), not to mention making it a personal agenda to remove any - any - mention of the word "Palestine" from WP categories. So this is what I will do, I will stay away from this article over the weekend (and I speak only for myself) and I hope that those of you here who feel strongly about it will go to the talk page of this page and decide on the notion of whether or not categories that are disputed should not be included in categorisations. If this is determined to be the case, we have a lot of cleaning up to do. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have just violated WP:AGF, WP:POINT among others. Amoruso 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, somebody who leaves obscene messages on my talk page like this one has no reason to assume I should have good faith in him, let alone your other edits on Wikipedia. WP:POINT has to do with actual editing of articles, not airing opinions on talk pages, so there goes that one as well. But you mentioned "among others" so please, go ahead and display those as well! Layla Tov... Ramallite ^(talk) 22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a lack of understanding wikipedia. I suggest have a look at the guidelines regarding talk pages. In fact it's you who has violated WP:NOT in the Lynching in Ramalla article. I simply moved that kind of discussion to where it's supposed to be - personal talk pages, where we already had personal discussions regarding politics before. Your attempt now to twist it around seems deceptive and sad. Amoruso 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Still pressing on huh? Well, for the record, I have never edited The lynching in Ramallah article, so how I violated any policy there is in your imagination. But on the talk page of that article, somebody had asked a question about the Palestinian response, and I responded in only 2-3 sentences and a link to an article by a Jewish Israeli journalist. My only other edit on that talk page was a few words responding to you, and suddenly I find an entry on my own talk page - by you -advocating the murder of that Israeli journalist, and asking me to assist in that. Now if I were you, I would stop digging because you have clearly violated policy multiple times. Yet, given your actions, you still call me 'deceptive and sad'. Well, I call you 'humorous', so much so that you can have the last word here regarding this little episode. So go ahead, if you decide to respond to me here, I won't respond to you just to give you the last word. You've earned it. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OR - we include the category as "Israeli Settlement (Disputed)", as the policy page suggests (adding a label when disputed). Ramallite ^(talk) 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, it would seem to make sense to include it in both categories. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, categories are not really the place for disputed categorizations. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the suggestion of adding the category as "Israeli settlement (disputed)" is a good one. One can hardly deny that a category listing Israeli settlements would be incomplete if it failed to include this most notorious of them. Palmiro | Talk 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't believe that it is accurate to look at "neighbourhood" as a political term from the Israeli POV that needs to be countered. Is there perhaps another option for compromise that would be acceptable to you? Tewfik^Talk 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The notion that the word "neighbourhood" is a deliberate political tool doesn't need permission from Wikipedia editors to be introduced here. It just needs reliable sources. I appreciate that you don't believe it (though I'm not sure what you base your disbelief on), and I do believe it (based on sources, some of which I provided), but this is only part, or one side of the dispute here.

• Whether or not adding 'settlement' to counter the word 'neighbourhood' is acceptable is one issue. Adding 'settlement' as justified in and of itself is another, and we ought not to forget that. So leaving the 'neighbourhood' debate aside for a minute: You argue that 'settlement' is unjustified because that notion is disputed, and you have volunteered a policy that Wikipedia does not add categories that are disputed. When I read the policy page, I did not read this, but I did read that one can label a category as disputed if that is in fact the case. Nobody in this debate went over to the category policy page to propose a clarification, so what is your objection to adding settlement (disputed) as a category, as a compromise?
• If you want to talk about disputed categories, there are enough reliable sources that state that Har Homa being a "Jerusalem neighbourhood" is disputed, i.e. Har Homa is a regarded as a Jerusalem neighbourhood by Israel, but as a settlement on Jabal Abu Ghneim (not a Jerusalem suburb but a Beit Sahur suburb) by Palestinians (and maybe the Clinton administration if you believe Dennis Ross, but we'll leave that aside). So if your notion that we do not add disputed categories is true (and it appears not to be), the 'Jerusalem neighbourhood' aspect of it is also disputed, politically (the word 'neighbourhood') and geographically (it's more a part of the Bethlehem/Beit Sahur area than a Jerusalem suburb).

I'd appreciate you address both points above. But I am heartened to see that you are open to "another option for compromise", since that is a welcome shift in attitude. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can add it to Bethlehem category. That way it has both categories. Israel claims its part of its Jerusalem, Palestinians claim it's part of their Bethlehem. Similar to both categories used in Golan Heights. Sounds reasonable to me. Amoruso 18:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not "neighbourhood" is employed as a political term, that doesn't mean that it now loses its primary definition as a description of a certain reality. I personally believe that you are actually confusing the Israeli usage of neighbourhood due to the lack (in their mind) of "Israeli settlement"'s applicability (ie, Ariel is classified as a city, even though we append the "settlement" note about its political status) with some sort of political definition. Either way, that is why I believe that neighbourhood isn't something to be countered (as we obviously don't deny that the residents of Ariel are "people" just because they are also Israeli settlers). As for the idea of a 'disputed' category, the practice on such articles as the Hamas example is to only categorise what is universally recognised, and not what is disputed, since that usually corresponds to reality. Hamas' most ardent supporter cannot deny that the group was in fact designated a terrorist group, while they can certainly dispute whether Hamas is actually a terrorist group. So to in the case of Har Homa: we might think that it is unjust and unfair that some of its land was seized from Beit Sahouris, and we make note of the ownership in the article, but no resident of Beit Sahur will mistake Har Homa for a Bethlehem suburb. If someone referred to it as such, it would be despite the reality that it was actually annexed by Israel and administered as part of the municipality of Jerusalem, and is identical to any part of Tel Aviv or Haifa as far as Israeli Law is concerned. If Ariel is annexed by Israel in some future final agreement, is it still a "settlement"? Is the Jewish Quarter of the walled city also a settlement? What about the Armenian Quarter? Are Arab residents of Pisgat Ze'ev or Gilo Israeli settlers? How about when infrastructure is built by the Israeli government in Beit Safafa or Jebel Mukaber (mostly Arab neighbourhoods annexed by Israel) - are they Israeli settlements? Once we use widely held opinions or perceptions as a definition of reality, instead of the reality itself, we end up falling down a slippery slope into a place where words fail to have very much meaning at all. What I suggest is that we deal with any problems you may see in the article, and if you see some lack of organisation that you feel an additional category necessitates, we discuss that. As for your comment on my shift in attitude, I think that if you reread my statements you will see that I was and continue to be open to a discussion. I was actually quite surprised to see that you thought I accused you of anything or that I had made inappropriate implications about you, though I will definitely try even harder to make sure that no word I say could even hint at such an intent. Again I do hope to hear what you think on these matters. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Tewfik, maybe I'm just not understanding you but your response can be summarized as "Israel says that it's a neighbourhood so counter positions are unacceptable, and Israel says that it isn't a settlement so we can't include that category". In other words, you are just reiterating the Israeli POV and arguing that it is neutral. Saying that "it would be despite the reality that it was actually annexed by Israel and administered as part of the municipality of Jerusalem, and is identical to any part of Tel Aviv or Haifa" is precisely the POV I'm talking about, as this is a reality that is not accepted or even legal by holders of the non-Israeli POV. And remember that Har Homa was a very contentious project and the US blocked it for a while, hardly making it equivalent to a project in Tel Aviv and Haifa "in reality". I had proposed something taken straight from the policy page as a compromise: adding the category (which I agree to) and stating that it's disputed (something you maintain). You refused this. So now, instead of telling me yet again what the Israeli POV is, please propose a compromise yourself, I'm willing to listen (or read, in reality). The status quo is not a compromise. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert war absurd, belongs in category settlement.

The hated Google Test gives 62,000 entries for "Har Homa" and 28,000 for "Har Homa" + settlement. The BBC refers directly to it in that way at [5] in 1998 with no hint the label is contentious. The claim is in the Boston Times, UN debates[6] (result, 130-2 condemning), Journal of Palestine Studies and numerous other places. And we have an ArbCom ruling that covers cases like this where there is a real divergence of opinion, both categories apply. PalestineRemembered 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That was regarding geographical designations, I believe, which would not apply here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I started putting in all the references that would support the contention I was making but then wondered why I'd apply too much effort if even ArbCom decisions will be denied. PalestineRemembered 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's intriguing that we find, on the one hand the argument that "neighborhood" is a neutral and descriptive term which makes no statement as to the settlement's political status, and on the other hand the statement that the two categories are mutually exclusive. Either they are indeed mutually exclusive, in which case only the category that commands general international acceptance should presumably be used (that would be the settlement one) or they're not, and both can apply.

Of course, either way we should get back to the NPOV version of the article which obtained previously. Palmiro | Talk 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don;t see nayon emaking the argument thatthey are mutaully exclusive. Rather, the argument that Tewfik made to you, months ago, is that while "neighborhood" is neautral and factual "settlement" is POV. We can include factual categories (Har Home is a neighborhood, the Golan hieghts is a plateau) we can;'t include controversial categories. Isarig 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the claim that the Golan Heights is an element of Israeli geography is, to say the least, not a matter of consensus. The view of Har Homa as a settlement is, by contrast, widely accepted. Palmiro | Talk 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And, to follow the analogy, if you wnat to use the category Geography of Israel alongside the actegiory Geography of the Palestinian Terriroies, I would not object, and that is what teh ArbComm rulign is applicable to. On th eother hand, ArbComm siad nothing whatsoever about the use of disputed catagories, which is what the "sett;ement" catgeory is. Do not confuse "widely accepted" with "undisputed" or "non-controversial" - they are very different things. Isarig 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, since you did not understand my comment, I will put it in more definite terms: the claim that the Golan Heights is an element of Israeli geography is controversial and disputed. In fact, the idea that the Golan Heights is part of Israel is rejected by most of the world. The idea that Har Homa is an Israeli settlement commands, by contrast, widespread international acceptance and is in essence disputed only by some, but not all, elements in Israel and supporters elsewhere of Israeli expansionist policies. It is accepted by the vast majority of world opinion outside Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

Perhaps, before returning to this topic or making further edits to the article, you should read through WP:NPOV, paying particular heed to the discussion of "undue weight". Palmiro | Talk 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For starters, please don't patronize me, for I assure you I can return the favor many times over. I have read WP:NPOV and I'm familiar with it, and I understood your argument perfectly. ArbComm ruled that where 2 disputed categories are equally valid - e,g -the Golan as part of Israel, the Golan as part of Syria - both can be included. Note that this had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how widespeard the accpetance of either position is. The analogue in this case would be joint listing of Har Homa in the category of Israeli Neighborhoods of Jerusalem and PNA Neighborhoods of Jerusalem. However, the category Israeli settlement is POV and disputed, and thus can't be included, per WP:CAT. "Neighborhood", on the other hand is factual and neutral. By analogy again we can include the Golan Hights in the category "Plateaus", but we can't include it in either "Territories liberated by Israel" nor in "Occupied Syrian territories" - both controversial and disputed categories. Isarig 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that where there's one controversial category we can't include them, but where there's two we should include them both? I would think it's obvious frrom this discussion that both categories are controversial, so our problem appears to be solved. Indeed, even the question of whether the categorization is controversial has been disputed here for both categories. Palmiro | Talk 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you are invoking the previous ArbComm ruling incorrectly here. 'neighborhood is not a controversial category, anymore than 'plateau' is one. It is factual and neutarl. "Israeli settlement, OTOH, is controversial and thus can't e included per WP:CAT. Isarig 00:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Isarig, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Palmiro and PalestineRemembered on this issue. Har Homa is clearly an Israeli settlement. What I am disappointed about is that, although I agree with them just by using common sense, neither PalestineRemembered nor Palmiro have not met burden of proof by providing reliable sources proving their point. All they did was give other people Google statistics, effectively saying that the burden of proof is so easy to meet that they couldn't be bothered with meeting it and that others should meet it for them. This is pretty sloppy scholarship. --GHcool 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be sorry, we just disagree. To you it may be clear that Har Homa is a settlement, to others it is not so clear. Do you also consider the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem to be an Israeli settlement? Isarig 00:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, thanks for the comment, but I disagree on "sloppy scholarship". I have been reverting POV edits to this page for a long time now, to be precise since the fourth revision which was the first in the pro-settlement (or "it's a neighborhood!") campaign (the third revision having been my first involvement), and I don't think anyone has ever provided any reliable sources to the effect that Har Homa is not a settlement. Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To Isarig: I don't accept the comparison of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem with Har Homa because Har Homa was developed after 1967 and the Jewish Quarter had a Jewish population since biblical times.

To Palmiro: The burden of proof always lies with the party that challenges the status quo. The status quo is that Har Homa does not belong in Category:Israeli settlements. So far, Isarig is winning the argument because neither you nor PalestineRemembered have met your burden of proof. See shifting the burden of proof. --GHcool 02:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

so, The issue is the pre-1967 population of certain territories? Is Gush Etzion not an Israeli settlement block then, having been populated by Jews long before 1967? Isarig 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Greater Jerusalem" is also officially part of Israel proper (at least until East Jerusalem is on the table again as the Palestinian capital, but even if that happens, Israel won't be expected to give up control of the Jewish Quarter). I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but I didn't think of it until now. Har Homa and Gush Etzion are not even close to having the status of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. Also, while Gush Etzion had a Jewish population before 1948, it didn't have one between 1948 and 1967, and it certainly didn't have a Jewish population since biblical times. --GHcool 05:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Har Homa is also part of the Jerusalem municipal territory annexed to Israel, and has exactly the same status, in terms if Israeli law, as the Jewish Quarter. The Jewish quarter also had no Jewish population between 1948-1967. If you accept the bible as a source for historical information, Gush Etzion most certainly had a Jewish population in biblical times - Efrat is the birthplace of Benjamin. I still don't understand what your criteria are for determining what is a settlement and what is not. Perhaps you can spell out the criteria, and then we can see how well it applies to the likes of the Jewish Quarter, Har Homa and elsewhere. Isarig 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe you have a point. I've never been to Har Homa myself, so I don't know it as well as you might. Is it a neighborhood in the city of Jerusalem the same way Queens is a neighborhood in the New York City? Looking at it on a map, it looks much farther south and a little to the west of what I thought was Greater Jerusalem, but maybe I'm wrong. Jerusalem's legal history is not something I would consider myself an expert in.

I am not an expert on the Israeli settlement issue either, but my gut feeling is that an Israeli settlement is any neighborhood outside of the Green Line that Israeli Jews developed after the 1967 War and currently have a majority in. This definition may be too narrow for future peace negotiations or even future Wikipedia arguments regarding NPOV. Does Har Homa fit this definition? --GHcool 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Har Homa is a neighborhood of Jerusalem, in the same way that TriBeCa or SoHo is a neighborhood of NYC. It is part of Jerusalem's municipal borders, which extend that far south and west. Queens is a Borough, which means it has (limited) executive powers independent from that of the city, and in that sense Queens is less a part of 'New York' than HH is of Jerusalem. If we adopt your definition of a settlement, it would encompass the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem - it is nneighborhood outside of the Green Line that Israeli Jews developed after the 1967 War and currently have a majority in - and earlier you said this is clearly not a settlement. Isarig 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I believe you. All you need now are sources to back up your argument and you won. Good job! :)

As a side note, I'm sure you're aware that even if it were to fit the technical definition of an Israeli settlement (and I am not saying that it does), the Old City of Jerusalem has been dealt with as a seperately because it is an extremely complex issue in and of itself. --GHcool 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for a source for the claim that HH is within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem - here is an official one:[7]

Isarig 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Isarig has won a the argument decisively using critical thinking and the appropriate reliable source. Congradulations. I'm amending the paragraph now. --GHcool 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New edit war

Replacing every mention of "neighborhood" with "settlement" doesn't make sense and I see that it was already discussed, but the personal interpretations like "confiscated from the palestinian state (proposed country) in entirety, althougt 75% where owned by israeli citizens living Abroad" and "this implies Israeli effort to expand borders illegally. " are far from objective and are not even supported by the partisan sources used. I also don't think it is fair to say that I am vandalizing, as if any opinion you add is somehow more legitimate than the previous version that I went back to. -- Robert

Reply: even the jewish state has called such establishments settlements, Neighborhood is in this case a new "cleaned up" word to be used as a bias for understanding the jewish case, the word however dossent resemble the case on the ground where it is in fact an highly illegal settlement. also in the first legal documents regarding Har Homa it was to be developed for both jewish and palestinian usage, this was disregarded as impossible even before it was publicly mentioned the first time. the land has also many times been mentioned in official Israeli documents as "confiscated" only recently have the refrence to "expropriated" been used, nomather i whould like to use Confiscated rather than expropriated as the lather is an civilian term, there is nothing civilian about this settlement other than the civilians beeing used as pawns in an ongooing war. also the "green line" is internationally accepted as borders between these countries, if the green line is basis for a border, how can one justify stretching a municipal border over an country border? thats just totaly wild, say if oslo (Capital of Norway and also close to neighboring Sweden) where to strech theire municipal borders over the swedish borders there whould have been quite a rucus.. make no mistake about it.. it is quite simply "UNHEARD OF" outside israel/palestine.

the case is THIS land is stolen property, it does lay whitin what the israeli government has called jerusalems municipally, but under no circumstance does that rank higher than another state bounderies, ergo as long as the land that this is built on IS another country. than this is an settlement for all intended purpose! if the land itself where to be annexed into Israel, than one chould relabel it into a neighborhood, but that is not the case. so it does not mather what you think or what you whould like it to be, it is a part of another country and thats that.

PS: it dossent mather that the owners where jewish either.. if 200 Norwegians owns huts in strømstad (a Swedish border town), than 200 Norwegians owns a Swedish property in Sweden, it does NOT make it Norwegian or part of norway for that reason..

Best regards ~~Varg Breivik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.23.249 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll see that it doesn't make sense that one person can make whatever change they want and demand that everyone other change, including restoring the original version, needs their agreement. A few replies to your comment without repeating the discussion above: Israel does not call it a settlement. The Israelis "did" annexed part of the West Bank to Jerusalem (East Jerusalem - including this land), which are administered as part of that city, and as part of Israel. Other groups in the international community call it a settlement and said Israel shouldn't have annexed it, and their position is already included. If it is a settlement it doesn't stop being a city or neighborhood. I never heard that anyone isn't allowed to live there based on their religion, and I even saw a news report that Palestinians with Jerusalem residency were moving into largely Jewish areas like this one because of the Israeli barrier. Regards -- Robert

Reply: Yes Israel did annex some parts, BUT NOT THIS PART! Yes Israel does not call it a settlement, BUT THEY DID BEFORE! what is your point? what you are saying is to vague, it hardly dossent apply in this mather at all. im trying to understand what your conclusion are? is Israel divine to set new rules on border disputes?

Now stop vandelising the article and dispute it if there is anything you have difrent views on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.23.249 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true. This "is" within the land annexed by Israel from the West Bank, per all of thelinks, and none of them say that Israel once called it a settlement. From its inception, it was administered as part of Jerusalem just like every other project built by Israel in those areas. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.125.208 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

View of outsider

Neither of you is "vandalizing" this article. This is an ordinary edit war with both of you trying to improve the article, not hurt the article. Like many edit wars this can be resolved by following Wikipedia guidelines and policies. One of the most important policies is verifiability.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

As editors we may not be able to determine the truth but we can determine whether statements are verifiable and we can usually agree whether sources are reliable. In most cases, if statements are verifiable through references to reliable sources then they should not be removed. Conversely, statements that are not well sourced should first be marked with {{fact}} then can be deleted if references are not provided.

So looking at some of the elements of this dispute: The sections about the positions of Israel, Palestinians, and the United States appear to have references to reliable sources, so those sections should not be removed. The references are, however, incomplete. Would the editor who added those sections please add the title and author and url for each newspaper article?

I am going to go through the rest of the article and try to mark items that need references and will come back here with more comments. It would help if neither of you would revert the article in the meantime. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I had with the "positions" section is not that it isn't verifiable, but that it mixes a few different bits of information together, some of which already appear, and not all of which are "positions". Perhaps someone has an idea for better including any missing information without putting an unfair stress on any one position, and without the awkward format. Some of the other bits that I already mentioned I think are mistaken, and aren't supported by even the more partisan links. --Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.138.248 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading the article I see that the "positions" sections somewhat overlap the "legal status" section. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to leave it in this format because it is probably as neutral a way as possible to present the status. My big problem with it is that it is based on sources from 10 years ago and may not reflect the current positions of the sides. I encourage both of you to find good references to the current positions of the various sides. Then I think the "legal status" section should be somehow tied together into the following three "positions" sections. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the words "neighborhood" and "settlement" I have not found consistent wording in reliable sources. Even within a single source I see both words used. I note that the template at the bottom of the page says "Neighborhoods of Jerusalem" and that the category is labeled "neighborhoods". Perhaps you can use both words in various places, not exclusively one word. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the "positions" sections the largest bone of contention that I see is this piece:

major campaigns to justify this land grab has been- extending the municipal bounderies of jerusalem far beyond what is recognised as jerusalem proper and also beyond Israeli State borders, well into neighboring palestine, thous relabeling this Hillside Fort/Settlement as an "neighborhood". the land that belonged to Palestinian villagers, mainly in Beit Sahour and other nearby villages where also confiscated, but whitout any reimbursement for lost Livelihood Etc. ... But both the settlement and the extension of the Israeli wall to include Har Homa has effective ruined the life of many palestinian farmers in the area making access to farmland impossible. This land is in turn expropriated in absentia of their legal owners

This paragraph does not have any references to reliable sources and therefore I am omitting it. If an editor can provide verifiable references then the material can be reinserted. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage both of you to avoid massive UNDOs of material. Try to deal with small pieces of material one at a time. If you object to unsourced material add the {{fact}} tag and give the other editor time to add citations. After a while, either of you can legitimately remove unsourced material. The corollary is that when you add material be sure to add references to reliable sources. Be careful that the sources accurately support the material you wish to add.

If you disagree about material, then discuss it on the talk page. Provide quotes to specific wording and explain your objections not in terms of whether it is true or false, but rather whether it is accurately sourced with references to reliable sources. Remember this from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Sbowers3 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Varg is a little confused on the settlement issue, because even the more partisan sources don't say 1. that Israel ever called it a settlement, or 2. that it isn't located in the part of the West Bank annexed by the Israelis in the 1980s. Current sources and rewriting/updating the discussion of the controversy surrounding the construction is a good idea, and I already added a new report about the US's latest statements and general position. Tell me if there is some other information you think is missing. Regards -- Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.138.248 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IT is very important that this line is rewritten: "An overwhelming majority of the land (75%) was expropriated from Israeli owners, but some of the land belonged to Palestinian villagers, mainly in Beit Sahour and other nearby villages. No homeowners, Jewish or Arab, were displaced by the project."

As it do not mather if Israeli/jewish owners owned the land or not, as i said before, if 200 Norwegians owned huts in Strømstad (Swedish border town) than strømstad does not become subject of Norway. it is still Sweden and Norwegians are simply owning a swedish property in sweden.

what is important and should be written about is how this and other settlements including the wall that fences inn all settlements around jerusalem is ruining the life of neighboring palestinians.

Varg 88.89.23.249 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you start a new section on this talk page with specific recommendations for wording changes. (I'll start it for you.) You have identified a paragraph you think should be rewritten. What text do you propose to add or change? Do you have references to reliable sources?

Proposed edits

current

An overwhelming majority of the land (75%) was expropriated from Israeli owners, but some of the land belonged to Palestinian villagers, mainly in Beit Sahour and other nearby villages. No homeowners, Jewish or Arab, were displaced by the project.

proposed

The land for this settlement where confiscated from the palestinian state (proposed country) in entirety, althougt 75% where owned by israeli citizens living Abroad[1] (i.e. not Subjects to Palestinian National Authority) and hence it was officially called "expropriated land". major campaigns to justify this land grab has been- extending the municipal bounderies of jerusalem far beyond what is recognised as jerusalem proper and also beyond Israeli State borders, well into neighboring palestine, thous relabeling this Hillside Fort/Settlement as an "neighborhood". the land that belonged to Palestinian villagers, mainly in Beit Sahour and other nearby villages where also confiscated, but whitout any reimbursement for lost Livelihood Etc. No homeowners, Jewish or Arab, were displaced by the project.[2] But both the settlement and the extension of the Israeli wall to include Har Homa has effective ruined the life of many palestinian farmers in the area making access to farmland impossible. This land is in turn expropriated in absentia of their legal owners

propose end. (Note

the text might need to be rewritten)

First off, the text might sound partisan or harsh against Israel, BUT!! if certain actions demands a harsh langue to be used, should one than use a milder langue just to please certain people? why not call a shovel a shovel?.

Har homa is a Settlement by the fact that it is built on the palestinian side of the green line. it is thous a pice of land belonging to another state (proposed), any construction of infrastructure like this on a neighboring country cannot be consideres a peacefull neighborhood. also Har Homa (wall mountain) is built like a fort, it has its own bunker, armoury, military guard barracks, Machinegun entrencments and a anti sniper skirt (wall). in other word it more or less built up like a medieval fortress. these are not atributes i normally associate with a neighborhood, grewing up in norway i must admit, we had a comunal bomb shelter central placed in our neighborhood but that was that. I do realize the situation calls for diffrent measures in a country like israel thinking on the situation it is in as a country, but again call a shovel a shovel.. a settlement is a settlement and all but 3 countries in the world recognize it as a settlemt (the 3 others also does, but have political reasons for changing their view).

also finaly i will make a statement: i am not pro Palestine or con Israel.. i think both "countries" totaly sucks.. how can brothers be so idiotical and fight over what is more or less a sandbox? is it so that, the less one have the harder one must protect what little one have? jews and arabs are both "shemite/semite" people. share and be friends.. peace out!!

Best Regards Varg 88.89.23.249 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the proposed text sounds partisan or harsh. What matters is that it must be supported by verifiable references to reliable sources. Can you supply references for the following statements:

• The land for this settlement where confiscated from the palestinian state (proposed country) in entirety
• major campaigns to justify this land grab has been- extending the municipal bounderies of jerusalem far beyond what is recognised as jerusalem proper and also beyond Israeli State borders, well into neighboring palestine, thous relabeling this Hillside Fort/Settlement as an "neighborhood".
• the land that belonged to Palestinian villagers, mainly in Beit Sahour and other nearby villages where also confiscated, but whitout any reimbursement for lost Livelihood Etc.
• But both the settlement and the extension of the Israeli wall to include Har Homa has effective ruined the life of many palestinian farmers in the area making access to farmland impossible.
• This land is in turn expropriated in absentia of their legal owners

Each of those statements might be true but Wikipedia policy states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

If you can find reliable sources to support your text then it can be included. Without reliable sources, your text cannot be added.

Your explanation as to why Har Homa should be called a settlement (e.g. "built like a fort") is reasonable, but again, that is not the standard. What matters is whether you can find reliable sources to support your explanation. Without reliable sources, your explanation is original research, which is not acceptable.

If you can find reliable sources to verify that it should be labeled a "settlement" then you can insist on that label. Conversely, there should be reliable sources to verify that it should be labeled a "neighborhood". If there are no reliable sources on either side, or if there are reliable sources to support both words, then perhaps the best you can do is use a mixture of one word or the other.

The solution to most content disputes is references to reliable sources. With references, you will win most disputes; without references you will lose. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole "built like a fort" thing sounds entirely far-fetched, and I've never heard anything like that from any side of this conflict. The other parts just repeat information already included with an extremely partisan flavor. The only new part is that there may be an actual dispute about the compensation awarded, but the sources included don't say. I see that the "settlement" issue was already discussed a lot above. -- Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.138.248 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Refrence

Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem, States that: http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=660

• Har Homa (Abu Ghneim) settlement north of Bethlehem city is one of the vital examples of the settlement expansions in the Palestinian Territory.

• In the year 1991, Israel confiscated the mountain to build the settlement, the only main reason for doing so, is to confiscate as much as possible of the Palestinian lands at favor of settling new Jewish settlers.

and finally:

• The International Legal Status of the Israeli settlements:

The expansion of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal and contradicts with the international laws, Geneva convention and many United Nations Security Council resolutions such as the Resolution 452 which 'calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.' Whereby the Forth Geneva Convention which also states in Article 49 that 'The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.' The Forth Geneva Convention in Article 174 also prohibits the 'extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.'

Regarding "ruined the life of many palestinian farmers"

http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=478

• The Segregation Wall penetrates inside the Palestinian lands, separates communities from each other, cuts the Palestinians from their lands and segregates the Palestinian villages and towns inside cantons. One of the targeted Palestinian localities in the West Bank is Beit Sahour town which is located in Bethlehem Governorate and is 1 km east of Bethlehem city. Beit Sahour has been subjected to intensive massive violations such as land confiscation, land razing and construction of the segregation Wall by the Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF).

Regarding "Military zone and ruining livelyhood"

http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=452

• In May 2003, Israeli occupying forces returned to the area and left new military orders tacked olive trees near the Orthodox ousing Project. These orders declared that 300 dunums (3,000 m.2) of land close to the housing project would be confiscated in order to create a military zone in the area. Around 30 dunums of these lands are located in area A' and fall under full Palestinian control according to the Oslo II Agreement signed in 1995 by Palestinian and Israeli negotiators.

will continue--

Varg 88.89.23.249 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please insert your references after each sentence of your proposed text. That will make it easier for other editors to verify that the references support the information. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All except the first line are points having to do with either Israeli settlements or the Israeli West Bank barrier generally. The first part is the opinion of a Palestinian organization, one which is already included in the article. I don't see what any of them have anything to do with the '75%' part or with the 'fort' idea. -- Robert

I reverted the edit that said that this place was founded as an Israeli settlement, since no one claims that. The Israelis annexed the land and founded it as a neighborhood, and that is what the controversy is about. Many call it a settlement and we say that too. Also, while June War links to Six-Day war, that is an odd formulation and I don't think we should only include part of the story here. --Robertert (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But its not legally a neighborhood to anyone except Israel. This is also part of the controversy. The tone this article took, and the others like Pisgat Ze'ev are currently taking is incredibly nationalist. In calling it a neighborhood without qualifying the issue with the term, it seems as if wikipedia is taking one side over the other. Does anyone have a source that says it is not a settlement? Israel did found it as a settlement, if albiet a neighborhood of Jerusalem at the same time, as when israel built the settlement it knew very well it was doing so on land that was not internationally recognised as its own, or as a part of the Jerusalem municpality. This article still needs more work, there seems to be a lot of information that isnt at all sourced, too, and often when it is - the sources dont seem to verify the claims at all. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Robertert, I keep trying to explain to you that I do not deny some sources call it a neighborhood, although the legality of this is disputed, just as the legality of it as a a settlement is disputed. Please, just explain to me why you believe that neighborhood is somehow a more important viewpoint than the view that it is a settlement? Both are disputed, so it seems to me like you are just leading with your own POV, disregarding the debate over it, and mentioning another viewpoint as if it is just a footnote. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not that 'some sources' call it a neighborhood, but that extremely anti-settlement/pro-Palestinian sources Saeb Erekat, ARIJ, and Peace Now call it a neighborhood without a second thought, while no source challenges that description. You keep pointing to a UN document challenging Israel's right to annex the land, but it doesn't say that it isn't a neighborhood. You are entitled to your interpretation, but not when the source doesn't clearly say what you claim, and not when sources from the same side contradict your interpretation. I'll be happy to continue discussing any other part when this is resolved. --Robertert (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Settlement v. Neighborhood

There has been little activity on this discussion page for a while, so just wondering, given there seems to be no consensus on other pages covering similar establishments, if anyone would mind either leading with both disputed terms within their context (of who perceives them) or another term such as 'disputed residential establishment.'? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor above mentioned Peace Now. They use the term "settlement": http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=3156&pos=9 --Dailycare (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have previously tried to cite Peace Now, FMEP and a handful of other NGOs and each time the sources have been removed and labelled biased, while simultaneously replaced with Press Releases from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, continually proposed as 'unbiased'. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Settlement illegality

I reverted an IP editor's recent change. This issue has been exhaustively discussed here, a discussion which went to a determination of consensus by an outside administrator. It concluded with this text: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." The text here predates this discussion, I believe, and is functionally equivalent. Changes from such text should be made only by a well-considered consensus.--Carwil (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Netanyahu+Rudoren

Overnight, an editor correctly reverted an edit I made at Har Homa, for clicking the link, he found that it did not provide the information I culled from the article the day before, which was more or less this:

“It was a way of stopping Bethlehem from moving toward Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said of his approval of Har Homa, against US wishes, in 1997. . His acknowledgment that Har Homa was intended to disrupt Palestinian development between Bethlehem and Jerusalem

It could be I got confused, but I don't conjure up edits regardless of sources. Checking, it would appear that the initial report I used was changed or Orwelled down the memory hole, disinvalidating the edit itself. So, since I had a visual image of the NYT page still in mind,

• (a) I googled:'har homa+Netanyahu+bethlehem+hamastan.'
• (b) This produced:

Netanyahu Says No Palestinian State if He Is Re-elected ...Mr. Netanyahu stood next to maps of Har Homa, one from 1997 that showed its empty ... “It was a way of stopping Bethlehem from moving toward Jerusalem,” Mr. Netanyahu said of his ... Netanyahu Warns of New 'Hamastan'

• (c)But clicking on (b) yields up no such text.
• (d)The Times of Israel has much of what I wrote, mentions the New York Times report, but, as one would expect, twists it to erase what the original source says. It is no longer what Netanyahu recalled as his purpose in 1997, but the motive for 'further construction' in 2015.
• (e) Slate magazine also carried the substance of Rudoren's article in a version by Ben Mathis-Lilley.
• (f) I eventually found Rudoren's article carried (dated 17 March) from the New York Times, in the Boston Globe ('Netanyahu says no Palestinian state if he is reelected.')

Netanyahu on Monday also visited Har Homa, a Jerusalem neighborhood where construction on land Israel captured in the 1967 war ignited international outrage. Netanyahu said he had authorized that construction during his first term to block Palestinians from expanding Bethlehem and to prevent a “Hamastan” from sprouting in the hills nearby.Netanyahu stood next to maps of Har Homa, one from 1997 that showed its empty hillsides, and one showing its roughly 4,000 apartments today. A further 2,000 are under construction or planned.“It was a way of stopping Bethlehem from moving toward Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said of his approval of Har Homa, against US wishes, in 1997. “It stops the continuation of the Palestinians. I saw the potential was really great.”

• (g)Her article gives precisely the content I cited in my original edit. Unless I am mistaken, Rudoren gave an initial report with this content, which disappears therafter though it survives partially in a video clip which however does not contain precisely that language, attached to the reformulated article. Either Rudoren distorted her source, which is possible, and rewrote the piece, or her original report was correct but deemed unpalatable for the NYTs readership. If the former, the fact is that other newspapers still carry the original version under her name. Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

land ownership

Although I have been reverting an IP who is forbidden by ARBPIA3 from editing here, I am dubious whether the Greek Orthodox Church should be in the lead. It is a fraction of the whole story. Actually, unlike almost all other mass expropriations Israel made in East Jerusalem, the bulk of this land was owned by a Jew. There are three pages (57–59) on this in Cheshin's book "Separate and Unequal", which is a reliable source. This doesn't contradict the GOC also being a land owner, but emphasising one owner in the lead like this doesn't seem right. Zero^talk 01:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

good point. I've removed it from the lead. I don't think Cheshin's book the last word, it came out in 1999, and is extremely confusing in its vague 'details':pp57ff

• (a) the government expropriated 1,850 dunams of land at Har Homa in April 1991
• (b) much of the Jewish owned land in Har Homa is held by Himunata, a quasi state run property company (p.58)
• (c) There were a large number property owners in that area (pp57-8) ‘parts of Har Homa have been owned by Jews’ for dozens of years prior to 1992
• (d) most of the land at Har Homa was owned by David Meir.
• (e) the government expropriated more than this, including other Jewish and Arab lots outside Meir’s property.
• (f) some of the 'extra bits seized' ran into sizes of 200 dunams.
• (g) A notable part of its was unusable (whose land was that?)

Don't have a clue how to make sense of all of that.

• The Greek Orthodox Church imbroglio dated publicly to around 2002. More about that is about to appear as the Panama Papers scandals break (The fraudulent real estate deal of 2002 with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate was also brought up in the trail. The failed deal, in which expensive lands in Jerusalem were offered to the State of Israel for a 999-year lease, was intended to be carried out by Christian Lands of Israel, a company created by Mossack Fonseca, which Weinroth represented. Company documents, like those requesting power of attorney for Weinroth, are among those found in the leaked files.) Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Har Homa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102043528/http://www.netanyahu.org/conatharhom.html to http://www.netanyahu.org/conatharhom.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517322280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links

The external links "Homat Shmuel (Har Homa) website (in Hebrew)" and "Center for Middle East Peace factsheet" are inactive.--77.125.85.13 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

False info in lead

The linked articles in the last sentence of the first paragraph are to an archived version of a NYT article. The relevant section was retracted and does not appear in the current version of the article because it was false. Also, Huldra was deceptively editing direct quotes from other articles. She may be allergic to the word "neighborhood", but that doesn't prevent Netanyahu from having said it in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.42.125 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You were indeed correct about Netanyahu not using the word "settlement"; I have amended it. As to the archived version of a NYT article: the article is still online:

https://www.nytimes.com./2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html

But with a correction added:

Correction: March 21, 2015

An earlier version of this article erroneously translated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to a question from NRG, an Israeli news site. Asked, “If you are prime minister, a Palestinian state will not be established?” he responded, “Indeed,” not “Correct.” (The Hebrew words for these are very similar.)

I cannot see that changing from “Correct” to “Indeed” change the meaning of what he said, Huldra (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)