Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem

• I created the Neighborhoods of the Ring, Jerusalem. Except for the footnotes and the second paragraph in the Demographics section (section header added), I translated it word-for-word from שכונות הטבעת. Perhaps the participants would wish to give their opinions about this more central article, to avoid fragmentation. (comment in the Discussion section/s below, please). Thx. El_C 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I now also created East Talpiot (the only one of the Ring neighborhoods without an article); it's just a very basic stub, but I would like to get opinions on the structure of its lead, as a possible compromise for at least the five Ring neighborhoods. Specifically, the: is a Jewish neighborhood in south-east Jerusalem that was founded in 1973 as part of the Neighborhoods of the Ring Israeli settlement effort. (comment in the Discussion section/s below, please). Thx. El_C 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Refactored from AE

Jewish Neighborhoods versus Israeli Settlements of Jerusalem

It should be stated that Palastinians, and those who support their political agenda, are inclined to name every Jewish town, village or neighbourhood in Israel as a " Jewish settelment". This comes from a political agenda, that sees the state of Israel and the Israeli and Jewish right to a political self deffinition, as illegitimate. This view, which gained popularity among Palastinien and Arab politics in the last two decades, wishes to see the whole Middle east as a pure muslim region, and defies the existence of any non Muslim sovereign entity. These views are very common in the Muslim world, and are no longer exlusive to a fanatic few. This agenda was one of the main factors that incited the palastinien recent "Inttifada", and still today inflames the Muslim and Arab struggle against Israel (which Arab politicians and Muslim activists call "The Zionist state").

For excessive reverts on related articles (Pisgat Ze'ev, Gilo, Ramot, Har Homa, Neve Yaakov), Colourinthemeaning (talk · contribs), ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs), Robertert (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), and possibly other users upon examination (needless to say, anyone else reverting on this set of articles, is at risk of being added), are, for the next month, placed on a one-(talk page obligatory)-rr on any Jerusalem-related entry. We are not going to have this multiple-entry revert war go on, indefinitely. I gotta step out now, but I will give this formula further thought later. Comment below, but please keep them brief. Long winded debate will be aggressively redacted. Many thanks. El_C 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, please do take action against User:Colourinthemeaing, who went ahead and did a blanket revert well after you sent this message. In fact, this person should be blocked from Wikipedia altogether for the disruptive and aggressive nature of his "editing," which is to go from article to article and insert his personal views, and promptly set off an argument with people who have long contributed to the page before he parachuted out of nowhere and decided that he is God's gift to Wikipedia (if not mankind).--Gilabrand (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1)Fairness: Colourinthemeaning has violated the 3 revert policy 3 times on Gilo after unsuccessfully trying to block another user, resulting in two protections to his new version while I've let his changes to the original version stand a number of times while continuing the discussion. ILike2BeAnonymous hasn't joined the conversation at all. Colour also namecalls (vandal, nationalist) and as I showed below contradicts his sources. Treating us all the same is not fair.

2)Discussion: The summary above (Jewish Neighborhoods versus Israeli Settlements of Jerusalem) is not correct. I restored the original version of the pages that said these places are neighborhoods that are widely considered Israeli settlements, while Colourinthemeaning is arguing that not only do many people say that these places are Israeli settlements, but that the same people say they "aren't" neighbourhoods.

3)Sources: His own sources Globalsecurity and Peace Now[[1]][[2]], contradict him and all refer to them as neighborhoods, as does even Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat[[3]]. Erekat and Peace Now believe the neighborhoods are also settlements while Globalsecurity mentions that their status is disputed. No one says they are independent cities or towns instead of neighborhoods.

I wish someone could put in some time to read through all this. I know that it isn't the most simple dispute but it is straightforward. Most of the discussion is here --Robertert (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Settlement side is urged to provide reliable sources that demonstrate usage of the word "settlements" with respect to these neighborhood as the predominant term. Please be specific, citing entire passages, when needed. El_C 07:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My solution is my version of the page that Mr. Color keeps blanket reverting. It makes sufficient mention of both terms. I have nothing further to say on the matter except that I will not let agenda-pushers write history and disseminate misleading information on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And we're off on a friendly note! Links? El_C 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am honestly insulted that you think i am an agenda-pusher, when I have no agenda to push except that of fairness, NPOV and the general enhancement of wikipedia as an encylopedia based on facts. My reverts were made because of excessive reverts made by Gilabrand, Robertert and annonymous IPs which severly degraded the content and white-washed the facts on the page on Gilo, as well as others. One such example was replacing the header 'Shooting Incident' with the incredibly loaded term 'Palestinian Violence.' Further, a long list of problems I had with the articles, including removed content were ignored. Please see Talk:Gilo.

Now, the articles you cite Robertert, which you claim contradict me do nothing of the sort. The article from Global Security in fact calls them 'disputed neighborhoods.' I linked the article because you cant seem to understand that they are disputed. The other article from Peace Now as the one you linked from JPost, refers to Gilo and Ramot as BOTH settlements and neighborhoods. I linked this article because you seem to think that the neighborhood term is more legitimate, and were as such removing the term settlement from the first sentence, as well as minimising the viewpoint that it is such, and couldn't seem to agree that it could be both.

The very large International Consensus that these places are settlements in all reality should be the leading and exclusive term while noting the position of the Israeli Government, who is the only government in the world to hold the position that these places are not settlements. Otherwise, this would be giving undue weight to one, very miniminally held perspective. Here are just a few sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. However, in attempting to come to a consensus on these articles, i attempted to lead with both terms, however, this was apparantly disliked and quickly censored, replaced instead with simply the position of the Israeli Government. This is a really ridiculous fight, I am not attempting to write history, i am simply trying to include it, and both sides of it. They have only attempted to remove and/or minimise the side of the international community while leaving the viewpoint of the Israeli Government. This is just not Wiki. I really wish Gilabrand and Robertert could accept that. As Robertert himself in Talk:Gilo admitted, both the term neighborhood and the term settlement are ultimately decided by Governments. Both are political terms, and it just so happens in this case, the only government in the world that views Gilo and these other establishments as neighborhoods is the Israeli Government. Further, it is my opinion that the term 'neighborhood,' is in this case being used as the anti-thesis for settlement, to imply a nice friendly place that has a legitimate legal founding, when in fact that founding is in question. But I have tried to compramise, and be fair to both viewpoints, each attempt has been reverted.

Ultimately, I think the argument seems to be about their view that the term settlement is disputed. Yes, i will admit it is disputed, but it is only disputed by the Israeli Government. Yet from their reverts and edits, it seems they think this viewpoint is not of merit enough to be included, especially in the leading sentence or even paragraph. Yet, somehow, the viewpoint that it is a neighborhood, which is held only by the Israeli Government [and disputed by the rest of the world] is not only included and reinforced throughout, but is the leading descriptive term in the opening sentence of this article. This ultimately leads to incredibly nationalist pages which I think are a disgrace to wikipedia generally and make their version the definitive Wrong Version. As I stated in the Talk Gilo page, I think the only solution is to call a spade a spade, not because it isn't a shovel, but because most people call it a spade - while noting the position that it is a shovel. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that when someone dared to describe an Arab "neighborhood" as an Arab "village," Mr. Color promptly went bananas and turned it into "town," claiming that the word "village" was a deliberate put-down against the Arabs. A spade is a spade? I think your colors are showing.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say it was a put-down, i said that it seemed to be worded as if to make the arab establishments seem less developed and more primitive in comparison to nearby Israeli establishements, especially when plenty of other sources could be found describing it as a town. I certainly hope my colors are showing, because I have nothing to hide. Do you actually have anything to say in defense of the arguments we are discussing here? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly your problem, then, and I hope everyone is paying attention. Mr. Color has all kinds of associations with words that are not necessarily connected to reality. No Arab on this site has any problem with the word village. It is a direct translation of the Arabic "kafr." It does not imply anything primtive - that is your POV. The bottom line is that the chaos being introducing here by someone who goes from article to article with the express purpose of stirring up controversy, has everything to do with what certain words (neighborhood, settlement, town, village) conjure up in HIS MIND. --Gilabrand (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So why did you remove the term Israeli Settlement from so many articles if it is only my problem? You clearly have a problem with the term, or we wouldn't be here. Further, I have hardly been stirring up trouble, I have been undoing the one sided and nationalistic revisions you have been making, and I have been working on the Gilo page for a long time now - so I did not take kindly to many additions I had made been completely removed by you or Robertert, or the additions of others, especially when it was done so with no respect for NPOV policies. So, it would seem that the bottom line is that the chaos that started when you and Robertert decided to come a long and stir up controversy, push a nationalistic point of view and minimise and censor the view of the international community, because some people seem to have a problem with certain words (like Settlement) conjure up in THEIR MINDS. And all of this after an admin had come along and decided the version I had written was the most accurate and NPOV after a previous and earlier disagreement. Now, I will admit that my edit regarding the Arab villages might not have been the most constructive, but I edited one word and entered discussion, a discussion you apparantly avoided Gilabrand. I still stand by my edit considering every source I could find at the time referred to the place as a town, and not a village. You were free to enter the discussion or send me a message, but I only made that edit once and this is a complete side issue to the one at hand Gilabrand. My edits didnt remove important information and replace it with a page that read just like the article from the Israeli Ministiry of Foreign Affairs you cited. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand, Robertert, can you tell me what is wrong with leading with both the terms 'Israeli Settlement and neighborhood of East Jerusalem'? Both are disputed terms, the latter more so as you have admitted to me, so I am really curious as to what the problem could be, and how replacing that with simply 'neighborhood of Jerusalem' can at all be considered an improvement in general encyclopedic and factual terms or in terms of taking a NPOV? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Robertert, I just noticed your discussion on El_C's talk page, and I am disheartened that you would misrepresent my arguments like that. Your continued and unqualified use of the term annexed highlights your misunderstanding of both my arguments and the situation. There is a lot more to annexation than simply what the annexer says. Further, as I have said time and time again now, being a settlement doesn't stop it being a city, but being a city does not stop it being a settlement either, and as I have stated in the talk page on Gilo, according to the UN they are settlements and not neighborhoods because the border changes made by Israel to municipal Jerusalem, which make Gilo and these other establishments a part of municipal Jerusalem (and hence 'neighborhoods of Jerusalem') according to the Israeli Government, are not recognised, are disputed and seen as Null and Void according to Resolution 476. [13]. How can they be neighborhoods of Jerusalem if no other Government in the world recogognises them as such, or recognises the border changes which make them a part of municipal Jerusalem? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you call it a settlement, why do you locate it in Israel's expanded East Jerusalem? It seems to be a contradiction in terms. This settlement is located in the West Bank according to the UN, as they neither recognise Israel presence in East Jerusalem or Jerusalem's expanded borders which include Pisgat Zeev. It is therefore only located in East Jerusalem according to Israel, who do not view it as a settlement. I feel that it should be described as a neighbourhood in the first line as that is what it is in reality. Live there and you receive a council tax bill from the Jerusalem Municipally whether you like it or not. The international view can also be mentioned. As to the location, Northern Jerusalem is more accurate and is described as such in the Peace Now link provided. Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Theres a problem in your logic though. You say its only in East Jerusalem according to Israel, which is correct - to the rest of the world it is located in the West Bank as these are not built in areas of traditioal Jerusalem, but the Jersualem that was expaned by Israel (and rejected by the International Community. So if these places are only in East Jerusalem according to Israel, then surely they are only neighborhoods according to Israel too? And you want to lead with that term? Normally, that might be fine, but the difference here is that most other neighborhoods in the world are recognised as such by other governments. When this is disputed so heavly, then leading with such a nationalist viewpoint is simply against wikipedia policy. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a community that was purchased and inhabited by Jews before 1948 (Neve Yaakov) should not be labelled "captured by Israel" in 1967. If you must include this type of reference, it seems to me that the correct term would be "recaptured".Howie63 (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from here -- but these territories were also 'let go,' so to speak, by Israel in 1949. I also feel that 'recaptured' gives the wrong impression as to the validity and recognition of the recapture. I certainly agree that the fact it was inhabited before 1948 should be well highlighted. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"but these territories were also 'let go,' so to speak, by Israel in 1949." seems to me an inappropriate characterization of a result of a defensive war. Are you saying that 'captured by Israel in 1967' gives a correct impression of invalidity and non-recognition? Would you describe Paris as having been 'captured' by the Allies? Perhaps we should describe Neve Yaakov as having been 'liberated' by Israel in 1967. Howie63 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you also say tibet was liberated by China? Or France by Germany? I do think that 'captured by Israel...' gives the correct impression of non-recognition, and of the facts. The internationally recognised borders of Israel are those of the 1949 armistice lines... thus any attempt to gain territory or control outside the internationally recognised borders of Israel would be correctly described as having been 'Captured by Israel in 1949'. Especially given that it was never captured in the first place, especially in a military sense, but rather initially established under the mandate of palestine. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The United States has often said that East Jerusalem is not the west bank, and the U.S congress has wanted to move its embassy to east Jerusalem. We have sources saying that CNN and other networks have said that they don't want to refer to the places as settlements. Obviously it's disputed whether or not they're settlements or not. Articles must present the NPOV version. Therefore , you can't say "they are settlements". You can explain it though in detail. And it does, although in a POV sense still because it's very much disputed, it's not an international opinion that they're settlements. So unless you want to balance that too, there's no dispute here. Obviously they are neighborhoods which is not disputed by anyone except you... stop your disruptions in the future. 216.165.3.215 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But when has the US said that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, or that 'Greater Jerusalem' is recognised for that matter? You clearly lack an understanding of the internationally recognised facts here. They are absolutely considered to be settlements both by the international community and under international law. Their status as neighborhoods is disputed by every government in the world that has refused to accept the annexation of 'greater jerusalem' in to Jerusalem as a whole, and by every government of the world that refuses to accept East Jerusalem as a part of Israel. What government has fully recognised Israels claim to these territories? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for sources that dispute that the neighborhoods are neighborhoods. there are sources in the articles of israel u.s and news media (explicit!) that dispute they're settlements. please provide ONE source that says that they're not neighborhoods, one RS. if you don't, cease your disruptions... 216.165.95.70 (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Even CNN and New York Times don't call them settlements which is clearly POV [14]. I don't know why you insist to say "settlements and neigborhoods". Neighborhoods is not disputed. Settlements are discussed in later sentences. nobody is saying that there aren't any people who claim that they're settlements. that claim is known. that the claim is that it's against international law (because groups in the u.n full of arab/mulsim states say so, or people against israel say so) is also known. the claim is known.the claim is pov. the claim is detailed in the lead. even in this anti settlement opinion piece (by a left wing israeli), she says "For news outlets to report on Gilo simply as a Jerusalem neighborhood under attack, without explaining its legal status, confuses rather than clarifies the issues involved..." - so first it says that neighborhood is what news outlets do, and second it doesn't dispute that these are neighborhoods. she just want their status clarified. and the articles do that. so what else do you want? hope this ends it!!! 216.165.95.70 (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a very strong argument not to refer to Israeli built up areas within the UN's corpus separatum as "settlements". This is because the area encompassing Jerusalem was not awarded internationally to either Israel or an Arab state. And since the legal status of Jerusalem is yet to be defined, "neighbourhood" is better for both Israeli neighbourhoods and areas built up by Arabs in eastern Jerusalem. For instance, why is Wadi al-Joz not called a settlement? Chesdovi (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You both obviously, if you are in fact two different people -- lack an understanding of the international perspectives of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Random IP: I have provided plenty of sources previously to which other people 'on your side,' so to speak had no answer for so i do not feel the need to supply them all again until you can at least read up and provide me with a good reason for each of the sources inapplicability on wiki. Chesdovi -- Wadi al-Joz is not considered to be a settlement because it was established and has existed in accordance with international law. That is why it is internationally recognised. None of these 'Ring Neighborhoods' have been internationally recognised as a part of Jerusalem, let alone as having been legally founded. How can they be neighborhoods of Jerusalem if no other government in the world recognises them as even being a part of Jerusalem? Beverly Hills is only a neighborhood of Los Anglees because no other government in the world disputes it being such, or has being a part of Los Angeles Colourinthemeaning (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any body, including Palestinian bodies, that dispute the status of these places as neighborhoods. They merely argue that they are not part of Jerusalem, and add that they consider them to also be settlements. That is, everyone agrees that they are neighborhoods, but not everyone that there are settlements. This means that only the neighborhood designation should be in the lead sentence. Information that they are also considered settlements is notable, and should be given but not in the lead sentence.

Moreover, please do not accuse other editors of operation sock puppets as you did in the above post. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods.[15][16][17] --GHcool (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The dishonest nature of the term "neighborhood"

Firstly, from a source which is about as middle-of-the-road mainstream neutral as you can get:

Israel and the Palestinians: Key terms

The BBC Governors' independent panel report on the impartiality of BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology.

[...]

OCCUPIED TERRITORIES/OCCUPATION

The general phrase "occupied territories" refers to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and strictly speaking the Golan Heights. However, it is not usually understood to refer to the Golan Heights (unless it is in a story specifically on the 1967 war or Syrian-Israeli relations).

It is advisable to avoid trying to find another formula, although the phrase "occupied West Bank" can also be used.

Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there. See that section for our use of language.

Try not to confuse the phrase "occupied territories" with Palestinian Land or Palestinian Territories. (See those sections for the reasons why.)

The Israeli government's preferred phrase to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip is "disputed territories" and it is reasonable to use this when it is clear that we are referring to or explaining its position.

[...]

SETTLEMENTS

Settlements are residential areas built by Israelis in the occupied territories. They are illegal under international law: this is the position of the UN Security Council and the UK government among others - although Israel rejects this.

When writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that "all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this".

(emphasis as in original)

This is an impeccable reliable source showing that it is fine to refer to settlements, including those in East Jerusalem, as such. In fact the whole BBC journalists' guide would be an excellent starting point for establishing a set of neutral terms for Wikipedia to use.

Seccondly, we should not be seduced into pretending that "neighborhood" is a nice, friendly-sounding neutral term that Wikipedia should use in its neutral voice. It is a weasel word, dishonestly used in order to cover up and whitewash the illegal nature of the settlements. Whenever it is used in the context of the settlements, it should be made clear that it is a partisan term preferred by the settlers and their suporters.

--NSH001 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong on all counts:

1. The BBC is not as neutral as it gets, in fact it is well-known to be anti-Israel, criticised as such by pro-Israel bodies, and even a recent BBC investigation found flaws in their I-P coverage. On the other hand, the Washington Post, which is indeed considered neutral, uses the term 'neighborhood'
2. You imply that the BBC disputes the term neighborhoods. In fact, it does not. In all the text you faithfully copied and pasted here from the BBC website, the word 'neighborhood' (or 'neighbourhood') is not mentioned even one time. As I said above (perhaps you missed it), I do not disagree that certain bodies call them settlements. However, there isn't a source you will find anywhere disputing the term neighborhood, therefore it is not a disputed term.
3. I'm not sure you are aware of what a weasel word means on Wikipedia. Please read WP:WEASEL.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1. There are no NPOV sources. All sources express a POV. The goal of NPOV is express all significant viewpoints fairly. The BBC viewpoint is as significant as that of the Washington Post. Indeed, given as it is represents the will of the international community on the issue (with the exception of Israel and the US) it is reflective of the majority POV on the issue. Further, it is hardly surprising that an American newspaper would chose to use the terminology used by its government.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Nitpicking that quite frankly misses the point. Tiamut^talk 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how #2 is irrelevant. In fact, it is the most important point in this dispute, and mirrors the J&S vs. WB dispute that's currently in arbitration. Just as notable bodies use Judea and Samaria, they also use the term 'settlement'. However, the terms West Bank and 'neighborhood' are not disputed, and therefore should be used in the lead sentence. It's as simple as that. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again, and the analogy is poor one that actually works against your argument given the facts of that case. The BBC source is actually one of the only sources presented so far that extensively discusses the usage of the term "settlement" (i.e. it is one of the only secondary sources on this subject that we have.) The other sources brought to the table thus far have mostly been primary sources where the words are simply used (and have been pointed to by anecdotally as examples of prominent usage).

The BBC is clear in noting that their position (that the word "settlements" is appropriate to describe even those Israeli localities in Jerusalem and that said settlements are "illegal") is reflective of the position of UN bodies, international law and the British government. While noting that the term is disputed by Israel, the BBC style guide to reporting says clearly it is sufficient to note that it is disputed by Israel, but that the term should still be used anyway because it is reflective of the dominant legal and political realities. Tiamut^talk 11:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tiamut here. Ynhockey, you completely ruined your argument -- you stated 'They merely argue that they are not part of Jerusalem, and add that they consider them to also be settlements.' Now if they argue they are not a part of Jerusalem, then how can their status as 'neighborhoods of Jerusalem' be undisputed? Thus, not everyone agrees they are neighborhoods. Your assumption is completely unfoudned and false. Second of all, your charge that the BBC is 'anti-Israeli' you have listed no source for, and if the BBC was to be suddenly considered an unreliable source I hope you are prepared to rewrite what, probably 30-50% of the wikipedia apages? Lastly, i have provided plently of sources before, from both the BBC and other news organisations as well as international bodies that clearly state they are only neighborhoods according to the Israeli government and that most (if not every) other government of the world disputes this. Ynhockey, please thoroughly read all of this discussion so far and address all the points that have been raised you disagree with before joining in and making us all repeat this over again. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Color, I never said that the BBC wasn't reliable, I said it wasn't neutral as you claimed. Please read my comments again. You also failed to address the fact that the word neighborhood is not mentioned even one time in the BBC definition, and there is no evidence that even the BBC disputes the term. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While the BBC's coverage of Israel is has been shown to be skewed against the Jewish state, the point is that the BBC's list of terms is hardly what one could call the be all and end all of definitions for highly controversial Middle Eastern political concepts. Not only that, but NSH001 seems to wish to commit a WP:SYNTH violation by taking two definitions and merging them into one. Neighborhoods of Jerusalem are just that: neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Furthermore, most reliable sources seem to call them "neighborhoods" and not "settlements." Tiamut's claim that the Washington Post only refers to them as neighborhoods because the U.S. government refers to them that way is outrageous and implies that the U.S. does not have a free press and that the Post would ordinarily agree with the Hamas position that neighborhoods in Jerusalem are "settlements." Wikipedia operates by looking for what is verifiable, not what is the most ideological position of one side or the other. This is why Tel Aviv is listed as being a city in Israel and not in "occupied Palestine" as Hamas defines it. --GHcool (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Side issues. They key issue is that the BBC source is a secondary source which discusses the usage of the term. Other sources we have dealt with thus far only the use the term (primary sources). The BBC source is high quality reliable source and it indicates that "settlements" and "illegal" are words associated with Jerusalem localities beyond the Green Line by the majority of the world.

Because we have a Jpost source at Ramot which kind of discusses usage of the term by the US and Israel, we know that there is a significant minority viewpoint that these localities are neither "settlements" nor "illegal". Per NPOV, what we do then is juxtapose these two POVs and let the reader decide which one he wants to go with. We don't censor one out because some people find it offensive or disputable or whatever. That's not what NPOV is all about. This is really very simple. I don't understand why people are finding it so difficult to accept. Tiamut^talk 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also a significant minority viewpoint that says that Tel Aviv is part of "occupied Palestine." Do we always balance out two viewpoints or do we take the viewpoint that is most in line with the best evidence? Tiamut is using a kind of ad populum logical fallacy to support his/her incorrect assertions. --GHcool (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GHCool, the significant minority viewpoint in this case is that of Israel and the US - the only two governments who insist that Jerusalem settlements are merely neighbourhoods and are not illegal. The rest of the world, international law, the United Nations, etc.., etc., says they are settlements and that they are illegal.

Are you suggesting that we not mention the Israeli-US view just as we do not mention that Tel Aviv is part of Occupied Palestine? Or are you suggesting that we mention that Tel Aviv is part of Occupied Palestine? Tiamut^talk 01:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process

Greetings, appropriately enough, I received a note to look over here. I happen to be the moderator at a WikiProject to help quiet Isr-Pales editing disputes. I don't have time myself to moderate this discussion, so let me make some suggestions.

1. Would you all please agree to use this page to focus on the content dispute? That is, from this point forward, assume that past problems in user conduct have already been addressed at WP:AE with the 1RR sanction.
2. Accordingly, would you all please agree to raise any future user conduct concerns (like reverts, uncivility) on other pages (not here)? For instance, if you feel somebody has been uncivil, could you politely mention this on their user Talk, quote the problematic text, and ask them to kindly strikeout (or remove) their text? The next stages might be WP:WQA then WP:AN/I or WP:AE. In this manner, this page -- a content discussion -- won't be cluttered with back and forth complaints about user conduct. Ok?
3. You might want to consider taking this dispute to WP:MEDCAB and/or an WP:RFC. If so -- well, even if not... then,
4. Probably a good constructive next step is to try to define the content dispute itself. I don't mean tell us the history of the reverts and user conduct. Do you accept the nutshell description above? If not, can you all come to agreement on another, fairly neutral description?
5. Once you've agreed on the question, perhaps you could elucidate the WP-policy or other criteria that you would employ to arrive at an answer?

Hope this is helpful. If you feel it's helpful, or not, you're welcome to give me constructive feedback on my Talk page. Pls be concise there. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest at the outset that the question at the top of the page be changed so that it does not use the term "neighbourhoods" (thereby seemingly taking a side right off the bat)? For example, it could read:

Should the post-1967 Jewish localities in Jerusalem be principally titled as "neighborhoods" or "settlements"? What do the reliable sources say? What is the predominant usage?

Thanks. Tiamut^talk

Thanks Tiamut. I feel I only really need one source here, UN Resolution 476. I have been told previously that the reason it is a neighborhood is because it is located within municipal Jerusalem. This is disputed in Resolution 476, which denies the changes to the borders of municipal Jerusalem made by the state of Israel, thus disputing that these locations are neighborhoods of Jerusalem (or in fact, a part of Jerusalem at all). So this leaves us with a problem, as both the term 'neighborhood' is disputed by the world, and the term 'settlement' is disputed by Israel. Now of course, I think it is important to mention this dispute, and highlight the arguments behind both. But as I have stated before, when it really comes down to it we have to call a spade a spade, not because it isnt a shovel, but because most people call it a spade. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Colourinthemeaning clearly has an emotional obsession. Maybe it's called "neighborhood-itis" Here is the definition of the word according to a non-political source: Neighborhood – An identifiable geographic area of relatively small size; a collection of units and other land uses that provide a relationship between dwellings, school, religious facilities, minor retail and/or other local facilities. [[18]]. Why don't you devote your energies to something positive, Mr. Colour? Time to use your God-given years on earth to engage in productive work.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think it is you who is showing your emotional obsession Gilabrand. My so-called "god-given" time on earth is being used just as I please - improving articles on wikipedia to ensure they are neutral and that they tell all sides and not just one. Wikipedia however, says that a neighborhood is a 'geographically localised community located within a larger city, town or suburb.' So can you tell me Gilabrand, which larger city, town or suburb these places are located in? Because according to the world outside Israel, these are not legally located within Jerusalem. Which makes them neighborhoods, how? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the current Wikipedia definition of a 'neighborhood' is a strong argument, then note, please, that the current Wikipedia definition of a 'neighborhood' speaks only about geography and not about legality.Howie63 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. With this edit, you have proven to the world that you are certifiably obsessed. You are an ignorant person. When you are banned from Wikipedia, which will hopefully be soon, we should bring out the champagne. Evidence of the seriousness of your condition can be viewed here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umm_Tuba&diff=prev&oldid=209462370

Well thank you for pointing out my error on that edit Gilabrand, I certainly admit it was an error and have undone it. On the other hand, your emotional obsession seems to be showing again, especially with your certainty I will be banned for having made this mistake. I ask you Gilabrand, have you never made a mistake before? You seem to prefer to just insult your opponents on a personal level and avoid their legitimate questions all together. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you recognized that it was a mistake, and of course, we all make mistakes, but the fact that you made it at all is the point. It shows that you are actively seeking out articles into which you can inject your POV, the more the merrier. If I attacked you personally, it was because nothing else seems to help in your case. A person who goes from article to article adding political POV without offering sources or attempting any other form of article improvement is bound to be suspect. You have succeeded in getting many people hot around the collar, which is a pity, since we do need people like you who can write well in English and do important editing work.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I intervene here to ask that we discuss editing content and not editors and their motivations? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tiamut. I think the fact that you think I am inserting my own personal opinion though Gilabrand, highlights your misunderstanding of this situation. It is not my POV i am inserting, but the POV of the international community, which as you know can be attributed to any number of sources. Your double standards are showing Gilabrand. As you provide no sources for it being a neighborhood, which is an intrinsically political term too, your edit history reveals the double standards of edits you have made. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome Colourinthemeaning, but the advice applies to you as well; indeed, it applies to everyone at Wikipedia and particularly those editing I-P articles. So I suggest you strike "Your double standards are showing Gilabrand" using <s> ... </s> , since it's not necessary to the discussion here and is a comment on an editor. The second half of the sentence can stand on its own. (For some reason, my name and time stamp are not appearing correctly. This was a statement by me, Tiamut at 13:28 on 2 May 2008) Tiamut^talk 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake Tiamut. I hope I have worded it better as I was not trying to make a remark on the editor themselves, but rather on the content of their edits, so I hope this better reflects that now. My previous comment (above Tiamut's) was edited at the same time as this comment. PS. Your signature seems to be appearing fine for me at least. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for being open and responsive to consructive criticism and for being persistent in your followup on this issue. As you can see here, we have a solid, reliable secondary source that support the position you have been expressing. I am hoping that other editors will defer to this source, at least until we can find other sources that discuss the term's usage which express a different POV. Tiamut^talk 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I love these arguments at Wikipedia, because they are living confirmation of Henry Kissinger's quip: "The reason academic discussions are so vicious is that the stakes are so low."

What is obvious to any observer not involved in the mudslinging is that these areas are both neighborhoods and settlements. Reliable sources can be found for calling them either. There are good logical arguments behind both. Each term also encapsulates a mountain of connotations, political views, and insinuations.

For this reason, there can be no resolution to this dispute that will leave both sides satisfied. One option is to diligently eschew the use of either term, and call these places "regions" or "areas" or "sectors". A better solution, one that is totally unacceptable in Wikipedia but which I proposed in my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia is to allow, at least temporarily, two parallel articles as a way toward resolution of the conflict.

But, of course, the preferred course is for the current participants to keep slugging away at each other until thousands of words of argument have been archived. So have at it, and let the spectators enjoy! --Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't want to slug it out. I want to use reliable secondary sources to describe the legal and political realities to the best of our ability. We have found at least one now that is helpful in this regard. Let's look for more, but in the meantime recognize the authority and utility of this source which is in line with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Tiamut^talk 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ravpapa, i disagree that the only solution is to have two alternative pages. All i have been advocating, for quite some time now is the use of both terms explained within their context (eg: that the term settlement is the international (legal) perspective and that neighborhood is the Israeli and locals perspective) in the opening paragraph. Following that, neither the term settlement or neihghborhood has to be used unless within this context again. Further, your quote implying that the stakes are low, especially in this context obviously reflects your inability to understand both the arguments, the situation and what is at stake in it all. Some of us in the world would actually like to live in peace. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, thank you for pointing that out. I didn't realize that a resolution of the issue whether to use the word "neiighborhood" or "settlement" in a Wikipedia article was advancing the cause of peace. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

even al jazeera (!) doesn't dispute that these are neighborhoods

[19] nobody has any problem with a discussion on whether these neighborhoods can also be considered as settlements. Some will say yes - it's beyond the green line. Some will say no - they were annexed to Jerusalem, places existed before 1948 (Neve Yaacov), these are not seperate communitues but part of a city with no distiniction on the ground, and Jerusalem was supposed to be a mandated area and so on... all kinds of arguments. The point is that they have to be NPOV'd, and so won't be in the lead sentence as a statement of fact... I really think the argument is moot and the only one still advocating this extreme pov is colourinthemeaning, and he should cease. 216.165.2.182 (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

other sources that were brought - for example Washington Times a left wing newspaper. [20] calls it neighborhoods and say DISPUTED east jerusalem. the ultimate proof was brought in this source - an opinion piece against the legality of the neighborhoods, the person writes "For news outlets to report on Gilo simply as a Jerusalem neighborhood under attack, without explaining its legal status, confuses rather than clarifies the issues involved" - no problem, explain this legal status (of course its only one POV so show both). the article proves that both CNN and New York times called it neighborhoods. 216.165.2.182 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means representing all significant POVs. It does not mean censoring a majority POV so as not to offend those holding a minority POV. Please read WP:NPOV.

Also, we need sources discusses the usage of the terms (secondary sources) and not sources that just use the terms (primary sources). Please read WP:OR. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not primary sources, because they use it while talking about their alleged illegality, so it proves its npov usage. Nobody disagrees with you. You can put in the POV that these are settlements, but you have to qualify it per WP:POV. Neighborhoods is not disputed. The persistent use of it by all media sources and people actually advocating the use of the term settlement proves it. It's really a very simple issue. Settlement definition here is very contentious. it's an absolute lie to say that this is the opinion of the international "community" or that this is "the law", it's a complete lie. it's a contentious issue. Neighborhoods is not, and like defined here above in wikipedia it only notes geography not legality. It's just instead of the non descriptive "place" we say neighborhood, then make the discussion and sources as you like. the argument is not neighborhood v settlement, it's settlement vs. not settlement. 216.165.2.182 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

and we have exactly what you asked for. CNN and New York Times say: use neighborhood not settlement. Bring reliable sources, see WP:RS, that say "use settlement" not neighborhoods.

• Quote CNN: ""We refer to Gilo as 'a Jewish neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem, built on land occupied by Israel in 1967.' We don't refer to it as a settlement," said the order from CNN headquarters"[21]

Because we have the first and not the second, the WP:NPOV for the leading sentence is neighborhood, not settlement. Settlement discussion is welcomed to follow, and does already follow. So the whole argument doesn't make sense. The word settlement is already mentioned in all the articles, again and again. colourmeaning is just trying to push the word into the first sentence, what kind of goal is that? what kind of justification can there be to it? I hope you're not feeling the same way, because it's an eccentric view to try to push the word into the first sentence instead of the second or third, when it's clearly a POV word that a source like CNN prefers not to use! in this context. 216.165.2.182 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this IP address really nailed it. Good work, friend. --GHcool (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that by most reasonable definitions most of these areas are both neighborhoods and settlements. However, the anon's points are very good. Given that Al Jazeera(although I personally think that Al Jazeera is not nearly as extremist as many people seem to think it is) uses the term neighborhood it is hard to see why we should not. Neighborhood is neutral with regard to legal status or moral appropriateness of these communities. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw this dispute mentioned in the Judea-Samaria case now at Arbcom, and I'm just weighing in here briefly and agnostically. It strikes me as a legitimate line of argument to say many mainstream RSs call these "neighborhoods," so the term is legit. If the term is indeed dominant among mainstream RSs – and I have no idea if it is, though it certainly appears to be more common than "Judea" and "Samaria" are – then that's hard to overcome on NPOV grounds. What does not seem to me a legitimate argument, however, is to say whether these are settlements is debated, but no one questions that they're neighborhoods, appealing to the neutral dictionary sense of the latter word. The Israeli use of the word "neighborhood" in this context is described by many reliable sources as loaded, both from a political and legal point of view (legal because during any "settlement freeze" Israel can continue to build or expand what it calls "neighborhoods"). These terms are recognized as having ideological and legal implications in this context, and it just won't do to argue along the lines of Merriam Webster defines "neighborhood" as such and such, and these are obviously examples of such and such. And it's perverse to present Saeb Erekat's statement that "As far as we're concerned, Har Homa, Givat Ze'ev and Ma'ale Adumim are not part of Jerusalem and also Jewish neighborhoods like Ramot and Gilo are settlements for all intents and purposes" as demonstrating the neutrality of the term "neighborhoods."--G-Dett (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the statement you demonstrated (by Erekat), it is clear that neighborhood is the neutral term, while "settlement" is the term preferred by Erekat. You also claim that "The Israeli use of the word neighborhood in this context is described by many reliable sources as loaded"—I asked anyone who wants to to provide such a source, and so far none has been provided. Feel free to be the first one to do this. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give you sources – I have a number of them. Patience please.

I don't understand your argument about the Erekat quote.

An analogous situation would be a dispute over whether to call waterboarding a "form of torture" or "an interrogation technique," in which one side reasons Not everyone agrees it's torture, but everyone agrees it's an interrogation technique. And then quotes Amnesty International or whoever saying something like, As far as we're concerned, this interrogation technique is torture for all intents and purposes. The problem with this reasoning would be that the phrase "interrogation technique" is specifically recognized as controversial, and described by good secondary sources as a euphemism with ideological and legal implications in this context.

"Neighborhood" may indeed be legitimate for Wikipedia's neutral voice in these lead sentences, but that would have to be established by its demonstrated dominance among reliable sources, not by appealing to generically neutral dictionary definitions (neutral definitions of "settlement" and even "colony" exist, by the way). --G-Dett (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. Firstly, what you say about euphemisms and your example, is open to interpretation. It seems to me that there is no allusion to a euphemism here, and it is your personal intepretation. I see it differently, and to me it seems like Erekat says that they are neighborhoods (as a neutral descriptive term, so that the listener/reader knows what he means), and then goes on to accuse them of being "settlements for all intents and purposes", which is his opinion. Same with your example.

Secondly, WP:V/WP:RS do not override WP:NPOV. You cannot prove a certain term's prominence in reliable sources, because both are used by hundreds of mainstream reliable sources, and likely thousands more that we do not have immediate access to. What is possible to determine is which term is neutral and which is not, something that seems obvious to me, reinforced by your quote of Erekat. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Per your request for sources:

Moreover, the term "natural growth" was never precisely defined, and the vague nature of the term has allowed Israel to continue to expand the settlements while avoiding direct confrontation with the United States administration...Under the banner of "natural growth," Israel has established new settlements under the guise of "new neighborhoods" of existing settlements. Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank. B'tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

1.5 Regarding 1.2.b "No new settlements." This term has no meaning in terms of stopping construction; rather it is a term which Israel uses for administrative purposes. This loophole allows Israel to continue construction in existing settlements or already constructed areas, many of them which could expand several times their current size as noted above in 1.4. Moreover, this loophole permits Israel to undertake construction of a new settlement area but under the guise of designating it as a "neighborhood" of an existing settlement. The settlements of Alon and Nofei Prat are examples of creating new settlements while designating them as a neighborhood of the settlement Kfar Adumim.[9] Talmon and its satellites settlements of B, C, and D offer an example of the types of semantics of not designating construction as new settlements but rather as a neighborhood or extension of an existing settlement. HC Paper 522-II House of Commons International Development Committee: The Humanitarian and Development Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Volume II. By Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. International Development Committee, Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. International Development Committee. (Session 2007-08)

On the extent of "greater Jerusalem," see the official maps published by B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) in the report by Yehezkel Lein and Eyal Weizman, Gezel Ha-Karka'ot, Hebrew edition, May 2002, revealing that the boundaries of the "neighborhoods of Jerusalem" extend virtually to Jericho. Middle East Illusions. By Noam Chomsky. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004

While Israelis, and even members of the peace camp, accept the annexation of East Jerusalem and the construction of Jewish settlements ("neighborhoods")... Who's left in Israel? By Dan Leon. Sussex University Press, 2004

These settlements, or neighborhoods, as Jerusalem city planners refer to them, have completely altered the landscape of East Jerusalem. Israeli settlement policy in Jerusalem: facts on the ground‎. By Allison B. Hodgkins, PASSIA, 1998

Ma'ale Adumim is described as one of the "neighborhoods of Jerusalem" in US reporting...Settlements such as Gilo, in occupied East Jerusalem, were consistently referred to as "Jewish neighborhoods." By not acknowledging that Gilo and similar sites are settlements, reports obscure the fact that these "neighborhoods" are illegal and grave violations of the Geneva Convention and the human rights of the occupied population. The new Intifada. By Roane Carey, Noam Chomsky. Verso, 2001

When most Israeli Jews speak of settlements, they think of distant outposts established by religious zealots. They often exclude from their definition the largest and most populous colonies like Ma'ale Adumim, Gilo, and Gush Etzion, which they simply view as "neighborhoods" or suburbs of Jerusalem. Yet these are the very settlements that have destroyed the contiguity of the West Bank and cut Palestinians off from Jerusalem and from each other. One Country: A Bold Proposal by Ali Abunimah. Macmillan, 2007

Palestinians from the town of Bet-Jalla shot at Gilo — officially a Jerusalem neighborhood, actually a settlement — critically wounding border policeman... Intifada Hits the Headlines by Danny Dor. Indiana University Press, 2004

The Jewish population of the dozen so-called neighborhoods built and annexed to Jerusalem on land that Israel occupied in 1967, estimated at an additional 177,000... Pens and Swords: How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. By Marda Dunsky. Columbia University Press, 2008.

Palestinians consider the neighborhoods in Jerusalem that were built after 1967 to be settlements, and the Israelis consider them neighborhoods. But you don't have time to explain in every story why the Palestinians consider them settlements. Journalists try to be fair. You want to get both sides of the story even if it comes down to what something is called. You're trying to make sure that you're not favoring one side or you're not using language that only describes one side's worldview of something. (Ann Lolordo, Baltimore Sun, quoted in Dunsky above)

Contested terms like "occupation" disappeared from all three newspapers, "occupied lands" became "disputed lands" and "Israeli settlements" were often labeled "Israeli neighborhoods." Civilian Israelis were sometimes called "dovish" or "peaceniks," but these terms were almost never applied to Palestinians. Such word choices suggest a consonance with the Israeli way of framing events. How Bias Shapes the News: Challenging the New York Times' Status as the Newspaper of Record on the Middle East. By Barbie Zelizer. Published by Journalism: Theory, Practice, and Criticism, December 2002.

More to come. --G-Dett (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting sources to be sure. It appears however that only two are actually relevant here, and I don't think we should go by them alone (WP:FRINGE)... let me address every source (each number represents a paragraph):

1. Does not appear to mention Jerusalem, and from the context is apparently related to places like Giv'at Ze'ev or Karnei Shomron, which have outlying neighborhoods not very close or connected to the town center (called by some separate settlements, including ironically by many settlers).
2. Same as above, only this one specifically says it's not Jerusalem-related, strengthening my point above.
3. Chomsky is not a reliable source for I–P issues, and we've had discussions about him already. As a notable personality, his opinion may be relevant to the general article about East Jerusalem (section about the Jewish population), but nothing he said should be taken as fact and put in the lead section. He's also clearly wrong as the easternmost Jerusalem neighborhoods (Pisgat Ze'ev East and A-Tur) are nowhere near Jericho (see also #6). I'd also bee interested to see this "map published by B'Tselem".
4. One of the two sources that I consider to actually be relevant and probably reliable, but would appreciate a full quote (more context), or a link to read it myself. It does appear that even parts of sentences were ommitted.
5. PASSIA is not a reliable source.
6. Again Chomsky is not a reliable source, but here we see a much deeper distortion (and probably why Chomsky claims that they stretch to near Jericho). I'm not sure what he's talking about, but certainly I have never seen a reliable source anywhere claim that Ma'ale Adummim is a neighborhood of Jerusalem. The neighborhoods and boundaries of Jerusalem are very clearly defined by the Israeli government (for a map, see www.govmap.co.il in Hebrew), and are nowhere near Ma'ale Adumim. Moreover, Chomsky talks about how Israelis don't recognize neighborhoods as settlements, and does not say that these are not neighborhoods.
7. Not sure about the reliability of this source, but it's not important. Neither Gush Etzion nor Ma'ale Adumim are neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and no one says they are. In fact it's a common strawman argument used by opponents of Israel, and I have never seen a serious source making this mistake. Therefore this point is completely invalid.
8. One of the two sources that I consider to actually be relevant and probably reliable, but would appreciate a full quote (more context), or a link to read it myself. It does appear that even parts of sentences were ommitted.
9. Source seems to take a critical stance towards the term 'neighborhood', but does not offer an alternative and does not use the term 'settlement'.
10. Source does elaborate on the dispute, but still calls them neighborhoods. It actually contradicts itself by saying that the neighborhoods are considered settlements by most, and neighborhoods by Israelis (actually very similar to the Erekat example). Basically they're saying that there is a dispute, but themselves have not found a more neutral word.
11. Does not appear to be about Jerusalem.

By the way, if you have any doubts about what Israel officially claims to be a neighborhood of Jerusalem, see this Ministry of the Interior-affiliated website containing GIS data for Jerusalem (in Hebrew, but you can clearly see the border of the city and other important features. Red is the Old City). Use this map for comparison.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm guessing that some of these sources claiming that Ma'ale Adumim is a neighborhood of Jerusalem (or referred to as one by Israel(is)) are confusing the word 'neighborhood' with the word 'suburb', which are entirely different words, especially in the Israeli context which officially defines neighborhoods (I'm not sure all cities/countries do this). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think the confusion is yours here. The source you're disputing here said, "They often exclude from their definition the largest and most populous colonies like Ma'ale Adumim, Gilo, and Gush Etzion, which they simply view as "neighborhoods" or suburbs of Jerusalem." You appear to have overlooked the "or suburbs part," then decided on that mistaken basis that the author was "claiming that Ma'ale Adumim is a neighborhood" and therefore making a strawman argument. He's not confusing the word neighborhood with the word suburb; he mentioned both and you didn't notice.--G-Dett (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are actually three entries where I raised this concern, and one indeed says that. Even so, there is no serious source, Israeli or foreign, calling Ma'ale Adumim a neighborhood of Jerusalem, therefore discounting the argument that it should be called a settlement—it already is. We're talking about Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so why do you keep talking about Ma'ale Adumim?--G-Dett (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Not really related to the above, but as a compromise I'm willing to accept a solution where the lead sentence for East Jerusalem neighborhoods says that they are in East Jerusalem (with a link), like so:

Pisgat Ze'ev is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem

Which alleviates concerns that you, Tiamut and Colourinthemeaning have raised regarding how many bodies consider these neighborhoods not to be part of 'Israeli' Jerusalem at all. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that what you challenged me to produce are reliable sources describing the term "neighborhoods" as loaded in this context.

Re points #1 and #2, you're quite right that they're not talking about Jerusalem and I should have mentioned that. They do, however, point up the loaded use of the term "neighborhood" and are therefore relevant.

Re #3 and #6, of course Chomsky is a reliable source on the I/P conflict (!). He's not a professional historian, which is what you're probably driving at; and there are better sources to turn to for content when writing historical articles. But to say that someone who's probably the single most influential and celebrated scholar on the relationship between commercial media, state propaganda, and foreign policy would not be relevant to a dispute about politically contested terminology is surprising, to say the least.

Re #4 and #8, I'll get you fuller quotes ASAP. Again, though, all we're discussing is if there's sourced controversy surrounding use of the term "neighborhoods" in this context, and it's pretty damn clear there is.

Re #5, why on earth would PASSIA (Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs) not be a reliable source for whether this term is disputed? Meanwhile a leaked CNN memorandum is?

Re #7, read my response to your P.S. above. You misread the source, missing a key word.

Re #9, "Source seems to take a critical stance towards the term 'neighborhood'..." Good. That's all we're talking about.

Re #10 Ditto. A crystal-clear statement that the term is disputed.

Re #11 Level with me here: are you bluffing? Of course it's about Jerusalem. Unless the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune have all taken to calling West Bank settlements "neighborhoods."--G-Dett (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, obviously the context (whether it's about Jerusalem) is extremely important. As I said, there are certain settlements with outlying outposts which are not neighborhoods—perhaps I was not clear on this—so it would be correct to dispute this. However, in the case of Jerusalem, they are neighborhoods. Another important distinction is that Jerusalem actually does have an official boundary, while settlements in the Judea and Samaria Area (WB sans East Jerusalem & Latrun DMZ) do not. I'm not even 100% sure how boundaries for settlements are delimited, I think it's done by the military but it would be interesting to see a source (preferrably official Israeli) elaborate on this (for my personal knowledge, not relevant to this dispute).

Secondly, I would like to avoid as much as possible the discussion about whether Chomsky is a reliable source. I stated that he was not, but that's not the crux of my argument against both sources based on Chomsky that you presented (if you're like to argue about Chomsky's status overall, we can do this on our talk pages). The main argument is, just like in point #7, the sources are not specific on what they consider a Jerusalem neighborhood, and incorrect in stating that Israelis call Ma'ale Adumim, Gush Etzion, etc. neighborhoods—in fact there is no such thing. Yes, it is incorrect to label Ma'ale Adumim as a Jerusalem neighborhood. It is however correct to label Pisgat Ze'ev as such.

Next, PASSIA is a clear WP:FRINGE source that is not mainstream. It would be akin to using a Yesha Council source for a similar claim on the 'other side'.

About #9: that's totally not the only thing we're talking about. The source is cynical about the use of the term—I can be cynical about anything if I want to; this means nothing. The source does not actually provide an alternative term that it prefers (if this is provided later, please give the full quote), therefore it does not dispute the factuality of the term neighborhood, just expresses its apparent disdain with the term (not the same thing).

About #11: I don't see any indication that it refers to Jerusalem at all (if there is one in the full source, please provide it). The source seems to be taking a generic jab at the 'Israeli way of framing events' (whatever that is), and could very well be referring to the same settlements that sources 1 and 2 refer to. I am additionally not sure about the reliability of this source, but as with Chomsky, this isn't really important given the ambiguity of the given text.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I wandered into this discussion in a spirit of agnosticism, and I'm going to wander out in the same spirit. I honestly don't know which term (or both) is appropriate. The bottom line as far as I can see is that the international media calls these "settlements," whereas the Israeli and American media call them "neighborhoods." Given the predominance of American media (both on-wiki and off), this is a genuinely thorny issue. I don't pretend to have the answer. (I object to the term "neighborhood" for personal, political, and ethical reasons, but I don't confuse these with criteria for what's encyclopedic.)

My contribution here (at this point) is narrow, to wit: this will have to be resolved through analysis of sources (both primary and secondary). This business of appealing to neutral dictionary definitions of "neighborhood" won't do, because the term has specific, recognized ideological (and legal) implications in the present context, and these are presented and discussed by reliable sources. Just as the ordinary English words "interrogation technique" are recognized to have specific ideological and legal implications in discussions of torture, despite their "factuality" in describing same. I don't find your point-by-point contestation of the sources I've adduced to be convincing. You began by saying "I am not aware of any body, including Palestinian bodies, that dispute the status of these places as neighborhoods," and challenged me to produce examples. Now you're raising the bar here, tilting the bar there, contesting Chomsky as relevant while professing to want to "avoid" that issue, chasing red herrings about Ma'ale Adumim, comparing a Palestinian academic society to a municipal umbrella organization for Jewish settlements, arguing that sources that "take a critical stance towards the term 'neighborhood'" don't count if they don't argue for an alternative, reading selective ambiguity into sources that straightforwardly describe the terminological dispute, and so on. These sources and others clearly show, individually and in the aggregate, that the term is understood to be controversial.--G-Dett (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find the sources to be convincing either as they didn't specifically say that there's something wrong with the word neighborhood, in contrast to what CNN and New York Times said about settlements. Interestingly, even the 'best' source that you brought actually says "Palestinians consider the neighborhoods in Jerusalem that were built after 1967 to be settlements". All they're really saying is "ok, they're neighborhoods. just explain our WP:POV of their illegality in the next paragraph if you so wish so..." Anyway, I think we come to a consensus that 'the term neighborhood for these places is dominant among mainstream RSs' and since the term settlement is loaded, very explicitly rejected by Israel and U.S, and explicitly rejected by a source like CNN, I think it should be qualified and used in a separate paragraph. Btw, looking at the sources I actually found one which doesn't say that French hill is a settlement (perhaps because of its proximity to Mount Scopus) but it does say that Beit Hakerem is a settlement, which might be because of its history, even though it's not beyond the green line... more reasons not to have the term settlement in the leading sentence (and again - why would anyone advocate that anyway?) and to have a paragraph that says that Palestinians and their supporters or others consider the neighborhoods to be settlements because they're beyond the green line, to put it into context. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources are very specific about the issue with the word "neighborhood," much more so than the CNN memo you're referring to (which was a leaked internal memo, not an "explicit rejection"); I don't know what you're referring to regarding the New York Times; the source you call my "best" is not Palestinian as you seem to think, it's a Baltimore Sun reporter describing the difficulties of reporting fairly and concisely when basic terms like "neighborhood" and "settlement" are disputed. I think your suggested phrasing about "Palestinians and their supporters" is a very bad one, because it runs counter to the sources and badly afoul of WP:NPOV, but we can get to that once you've acknowledged that "neighborhood" is disputed, and posted a minimally competent reply to me.--G-Dett (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame you resorted to making strawman arguments, but it's not surprising, except that it is because you said you were leaving this (silly) dispute and that you're agnostic about it yet you decided to come on aggressively and impudently which is a pity. I never said that your source is palestinian. If you read what you actually wrote yourself you'd see I quoted, and yes it says "Palestinians consider the neighborhoods..." which ultimately proves the whole (silly) debate like Ynhockey explained supra. And yes, I said "Palestinians and their supporters, and added "others", but you conveniently chose to neglect that to enhance your strawman argument. If you honestly believe that Noam Chomsky is not a palestinian supporter who dominated your sources for some reason that you actually claimed he's an WP:RS for this purpose and an organization that yes, is not unlike Yesha council, in fact it's probably even more POV, etc, then you are being naive or untruthful... it's obvious that no none palestinian supporter will call the places settlements. In other words, there is no one making the credible arugment that any person honestly believes that calling the places settlements is neutral. This might be true about the places in the west bank by the way, Israelis calls them settlements too, but it's not true about the neighborhoods in Jerusalem. If someone knows that they're in Jerusalem, with all that it entails, and calls them settlements, then he is knowingly making a decision to attack their legality and to condemn Israel. Much like the word "terrorist", if you want to call a Jerusalem neighborhood a "settlement" you must add that "Credible WP:RS believes that X is a settlement" and not say X is a settlement in the leading sentence to the article. There is no way around it. Even if the BBC does it. On the other hand, since even the PLO and Al Jazeera and a bunch of a myriad of other sources call it neighborhoods thinking something completely different about them than Israelis or Americans or others do, then it's a neutral term. No credible argument was made (and I suspect that no credible argument/source will be made) that neighborhood per se is a 'controversial' term - how can it if sources like Al Jazeera and the PLO itself refer it to as such? perhaps what's controversial to them is neglect of mentioning of their view that these are also settlements in their view. that's what controversial for them. There's a big though simple difference. Settlement will still be controversial even if joined with the word neighborhood. Neighborhood if controversial to anyone except some paletsinians and noam chomsky will always cease to be controversial when the word settlement is also mentioned [or the words east jerusalem, like Ynhockey cleverly said] (and again, it is in the article, in the lead, everywhere... the whole crusade of colorinthemeaing was to put it in the opening sentence as well - certainly sources like Al Jazeera don't seem to think that this is important, nobody does...). This is exactly why colorinthemeaning wants to use it in the leading sentence, to reflect this pov. As to your comment about the New York Times, it's part of the same article which was cited in many sources, and that both media prefer the use of the term neighborhood. Anyway, I do feel it's becoming repetitive, so I'll stop here.216.165.95.70 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my impudence – it can't be helped – and especially sorry that it's causing your syntax to disintegrate. Building on Ynhockey's suggestion, why not try something like X is a residential area in greater Jerusalem. Its status as either a Jerusalem neighborhood or a West Bank settlement is disputed; both terms are commonly used. A footnote here can then explain the controversies surrounding "neighborhood" and "settlement."--G-Dett (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with my syntax, but I do see a problem where you ignore the whole issue, pretend you're indifferent, and them make the erroneous claims that its status as a jerusalem neighborhood is disputed or that there's any controversy about the word, when clearly there isn't. So I would say we leave it as it is, or use Ynhockey's real original suggestion. Either -- "is a neighborhood in Jerusalem" or "is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem" (as a possible compromise if everyone agree) is fine by me. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon, I didn't say I was "indifferent." I said I didn't know what the best solution was in terms of sources and policy. There's a pretty big difference, a difference predicated on my observing the distinction between my own personal feelings and encyclopedic policy. You might want to reflect on this distinction yourself.

I don't understand why you keep saying no one disputes that these are "neighborhoods," that there's no controversy about that word, etc. But I do notice that in general you have a very weird way of reading and summarizing sources. For instance you say that the New York Times "explicitly rejects" the term settlement, apparently referring to this piece by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. What's weird is that that piece doesn't have anything at all about the New York Times rejecting or critiquing the word settlement. It just notes one report filed by a Times correspondent which uses the word neighborhood to describe Gilo. So you seem to have just made that up. What's even weirder, though, is that the whole piece does dispute the neutrality and accuracy of "neighborhood," which you keep claiming nobody does:

The "neighborhood" of Gilo

This may be partly due to campaigns by pressure groups within the U.S. Take the case of Gilo, an Israeli settlement that some pro-settler groups have used as a focal point for their campaigns to eliminate the term "settlements" in favor of "neighborhoods." In September 2001, CNN changed its policy on how to characterize Gilo: "We refer to Gilo as 'a Jewish neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem, built on land occupied by Israel in 1967.' We don't refer to it as a settlement," said the order from CNN headquarters. CNN denies that its decision was a concession to outside pressure, but according to veteran Middle East reporter Robert Fisk (London Independent, 9/3/01), sources within the network said that the switch followed "months of internal debate in CNN, which has been constantly criticized by CNN Watch, honestreporting.com and other pro-Israeli pressure groups."

Do you not see how odd it is to present a source like this as support for your argument that "neighborhood" is uncontroversial?--G-Dett (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's very odd the way you totally pretend not to understand the issue. Why do you resort to strawman argument, lies and just general silliness is beyond me. Sad really. The opinion piece didn't even once said that the term neighborhood is problematic in itself. It just said that the neighborhoods are settlements. The opinion piece acknowledged that CNN and New York Times, two major liberal media outlets, will not refer to them as settlements in purpose, just what I said and what's being discussed here.

I really at this point think you have a very rudimentary basic misunderstanding of the dispute. The whole point is that yes, it's misleading for these POV's or left winged persons/anti zionist sources and so on to say neighborhoods WITHOUT mentioning they're settlements too. It says so explicitly, like Al Jazeera. So I'll explain it to you again, slowly, and for the last time... "For news outlets to report on Gilo 'simply' as a Jerusalem neighborhood under attack, without explaining its legal status" - note the words SIMPLY and WITHOUT EXPLAINING. They don't dispute that these are neighborhoods. They dispute that they're REGULAR neighborhoods.

We know it can be MISLEADING for people holding this POV. This is why the articles in their original proposed agreed form etc have or supposed to have paragraphs talking about the settlements definition, the illegality, the unrecognized annexation. But first we just say neighborhoods and then present both sides. The fact that they're neighborhoods is not disputed, the idea that they're neighborhoods and then nothing more IS. Can you really not see the difference? You said you were agnostic and you'll drift away from this... kindly do, because you are completely oblivious to the situation it seems. The whole argument is basically whether to put the word settlement in the beginning of the sentence and not afterward. Since it's such a POV word it's after. That's all there's to it. Do you really claim that you brought credible sources that say that neighborhood in itself even with the word settlement adjacent is controversial? Do you really claim that? Really? You'll probably just dodge the question again. Anyway, that's why using both words in the leading sentence is not a compromise. For one side it's exactly what they want to say and for the other it's still controversial. 216.165.2.182 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you two would move this discussion over to one of your talk pages. It is off topic. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about whether sources dispute the neutrality of the term "neighborhood" is off-topic? Am I losing my mind?--G-Dett (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly quite confused by this remark as well. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Developments"?

A story in yesterday's New York Times ("U.N. Seeks End to Razing of Homes in East Jerusalem") touches on the terminological dispute over "neighborhood" vs. "settlement," and uses a third word ("development") to get around the problem:

The Palestinian population of East Jerusalem, which stood at about 66,000 in 1967, is now about 250,000. In addition, more than 195,000 Israelis live in Jewish developments — referred to as “neighborhoods” by the Israelis and as “settlements” by the United Nations — in East Jerusalem.

That's an idea.--G-Dett (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not a problem to use a third term—another popular one is 'area'—Jewish area and Arab area of East Jerusalem. However, neither are very descriptive and I don't support using them in the lead section for that reason —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing G-Dett doesn't understand that the issue is Israel refering them to as neighborhoods meaning referring to them as neighborhoods and NOT (also) as settlements. How do I know this? Btw, if you don't understand read the sentence again. It has a dual meaning. Read it again a few times until you understand. Also think. Think... why does the word neighborhood come up? Because they're afraid that if it's a neighborhood of somewhere like Jerusalem then it won't be condemned like other places beyond the Green Line... if say neighborhood and settlements then they wouldn't care. Colourinthemeaning doesn't care then. But the word is so heavily POV because Israelis btw don't even know which neighborhoods are on which side of the green line, and CNN for example says its controversial explicitly, thenwe can't put it at the beginning without qualifying it. Source so you understand, again:

Again, Gilo's status as an illegal settlement does not justify the Palestinian killings of civilians there, but it is central to understanding why Gilo is such a hot spot. For news outlets to report on Gilo simply as a Jerusalem neighborhood under attack, without explaining its legal status, is a gross distortion-- especially since the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which has claimed so many thousands of lives, is at bottom about who should control the land. Settlements have been a central point of contention throughout.

I suppose perhaps if you're so into a nationalist view to attack Israel you can't understand it so you write silly stuff. Recap:

• if there is a house, will you dispute it's a house if it's a settlement?
• We brought so many sources of arabs, palestinians, antisemites and Al Jazeera who say "neighborhoods". why? because it's exactly the fact that they ARE neighborhoods which annoys them - so they say "these neighborhoods ARE settlements" = sometimes they might just say settlements then.
• we're drifting away from the argument into two forks. One is to remember that we need an NPOV stand. Neighborhood is NPOV followed by POV of two sides - one NEIGHBORHOOD REGULAR, other NEIGHBORHOOD BAD/WRONG/OCCUPYING/SETTLING/COLONIZING.
• both sides are already presented. Colorinthemeaning just wanted to put the settlement word into the first sentence. Is G-Dett arguing that too? No? if not, why are we still debating it?
• I said all I had to say on this "debate"... 216.165.2.182 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for terminological controversy

Ynhockey, two sections up you asked me for sources describing "neighborhoods" as a loaded term, and then contested the sources I provided on various grounds. I was a little surprised at some of your RS-objections, because it seemed to me quite natural that sources objecting to Israeli terminology would be pro-Palestinian, or politically leftist, etc. Put another way, I can see objecting to PASSIA as a source for a straight-forward factual or historical claim presented in Wikipedia's neutral voice (just as an editor of my political persuasions might object to the Middle East Quarterly being used in this way), but it seems a little strange to me to object to citing groups like this on a talk-page to demonstrate that certain terms are politically contested.

At any rate, it got me wondering what sources have been brought by you or other editors to demonstrate that settlements is contested. (I don't mean primary sources using "neighborhoods" instead, I mean secondary sources discussing the term "settlements.") If this is staring me right in the face and I'm missing it, I apologize, but can you point me to them? Many thanks, --G-Dett (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

see above. We have the CNN saying which word they prefer to use compared to sources which say "don't refer to them SIMPLY as neighborhoods" or Baltimore Sun: "Palestinians calls the neighborhoods settlements, and Israelis calls them neighborhood" (i.e, the only way to read it - calls it neighborhoods, and not also settlements).

At end of meeting with US president in capital, prime minister makes it clear Israel will not halt building plan in east Jerusalem despite American objection. 'We made it clear Jerusalem's status is different than that of the settlements,' Olmert says.[22]

PASSIA never described neighborhoods as a loaded term - I suppose that's another lie. "These settlements, or neighborhoods, as Jerusalem city planners refer to them, have completely altered the landscape of East Jerusalem." this you mean? where do you see it as a loaded term? the loaded issue is not saying they're settlements. of course city planners referred to them as neighborhoods. they built them. again read all above if you still fail to understand. Look at the reference you hold so deal and the word SIMPLY again, or the use of the word neighborhoods in the Baltimore Sun. 216.165.2.182 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to G-Dett: Firstly, please don't change the subject. When a person comes in trying to make far-reaching changes in many articles, it is their burden to prove that the changes are needed, not the other way around. This is why no consensus deletion discussions default to keep, for example—you can't expect regular editors' time to be hijacked by disputes everywhere just because someone who makes no other contributions decides to come in and make some controversial changes (for example, during the course of this discussion, I created a new pushpin map and added infoboxes to about a dozen articles—and could've done triple this amount without this argument and the ArbCom case).

However, if you insist, Anon has already presented various sources to this effect, and some of your own sources reinforce the claim that neighborhoods is not actually a disputed term (like the Baltimore Sun one, as both Anon and I have pointed out to you). I will look for more sources as time allows, but this has nothing to do with the discussion of your argument (actually Colourinthemeaning's argument) that the term neighborhood is just as POV as settlement, and both should be in the lead sentence (notice that you are arguing about the lead sentence, not lead section). You have furthermore ignored my proposal to say 'East Jerusalem' instead of simply 'Jerusalem', which immediately clarifies everything for any reader.

Finally, the reason I rejected PASSIA was because of WP:FRINGE—it's not merely a POV source (The Guardian is a POV source for example), but it also offers fringe opinions not supported by any mainstream publication or academic. It is akin to sources supporting the Flat Earth theory, or (more common) religious sources that make a basic assumption that God exists. Of course, I also agree with Anon about the fact that PASSIA doesn't comment on the neutrality of either term in the source you provided, but I'm willing to believe that other PASSIA articles can be found that do this, and therefore saved us both some time by making it clear that I strongly oppose using it as a source for anything. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I may write more later, but for the moment I'll just say I find your arguments here very weak and rudderless. The sources – including yesterday's report in the New York Times – make very clear that both terms, "settlement" and "neighborhood," are disputed. You and anon are engaged in a great deal of hand-waving in an attempt to obscure that fact. The fact for example that there are Arab and international sources that use the word "neighborhoods" – which Anon has fixated on, repeating in boldface, all-caps etc. as he works himself into a rant – is no more significant than the fact that there are Israeli and American sources that use the word "settlements." Both terms have very specific and well established political, ideological, and legal implications in this context, and these claims that one is NPOV and the other POV are just not compelling in light of the evidence.--G-Dett (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the word "development" as the NY Times uses it when referring to recently or currently built neighborhoods. For neighborhoods that have been there since the 1990s and before, that's another story. --GHcool (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, today's Washington Post printed an article using the term "neighborhoods."[23] --GHcool (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For Palestinian neighborhoods, GHcool.--G-Dett (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile...this is from a piece which ran in American Journalism Review in July 2004:

Nothing is examined as carefully as language, with both sides fighting for terminology that casts their claim in the best possible light. Pro-Palestinian sites want media outlets to refer to "Israeli colonizers" instead of "Israeli settlers" and to talk about "death squads" instead of "military operations." Meanwhile, Israel's defenders push for the use of "terrorists" instead of "militants," "neighborhoods" instead of "settlements" and "focused interventions" instead of "targeted assassinations." In response, some news organizations go to elaborate lengths to come up with the most neutral-sounding formulations. The Philadelphia Inquirer has even invited in a rabbi and a linguistics professor to help determine what terminology to adopt. (Matusow, Barbara, "Caught in the Crossfire," American Journalism Review, July 2004)

Enough, then, of this discredited line of argument that only one of the two terms – "settlement" and "neighborhood" – is disputed.--G-Dett (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More sources:

1. Instead of the proper designation under international law of "illegal settlements," the media refer to Abu Gheim as a "Jewish neighborhood" (e.g., NPR, 2/23/97), as if it were a natural extension of white picket fences, and not an exclusive Jewish-only building complex on an uninhabited hilltop. – Husseini, Sam. "What's in a Name?: In Jerusalem Story, Terminology Takes Sides." Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, September-October 1997.

2. The roads designated for the Jewish settlers are well maintained, well lit, continuous and uninterrupted; they tie the network of Jewish "neighborhoods" and "settlements" – all of them in reality colonies forbidden by international law – to each other and to Israel. – Makdisi, Saree. "For a Secular Democratic State." The Nation, June 18 2007.

3. A defensive and apologist vocabulary serves to perpetuate the injustices: Israel’s occupation of Palestine is described as an Arab-Jewish “conflict”; Palestinian (never Jewish) violence is attributed to Palestinian (never Jewish) hatred. Israel’s Jewish chauvinist theocracy is called a “democracy,” the occupied territories are “disputed,” illegal settlements are “neighborhoods” and their deliberate illegal expansion on occupied land is “natural growth.” –Jabr, Samah, "Language: A Tool of Oppression and Liberation." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2008, pages 19-20.

4. Settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, illegal in international law, are now often referred to in the media euphemestically as "neighbourhoods." Gilo, a settlement in the suburbs of Jerusalem, is a common example, referred to routinely as a "Jewish neighborhood" in the U.S. media. Likewise, the swath of Jewish settlements around Jerusalem is called "Jewish neighborhoods." In May 2002 the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that the Israeli media had been prohibited from using the terms "settlements" or "settlers." CNN had already adopted a policy of referring to Gilo not as a settlement but rather as "a Jewish neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem, built on land occupied by Israel. CNN had been under fairly intense pressure from a number of pressure groups to adopt this policy. –Peteet, Julie. "Words as Interventions: Naming in the Palestine-Israel Conflict." Third World Quarterly, Vol. 26 No.1, Routledge.

--G-Dett (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're making the argument that "neighborhoods" is the term we ought to use on Wikipedia, then I agree. While I disagree with the needlessly anti-Israel tone these sources so giddily employ, these sources support that conclusion. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GHcool, is everything OK?--G-Dett (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything's fine. Thanks. I hope things are going well with you as well. --GHcool (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was being stupid, now I understand your post, and to some extent you're right. That is, some of the sources I've given talk about how "neighborhood" has become common in American media reports; and yes, that does lend some credence to its legitimacy. I didn't get it at first because my point in listing those sources was not to make the case for "settlement." My point was just to show that pace Ynhockey and Anon's posts, both terms are recognized by the sources as loaded and contested in this context. My suggestion – and it seems to me a very simple NPOV solution – is to have the lead sentence in these articles not weigh in as it were and legitimize either of the two disputed terms. Along the lines of X is a housing development on the outskirts of Jerusalem, described as a "neighborhood" by Israelis and a "settlement" by Palestinians and the United Nations.

Or: X is a housing development on the outskirts of Jerusalem; its status as either a "settlement" or a "neighborhood" is disputed. You get the idea.--G-Dett (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. We're talking about the definition of words. So far, the people who wish to call the controversial East Jerusalem neighborhoods "settlements" don't appear to understand the difference between what is and is not a settlement. People can't just make up stuff. Is it that anything on land that Palestinians claim is their own is a settlement? By that definition, is Tel Aviv a settlement since Hamas claims that it is theirs? The neighborhoods are controversial (I myself am unhappy with them), but they are neighborhoods and not settlements by any meaningful definition of the word. --GHcool (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in again, but I don't understand people's insistence on the specific words "neighborhood" and "settlement". By settlement, I suppose you mean land occupied by Israel in 1967 and developed for residential use. So why not just say so? Gilo is built on land occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.

What is so magical about the specific word settlement? --Ravpapa (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilo is firstly a neighborhood, then something... no source was brought yet that asserts that neighborhood is controversial. The sources, as proven by the first ones, clearly mean that calling them neighborhoods without mentioning they're settlements (in their POV) is disputed. They simply don't say the entire sentence and can all be read in both ways. By comparison with the sources that used words like "simply" and "the neighborhoods are settlements" this is clear to (almost) everyone. This was explained many times already, and it's fairly easy to grasp. For example, supporters of Hamas might want to call their people "members" of Hamas. People against Hamas would say "don't call them members. Call them terrorists". What they obviously are saying is that "We wouldn't have minded members AND terrorists, just don't say only members". Members in itself is not the controversial word. It's the insinuation that they're ONLY members. The same token applies here. This is why the original user wanted to say "neighborhood and settlement" as a compromise but that's not a compromise at all, because the nature of the dispute is whether the place is a settlement, just like the nature of the dispute in the example above is whether Hamas is terrorist or not. Also, I agree the prevalent word in the media as proven by the same sources is neighborhood, so there's really no dispute at all. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the sentence should be either as it is or along the lines "Gilo is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Since the ring neighborhoods were established on land captured by Israel in the Six Day War, later unilaterally annexed by Israel into the boundaries of greater Jerusalem, Palestinians and their supporters consider these neighborhoods to be the same as West Bank settlements".

I basically agree with you, Ravpapa. Since the terms are disputed, the simple NPOV solution is to avoid using either in Wikipedia's neutral voice. The only thing I'd add here is that a reference to the terminological dispute belongs in the lead.--G-Dett (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Why is the terminological dispute so important that it belongs in the lead? Is the fact that Wikipedia editors can't agree on whether Gilo is a neighborhood or a settlement more important, for example, than the fact that there were shooting incidents there in 2008 (something not included in the lead)? or that Neve Yaakov is populated primarily by immigrants (also not in the lead)?

There is little that seems less important to the substance of articles on these areas than the fact that Wikipedia editors couldn't decide what to call them. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the idea that these articles need more depth, but i heartily disagree that "wikipedia editors couldn't decide what to call them" is the heart of this debate. there are numerous sources (some cited above) which state that disputed terminology is one of the key framing issues in this conflict. untwirl(talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ravpapa, are you quite sure about that? From what I can tell, untwirl's statement is quite right. This seems to come up very, very frequently in discussions of these areas, for the simple reason that the terminological dispute reflects their disputed status – which is the key to their notability. In the last months of the Bush presidency, Condi Rice caused quite a stir during her trip to Israel when she pointedly used the word "settlements" instead of "neighborhoods" for these areas, and stressed that "we make no distinction" between them and the West Bank settlements. It comes up when the issue is controversial policies in East Jerusalem (expansion of settlements/neighborhoods, coupled with demolition of Palestinian homes); it comes up when the issue is (was) firing on Gilo; it comes up when the issue is American-Israeli diplomacy, etc. I think you're quite mistaken when you say this is primarily a naming dispute between Wikipedians. That's true of Judea/Samaria/West Bank, but not of East Jerusalem neighborhoods vs. East Jerusalem settlements.--G-Dett (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen one source that calls the controversial neighborhoods "settlements" without seeking to redefine the term "settlement" to become broader than the original meaning. The unstated premise is that all Israeli developments built on land that Palestinians want is a "settlement." The argument appears to be the following:

1. East Jerusalem is land that some Palestinians want.
2. Israelis are building neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
3. All Israeli neighborhoods built on land that some Palestinians want is a "settlement" (unstated premise).

Therefore, Israelis are building settlements in East Jerusalem.

Clearly, the unstated premise is a false one as this counterargument shows:

1. Tel Aviv is land that some Palestinians want.
2. Israelis are building neighborhoods in Tel Aviv.
3. All Israeli neighborhoods built on land that some Palestinians want is a "settlement" (unstated premise).

Therefore, Israelis are building settlements in Tel Aviv.

No, we do not change the definitions of words to suit the radical Palestinian political agenda. We use logic and clearly defined terms on Wikipedia that are in line with the verifiable reliable sources and the policy of WP:NPOV.

For the record, I partially agree with Rice's statement. I am against the settlements in the West Bank and I am against the development of Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. I believe that they are both created for the same purpose: to appease the hard right parties in Israel and make peace with the Palestinians more difficult. My personal politics aside, I fully recognize that while the intentions might be similar, the difference between an East Jerusalem neighborhood and a West Bank settlement are such that they are not the same thing by any meaningful definition of the term. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry GHcool, but your "unstated premise" and "counter-argument" do not demonstrate a competent understanding of either the real-world terminological dispute or the discussion we're having here. The operative category here is not "land that some Palestinians want," but rather, land defined as occupied territory under international law. The terminological dispute arises because the Israeli state and some American media organs define these as "neighborhoods," while the United Nations, the Palestinians, the international media and the international community define them as "settlements." There's no analogous real-world terminological dispute about the status of Tel Aviv. If you think there is, you need to read a great deal more before you'll be able to comment meaningfully on this or related talk pages; if you know that there isn't, on the other hand, then you need to take greater care to avoid strawman arguments, red herrings, and the like.--G-Dett (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try, but in return, I'll expect you not to make any more ad populum arguments. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

if by ad populum you mean ""because many reliable sources say it," then that is a reflection of wikipedia's policies for inclusion. verifiable and reliably sourced disputes cannot be discounted with claims of 'ad populum' fallacies. untwirl(talk) 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a response to .--G-Dett's comment above: Yes, you are right that the terminology dispute is not just between Wikipedia editors. But, as you rightly point out, the terminological dispute "reflects their disputed status – which is the key to their notability." So why are we focusing on the argument over words? Let's focus on the argument over policy. It seems to me that a direct statement of the dispute ("... on land occupied in 1967, considered illegal, blablabla") is a lot clearer than " some call it settlement, others call it neighborhood." --Ravpapa (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is sensible. --GHcool (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A combination of the two suggestions seems to be the most neutral, "X is a housing development on the outskirts of Jerusalem built on land occupied in 1967, considered illegal, blablabla; its status as either a "settlement" or a "neighborhood" is disputed." untwirl(talk) 14:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought we already agreed that it's not "either or", but that it's both. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How about if we call the article Housing developments on the outskirts of Jerusalem and write, "Housing developments on the outskirts of Jerusalem are built on land captured in the 1967 war. They are considered illegal by blahblahblah. Israel and the United States describe them as 'neighborhoods' while the blahblahblahs describe them as 'settlements.'" --GHcool (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion.--G-Dett (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Let's get to work then.  :) --GHcool (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this approach, too. untwirl(talk) 13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How about settlehoods ? Anyone ? No, oh well. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

if only you'd arrived a couple days sooner . . . untwirl(talk) 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)