Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev

Legality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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