Talk:Ramot, East Jerusalem

Reason why there's no Ramot 05

Is the reason given in this article really true? (It was submitted by an anonymous user.) I was under the impression that land was allocated for all six Ramots, but they skipped 05 in favor of building 06. Yoninah 22:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't sound right--there's a Katamon Heh. I believe they do skip 7, Zayin, though--there's a Katamon Vav and a Katamon Tet, but no Zayin. Alexisr 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Query

Any special reason that the 'settlement' issue should be once in the first paragraph and another two times in the second paragraph? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

redundancy in the lead

the lead dedicates an entire para to the designation as a settlement. there's no need to push that pov into the first sentence as well. NoCal100 (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead currently reads as follows:

Ramot (Template:Lang-he-n, lit. Heights), also known as Ramot Alon (Hebrew: רמות אלון, lit. Alon Heights) is one of the largest Israeli settlements and neighborhoods in Jerusalem, with about 40,000 residents. It is situated in the northwestern part of the city and divided into six sections, from Ramot 1, the oldest section, to Ramot 6, the newest section. Ramot 5 is the commercial center.

Because of its location east of the Green Line it is considered to be an illegal settlement by the International Community, though Israel disputes this and the United States also traditionally refrains from characterizing Israeli localities in East Jerusalem as settlements.

So the second paragraph discusses the view of the international community that it is an illegal settlement and the view of Israel and the US that it is not "illegal" or not a "settlement". The first sentence uses the terms "Israeli settlement" and "neighbourhood" side by side so as to respect WP:NPOV by presenting all significant viewpoints, even though the Israeli and US viewpoint is in the minority. That seems pretty darn fair to me. What's the issue again? Tiamut^talk 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

the issue is, as discussed at length in the centralized discussion on this topic (see next section) that "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." NoCal100 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"neighborhood" is not a POV, "settlement" is. something can be both a settlement and a neighborhood at the same time. If there was an antonym to the word settlement is might make sense to use settlement and the antonym, despite there being no mainstream sources that use the term settlement. But until there's an antonym to settlement it's a major POV violation to repeat these unsourced assertions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources that say that "settlement" is POV while "neighbourhood" is not? Quoting unsourced opinions selectively from the centralized discussion page or expressing your own opinions on the matter is not what I'm looking for. Tiamut^talk 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

the article already notes that Israel and the usa do not consider them a settlement, so obviously that terminology is pov.NoCal100 (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That Israel and the US do not consider them to be settlements is their POV. That the international community considers them to be illegal settlements is their POV. Per WP:NPOV, we describe all significant POVs. Are you saying that the POV of Israel and the US (i.e. the minority POV) should be given predominance and the POV of the international community ignored? Tiamut^talk 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhood is not a POV just like other nouns like cow, watermelon, vagina, and glasses aren't POV terms. I'm not sure what you'r getting at. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of your comment at all. Tiamut^talk 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is a result of me not really understanding your original comments, questioning whether "neighborhood" is not a POV term and "settlement" is a POV term. What part needs support, the lack of POV for "neighborhood" or the POV of "settlement"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance of the comment. WP:NPOV does not proscribe expressing POVs. Rather, it encourages that all significant POVs be represented. I would argue that the POV of the international community that Ramot and other Israeli localities constructed in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line after 1967 are illegal settlements is a significant POV. The Israeli and American POV that they are neither illegal nor settlements is also a significant POV, albeit a minority one. Rather than advocating for the POV of the international community to stand alone in the introduction, I am for including the minority Israeli/American POV alongside the POV of the international community. I feel this is in line with WP:NPOV. Whether or not neighbourhood is a POV term or not remains largely irrelevant. Tiamut^talk 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we were talking over each other. My point was that while I agree that two POV's should placed alongside each other, this is not occurring in this case. Let's put aside for a second the lack of solid sources for the term "settlement" and let's assume everything is amply sourced. You can't fairly say that the two POV's are placed alongside each other. In this scenario, we have a POV term (settlement) and a NPOV term (neighborhood). You would be right if "neighborhood" was an antonym to "settlement", but isn't. The word "settlement" connotes an anti-Israel POV but the word "neighborhood" does not connote and pro-Israel POV. It's just a plain noun that has no special meaning attached.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Brewcrewer, I'm going to unpack it for you again one more time. I've provided you below with two more sources (United Nations sources) which say that Ramot is a settlement. The UN, which represents the will of the international community, is clear is this designation. On the other hand, we have one source (Jerusalem Post) which says that the US and Israel do not use the word settlement to describe Israeli localities built beyond the Green Line after 1967, but instead use the word neighbourhood. Accordingly, in our lead, we mention both these positions.

There is no prohibition at Wikipedia against expressing a POV. WP:NPOV says we are to represent all significant POVs. All the significant POVs are represented in our current text. Your opinion that the word "settlement" connotes an anti-Israel POV is your own and is not supported by any reliable source that I have seen to date. Your opinion that "neighbourhood" as applied to Israeli localities built beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem after 1967 is not POV is also your own, not supported by any reliable sources that I have to date. Are we clear? Tiamut^talk 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: We're not clear because - with all due respect - you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next and you conflate two separate issues.

1. Contradictions: In the post above your last post you state that "[i]n this scenario, we have a POV term (settlement) and a NPOV term (neighborhood)."["that the POV of the international community that Ramot and other Israeli localities constructed in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line after 1967 are illegal settlements is a significant POV] (empahsis added)^{modified--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)}. Additionally, in the latest post you assert that "[t]here is no prohibition at Wikipedia against expressing a POV. WP:NPOV says we are to represent all significant POVs. All the significant POVs are represented in our current text." Yet, in the next sentence you claim that "[Brewcrewer's ] opinion that the word "settlement" connotes an anti-Israel POV is your own and is not supported by any reliable source that I have seen to date." So which one is it? Is the word "settlement" a POV term or a NPOV term?
2. Issue conflation: Up until your last post, the issue in this discussion was the juxtaposition and redundancy of the word "settlement" vs. "neighborhood." The discussion did not involve the support of either terms in reliable sources. That discussion is taking place in the two sections below and there's no reason to confuse things by bringing that issue up here.

With respect, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh) A very very big one ... please read WP:NPOV from back to front and front to back again. There is no contradiction in my paraphrase of it. NPOV means that all significant POVs are represented. Everything is a POV. There are no neutral positions. We achieve neutrality by juxtaposing the different POVs against one another. In this case, that means using the term "settlement" and its definition as "illegal", which is the POV held by the majority of the international community. It also means using the term "neighborhood" explaining that this is preferred by Israel and the US who object to using the term "settlement" and contest the claim of illegality. Though these claims are not held equally and the POV of the international community is the majority one and the POV of Israel/US a minority one, we still include the Israel/US terms because they are a significant minrotiy viewpoint. We do not however, ignore the majority held viewpoint so as not to offend the minority POV who doesn't like those terms to be used. Capisce? Tiamut^talk 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: While your current explanation might be in line with WP policy, it does not relate to the confusing nature of this discussion, which as outlined above involves contradictions of your stance. In any case, before we go forward with this discussion can I get you on record to say that you believe that the term "settlement" is a POV term? In a post above you denied that "settlement" is a POV term. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And PS Brewcrewer, in point #1 you attribute this quote to me: "In this scenario, we have a POV term (settlement) and a NPOV term (neighborhood)." I did not say that. You did. Tiamut^talk 16:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that. Thanks for pointing that out :) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

US government position

I'm not sure whether this really matters much but the phrase "United States also traditionally refrains from characterizing Israeli localities in East Jerusalem as settlements" caught my eye. Is that really the case ? Have the US gov said that ? The US Department of State has documents which use the term "settlements" even when talking about East Jerusalem. It doesn't seem to be a word they refrain from using presumably because it doesn't imply anything about their position on legality or final status. They don't appear to distinguish between 'neighbourhoods' and 'settlements'. They simply consistently say 'settlements'. For example, see the 'Background and U.S. Position' for item 3. Jerusalem in Resolutions Related to Israel Opposed by the United States or this Congressional Research Service report. Perhaps the subtle details of linguistic displomacy are lost on me. It would be nice to have a US gov statement that supported the "traditionally refrains from characterizing" statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more or less a direct quote from here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one Israel based RS. That's why I think it would be nice to have something sourced from an RS quoting the US gov speaking for themselves. I genuinely have no idea whether the "traditionally refrains from characterizing" statement is an accurate description. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but this is something that the US (or any government for that matter) would not take publicly and explicitly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Centralized discussion as applied to specific articles

A perusal of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Jewish Neighborhoods versus Settlements of Jerusalem indicates that there was no consensus to call these neighborhoods as settlements. As the discussion manifests, the problem with calling these neighborhoods as settlements is that no reliable sources use that term settlements in reference to these neighborhoods. There are some partisan sources that use term settlement, but this term as applied to these neighborhoods has never picked up by mainstream and neutral reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus to which you point. In this article, the illegal status of Ramot and its designation as a settlement are attested to in the sources cited to the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP). In the FMEP2 citation, they cite an EU report which states this very clearly. Are you saying that the FMEP is not a WP:RS or that EU is not an RS on this issue? Tiamut^talk 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You must have just skimmed my comment because I never pointed to a consensus, but pointed to a lack of consensus, which is clearly apparent at that talk page. The FMEP is an advocacy group, not a mainstream source. One advocacy group's terminology, when not used by mainstream sources, does not decide terminology in Wikipedia articles. Additionally, the source this article uses as a source for the term settlement makes no mention of Ramot.[1]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I did only skim your comment. My bad. That does not change the main point, which is that the source I cited does indicate that Ramot is considered an illegal settlement. While the FMEP source that was already listed in the article and which you linked to above does not mention Ramot by name, the second FMEP source does. Accordingly (and thanks to you for pointing this out) I have removed the first FMEP source in this edit, leaving in only the second one. Please note that the terminology is not that of the FMEP but of the European Union whose report is referenced by the FMEP. If the issue is that you would like to see more sources, they can be provided. Tiamut^talk 05:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Unlike other editors, atleast you're skimming my comments :) While the second link does mention Ramot within the context of a "settlement bloc", it does not satisfy inclusion requirements. More pertinent are mainstream reliable sources, which never use the term "settlement" in the context of these Jerusalem neighborhoods, but use the term "neighborhood." Sources like NY Times and LA Times always use the term settlement when describing a neighborhood in Judea and Samaria that is not part of Jerusalem. However, both of these sources [2] [3] conspicuously use the term neighborhood when describing Ramot. These mainstream sources should be followed, not advocacy groups like the FMEP or the ADL.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Hi. I don't really understand how the FMEP source "does not satisfy inclusion requirements." What inclusion requirements are you referring to which would disallow the FMEP source and the EU report it references?
2. Its unsurprising that American newspapers do not use the word "settlement". The Jpost article cited in the article already notes that the US has traditionally refrained from using that word to describe Israeli localities in Jerusalem. That American newspapers reflect the terminology used by their politcians is no big surprise.
3. At Wikipedia we write from a worldwide perspective and not an American or Israeli point of view exclusively. For a reflection of the views of the international community on this matter the most ideal sources would be United Nations sources. The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights calls Ramot ["the "Ramot" settlement" and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) calls it "Ramot settlement (Jerusalem)". These are high quality reliable sources that reflect the POV of the international community on this subject. Do you have UN sources that use the term neighbourhood instead? Tiamut^talk 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut:

1. It does not satisfy the inclusion requirements because WP:RS gives precedence to the terms used by mainstream news organizations versus the terms used by so-called human rights advocacy groups.
2. American newspapers follow whatever term American politicians use? Puh-lease. America has the greatest history of newspapers being critical of politicians.
3. You're correct. We do need a worldwide prospective. While the NY Times has an international flavor, we would need more sources. However, we're an English-language encyclopedia and the issue is a fine tuned distinction in the English language. It would be most difficult to find a reliable source that discusses this issue outside of the US and GB. I guess we should look through British sources to see how they describe the area. But as noted earlier, newspapers come before advocacy organizations.

Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations is not an advocacy organization. It is a body that is representative of he will of the international community. If you think its not a reliable source, I encourage to ask for other opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. But I assure you that it is. Tiamut^talk 06:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said that the UN is an unreliable source (Tiamut: are you skimming again? :)) I merely said that the terms used by mainstream, neutral, English-language sources are given precedent to other organizations. I'm quite confident this would be concurred with at the RS Noticeboard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you believe, I suggest you post to the reliable sources board to find out if others share your opinion. I believe that doing so will help us in moving this discussion forward. Tiamut^talk 07:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to be implying that the UN is not a mainstream, neutral, English-language source. I'm quite sure that is not what you meant to imply. In any case, I'm going to post at the reliable sources noticeboard to ask them whether they think that the UN constitutes a reliable source for the purposes of this discussion. Any concerns or clarifications you would like to make regarding your position can be made there when you come back. Tiamut^talk 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The link to the discussion is here. Tiamut^talk 08:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I've commented there. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream as mainstream gets

Thanks to NSH001 for reminding me of this. (Huldra once showed it to me too but I'm such a scatterbrain, I totally forgot about it.) The material is drawn from BBC's guide to terminology in its reporting (available here). Please note that it says quite clearly:

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) Tiamut^talk 11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"east" of the green line?

It's not accurate to say that Ramot is east of the green line. It is beyond the green line, but it is in western Jerusalem, and I suppose north of the green line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fundamentisto (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it located on the eastern or western side of the green line? It's place in relation to Jerusalem is not really why the green line is being mentioned here.. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This article is within scope of the discretionary sanctions. I have added a link to the top of the talk page. Compliance is mandatory. Breein1007, your edit here is in my view inconsistent with the sanctions (apart from simply being wrong) and I have reverted it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And in my view, your opinion is also simply wrong. The United States has referred to these neighborhoods over and over again as just that - neighborhoods. In terms of "international community", that is a weasel term that implies the entire world when this is in fact not the case. It is the United Nations that has made a declaration calling these neighborhoods "illegal settlements". Your revisions with the explanation of "nonsense" are not appreciated. If you want to refute this, then please do so properly. Breein1007 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm not going to waste my time with you. I'll file a sockpuppet investigation when I can be bothered to see whether you are Tundrabuggy, NoCal or whoever. In the meantime try complying with the sanctions. It will be good for you. Also, you might want to try implementing what was agreed here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked over that link, and it seems to only further support my edits. The article, as it was before my edit, did not follow the agreement from your link.

"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.'""

This is what the final agreement was. And this is almost word for word what I inserted into the article. So where exactly do you see the problem?

Finally, I will request that you refrain from discussing personal issues here. This is the talk page for Ramot. It is meant for discussion about the content of the article. If you have an issue with me or have suspicions about my account, feel free to post your concerns on my talk page or simply go ahead and fill out a SPI. I'll just say though, this is exciting - it's going to be my second one in a week! :) So popular! Breein1007 (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your approach is summed up by your edit summary and "international community" is a weasel term implying the whole world. The term 'international community' is accurate as is the whole world with almost no exceptions. Trying to suggest that it is just the UN is misinformation. Trying to imply that others refrain from using the term settlements is misinformation. I have no problem with you saying that the US refer to them a neighborhoods (although that is an over simplification). For future reference, it's a waste of time asking me to refrain from anything or giving me permission for anything. I have no interest in what editors who won't comply with the mandatory sanctions want. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because I've had an administrator tell me that I haven't gone against any sanctions with my edits. I think I'll go with him over you. For future reference, it's a waste of time telling me what to do and trying to intimidate me with Wiki bureaucracy. I'm not scared of your false threats, I will continue to follow the rules and improve articles to make them accurate and remove unfair POV (such as the one that you tried to preserve by reverting my edit), and I will continue to talk back when you attack me personally (especially when you do it on an article talk page, somewhere that it does not belong). I suggest you take a moment to refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page. That should clear up your confusion about what belongs here and what doesn't. And with that, I'll end this conversation because it is completely off-topic and move back to discussing the content of the article. Pointing out that the UN classifies the area as a settlement is not misinformation - it is completely true and documented. "International community" in itself is a very weak term. Look at the wikipedia article, it is a brief, under-developed article that has been flagged for its low quality. Suggesting "whole world with almost no exceptions" is equally misleading because as we both know, there are several exceptions. Others DO refrain from using the term settlements. How can you claim that as a false statement? You are saying that aside from Israel and the United States, the entire world calls them settlements? Every international organization? Every media outlet? Even every country? You're wrong. Even Al-Jazeera has been documented as calling them neighborhoods. The bottom line is that you're wrong, and it's as simple as that. The link you provided in your earlier message only further demonstrated my point. Breein1007 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cached Article

Breein1007 I appreciate you finding the cached article and re-adding it, however there are plenty of articles that show the US position on this has changed since Rice's time, so I don't really think it is applicable in showing the current US policy, only past ones? What do you think about this? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had trouble finding any RS showing that the Obama admin's policy is that Ramot is a settlement, but if you find something feel free. Breein1007 (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Located IN Jerusalem? Why not disputed?

As I have previously given many sources for it being a 'disputed' residential development, why is it being called simply a 'residential development'? Further, it is said to be 'one of the largest housing developments in Jerusalem,' but this is POV as its location within Jerusalem is disputed by UN Resolution 478 which called all legal changes to the city of Jerusalem 'null and void,' see[4], and it is only in Israel's opinion that Ramot (like the other Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem) are a part of Jerusalem, or Israel. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No man's land

I read all of the argument about settelments etc. and I think it is important to note that Ramot was never Jordanian (and of course never Palestinian too) but rather was no man's land. In such a case no country or nation can claim they deserve the land. In the following UN map, one can see clearly that all the area from the Arab village "shuafat" (in the east of Ramot) and Beit Hanina (in the north east) was never Jordanian. http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/f03d55e48f77ab698525643b00608d34/$FILE/Arm_1949.jpg Yekkk —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

Pleasee find a reliable source that states this and put it into the article. I agree that it's definitely an important fact to include. Breein1007 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides the UN map I brought above, I googled up the following (Hebrew) article in which you can see clearly there that even the parts of Ramot which were not within the Israeli green line - were not part of the Jordanian territories but were "no man's land". Please see http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001-D-233211-00.html?tag=13-37-40 Yekkk 15:34, 17 March 2010

I googled up the following English article, by Dr. Aaron Lerner, stating clearly that the parts of Ramot which were east of the green line, were in no man's land. http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=47512 Yekkk (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

adding material with citation needed tags

Can the users inserting material with a {{cn}} tag please either provide a citation or remove the material? This isnt that complicated. nableezy - 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing controversial points without discussion in talk page

If an editor wants to change points which have been discussed here at length, (for example the US's attitude to neighborhoods in J-lem), he has got to first discuss it here. In addition, part of Ramot is east of the green line, and part is west of it. This was mentioned until the last edit, which erased this point (see Google maps). The part which was east of the green line was also never Jordanian, (and of course not Palestinian), but was no mans land, as seen in all maps brought in Palestinian sites. Therefore after it was annexed to Israel in 1967, it is in a similar status to all of Jerusalem and Israel, since it was never part of any other state after the British Mandate. In any case, to write a general remark about west bank settlements, and to let the reader understand that this implies to Ramot, is very misleading.Editorprop (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How did you forget the population of Ramot?

You people have been so busy arguing about whether to call Ramot a settlement or a neighbourhood, that you forgot to add what the population is! I don't know, so I won't edit anything, but for God's sake what sort of Encyclopedia is this?! How can you have a section about the population without addresing the actual population?! Can someone find out and add the population of Ramot to the article? Goodguy1066 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say there is no mentioning of the population? The number of residents is mentioned at the beginning, and later there is a full section about the population. Editorprop (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Palestinians etc. consider it to be an illegal Israeli settlement"

I think it is important to mention in the article that the Palestinians (and of course also the international community) understand and agree that Ramot is going to stay Jewish and Israeli in any peace agreement, according to the borders they requested for their state, as brought in the "Al-Jazeera papers". Even if today the Palestinians became more extreme and changed their mind, it is still important to have this mentioned. Editorprop (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"no consensus" / WP:BRD

This is what articles shouldn't look like.

Agada, you need to explain your reverts. You cannot simply say "no consensus for this edit". nableezy - 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this discussion Nab. User:Nableezy made this edit and it was reverted, per WP:BRD. Generally changes to the lede should be discussed and reach community consensus and not trried instead. Current consensus, is to describe Ring Neighborhoods of Jerusalem as ... uh hmm well, Neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Ramot specifically is at northwest outskirts of Jerusalem, this could be verified by Google maps. There is a political issue here of the Green line, that is why those Neighborhoods are tagged for their legality/illegality. If you are still unsatisfied, Nab, please raise discussion on WP:IPCOLL, to avoid WP:EW on the whole Ring Neighborhoods topic. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are saying. Why exactly did you remove the well established fact that a portion of this neighborhood is in East Jerusalem. Try to answer that question instead of saying things about legality and ring neighborhoods or other completely irrelevant issues. nableezy - 14:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, proceed to WP:IPCOLL, nothing personal here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Uhh no. You made a revert on this article. I am asking for your reason for this revert on this article's talk page. If you continue to decline to provide such a reason then you should not make any further reverts. If you continue to do so I may have to seek administrative help. nableezy - 14:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the sentence should be the facts which are not in dispute. Israel Definitely won't describe Ramot as in EJ or in Palestine or in Jordan or anywhere else. The continuation, where you bring the different points of view, should say so and so believes it is in EJ and illegal, and so and so believes it is in Jerusalem and legal. I don't think any reliable source would call Ramot Palestinian territory so that is definitely not the right way to phrase it.

But in addition - I don't see why this whole subject came up now. There was a consensus for so long, and there were no new sources entered that would need reediting. I think the best would be to revert to the old version (of 4 days ago).Editorprop (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that Israel does not describe Ramot as being in the Palestinian territories or East Jerusalem does not in any way make it a "dispute" that this is in the Palestinian territories in East Jerusalem. nableezy - 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged this article as having a non-neutral lead as it emphasizes the Israeli government position and downplays what nearly the rest of the world says and attempts to correct that issue are blocked without basis. nableezy - 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the this place being partially located in East Jerusalem:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11550263
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11721475
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/israel-homes-east-jerusalem-talks
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/10/israeli-plan-settlement-risks-us-anger
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/world/middleeast/09mideast.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110802178.html

This is a matter of established fact. Israel not liking that fact is not a reason to remove it from the article. The lead emphasizes the Israeli view that this is a "neighborhood of Jerusalem" and disregards the fact that the portion of this settlement that is crosses the Green Line is in East Jerusalem, in the Palestinian territories on land the world considers occupied. nableezy - 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of the article calls Ramot A housing development for this reason. This has been discussed at length and there is no reason to go through it again.

Later, when discussing the international debate, the first view brought is the one of "Palestinians and almost all international community" (until recent edit), and only later comes the Israeli view, although Israel is the country governing the place if you like it or not. I did not argue about that (unless you would like to open this issue, which could be a good idea), the only little request I had from you is that the POV of the Palestinian and I community stays in there place, and the lead, just brings the facts (Ramot was not under Israeli ruling before 67, and was in no man's land).

And, I am saying again, nothing was wrong with this article for so long, I don't understand how come you suddenly decided the article needs changes and isn't neutral. Editorprop (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So, in your view, there is nothing wrong with the article opening and stating, as a fact, the Israeli view, and then later saying, as an opinion, the view of the rest of the world? The area in Jerusalem on the Jordanian side of the Green Line is called "East Jerusalem", and it is in what is called the "Palestinian territories". Those are facts, facts that are obfuscated by saying things "because it is north of the Green Line, these people think this place is ..." nableezy - 14:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the area is called EJ by those who call it a settlement. Therefore those points should go together. The area is not called by any NPOV Palestinian territory (I'm not even sure there is a RS that brings it as a POV), and the whole concept of calling every place beyond the 48 armistice lines "Palestinian territory" is a POV. See long discussion in that topic in Wikipedia. And that definitely would not be the right way to describe a place which was between the two lines (in no man's land).Editorprop (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It s called East Jerusalem by nearly the entire world. It is called the Palestinian territories by nearly the entire world (actually most of the world prefixes that with the word "occupied"). You have made clear that your preference in giving the Israeli view prominence over what the entire world says. That is not "NPOV". nableezy - 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so we have a following line in the lede, 2nd para: Because part of the development is north of the Green Line,[1][2] the international community considers it an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem, and therefore illegal under international law.[3][4][5], per Wikipedia:Legality of Israeli settlements consensus. So current lede is WP:NPOV compliant. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh no. The article says, as a fact, that this is a "neighborhood of Jerusalem", but reduces the fact that at least a portion of it is in East Jerusalem to a "consideration" of the international community. That is, the article treats as a fact a minority (the Israeli view), and treats as an opinion the majority view. nableezy - 23:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is true for every article of Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem. What is so special about Ramot? Anyway, all significant POV are reflected per Wikipedia:Legality of Israeli settlements, that you have been part of. So I am going to remove nonconstructive POV tag, because there is no WP:NPOV issue here. Kindly proceed to WP:IPCOLL if you want to continue to discuss settlement vs. neighborhoods issue. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags placed while a dispute is active. This is not a conversation about "settlements vs. neighborhoods", if you cant be bothered to make sure you understand the topic under discussion it might be wise if you did not participate. There is a neutrality issue in this lead, as attempts to include the well sourced fact that the a portion of this settlement is located in East Jerusalem, or even the Palestinian territories, as a fact, while the Israeli view that this is a a neighborhood of Jerusalem is presented as fact. My attempts to resolve this issue with simple solutions, such as moving the location from the "regarded by the international community" clause and into the "north of the Green Line" clause, has been reverted, seemingly without cause. There is no dispute that what is north of the Green Line in this area is the "Palestinian territories", yet efforts to say that are summarily reverted. Until the issue is addressed, please do not remove the tag. nableezy - 03:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The tag purpose is to attract audience, which would assist reaching a wider consensus on contentious issues. Since the issue that you raise is not Ramot specific, but common to Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem topic, imho a proper procedure of WP:DR would be raising a discussion on WP:IPCOLL. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats nice. I dont actually care what you think "proper procedure" is. The tag itself says Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. So dont. nableezy - 13:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Trying to cut down on & summarize this run-on sentence"

I agree with George the sentence is too long, but I don't think you should have erased the point that even the parts of Ramot which were beyond the green line - were in no man's land.Editorprop (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't clear why that is relevant. "No man's land" is a place that nobody lives on because it is an area in dispute. How is saying that Israel built on disputed land any different from saying that Israel built a settlement on land across the Green Line? ← George ^talk 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No man's land was the area between the two armistice lines,(Israeli and Jordanian), therefore it is important to mention the fact that Ramot was never Jordanian, (and of course wasn't Palestinian also).Editorprop (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am returning the information. (Maybe there is place to cut on the illegal part, and it could be phrased as before in short, see history).Editorprop (talk 11:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)