Talk:Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bizarre translation[edit]

The idea of creating such an article is not a bad one, but "neighborhoods of the ring" sounds like something out of Startrek or Harry Potter. There must be a better translation than that. I would have a look at the English newspapers in Israel and see how they refer to them. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I opted for a literal translation because it's more fun. Sorry you disapprove so strongly, but it's a minor issue at this stage (see below). Thx. El_C 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


You should have noted that you removed the settlement bit, Gila, which I had as "aiming to surround it with sizable Jewish settlements," and at .He as: "ומטרתן הייתה להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות." I'm disappointed you made no mention of it ("copyed" is misleading). El_C 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you mistranslated that, probably the reason Gilabrand removed it. שכונות מגורים יהודיות גדולות is "large Jewish residential neighborhoods". The Israelis certainly didn't establish them as settlements. They expanded the borders of Jerusalem in 1967 and established the places within that city and subject to full Israeli civil law. I'll make note of the international positions even though I think it is overmentioned here. --Robertert (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and now I see you not only removed that in the "copyediting," you also removed "At the end of the war, the security doctrine held that the centre of the city needed to be surrounded by large residential neighborhoods, where thousands of Jews would live, taking advantage of undeveloped areas to build apartment buildings as quickly as possible. The building plan emphasized on satellite neighborhoods that would encompass Jerusalem [etc.]" which was at .He as "בתום המלחמה הייתה תפישה ביטחונית לפיה יש להקיף את מרכז העיר בשכונות מגורים גדולות, בהן יתגוררו אלפי יהודים תוך ניצול כל שטח פנוי לבניית דירות רבות בזריזות מרבית. מדיניות הבינוי שמה דגש על שכונות לווין [etc.]" How do you account for this? El_C 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was not sourced as far as I could see - it was a rehash of ideas that are often bandied around. When you write "security doctrine" - where is that doctrine, whose is it? There is too much vagueness that people accept as the word of God. What does "as quickly as possible" mean? A translation from Hebrew Wikipedia is not a source. I appreciate the fact that you have started this article, and are trying to find a solution to the dispute, but more work needs to be done based on solid sources (not Peace Now, now Arab media sites, not "universally accepted truths"). If you can add such material, you will deserve a medal.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The point you're ignoring is that this was a direct translation/quote from the Hebrew Wikipedia. You undid key content segments, fundamentally related to the dispute which caused you to be placed under editing restrictions, with the misleading "copy editing" summary. That is not acceptable. If this is going to be your approach, further restrictions will be added to you, specifically. Thx. El_C 10:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This, incidentally, is why I opted for such a clumsy, literalist translation style from the pro-Israel Hebrew Wikipedia: you can't really argue that I wrote "security doctrine" (תפישה ביטחונית) or "as quickly as possible" (לבניית דירות רבות בזריזות מרבית). But you will adhere to intellectually-honest editing, including talk page discussion for all content removal, with clear summaries. I'm genuinely surprised, because I got the impression you were more thought-out. Let's hope it proves an unusual mis-step. El_C 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, too - I thought you were more versed in the ways of Wikipedia. A unsourced "literal" translation from Hebrew Wikipedia (which is obviously a mistranslation, as noted by Robert above - shekhunot are not settlements) is not an acceptable source. Granted, this is just the beginning of an article, but I am surprised by your response, to put it mildly. The reason for starting this article was to get the facts straight, not write another article with the same POV approach for people to battle over. I have been an active editor on this site for a long time, and I think I have contributed greatly to making it a better resource. I've had plenty of thank-yous from editors across the board, and the articles I have worked on have gone on to be featured articles. So think well before you carry out your threats. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that what El_C is saying is that you should have left a more substantial summary of the edit, i.e. make sure it was understood that you were changing a potentially controversial part. I personally agree with the edit for the reasons I said above, but it would help if you explained yourself at the time of the edit. --Robertert (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to swallow that she still doesn't acknowledge that to have been an error. As for the content, I thought it was an okay compromise; but if not, oh well. I think, eventually, both sides will need to compromise more than they have. Now, I provided you with this skeleton article to start to settle your dispute in, because, Gila, it's a central one, thereby preventing you from doing the same thing across five or more other articles. That is the logic behind it. And I expect no "thank-yous" for my efforts, just for everyone to adhere to the rules. El_C 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Settlements was my addition, yes, other than that, it was all translated. At any rate, the last thing that would be in your interests is for me to leave you to your own devices. But by all means, ask me to leave (you'll still be subject to the restrictions, that doesn't go away), continue to remove key content with misleading summaries, and see where it gets you. Hope you choose wisely. Thx. El_C 11:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
And I certainly am prepared to act on my warning —I hope not to, but I won't hesitate. El_C 11:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Progress[edit]

As I said before, if there is nothing different done (moderation perhaps) then we're going to end up in the same place. When Colour says that "neighborhood" is a disputed term and no one neutral can confirm or deny or whatever whether the sources support that, then what else will resolve that deadlock? --Robertert (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing on Wikipedia. If the four(?) of you are unable to compromise, it's likely to lead to further censur, perhaps topic ban. El_C 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It can't be that the only solution to resolving disputes is to punish everyone. I saw evidence that your friend HG moderates disputes and there must be some structure for it. I can understand if you don't personally want to even though I would prefer you did, but then refer this to someone who does. --Robertert (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be punishing, in that event, it'd be protecting Wikipedia. Again, it has nothing to do with me wanting or not wanting to do anything, and HG does not "moderate" — there's no such thing as moderators on Wikipedia. If both sides agree, you can enter into some sort of "forced mediation." Other than that, there's this, where you try to discuss and reach a compromise. I made a few suggestions on that front, which you may adopt, modify, reject, or whatever you wish, but it is up to both sides to agree. Thx. El_C 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've presented sources that support my case, which Colour says don't, and I've explained why I don't think the sources support his position. Unless a third-party like you or the "forced mediation" are going to verify what the sources say this will be a "he said/she said", albeit a ridiculous one. Are you able to look at the sources and offer an opinion? If not can you show us how to get to the mediators? --Robertert (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading material[edit]

Here is an article that explains the anti-Zionist political POV that "editors" on Wikipedia are introducing all over the place, the more the merrier, and administrators, in the interests of "peacemaking" and "mediation," blithely allow: (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Just wondering why the initial information about them being established as settlements has been removed. Whether Israel intended for them to be neighborhoods of Jerusalem or not, it knew very well the international community would view them as settlements given that they were established on land East of the Armistice Line. This article seems to have been toned down, to such a point, that only people who are quite well acquainted with the situation would actually understand its full implications and intentions. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you disputing the fact that they are neighborhoods of Jerusalem established by Israel beyond the 1967 border (Green Line)? I don't think anybody is disputing that, neither the "Israeli" nor the "Palestinian" side. In which case there is no need to add the "according to Israel"-notice at the beginning of the article. Do the Palestinians deny this? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
What I am denying is that their status as neighborhoods of Jerusalem is disputed by almost every country of the world except for Israel. Plenty of sources can and have already and repeatedly been provided for this. Jerusalems expansion was internationally rejected, including by the United Nations. These are not simple 'neighborhoods,' in the usual use of the term and you surely must be perfectly aware of this. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
That is not the dispute. The issue is that they are neighborhoods of Jerusalem. They are also locations beyond the Green Line. I don't see any problem there. I am not denying that they are settlements. I, for myself, am strongly anti-Zionist. You won't hear me defending the Zionists. But these places are undeniably neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Are you going to deny the fact that they are neighborhoods of Jerusalem? Apparently, *you* see this as something that implicates legitimacy; I do not. There is no contradiction between being a neighborhood of Jerusalem and also being an illegal settlement. These locations fall into both of these categories. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I do dispute they are neihborhoods of jerusalem, just as many others do. The way that sovereignty works in this world is (in summary, like this). Notting Hill is considered to be a neighborhood of London because no other government in the world disputes this fact. In the case of these places, however, no other government recognises that these places are in fact a part of Jerusalem. If it is not recognised that they are part of Jerusalem, how can they be neighborhoods of Jerusalem? Second of all, you may notice that the page Notting Hill, doesnt call it a neighborhood. These terms are emotive, and linguists such as Noam Chomsky have stated this time and time again, as well as some journalists and others, especially in relation to the I-P conflict. I dont disagree that there is a contradiction inherently between the two terms, it just so happens that one of them is internationally disputed and the other is disputed only by Israel. I just think both should be mentioned within their context. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Passive voice[edit]

The article contains many instances of passive voice. For example, it says that Jerusalem's area expanded 3-fold after the 1967 war but it doesn't say who decided that. If it were just one example I'd fix it myself, but the whole article contains several instances of weak passive voice. If anyone wants to work on it, I can help. Chutznik (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you want help exactly. If you can give me some idea how of how you believe that one sentence would be better said, then I will be happy to take a look at the article. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Colourinthemeaning, I most definitely did make it neutral. The introduction states only clear facts. The introduction should be short. You are turning the introduction into a major part of the article, which is against the manual of style, as far as I know. The introduction now says:

The Ring neighborhoods of Jerusalem (Hebrew: שכונות הטבעת‎) are five suburban neighborhoods built by Israel on territory Israel captured in 1967 during the Six Day War.

Note that it says captured during the Six Day War. This is, for most people, enough to know that we are talking about a settlement. Anyone who comes to an article like this already knows that. For further details, they can read the section about the History and legal status - where the situation is full clarified according to both sides. Did you actually read that section? I completely rewrote it. Did you actually read this?

The city's territory was increased to 108km² when Israel unilaterally annexed areas north, east and south of the city to Israel, totaling an area three times the size of pre-war West Jerusalem. Internationally, due to their having been built beyond the Green Line, the neighborhoods Israel subsequently built on these annexed grounds are be considered to be Israeli settlements, leading them to be to considered illegal under international law.[1][2] Today, as many as 165,000 people reside in these communities. The United Nations rejected this change, making the expanded Jerusalem area unrecognised by the international community based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 476.

Why would you consider this to be "only the view of the Israeli government"? That is a plain lie. The introduction states plain facts, and the history/legal status section further clarifies and specifies the situation. I'm awaiting your reaction. And again, I emphasize, I am not a Zionist - I am merely an Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew who lives close to these areas (but not in them; I live in proper West Jerusalem). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this is enough for most people. If the BBC and most other news agencies in the world insist the legal status of these places be mentioned, then why not mention it on wiki? Sure, you can hide it down the bottom, but when you lead with a term like 'neighborhood,' that no other government in the world recognises, while you remove in the same paragraph any reference to it being a 'settlement' according to the international community, you are doing a disservice to wikipedias NPOV policy IMO. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
you are again mistaken.. al jazeera, cnn, new york times, all were given as sources who don't think neighborhood is disupted. some want to mention the settlement issue which is a disputed issue. therefore it can not be in a leading sense but in an npov discussion along the way. accept that. (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Colourinthemeaning, you are wrong here. The undisputed fact here (undisputed by everyone but you) is that these places are neighborhoods of Jerusalem. You can like it, you can dislike it, but they are neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Again, let me (for the tenth time) clarify that this does not imply legitimacy. There is no rule contradiction between being a neighborhood and being a settlement, just as there is no contradiction between being a city and being a settlement. Large settlements are called cities - that does not mean that they are not considered settlements any more. A place can be a city, town, village, or neighborhood, and also be a settlement.
The introduction clearly states that these neighborhoods were built on ground Israel captured during the 1967 war. That is all that the introduction should mention. You and I, and everyone else who reads this article, know that "ground captured during the 1967 Six Day War" means that we are talking about an illegal settlement. The exact status is handled immediately afterwards in the 'legal status' section. Now for you, I added the words 'unilaterally annexed' to the introduction as well. I hope that you appreciate this, and that we can work this out properly.
The issue here is that the introduction must be short. You keep turning the introduction into a huge section of the article, which is simply against the manual of style. The introduction must be short and concise, and in my opinion, it should be free of disputed statements and phrases that create incorrect visions such as "settlement". While these places indeed have that status according to international law, they are neighborhoods of Jerusalem, not comparable to for example Kiryat Arba. If you want, I'll go to one of these neighborhoods some day and take some pictures, so you can see why they are considered neighborhoods and not settlements. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not wrong at all. First, you say the undisputed fact here is 'that these places are neighborhoods of Jerusalem'. Given that the United Nations, the European Union, many NGOs and the majority of the international community do not recognize East Jerusalem to be a part of Jerusalem, or anything east of the green line to be a part of Israel, how can it possibly be undisputed by everyone but me that these are either 'neighborhoods of Jerusalem' or 'Israeli neighborhoods'? In disputing that these places are a part of either Israel or Jerusalem, they inherently make the so-called 'fact' that they are either Jerusalem neighborhoods or Israeli ones, heavily disputed and in fact a minor held POV.

Piz, I couldn't agree more that the lead needs to be short. It is imperative however, for reasons of NPOV that if the Israeli position is included in the lead, that the (majority) viewpoint, that of the international community must also be. Because I am more than willing to admit that both terms are disputed, albeit the Israeli one to a much higher degree, I think we should lead with more neutral terms such as 'residential development', 'contested' or 'disputed' as part of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, 'unrecognized internationally,' or perhaps even 'contested residential development'. What do you think of this? Also, you say that despite their place in international law, these places 'are neighborhoods of Jerusalem,' but I would like to know how their place in international law (and in national laws globally) is less important than their place in Israeli law? The only thing that could possibly make them 'neighborhoods of Jerusalem' is a law, which in this case happens to be disputed by almost every country in the world. This makes leading with such a term inherently biased. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For Dailycare, as requested[edit]

I'm not sure how me copying and pasting from the article to the talk page will help your reading comprehension of the material, but here you are:

"The confusion on the potentially explosive issue of Israeli settlements arose Sunday when Bernier was twice asked during a West Bank news conference whether Ottawa – which officially opposes new settlement activity by Israel – makes a distinction between housing construction in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

Both times, the Canadian minister pointedly ignored the question. The second time it was asked, he abruptly ended the news conference and left the room.

"Traditionally, there hasn't been any ambiguity in our policy," a Canadian expert on the Middle East told the Star yesterday. "There might be some ambiguity now."

He did not wish to be identified by name because some of his work is funded by Ottawa.

Neither Bernier nor Canadian officials travelling with him said anything publicly yesterday to clear up the confusion that now surrounds Ottawa's stance on new Israeli housing on land that once belonged to Palestinians."

Furthermore, I will request one final time that you stop removing other sourced and notable information from the article without any explanation or previous discussion on the talk page. You have reverted my edits about the fact that the United States did not support the UN resolution multiple times now. If you continue to edit in this manner, I am just letting you know that I will be forced to bring this to the attention of the admins. The removal of this information multiple times with no explanation or discussion is absolutely unacceptable and I'm starting to grow tired of fighting you for it. Breein1007 (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to involve admins if you like, we can then discuss your very sudden (November 12) and suspicious appearance on Wikipedia . Where in that text does Canada dispute the illegality of the settlements? The reasoning for Bernier's behaviour (he refused to answer a question, he didn't dispute anything) in the article is that he's a new minister who wasn't up to date on the Canadian position. The voting history of the resolution belongs on the page concerning the resolution, not here - and I have provided this reasoning to you, contrary to what you claim above. --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have a personal issue with me or my appearance on Wikipedia, then I suggest you address your issue in an appropriate forum. This talk page is about Gilo, not about me. If you have suspicions, feel free to fill out a WP:SPI about me. As I said, it is inappropriate for you to be voicing your concerns on this page. In terms of the voting history, it certainly deserves to be mentioned on this page because it directly shows the US attitude to the neighborhoods. It is related information, and you can find many other examples of repeated information on wikipedia when discussing a related issue on another page. As a matter of fact, maybe I should add some info about the US Congress Jerusalem Act that recognized Israel's right to a united Jerusalem as its capital! Breein1007 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I know how to pursue sockpuppet investigations and may pursue one concerning you in the future. Concerning this page, you're not quite correct since this is about the ring settlements, not just Gilo. Concerning the voting history, it indeed doesn't belong here, since the US vote in the SC was about the resolution, not whether the US considers the East-Jerusalem settlements to be flagrant violations of international law (see WP:V and WP:OR). In fact, as discussed on the Gilo talkpage, we know the US does consider Gilo to be a settlement, and considers all settlements, including East-Jer ones, to be illegitimate. As an additional point, 465 was passed in 1980 and the US view I'm discussing is current. As you're no longer disputing the fact that Canada in the source does not dispute the illegality, I'm modifying the article accordingly. --Dailycare (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

JPost source[edit]

The Jpost source link now redirects to the main page. Can anyone find another source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talkcontribs) 13:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

JPost have redesigned their site. I think all jpost links in wiki are affected. I've re-pointed this one at a cached version of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How many neighborhoods?[edit]

I recently made a change to the number of neighborhoods forming the ring. The original author did not provide any references supporting the number 5. I checked the Hebrew version of the page, 'שכונות הטבעת'. There were no reference dilineating the specific neighborhoods there either. If there are such references, I would welcome their inclusion in the article. In the meantime, I have found references which provide a partial picture: Har Homa and even Ramat Eshkol are part of the ring Har Homa is part of the ring Har Homa is part of the ring Har Homa and even Atarot are part of the ring but, interestingly, no mention is made of East Talpiot,%20May%202006. Map which depicts the neighborhoods surrounding Jerusalem including Har Homa, Ramat Shlomo, Atarot and even Ramat Eshkol, Givat HaMivtar and HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit. Givat HaMatos, an area recently approved for future residential development, also appears.

I could not find any official Israeli governmental references to 'ring neighborhoods'. I'm not even sure if the government would use such terminology in its official publications. This leaves us to rely on people's perceptions and mostly on Arab publications which undoubtedly would tend to maximize the number of ring neighborhoods.

I, for one would like to see the inclusion of Ramat Eshkol, Givat HaMivtar, HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit and Givat HaMatos. And let's not forget Nofei Zion, recently built and slated for expansion, located on land that was originally part of Jebel Mukaber? Never mind that Ramat Eshkol and HaGiv'a HaTzarfatit are the oldest and, according to most Jerusalemites, integral and inseparable neighborhoods of the city. I consider Neve Ya'akov to be just as integral and inseparable.

And Neve Ya'akov isn't even part of a 'ring' if you look at the subject purely from a geographical point of view. It is well beyond the so-called green line with Pisgat Ze'ev actually completing the ring in the northeast. But never mind, I don't wish to remove Neve Ya'kov from the list. I do wish to expand the list (based on geographical considerations). (Is that inconsistent? Oh well.)

Lacking any official Israeli governmental documents, I think the article needs to be based on a good look at a map. Neighborhoods built 'over and adjacent' to the so-called green line obviously qualify to be called ring neighborhoods. (And, OK, Neve Ya'akov, too)

By the way, there is even mention of a so-called "Inner Ring" surrounding the Old City and the Holy Basin such as the new neighborhoods being built in Silwan, Ras al Amoud, Mount of Olives, Issawiya and Sheikh Jarrah. See: and

Perhaps this information should be added as a new 'Inner Ring' section to the page. Atefrat (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


This article needs at least some mention of why these cities are built in the way they are; in the shape they're in. Because its a pretty specific way to build cities. (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, am I confused? It looks liek the first two cities are built into ring shape, but does it mean that the cities themselves form into a ring shape in relation to each other? If so, please ignore previous request. (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It's clearer if you look at this map, File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg The settlements across the green line, taken together, form part of a ring around the city. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)