Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Jerusalem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Over at the FA review, I suggested reframing the opening of the article to emphasise Jerusalem's historic and religious significance. Feedback has been minimal but no one has shot it down in flames (yet). I'm bringing it over here for more comment.

Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (audio)^ⓘ, Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس (audio)^ⓘ, al-Quds)^[ii] is an ancient city of great significance to the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It has been fought over many times, including during the Crusades. Most recently, the whole city has been united under Israeli control following the Six-Day War of 1967. It functions as Israel's capital, and has been expanded to be her largest city both in terms of populaton and area. However, the status of the city continues to be the subject of international dispute.

--Peter cohen (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great solution, Peter. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From my review of this article today, it has clearly deteriorated to the point where I wouldn't rate it anywhere near FA status. It needs a TOTAL rewrite. The lead is the least of the problem (apart from the last sentence which is entirely incomprehensible. Looking at the quality of the additions made since it became a Featured Article, I have little faith that it can be brought back from the dead. At the moment, it is truly pitiful.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite a few people from all sides have made precisely this point, only to be challenged as, if on the 'Palestinian' side (a stupid taxonomic simplification), engaged in a 'demonisation' campaign against Israel. So your comment perplexes me. Every attempt to note the disorder you remark on has come up against a defensive barrier precisely because of its FA status. On an article as important and sensitive as this, evidently, we require comprehensive, close and empathetic collaboration. There is little evidence of that at the moment. The reaction to suggestions that it requires considerable revision has been one of stubborn proud resistance, as though the usual grabbag of ratbag partisan editors like myself wanted to wage the 1967 war again over its narrative, to reverse that result.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also adding a caveat regarding statistical population data in the it paragraph. The 2 sources given are Israeli, not neutral. It should be noted that Eastern Jerusalem is disputed, and this data would not be valid if it becomes the capital of a Palestinian State, and that Israel has no right to count people who consider themselves (and are considered by most of the world) as under occupation by a foreign power. I have included a wiki link to Positions on Jerusalem. Remember, the count is not being split, it is a simple caveat on statistics and counting within recognized jurisdictional sovereignty, let's not let it get inflamed. --AladdinSE (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2 sources given are Israeli, not neutral. Okay, there are times when accusations of bias sound absurd, and this is one of them. If the point you want to make is that the population and area cited in the article includes both East and West Jerusalem, you could have very easily done that without calling out the sources because they're Israeli. The sources are obviously talking about the entire city -- East and West -- as would any source that says the population or area of Jerusalem, without specifying a half, is such and such. I'm even having trouble finding stats on individual halves. Nevertheless, I think that first sentence could be split out to avoid the abrupt presentation of the side note, as well as the blatant reminder that "oh yeah, the city is contested; we can't even tell you the population without saying it's contested!". Specifically, I'm suggesting that the "largest city" fact be split out, particularly because, even if just West Jerusalem is counted (although I'm not particularly sure that is a good idea), Jerusalem would still be Israel's largest city, in area, at least, and perhaps in population (although, as I said, I'm having trouble finding the population in each half). By other metrics, namely the number of Israeli citizens in the city, Jerusalem would definitely be Israel's largest city, by population. -- tariqabjotu 11:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tariqabjotu. This seems to me mostly like a pretext for adding the word "disputed" and the Positions on Jerusalem wikilink yet one more time. -- Nudve (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We can reduce redundant repetitions of the word "disputed" and the Positions on Jerusalem link later in the article if you like, but surely the intro paragraph has first dibs on such a central and controversial issue. As for my comments on Israeli government sources not being neutral, I fail to see the reason for your chagrin. It is perfectly true I'm sure you'll agree, and moreover was not stated in the article, rather the edit summary! Now, since Arab East Jerusalem is considered by most of the world to be illegally occupied territory, surely that simple caveat regarding the population count and more importantly the area (in sq kilometers) is simple and logical, and I find it not to be abrupt at all. However, if you would please give us an example here of how you would split-out the statistics from the first sentence, I should be pleased to give my input.--AladdinSE (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand's rephrasing today of what happened in the Moroccan Quarter after 1967 is an example of what some editors on this page (not including myself, until now) have been describing as whitewashing of edits that appear to cast Israel in a bad light. We now have a story about Arab slums being replaced by throngs of Jewish worshippers (the reference supporting the claim that this was a slum is a letter from the permanent representative of Israel to the UN). It is lovely that Jewish worshippers are now able to get to the Western Wall - I've been there myself - but it is a mystery to me why we should omit mention of the fact that an Arab neighborhood was destroyed and its occupants evicted in the process. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, for completeness, you could include the whole history of how an Arab settlement came to be built on a Jewish holy site. --Redaktor (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(I would also include how the Jewish quarter had to be destroyed and its populace arrested then evicted in 1948, but how the Muslim quarter remained unharmed after 1967). Amoruso (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your allegations of "whitewashing" are nonsense. The lies and distortions that have been added to this page since it became an FA are beyond belief. The Moroccan quarter information as it appeared was a tearjerking POV presentation without the context. It has since been restored giving the appropriate background, as I intended to do from the start, before you jumped in with your hasty "conclusions." --Gilabrand (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I note your addition of the passage on eviction, and it moderates the impression of whitewashing. So far so good. As for "appropriate background": saying that this was a slum (and let's assume that the description even makes sense) helps legitimate what was done. What Nishidani says above about slum clearance (that it is usually about improving quality of life for current residents) is unfortunately not true; it is all too common to drive current residents out and make the area fit for a different type of population. That however does not mean that we need to convey the preferred narrative of the Israeli government here (drawing on an Israeli government source for it, no less). In addition, the paragraph is now very poorly written - jumping back and forth between topics, awkward sentences, improper spacing... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

'Slum clearance', I should clarify, is what razing the slum implies. It implied, as I intended to point out ironically, that slums are pulled down to improve the area for its inhabitants, whereas, as Nomoskedasticity points out, it was to the contrary to kick Arabs out and put Jews into a new, nicely landscaped area. The point I wished to make is that much of Jerusalem had slums down to modern times. Montefiore's whole project from the late 1830s was to get physically weak, religiously intense Jews out of the filth and unhygienic conditions of the Jewish slums, as we all know, out into work in new agricultural areas. He built those row houses and the famous windmill to get them out of the closed, filthy overcrowded areas within the city walls, and in the same year that the Moroccan sector was razed and its denizens kicked out, the Montefiore section, that in the meantime had become a slum, was simply 'renovated' into the artistic and upmarket suburb it later became. To identify the Arab denizens as slum-dwellers at this one point, is a pointed little piece of work of bolding Arab degradation against Jewish modernity. Native Jerusalemites, again, will correct me if I err, but Yemin Moshe, a jewish area, suffered a similar fate twice, once under Montefiore's foundation's renovating projects (they kicked out the Jewish Yemini squatters in the late 1800s) and once more, as it degraded over time, was cleansed of, this time round, its poor Jews after 1967. In fact the Moroccan Quarter and the Jewish quarter of Yemin Moshe suffered a similar fate after 1967. I'm told that 'We won't go the way Yemen Moshe went' is a slogan in Jerusalem to resist administrative messing around with renovating projects against the will of the local population. This has nothing to do with I/P partisan politics, Gilabrand. Whatever the state (of bias and lachrymose POVing (not alien to hundreds of articles not dealing with Arabs, by the way)) of this section earlier, the edits you made on this are marked by a partisan insensitivity that shocks.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Shocking, my foot. A slum is a slum is a slum. The word appears on the Mishkenot Shaananim page, too. Yes, that also became a slum (OMG, even Jews have slums) - and no editors bent over backwards to whitewash it. If you have a problem with that word, you are welcome to find a better one. But don't tell me it's because you can't call waqf land a slum. If the waqf had any respect for this place as a religious site (Islamic or otherwise), it wouldn't have built a tannery there and turned it into a garbage dump. Yes, the Old City of Jerusalem was an overcrowded, unsanitary, rubbish-filled place with raw sewage running through the streets and dead animal carcasses all over. But of course, the Jews weren't the landlords at the time. If I'm not mistaken, it was the Ottomans' job (and then Jordan's) to do something about it. The truth is, King Hussein also thought the place needed a major cleanup. To do this, he evicted a large number of Arabs from their ramshackle homes in the Old City, and created a nice alternative for them. Today it is known as Shuafat refugee camp.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Crass. Thanks for documenting where you're coming from, it's all there on and between the lines.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word 'slum'. I have a problem with the fact that, in a city that was largely a slum for much of history until Jewish philanthropists, missionaries and the Mandatory Authorities began to invest in improvements, the word is used exclusively in the article to identity an Arab quarter as though to justify the remark that it was demolished (just the usual oriental vendetta of course).

You don't seem to understand the meaning of waqf. It is a religious trust, not sacred ground, one for charitable purposes. The Moroccans subsisted on charity as most Jews did on haluhah.

Thanks for noting Shuafat. I have linked it in your text to the wiki page, and corrected that page, which is of course a travesty. Hussein removed the Arab refugee community (kicked out of Ashkelon in 1948) from their hovels in the ruined Jewish quarter to Shuafat to renovate that quarter several months before the 6 Day War, whose result stopped his renovation project in its tracks. That of course wasn't mentioned in the Shuafat article, (nicely written to highlight the transfer as though it underlined Arab contempt for poor Arabs) nor was the fact that the Roman ruins uncovered at Shuafat, in several sources, are interpreted as referring to a mixed Roman-Jewish community, and not as the text says, privileging one source, only a Jewish community. Part of the judaisation of wiki I/P articles again. A town, even a slum, if only noted, if, excavating its ruins, one finds a stratum evidencing a Jewish phase of habitation. Once this is established the whole article focuses on that single point in its history (Silwan etc.etc.). Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing some work to un-whitewash the 1967-present section again; recent edits have replaced clear and relevant information with a sort of obscured garble, the kind of prose that seems neutral, if you're not familiar with the relevant sources on the topic, but is actally very non-neutral because it marginalizes or ignores relevant facts.

It is not neutral to keep referring to a "unification" or "re-unification" of the city. The flip-side of the "unification" is the "occupation" of the East, and the vigorous Israeli efforts to sever Jerusalem, the economic and cultural heart of the Palestinian territories, from the rest of the West Bank. Israeli propaganda wants us to talk about "unified Jerusalem," which is of course true (ish... it's not "unified" for Jerusalemites judged by Israel to have not made it the "center of life"... but I digress), Palestinian propaganda wants us to talk about "occupied East Jerusalem." We can't pick one or the other and use it for a section title.

Good point. There is a tendency in here to take this order of comment as, not so much an application of Orwell's lessons to the language we use in here, but as a 'unilateral' imposition of a Palestinian perspective. I would remind editors that, historically, all international documents and agreements in this area are examined under the microscope draft by draft, for implications, and that one factor that makes negotiations extremely slow and tedious. Reflexively, we are cast into the same problems, and it is not a matter of blind partisan pertinacity. Palestinians still lament the careless oversight in drafting which lost them precious rights in the Hebron accord. Since there are, in all I/P articles, at least (but not only) two contrasting perspectives (as with all wiki articles on neighbouring peoples or nations in conflict), one does indeed need to pay attention to nuances like this. 'Unification', in Israel's perspective, has its obverse side in the 'detachment' of Jerusalem from its Palestinian-Arab hinterland. Perhaps when the present de facto assimilation of all of the West Bank becomes a de jure reality, we will not need to make these distinctions. But for the moment they are there, and crucial. Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--AladdinSE (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel's efforts to isolate East Jerusalem from the rest of the territories have attracted a great deal of coverage in the highest class of reliable sources. "Israel has expanded the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem on the eastern, occupied side of the city," writes the BBC, "and built a ring of settlements such as Har Homa that separate it from the West Bank." [1] The Foundation for Middle East Peace states that "Israel is stepping up its effort to enclose Jerusalem with a ring of barriers and settlements designed to sever Palestinian East Jerusalem from the West Bank." [2] From the National Catholic Reporter:

In 1967 the government of Israel not only annexed East Jerusalem as defined under Jordanian rule but expanded its boundaries to 10 times its I former size. Israel drew a gerrymandered territorial boundary around Palestinian East Jerusalem. Authorities avoided areas of Palestinian residency but defined open land owned by these Palestinians as state land or "green spots" on which Palestinians could not build. These areas with in expanded Jerusalem have continually been redefined as areas of "public utility" for the construction of exclusively Jewish settlements. Remaining Palestinian communities between these settlements have been denied the right to expand, isolating and suffocating them.[3]

A major report from the World Bank on the economic viability of the Palestinian territories writes, "East Jerusalem has traditionally been an important hub of Palestinian economic and social activity. However, administrative obstacles, the expansion of settlements and the construction of the separation barrier are further severing East Jerusalem from the remainder of WB&G." [4] A 2005 Washington Post report, titled "Israelis Act to Encircle East Jerusalem" began, "The Israeli government and private Jewish groups are working in concert to build a human cordon around Jerusalem's Old City and its disputed holy sites, moving Jewish residents into Arab neighborhoods to consolidate their grip on strategic locations, according to critics of the effort and a Washington Post investigation. The goal is to establish Jewish enclaves in and around Arab-dominated East Jerusalem and eventually link them to form a ring around the city..." [5] (This is really not the conclusion of "critics" and "Washington Post investigations," but the openly stated purpose of the plan from the beginning; Jerusalem's deputy mayor told the New York Times in 1996, when the plan was being finalized, that "We want large-scale moves to make Jerusalem united, so no Government in the future will be able to give it away.") [6]

And yet, when I write, "Since 1967 Israel has expanded its definition of the city's eastern boundary and established a ring of Jewish settlements separating Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. Israel's controversial barrier has left East Jerusalem in the so-called Seam Zone, further isolating Palestinians in the city.," it gets whittled down to "Jerusalem has expanded its boundaries and established a ring of Jewish neighbourhoods on unoccupied land beyond the Green Line." This isn't neutrality, it's whitewash in the name of neutrality. I'm restoring the comprehensive and accurate version.

I don't understand, why don't you just insert this into the article, somewhat reduced? If people try to edit it out, they will have no justification and be reverted. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A similar issue occurs here. There has been widespread attention paid to the squeeze Israel puts on Arab Jerusalemites by denying them building permits and demolishing their homes when they do build. At the same time Jews can get permits much more easily, and even illegal Jewish construction or demolition is widely ignored. As the same World Bank report notes:

32. There is evidence that the application of zoning and planning provisions and the enforcement of building regulations is discriminatory in the Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem compared with that in Israeli neighborhoods. This has a negative impact not only on housing availability and costs, but has also constrained business activity in what has been an important business center for the Palestinian economy. According to a report released by Bimkom, an Israeli organization with expertise in zoning and planning, “planning in East Jerusalem is based on considerations that do not meet accepted legal, administrative and constitutional norms, such as governmental fairness, reasonability, proportionality and protection of human rights”. 63 The result of these policies is that building and expansion in Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem has been severely constrained by the failure of the Israeli authorities to provide permission for expansion or new construction. Moreover, when construction does take place without permission, the authorities are much more likely to take action against Palestinian violators. In the period of 1996-2000, for example, the number of recorded building violations was four and a half times higher in Israeli neighborhoods of Jerusalem (17,382 violations) than in Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem (3,846 violations). Nevertheless, during this same period, the number of demolition orders issued in West Jerusalem was four time less (86 orders) than the number in East Jerusalem (348 orders). In other words, while over 80 percent of building violations were recorded in West Jerusalem, 80 percent of actual demolition orders were issued for buildings in Palestinian East Jerusalem. Between 1999 and 2003, 157 Palestinian-owned buildings were demolished, while only 30 Israeli-owned buildings met the same fate.64 These discriminatory practices have led to both a housing shortage as well as limitations on the development of Palestinian businesses and employment opportunities in East Jerusalem. To adjust to this, many Palestinians built second homes or businesses further into the West Bank. However, with the completion of the Separation Barrier and the enforcement of increasingly draconian permit policies, the ability to maintain these businesses will become ever more difficult.

This is all strongly worded information from an impeccable source; it's certainly not appropriate to whittle it down to "permits in Arab areas are said to be difficult to acquire." So again I'm restoring the full story. The wikilink to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular is vital; It may be that some "pro-Israeli" editors are outraged by the existence of that article, and have been working for some time to destroy it, but such actions have been clearly rejected by the WP community, and trying to hide the article from readers by removing wikilinks is just disruptive. <eleland/talkedits> 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a vital point, Eleland, let's be sure to highlight this question (which is particularly true in Jerusalem, of all cities in the country). However, I think it can be done in a sentence or two, as other wiki entries deal with this issue at greater length. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Twilight zone: this article now uses a CAMERA article as a (reliable?) source. Who knew that encyclopaedia articles were meant to contain irony? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hooray - more CAMERA!! Sure, the link is ngo-monitor (as if there were a difference), but the underlying stuff is all CAMERA. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it uses http://www.poica.org/ as a source, and I don't see you complaining about that. It's hard to carry off that neutrality thing when you only notice bad sources on one side. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Charming. To go after my neutrality on this one, you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel. (a) It's reasonable to comment on an edit, without assessing the entire page. (b) the poica.org source is not being used in a way that poses a problem for NPOV; if anything it is superfluous, grouped with others that seem sufficient to support the text. I'd be happy to see it removed; I think it does this article more harm than good, even if only in regard to appearances. Anyway, I'm pleased you agree with me that CAMERA is a "bad source"; it's just too bad you found it necessary, despite that agreement, to take a shot at me (and one that missed, at that). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is way too much information about the history of Jerusalem, post-1948. The article generally goes over the history of the previous hundreds of years, and suddenly, come the establishment of Israel, we have a blow-by-blow of where Jews were transferred, which cities were depopulated, what part was legal/illegal and recognized/unrecognized, various statements by international bodies denouncing this and that... It's somewhat amusing. One can almost read through that part of the history and say "this is obviously written by someone who just wants to make a pro-Israel/Palestinian point" because there are so many odd transitions and so much superfluous detail that clearly serve primarily to draw sympathy. -- tariqabjotu 12:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That sums it up perfectly. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, considering the numerous discussions and the current FAR, I think it's unlikely that a consensus about trimming those sections can be reached. -- Nudve (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, those are real issues with the article, not the bogus ones raised on the FA review. Why not clean them up? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I take another look at it, it seems like the second paragraph of the "1967 unification" section could be merged into the "Palestinian claims" section. What do you think? -- Nudve (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Palestinian claims section seems to be have little to do with Palestinian claims, which have been incorporated in practically every section of the article (almost to the point of a complete takeover). Interestingly, if you look at the headings, you will see that all mention of Israel has been obliterated. Ottoman rule, Muslim rule, Persian rule, Crusader rule. But Israel or the State of Israel? Good heavens, no. Jerusalem is a "divided city" or some vague entity that has something to do with "1967 unification." Write a section about Arab claims on Jerusalem, by all means, but I don't believe that the history of Jerusalem under Israel should be entitled "British mandatory rule and transition period" or whatever it was a few days ago.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. Merge all the Palestinian claims into one section, and leave the history sections objective. -- Nudve (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My God (your god, our god). Did it ever occur to you Gilabrand, or the rest of you who agree with him, that perhaps the fact that "Palestinian claims" have been inserted throughout the article is a reflection of the fact that Palestinians might have claims that were previously omitted, rather than that there is some sort of conspiracy to 'take over' the Jerusalem section? Palestinian claims certainly deserve to be threaded throughout the article as much as Israeli ones. If you do not think so, that's your perspective, only; it's not a fundamental fact. Also, I'd like to clarify my previous point (if it was not already clear) that the problem with the orientation of the article is not the undue weight given to discussion of Jerusalem after 1948 or the lack of space given to the history of the city prior to 1948 (there's supposed to be a whole article on the History of Jerusalem), but that Jerusalem is not sufficiently treated as an international city of worldwide contemporary or historical importance, a city of landmarks and historical junctures to which many traditions refer. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• This paragraph is currently in the Mandate section :

However, this plan was not implemented as the Haganah and the Jordanian Arab Legion fought for control of the city. On May 28, the Arab Legion gained control over the Old City; all of its Jewish inhabitants were either taken prisoner or handed over to the Red Cross to be permanently transferred to Israeli-controlled areas.[76]

I think it should be moved to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War section because these events occured after 15 May when Arab Legion and Haganah fought for the city.

• It may also be pointed out that the city has been one of the main objective of the 1948 War with around 10 important battles or military operations...

Ceedjee (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I created a short section on development which deals with plans and with the permit controversy. I would like to make a request that this section not get transformed into a discussion on the permit issue in general, and that all details added here specifically deal with the issue in Jerusalem. Thanks!LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. This section basically reads "The biased CAMERA says this and that. However, CAMERA are liars", which is exactly the kind of stuff we should be trying to avoid in order to keep this article at FA status. -- Nudve (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't like it, then tone it down a little without deleting the facts. Add your own facts, with good sources to back them up. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add, that, on other pages, left-wing Israeli scholars have been repeatedly deleted from footnotes because people felt they were biased. Note that, though I personally think CAMERA is a nonsense source (and it has been agreed upon as such in wiki forums which have decided against its use) you will see that I did not delete them. I added contrasting information which yes, highlighted the weakness of their argument. But I did not call them liars - I didn't need to. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed that other editors are willing to allow use of a CAMERA source to be used on this page, particularly for this purpose where they so obviously have an agenda. If what they say were true, surely someone more reputable would have documented the point. In the context of the FAR, its presence on this page gives a very damaging impression, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it is not obvious, I did not insert the CAMERA info (nor would I), it got squeezed in by someone else a few weeks ago. I think in this case the contrast between CAMERA's interest group perspective on this issue and the World Bank's outside perspective, is interesting, if nothing else. Also, the World Bank stats are so strong that they will consistently attract the attention (and vandalism) of those who want to disappear these facts. We might as well give them a chance to see their own point of view presented. No one can charge here that a biased source was used or that both perspectives were not represented.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

LLLL, I apologize. I was under the impression that you're the one who inserted the CAMERA info (I think you did reinsert it, at one point). Besides, it looks better now than when I first posted my message. However, I think the World Bank paragraph has too much undue explanations and predictions that I think should be cut down. -- Nudve (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad it's clearer now. I didn't like the CAMERA info, thought it was a bit strange, but I am not a fan of deleting other people's additions. I prefer to add to them, and then to edit out, not info, but wordiness. We can always go back after adding new inof and tighten the writing and reduce the length of quotes, etc. in order to keep things sharp. Feel free to tighten that section further if you are so inspired; I personally am unlikely to argue with editing for conciseness if the content is not too butchered.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic rule section has gotten muddled. Just now, the British Mandate was listed under Islamic rule. Further, there was a subsection reading: "Crusaders, Muslims, and Mamluks". What kind of heading is that? The Mamluks were Muslim (just like the Crusaders were Christian, and so the heading could as easily have read, "Crusaders, Christians, Muslims and Mamluks"). I changed it back to "Crusaders, Saladin, and the Mamluks" which is what is said before. Can't see why anyone would object to that. Pleeeeease check your facts before making such edits.

Also, the Ottoman section went from a somewhat normal, if spare, description of 400 years of turkish rule (from which a great deal is missing) to: "In 1517, Jerusalem and environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who remained in control until 1917.[59] The Ottomans built tanneries and slaughterhouses near Christian and Jewish holy places "so that an evil smell should ever plague the infidels." The rest of the entry then read as a discussion of Ottoman attitudes towards dhimmis. However important such info on minorities is, always, it was treated here as absolutely the principle point, the most central matter in an entry on 4oo years of Ottoman rule in Jerusalem. Further, the placement of the tanneries quote at the very start of the section was overtly political in nature. I kept the quote but placed it further down as it clearly was placed in a way giving the question WP:UNDUE, undue weight.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The only one with egg on his face is you, LamaLo. The Mamluks were Muslim? So were the Ottomans. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I know that. The point is that saying Muslims and Mamluks is like saying Crusaders and Christians. Be nice, Gilabrand, I wasn't knowingly targetting anyone personally. Egg on the face?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Lamlo, but you are wrong. Not all Christians were Crusaders and not all Muslims are Mamluks. Historians divide the conquest of Palestine into many eras, and the Muslim period is not the same as the Mamluk period, which is not the same as the Ottoman period, which is not the same as the Egyptian period, and so on. Talk about "being nice"? Read your comments on this page and see how "nice" they are (although yes, they nicely avoid being directed to any one person). --Gilabrand (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you understood me properly, Gilabrand, before ridiculing me? That "Not all Christians were Crusaders and not all Muslims are Mamluks" goes without saying. Did you mean, not all Crusaders were christian and not all mamluks were muslim? Perhaps not every single last one, but the majority certainly were. As conquerors, they were Christian conquerors and they were Muslim conquerors. The entirety of the Mamluk, Ottoman, and early Muslims periods are all regarded as "Muslim rule." Having studied Islamic history at some length, and written my thesis on it, I cannot really understanding what you are getting at. Please explain, and yes, savlanut and be nice, when dealing directly with individuals, otherwise, let's take it to our personal talk pages and away from the rest of the wiki editors who don't need to deal with our back-and-forth.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, nothing personal, but the following quote inserted by Gilabrand does not belong under 'history.' It is very recent and it is also very long. I find it a relevant point and have posted it here for comment:

• Some of the most prominent Islamic leaders insist that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem. "There was never a Jewish temple on Al-Aksa [the mosque compound] and there is no proof that there was ever a temple," says the

(FORMER) mufti of Jerusalem. "Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand...The wall is not part of the Jewish temple. It is just the western wall of the mosque. There is not a single stone with any relation at all to the history of the Hebrews." Asked if Jews would ever be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount under Muslim control, he replied: "It is not the Temple Mount, you must say Al-Aksa. And no Jews have the right to pray at the mosque. It was always only a mosque - all 144 dunams, the entire area. No Jewish prayer. If the Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try to pray on Al-Aksa. Everyone knows that." ^[1]

This could fit under a destined-to-be-contentious, religious status section, or perhaps: "Jerusalem, contested," where we could center both the religious and political arguments between right-wing Jews and Arabs. However, at present the quote is too long and needs to be edited to its most essential meaning. Thoughts? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep the quote under history, or move the preceding statement as well. They belong together. If anything, the connection between the quote and the preceding statement that the status remains a core issue needs to be made explicit, as the one helps to explain the other. This is one of the basic roots of the conflict, and exactly the kind of thing an encyclopedia reader would be looking for. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Hertz1888. Gilabrand immediately reverted the quote without looking here, which then gave the impression that he was not willing to discuss the matter here. Thus I went ahead and moved it down to the religious section.

Fundamentally, the quote does not belong in history as it is just one year old. I don't see anything else in the history section of that nature. If we were to open the history section up to such recent info, the last paragraphs on Jerusalem's disputed status could turn into a whole other article full with recent info on demolition activity and permit policy, as well. But no, recent data like that does not belong under history - it belongs in its own section.

re: your other point - Perhaps you liked the flow as it was, but it would have been edited anyway, since it clearly indicated that the beginning and end of the disputes over Jerusalem lie with 'the Muslims', when we all know, if we are to be honest with ourselves, that the disputes go both ways. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it also needs to be clear that there is an important (if not total) distinction between the dispute over Jerusalem as a religious city and Jerusalem as a political capital. There are many secular, as well as religious, Palestinians who find the mufti's attitude very offensive, and still see Jerusalem as the historic cultural capital/center of government for the region known as Palestine prior to 1948. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote may be one year old, but its subject is the denial of history going back millenia. That just might qualify it to be in a history section. By the way, just so you know, Gilabrand is she. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Along those lines one could argue for inclusion of a 2007 claim by Beni Elon (who might be a fringe fanatic to many of us, but nevertheless has been at the heart of the Cabinet for years now, on and off) dismissing the historic roots of Arabs in the Old city of Jerusalem, or denying a century of aspirations of Palestinians for an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. But I must leave this talk page. Hasta la vista, see you on a better day. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We have just seen an edit of the type that in my view is one of the worst an editor on Wikipedia can make: removal of a reference on grounds that it is "not accessible to the public". This approach, generalized, amounts to the claim that if something is held only by academic libraries it can't be used on Wikipedia. This is absolutely daft; we ought to be encouraging use of this sort of material, not suppressing it. It is furthermore untrue that it is not accessible to the public; anyone who wants this book can get it via interlibrary loan at their local public library. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but after checking WP policies I see you are right. JSTOR sources were deleted in so many articles I have worked on, on the grounds that editors must have access to the information and subscriber sites that charge for accessibility are not good sources. Reading the guidelines more closely, I see this is not so. I stand corrected.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a serious NPOV issue in that most entries on early history make absolutely no effort to distinguish between scripture and agreed history. Likely this is the result of naive people not understanding that there might even be a difference between the two, but this is very far from a universal academic position so it's hardly NPOV to breathlessly recount scriptural events as fact without even acknowledging that this is a disputed position. As desperately earnest as you are in your belief that scripture is god-breathed history, it's not a widespread viewpoint in history departments outside of religious educational institutions, so facts that are only "established" in scripture need to be couched in those terms so that readers who don't share your position aren't tempted to assume these things are agreed fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.4.44 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this, and was quite surprised to see such information presented as early on as the second paragraph. BabbleSD (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through the discussion and wanted to pose a question:

is the POV tag exclusively about the capital issue?

if so may I suggest the phrase "proclaimed capital"? I think that is neutral and accurate, washington is the proclaimed capital of the united states. and there is no negative overtones to the word whatso ever, I suppose a very pro-israeli person might say there is no such word preceding washington D.C. what is the difference between DC and jerusalem? well.. I'd say the fact that not a single country in the world is willing to place their embassy there not even israel's closest ally, and that another community claims it as there's. And I suppose a very pro-palastinian person might say just the very fact that they say its their capital must be disputed so that should be in the lead. well.. I'd say whether you like it or not it is their dejure and almost completely defacto capital (excluding the embassies and foreign recognition), which is not the case for the as yet for either palestinian "governments" hamas or fata, the israeli's have their parliment executive judiciary etc there.. and wanting to put the word disputed before any countries capital is going to lead to a dispute tag... and that's not a good thing...isn't the neutral term "proclaimed" just as true as "disputed"?

I doubt either side will accept but hey! I gave it a shot.  :)

Esmehwa (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is appreciated, but I'm afraid it's been rejected before. -- Nudve (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because we're here to write facts, not please partisans. Oh, and there was already a whole lot of compromise, it's just that one side tries to get more and more, trampling any previous compromise to pull the article their way. okedem (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you couldn't just respond to Esmehwa's comment without making unnecessary jabs at other editors. I'm not particularly happy with your style of editing recently, which appears to be based largely on suggesting that edits contrary to yours come from bias. And, to make things worse, I'd say the to talking about editsto talking about editssum of all the edits made in the past couple weeks have harmed the article on the whole, turning this into a dumping ground for minutiae on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Anyway, this point has been mentioned time and time again, and this overused angle of approaching this capital issue is really futile. The fact that no other country (except maybe the United States) recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does not mean that Israel is not the capital of Israel. This is akin to most Arab countries not recognizing Israel; it's not that they think Israel's not there. Non-recognition -- both on the capital issue and on the grander issue of Israel's existence -- is a punitive measure. In the case of the capital issue, the punitive measure is in response to Israel occupying East Jerusalem. The word "proclaimed" does not encapsulate these points. It's true that Jerusalem is Israel's proclaimed capital, but it's not just its proclaimed capital. Israel's executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all headed there -- Israel treats Jerusalem as its capital. So what if no embassies are located there? Do the scores of other countries in the world have the authority to suddenly make Tel Aviv the capital of Israel? No. So, Jerusalem's not just Israel's proclaimed capital; it's its actual capital. The non-recognition is certainly worthy of note, though, and so its presentation really would be only thing that might be on the table.

Lastly, let's stop talking about "sides". We're not fighting a war here. There is no line in the sand; it's not as if everyone but you (Esmehwa and LamaLoLeshLa) has to be pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian and you're the holier-than-thou mediator(s). Let's stick to talking about edits. -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(Response to comments by LamaLoLeshLa, subsequently removed by same) Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I get the impression that you have not read the discussions of Jerusalem as capital, archived on this page (accessed via link in red near top of page). I urge you (and all other concerned parties) to study the previous discussions so as to know what has already been considered (involving considerable time, effort and participation), what has been rejected, on what grounds, etc., and the compromises made in configuring the lead as it is now constituted. To fill pages with your own discussions on the matter without first becoming familiar with the foregoing is not only like reinventing the wheel, but can put you on a collision course with the established solution. BTW, the lead sentence does indeed reflect the disputed status; it is detailed in endnote iii, cited there. Please go and study. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read everything, all the archives. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This was deleted, although it could have been merely edited, and needs to be replaced in some form or another: "By Israeli law, Jerusalem is the de-jure capital of Israel, and de-facto contains the parliament, government offices, Supreme Court, President's quarters, and Prime Ministers's quarters. However Jerusalem has not been recognized internationally as the capital of Israel. Many countries see Jerusalem as equally the capital of the future Palestinian state, or view the city as a shared international heritage site that should be governed by a range of stakeholders locally and worldwide."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way: the necessary information is all there, it is just arranged and presented in an obviously biased way.

• "Jerusalem is is the capital of Israel and its largest city [lots of soundbites in footnote to back up the second claim]
• in a footnote, we get the full story that "Jerusalem is the capital under Israeli law. The presidential residence, government offices, supreme court and parliament (Knesset) are located there. The Palestinian Authority foresees East Jerusalem as the capital of its future state. The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, taking the position that the final status of Jerusalem is pending future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv (see CIA Factbook and "Map of Israel" (PDF). (319 KB)) See Positions on Jerusalem for more information."
• at the very bottom of the intro, the question is taken up again: "Israel's annexation of occupied East Jerusalem has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and related bodies, and Palestinians foresee East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. In the wake of United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, most foreign embassies moved out of Jerusalem."

taken together, these three parts give the full story. Their being taken apart, presenting the Israeli position as the first phrase defining Jerusalem, relegating the actual status-quo in international law to a footnote, and moving the Palestinian position to the end of the intro betrays a clear bias towards the Israeli position, against international law, of whoever came up with the "consensus" for the current revision. The intro cannot be considered in compliance with WP:NPOV until this unhappy presentation is improved. No material not already in the article is needed, just a re-arrangement avoiding a prejudice on the part of Wikipedia. A neutral way of phrasing it would be, "Jerusalem is a city under de-facto control of Israel, and Israel's capital under Israeli law. Under international law, its status is pending future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. East Jerusalem is disputed territory, claimed by Israel in the Jerusalem Law, a step chastised in United Nations Security Council Resolution 478." As always on Wikipedia, if there is a dispute, we can't avoid stating up-front that there is one. In cases where there is a UN position on the question, we should state the UN view first by default, and dissenting views listed by notability. Any presentation of dissenting views over the UN view, let alone hiding away the UN view in footnotes, cannot result in a stable article --dab (⁳) 09:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Although longtime editors to an article may convey the (often false) appearance of babysitting, the positive thing is that they feel compelled to follow the discussion -- you know, by reading what people say (even if the response is disagreeing with such comments). You, however, didn't seem to do that here. At first, your statement above appears to echo my point (independently, of course) that the presentation of the facts is the only thing on the table. But then, for some odd reason, you made this change. De-facto??? How many times does this need to be said? Point me to where a country's capital is defined by where other countries put their embassies or how many countries recognize it. I already stated this in this precise thread -- Israel states that its capital is Jerusalem and Israel treats the city as such. No one but Israel has the power to suddenly change that. While the non-recognition is significant, it does not invalidate the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This is extraordinarily tiring; why are so many people incapable of understanding this? Discuss the presentation, rather than proposing -- and, worse, single-handedly implementing -- non-starters like that. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I am 100% against the weasel wording presented with "Jerusalem is a city under de-facto control of Israel, and Israel's capital under Israeli law". "De-facto" control? As opposed to actual control? What is that? And, as I stated, it's not just Israel's capital "under Israeli law". -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing passionately for the use of the term "de jure" or "de facto." It;s just a way to express that the issue is complex. Those unwilling to allow any other language than "jerusalem is the capital" are wanting to keep the issue simple upfront. That's their prerogative, and it;s the prerogative of others to disagree, to want to see the complexity represented up front.LamaLoLeshLa (talk)

What's wrong with

"Jerusalem is a city divided between Israel and the occupied West Bank and is the capital of Israel under Israeli Law {cite note iii about UN recognition and embassies here}. It is the largest city.. blah blah" that is accurate and represents the situation more clearly than the current opening sentence which is certainly misleading Domminico (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the United Nations, Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel NOT Jerusalem Houssamsatak 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As of yesterday we saw several important deletions of sourced data, carried out without explanation. I would just like to call attention to two of them:

• 1. Liftaa was trucked to East Jerusalem (i.e. expelled), transformed into "the residents of Liftaa moved" (as if by choice). This change is not only inaccurate, it constitutes a distortion of well-sourced historical facts/a lie.
• 2. The Jewish population of the Old City was changed from 3,500 (according to historian Benny Morris, published by an academic press) to 1,500 (according to an Irgun fighter's memoir, published by a foundation; the fighter argues the population dwindled due to harassment). Morris himself does not use memoirs because he finds them unreliable.

Please edit, add to, and discuss, rather than deleting, disliked info.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I want to address something which may have spurred some of the conflict yesterday. As I clarified to Hertz1888 on his talkpage, here (after I later realized that my edit summary had not been clear): At no point did I cut any of the new info inserted by gilabrand. 1. I did not cut out what I defined as the CAMERA nonsense; if you look at this edit of mine, I added info which buttressed it. What I meant was that I was cutting it from that section and moving it to development. The CAMERA data was left intact, qualified, and moved down. 2. I also did not cut the mufti quote, I moved it. I think people were under the impression that I deleted, when actually I was working hard to keep the new info and qualify/add to it. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, our Tariq has deleted all the info on the expulsions on 1948, as well as most mention of 1948, and Okedem deleted the entire development section, in the service of editing for conciseness. Fine, but again, please, before deleting, give editing down to the skeletal facts a try, at the very least out of respect for the edits of others. It was quite simple for me to go back and edit things down while retaining the molst essential points, so I imagine it would have been for you. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The development section is completely unnecessary, and should never have been entered. All the data there was given seriously undue weight.

And if it's so easy to give just short, relevant facts - you can do so yourself, and not fill this article with minute details which damage its overall readability and quality. okedem (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What is minute to you is not minute to others. In fact, this is what is needed to get this article to be NPOV. Much of the detail in other sections about sports, transportation, etc. strikes me as quite minute, in contrast with a skeletal description of expulsions and massacres of Palestinians, displacement of Old City Jews, during the year everything in the region changed irrevocably, 1948. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The year that everything changed irrevocably? I thought that was 587 BC, or AD 70, or AD 135. Maybe it was 638, 1099, 1517, or 1917. With a history that goes as far back as this city's, it's incredible to denote one recent year as the "year everything in the region changed", especially irrevocably. Perhaps hundreds of years from now (or even less), there will be another turning point, and 1948 won't seem so much like a year that changed everything, irrevocably. This article is, of course, supposed to emphasize how the city is today (to some extent), but the history section is about history -- of Jerusalem. We have plenty of articles to go into further detail about the 1948 War, just like we have plenty of articles that chronicle what occurred in the years I mentioned above. Displacement and suffering of this population and that population may be paramount to those who play a role in today's conflict, but the focus on that loses sight of the fact that Jerusalem has survived dramatic changes before -- and will likely do so again. -- tariqabjotu 08:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a very important discussion to have - What merits mention and what doesn't. I generally agree that the emphasis should be, overall, on Jerusalem's larger status as a world center, as I've expressed elsewhere. Nevertheless, outside of the history section, a good portion of the article does deal with post-1948 Israeli-centered info, none of which I am recommending be deleted (though it could be edited for conciseness as has been done with my recent edits). As far as 1948's status as a major turning point - I think we can all agree, nothing of this sort had ever hap;pened before, even with all of Jerusalem's ups and downs. Not to say that the jockeying for control, the displacement, or the massacres, were new - but then, expulsions and massacres in other periods have been duly mentioned in other prior sections of the history section, as well as significant archaeological details/major building projects in central locations. Why is it that after 1948, none of these types of considerations were previously included, and why not include them now. Finally, I'd also like to point out that there has never been a time before in which the remains of prior civilizations/archaeological remnants can be so quickly and completely excavated or destroyed as during/after the 20th century. This also renders post-1948 building/demolition projects more final/irreversible. Ok, from this moment, I promise not to respond here for a while (unless serious reverts occur). LamaLoLeshLa (talk)

All the conquerors of Jerusalem built on top of what was there before (the Crusaders, the Romans and the Muslims were very good at it, if I'm not mistaken). --Gilabrand (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a concern related to depending on "Jerusalem: Illustrated History Atlas Martin Gilbert" as a reference. In fact, this 'reference' is full of many unproven claims that are not mentioned anywhere else and ther are many other stronger references that contradict it too much. I can see that all points taken in this article from Martin Gilbert Atlas can be refuted by other sources. Beside that Martin Gilbert is widely considered as a very biased historian and a propagandist even by some pro-zionism historians and specialists. For all the previous reasons, I believe that this article should be cleaned up from refering to this resource. I think I will begin working on that soon.--Aaronshavit (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Martin Gilbert is a respected historian, despite your unsourced POV. And don't go changing the reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, that's been decided by longstanding consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by unsourced POV, it is a well known thing, if you don't know that, then this is your fault. Martin Gilbert was criticized by many historians including israeli historians (like Benny Morris, Pappe, Avi Shlaim only as examples) and I didn't find anyone commending him (and I challenge you to find any). About Jerusalem, I didn't change, I clarified only, try to read things next time with good faith.--Aaronshavit (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "clarification" has been the subject of multiple intense discussions; please don't change this Featured Article without reviewing said discussions. Also, "it is a well known thing" = "unsourced POV", exactly as I said. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. A British historian who has written 80 books and was knighted by the queen is deemed an unreliable source, while Pappe and Shlaim get a standing ovation. One of Wikipedia's problems is the way it bends over backwards to accommodate the brainless and the brainwashed.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention the famous pro-zionism historian Benny Morris who also critisized Martin Gilbert and described him as a propagandist. By the way, Gilabrand, it was quite shameful to try to diminish the critique of Martin Gilbert by Benny Morris immediately after reading these lines like what you did in [7]. You were right when you said "One of Wikipedia's problems is the way it bends over backwards to accommodate the brainless and the brainwashed". --Aaronshavit (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to where Gilabrand reverts all of your original research? Did any of the references you added refer to Sir Martin Gilbert? I thought not. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I used no names. If you think you and Aaronshavit are in the stated group, that is your prerogative. I added sourced material for all my additions to the article. If there is anyone who has been vandalizing the article it is you. I was one of the editors who worked on it and brought it to FA status. It was far from perfect then, but it was the product of many months of labor and concessions. Since that time it has become a vicious piece of propaganda with one side of the equation commandeering every aspect. My attempts at balance are being challenged by the likes of you, whose record as a Wikipedia editor is far from sterling. Your comments on the talk page are not "nice," as I have already pointed out. Again, this harping on the idea of being entitled to your opinion shows that you are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for your views. That is problematic.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gilabrand"

Let's try to refrain from refactoring comments ^([8]) I'd appreciate if you were to take my advice and give this dispute a short break. Thanks. El_C 07:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To future editors: Should you choose to insert the term War of Independence again, note that to represent varying perspectives on the matter you would need to write "War of Independence/Catastrophe" for balance. 1948 War or 1948 Arab-Israeli War is the agreed-upon terminology and the name of the main article. Please do not remove mention of the war from the heading, or change its name, as it is obviously a vitally important turning point and the terminology is neutral. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That depends on the context. The 1948 war is Israel's war of independence, and that's not in dispute, I believe. If we are discussing Israel's history, specifically, the term "war of independence" is perfectly acceptable. If we're discussing effects on the population, etc., then "1948 War" would be better. There's nothing especially positive about the term "war of independence". It's a factual, objective term, when referring to Israel (more so when saying "Israel's war of independence", and not just "war of independence") - Israel gained independence via this war, fought against the people trying to prevent its establishment. okedem (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Okedem for taking the time to express your view on this. I guess the point is that the history of Jerusalem is a part of Israeli history. And it is a part of Palestinian history. For Israelis, it was a war of independence. I think we can all see that it was not a war of independence for Palestinians. Thus to call it a war of independence is to assert or admit that this entry is not an entry about jerusalem, a city that is part of the history of both Israelis and of Palestinians, but that it is an entry about jerusalem exclusively as a part of israeli history. This is why 1948 War is simply the most neutral term, which does not deny either people's experience of those events. I welcome any reactions.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, as usual, all countries are allowed to have a War of Independence except one. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel is a very special country with a unique history, in that no one else suffers the collision of quite so many conflicting narratives all gathered into such a small space. This means that neutral terms are required in order to accommodate as many views as possible without excluding one or the other people, especially in an encyclopedia entry. Call it the war of Independence, but then if you are not to exclude the perspective of Arabs in Israel, you also have to call it the Nakbah. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not parallel terms. War of Independence is the war itself. "Nakba" is a non-English term intended to project a POV about the perceived outcomes for Palestinians of the entire independence process, from 1947 to 1949. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is nothing more than a restatement of your premise, Jay. You might as well have responded "We should use 'War of Independence,' because I said so." <eleland/talkedits> 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, as stated, they refer to different things; they are not synonyms, or different terms for the same event. Perhaps you should re-read my comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

there is no way a featured article can have blatant neutrality problems of the sort we see here. Why is this a FA even if it is tagged with {{POV-intro}}? This needs to be fixed asap, or we need to speedily de-FA the article. The intro shows the classic traces of edit-warring, with a flurry of newspaper soundbites heaped up as "references" (footnote 2). There are also formatting problems with mixing two styles of endnotes. I am sure we can fix the neutrality issues (look how well we did at Kosovo), but there is no way this can stay FA as long as the lead is in such a bad shape. dab (⁳) 08:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree.--Aaronshavit (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you have seen this. Anyway, the perspective of some editors on this page follows a slightly different logic: there couldn't possibly be any neutrality problems here, given that it's an FA. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we get it. This has been said multiple times now, and each time it is said, the statement becomes even less specific -- failing to mention who these "some people" are -- and less accurate (because we all know who and what you're talking about; you're just distorting said statements). There are legitimate things to say about how FAC works, and they have been mentioned. However, if you feel the only thing you can contribute to a thread is a distorted paraphrasing of these statements as if to suggest, as others have more directly, that there is some pro-Israel faction stonewalling changes to the article, your input is not needed. -- tariqabjotu 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead is fine. The POV tag is unjustified, and the only reason for it is that people want every sentence in the article to be about the conflict, representing their own narrow POV, instead of showing the facts in an objective manner. okedem (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I never understood why anyone thought so many references were needed to cite the "largest city" bit, an elementary claim in comparison to others in this article, but those aren't a "flurry of 'newspaper soundbites'". Only one of those sources is from a newspaper, The New York Times. Really, we can see the article too. -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the large number of citations were required because of one determined WP:SPA who insisted, via edit-wars, the Tel Aviv is Israel's largest city. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the level of flux and conflict around this article does suggest that we are not at the right stage for FA status, though I am certain we can work towards resolution. I think part of what's going on here is that the article comes across thus:

1. Here is a description of Jerusalem, which is a modern Israeli city, culturally and politically.

2. The city has a very ancient history, most of it Jewish.

3. There is a conflict over the modern status of Jerusalem as capital.

4. The city is also a center of religious life.

5. There are Arabs in Jerusalem as well and they have a theater and some neighborhoods.

Here is how it could alternatively read:

1. Here is a description of Jerusalem, which is an international, Israeli, and Palestinian city.

2. The city has been very significant to many peoples, continuously throughout history, from ancient times to present and has been the site of many religious rivalries.

3. Jerusalem continues to be a center of religious life and rivalries.

4. There is a potent political conflict over the status of Jerusalem as capital, and the annexation of East Jerusalem.

5. Israelis and Palestinians experience Jerusalem differently; while Israelis generally seek to develop their modern Israeli city, Palestinians are unable to do so under Israeli rule.

Okedem, I agree with you that some editors want every line to be about the conflict. (I assume some people think I am one of those editors;) In fact, although of course people try to live as apolitically as possible, the conflict is threaded throughout more aspects of life in Jerusalem than this, politics is everywhere, even in Makhane Yehuda; editors are making an effort to represent this more fully. So while it may look like people are unravelling a sound article and trying to reknit it into a narrative of conflict, at a certain stage -- after seeing the religious, international aspects of the city more highlighted (through word choice and heading structuring) and a few vital points fixedly represented/not continually deleted (about 1948, demolitions, and a bit more on arab life and the status of east jerusalem) -- so that the article reads, not like an article from the Israeli Foreign Ministry website, but an article about Jerusalem as the Israeli and Palestinian and international city that it is, I personally will be quite 'content' to leave the article alone, as we were able to do after a while with "Arab citizens' of Israel." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason we should devote equal time to topics that are not of equal importance. There are nearly twice as many Jews -- Israeli Jews -- than there are Arabs in the city. The centrality of the city to Judaism and the Jewish people far outweighs its importance to Islam and Muslims, to Christianity and Christians, and to Arab and Palestinian culture. Jerusalem's importance in Judaism predates Christianity by hundreds of years, and Islam by a millennium and a half -- by a length of time greater than the length of Islam's existence -- and longing to return to Jerusalem has always been an important aspect of Judaism. Further, the fact that Israel has been the primary force behind recent development in the city should count for something. So, to build off your list, I'd say:

1. Here is a description of Jerusalem, which is an Israeli city with a significant Palestinian minority that sees the city as its cultural and, ultimately, political center.
2. The city is central to Judaism, with an extensive history related to the faith, but it also has been significant to many people from ancient times to the present.
3. Jerusalem continues to be a center of religious life and conflict.

I'm going to avoid mentioning the other points because, although they may be true, I don't want to give the impression that they form main points in the article. I don't think they do because, again, I think they point too much toward Jerusalem's current state. They're really sub-points of the main points in this article and main points in other articles. -- tariqabjotu 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your frankness on this matter. It actually helps to clarify why we have been having such a difficult time coming to consensus of late. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has been moved from review to keep/remove stage at WP:FAR. Please everyone read my initial comment there and try to keep declarations short and sweet. Marskell (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We've all been here long enough - if you add a source, please use the correct template for proper formatting. Also, I remind you that the source goes right after the punctuation mark (period, comma), without a space between them, and with a space after the source, like this: "...in Jerusalem.[34] The Palestinians...".

Editors shouldn't clean up after other editors. When adding a source, it's your responsibility to add it properly, just like you wouldn't add text with spelling errors. okedem (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to future editors: should you choose to call the period after 1967 'Unification'., you would need to add '/occupation' or 'annexation' in order to accomodate the range of perspectives of the various major populations who live in Jerusalem. Here we have the same issue as with the 1948 War heading. For Israelis, it was unification, but for Palestinians, it was not (for them it is considered occupation). We need neutral language again to accomodate all perspectives. (Recently we've seen the heading for the 1967 section changed several times. Previously, it was, '1967- Israeli rule.' An editor changed it to '1967 -Unification,' after which I changed it back, and an editor changed it to "1967-Extension of Israeli rule to East Jerusalem" since Israel had ruled the western portion since 1948. It has been changed back to 'Unification,' and I was about to change it to '1967-Unfication/occupation', although I would prefer simply, "1967 - Israeli rule.') In the spirit of keeping the recent edit, 'Unification', I am adding 'annexation' for balance; however I would rather we could agree to remove both politically loaded, if accurate, terms and change it back to neutral language. Please let's discuss this here and try to understand each other a bit.... Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Physically, it is unification. Two parts (East and West) of the whole, were no longer separated. No more fences or walls, under one ruler. It says nothing of the legality or nature of said rule in the East, and doesn't mean it's not an occupation. Still, the city was no longer divided - thus, it was united (or unified). If this was an article about East Jerusalem, you could say "Occupation" or "Annexation", because that refers to the East alone. Here we're talking about both parts, and so "Occupation/Annexation" don't fit. okedem (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not an Israeli vs. Palestinian thing. Echoing what okedem said, the fences are gone; one can freely pass between East and West Jerusalem. The uninitiated would hardly be able to tell in most areas where the division precisely was. Legal or illegal, the city has been unified, from two halves to one whole. I fail to see what's biased about just "Unification". It doesn't say "Reclamation" or anything of that sort; it says "Unification", a term that describes the fact that what was divided is now whole and says nothing to suggest one side or the other is correct in their positions. -- tariqabjotu 06:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The streets were full of barbed wire. There was a concrete wall blocking Agron Street. They were removed, and the word for that is "unification." The article gives more than enough space to the idea that physical unification is not synonymous with political unification. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political agenda-pushing through hijacking of language.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gila - please stop accusing those who you disagree with of "agenda-pushing through hijacking of language;" even if that is how you feel, so do many others feel that is what you are doing, too, so leave that line of attack alone, please. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing that it was united, from all the perspectives you relate above. I am saying that it was also annexed during that period. I am arguing that we should move away from the politically-loaded, agenda-driven language recently introduced, as well as the term 'annexation' (of east jerusalem), for the very reason that it represents one political perspective while negating another of equal value. Let's move to neutral language and avoid a revert war or arbitration. I am not going to leave the word 'unification' unless paired with 'annexation' for balance - both are true together, but neither is true apart. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unification has nothing to do with annexation. The unification is physical and administrative, while annexation issues are much more complicated, involving issues of legality and sovereignty. You're making a connection that doesn't exist. okedem (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing. It's "apples and oranges". Hertz1888 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to take a look at Talk:Jerusalem#Annexation. -- tariqabjotu 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating - Hertz1888 now says (in an edit summary) that "it was not annexed". I thought this was what Nishidani was saying a few weeks ago. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to simply say "which israel refers to as ___,... and which other parties refer to as ___." just a suggestion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion Tariq cites above casts much doubt on whether annexation is an accurate, applicable term for what was done in the political-legislative realm, and even if it were correct, one would not refer to the annexation of Jerusalem, only a portion. Plus, the word doesn't belong in the section heading as the counterpoint to "unification", because the two concepts are disparate, as Okedem has pointed out. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Without some representation of the Palestinian perspective on the city, to counterbalance the Israeli, I personally will not accept Tariq's recent consolidation of headings under 'Division and Unifcation.' I will be changing it back to the prior consensus. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting. The following comments are not in response to the immediately preceding message.) After so much discussion, such a simple fix. I hope there will be general agreement that the 02:28 UTC, 22 July edit is a clean and proper solution. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you feel that way, Hertz1888. Neutral is best, in this case. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sm, we're talking about a section header, not a piece in the body, so the proposal you make is not feasible. -- tariqabjotu 07:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Previous consensus"? Since when? The FAC passed with just one section detailing post-1948 history, and the article remained that way for 432 days, until Eleland changed it 19 days ago, on July 3. There was no discussion of this split and instead we have seen the additional section change titles multiple times. How is that consensus, and the fact that four people headed off your claim that "unification" is only a representation of Israeli reality not? Instead of countering the points made, you simply repeated your discounted position, declared that you were not going to accept the opposing points, and moved to simply remove the term that you dispute. Further, I don't like the current layout; we have two sections describing a period of only sixty years (and three describing a period of less than a century). The part currently named "1967 War" is barely about the war, so it should not be titled as if it is. And, to be honest, I am wholeheartedly against caving in to anyone that wants to invent pro-Israel undertones. -- tariqabjotu 07:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And a WP:SPA, to boot.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that my note of approval above does not pertain to the "prior consensus" change, which never happened. It pertains to eliminating the questionable term annexation and its false equation with unification. I believe that sort of resolution is to be encouraged. Perhaps the structuring needs further development, but at least two contentious issues seem to be off the table for now. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, then, about what you're supporting. You're just supporting the fact that LamaLoLeshLa didn't re-add the term "annexation"? Are you okay with the "1967 War" header as well? The split of the section? (If not, what header are you suggesting for the consolidated section?) -- tariqabjotu 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a conundrum and a challenge. The "1967 War" section could more appropriately be called "1967 War outcome: unification". 1967 is a natural transition point, and having two sections cleanly distinguishes the pre- and post-war periods. I don't feel as strongly as you about the sections' covering of relatively short periods. If you want to re-unify the two sections, that's fine too, though it's apt to re-ignite heated argument. "Division and unification" was a good title, so that argument might be worth having. Per my understanding, the Jerusalem Law did not use the term "annexation", so that term does not belong back on the table. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, by prior consensus, I meant a section which refers to the period after the 1948 or 1967 War as simply "1948 War" or "1967 War" as opposed to making a somewhat veiled value judgment (seemingly factual or no) about the outcomes of the war. As far as whether the section is split or not, I am flexible. However, like Hertz I do think 1967 is a logical break, since as you all have pointed out, this war significantly changed the reality in the city.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no value judgment here, just a factual point. As far as I'm concerned, the reader can read this is: "Evil Israel has insidiously managed to unify the city under its malevolent rule!". The title refers to what happened to the city, as this is an article about the city - the obvious outcome of the war was that the divided city was unified. What is the big change, that makes 1967 an important point in time (as you argue)? The reality of the city was changed, from divided to united. A physical change, not a value judgment. okedem (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the term 'unification' is a value judgment in that it indicates that something that was split was made whole, and that where there was a barrier, now there is free movement. In fact, for some, the barrier was removed, and for others, a precedent for its erection elsewhere was established. And for some, the city was made whole and access was guaranteed, while for others the groundwork was laid for a situation in which large populations would be divided from the city/would no longer have access. I'll just repeat again: For Palestinians, the city was not united. Before 1967, West Bank Palestinians had 100% free access to Jerusalem. After 1967, and especially after 2000/2005, they had increasingly limited access, until what you see is that they have almost no access whatsoever. The 1967 'unification' laid the physical/political groundwork for the separation of jerusalem from neighboring West Bank urban centers and villages that we see today. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "the term 'unification' is a value judgment in that it indicates that something that was split was made whole" - Are you claiming Jerusalem was not split? Or that it was not made whole? Because if you are, we must be speaking of a different city.
• We're discussing what happened to the city, not the access to it by people of different areas.
• "For Palestinians, the city was not united." - Wrong. For the residents of the city, it was united. They move freely between East and West. This is the same for Israelis and Palestinians. For West Bank Palestinians the city was also united (it was united objectively, it doesn't depend on whose looking - it was now one physical entity. Maybe one they can't reach, but still one unit. Maybe the unification was bad for them, but it still happened.

Basically, you're twisting the term "unification" to mean something completely different than what it actually means, and then arguing against it. It doesn't mean "wonderful thing for everyone". It doesn't mean "free access all around". It just means what was once two (or more) separate units, was made into one, whole, unit. okedem (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the city was split. Yes, Jerusalem was divided between two powers, Israel and Jordan. That's why I never contested that phrasing. Yes, for Jerusalem Palestinians, the city was united. For West Bank Palestinians, it was not united in the sense that it was not made whole. the fact that the city came under total Israeli rule, only meant that the Jordanian occupier was ejected, while the city ceased to be recognized as a Palestinian Arab center. Unification under Israeli rule meant the negation of Jerusalem as a Palestinian city as well as an Israeli one. Unification under Israeli rule meant the final obliteration of Palestinian control over their neighborhoods. I doubt this will convince you, but I will say it nonetheless: "Unification of an Israeli city" meant "Obliteration of a Palestinian city." (obliterate in teh sense of: "to make undecipherable or imperceptible by obscuring or wearing away") LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Ok, the term 'unification' is a value judgment in that it indicates that something that was split was made whole, and that where there was a barrier, now there is free movement." Okay... and that's not correct how? This article is about Jerusalem, not the West Bank. When we talk about "unification" in a header, it's assumed that we're talking about the "unification" of Jerusalem (that's why we don't say "History of Jerusalem" or "Culture of Jerusalem" and why we shouldn't say "Division of Jerusalem"). How this affected people in the rest of Israel or the West Bank is irrelevant; we're talking about the unification of the city of Jerusalem, which clearly has occurred since 1967, and nothing else. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's part of the dispute, here. (We can treat Jerusalem as an individual city. Or we can treat it as a center of Jewish, Muslim and Christian life, a center of Israeli and Palestinian culture and commerce, a political capital, a regional flashpoint. I think all these aspects are vital when dealing with a city of local, national, regional and international importance such as Jerus.) I ask you, if the whole city was "unified" under Palestinian rule, and no Jews were allowed outside of West Jerusalem, i.e. the rest of Israel was barred, and most of the Jewish world was not allowed to visit the Wall, would you honestly see the city as unified? this is the question. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because the city, which was originally divided in two, would now be together as one. That's what unification (of Jerusalem, the subject of the article) means. Whether Jerusalem was unified or divided or whatever from the rest of the West Bank of Israel is not being discussed in the header. Further, your suggestion that my position is based on partisan politics (by replacing Palestinians in today's situation with Jews in your hypothetical situation) is incredibly insulting. You have hinted at the bias of certain editors several times before, and I've really had enough of it. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, LamaLoLeshLa, you'd look less like a rigid ideologue if you refrained from making inaccurate and one-sided statements like this. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Note to Tariqab: Yes, I come from a particular political perspective, like everyone here. Although I get outraged, like everyone, I am trying not to be aggressive, and I do feel that some others here are not trying to tone down the aggression. I am indeed defending the page against deletion of these directly-related historical concerns, just as you are defending the page against those who try to delete the fact that Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel. And yes, we are all either hopelessly under-occupied, or avoiding work, are we not?) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

LLLL writes, "this is the question". Is it the question? You are still setting up a false issue and then trying to knock it down. I believe this is what is called a straw man argument. I too will "honestly" answer anyway: if that were the situation, yes, the city would be unified. Perhaps inaccessible to some, but unified. However, that is irrelevant to the editing under discussion. Unified means barriers come down... internal barriers. Can we move on now? Hertz1888 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it is a big part of the question. But we are all tired of the point for point, and I agree, let's move on....LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It was divided, and then it was... 1967 War? No, and then it was re-unified. Please stop trying to make political points about straightforward and sensible wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[In response to deleted comments] Break it up! It's time for this discussion and this squabbling to end. The contentiousness seems to be coming mostly from one "side". We're editing an encyclopedia here - let's not lose sight of that. Cool-headed cooperative effort gets the job done better than scrapping and warring ever will. I thought the editing process was supposed to be based on NPOV and verifiability, not on editors' "views". What was all that talk about moving on, just talk? Hertz1888 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agreed it was time to move on, and then, well, we see someone had to take another jab. It's difficult not to respond, but you're right, I should not have. I am removing my comment. I would certainly leave the matter if people were willing to just leave it at "1967 War", but "unification" was added yet again in the absence of annexation, giving the heading an Israeli POV to the exclusion of Palestinian POV, as opposed to NPOV, and, while exhausted from this discussion, it is unclear to me why simple "1967 War" is not a reasonable heading and so I have sought mediation. We will see what he has to say. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: Why not avoid this discussion by simply titling the section "1967-present"? -- Nudve (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's what I used when I first split the section. As far as I can see, nobody has addressed the point being made here; while it is true that the city was "unified," it is also true that it was "occupied," "annexed," "seized," "conquered," etc etc etc. LLLL is right - there's no justification for picking the one term which most favours the Israeli view. To argue that there is no perspective attached to "unification" is just flatly untrue. How many Palestinian sources talk about the "unification" of Jerusalem? To argue that since it was a unification, it must be called a unification is an equally weak argument; it was also an occupation, annexation, conquest etc. This kind of language is probably not appropriate even in the text, and it's definitely not appropriate in the article headings - WP:NPOV specifically forbids "Arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular 'side' of an issue." <eleland/talkedits> 05:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem was, perhaps, "annexed", "occupied", "seized", or "conquered", but Jerusalem was not. Jerusalem was "(re)unified", as the two halves became whole (again). -- tariqabjotu 08:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not in the heading but in the heads of certain editors, who make comments and then delete them to hide traces of their POV. --Gilabrand (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, about this tag... what should be done? -- tariqabjotu 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's ironic, i never really cared so much about the issue of the first sentence. However, on principle, I think it is wrong to delete the perspectives of others. Gilabrand removed the tag today, stating that no discussion had occurred recently. True, there has been silence on this issue for perhaps a day less than a week. However, the lack of discussion does not mean the dispute has been resolved, I think we all know. It likely means that the 10-15 editors who have changed the first sentence in recent weeks have been working on other pages for a few days. Because this is not 'my issue,' I am not going to re-insert the tag, although i think it is unethical to remove it, given the failure to resolve the recent dispute. But I ask you to consider the fact that POV tags are not to be removed in the absence of resolution. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has seen so many edits over the past couple of weeks that it's hard to dig up the moment the tag was first place, but I believe it was put there because of the capital issue. Since then, a paragraph concerning that has been added to the intro. -- Nudve (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was added on June 7, at a time when there was already a paragraph about this issue. It has been reworded, but the heart of the paragraph is still the same. Such a mention in the intro, in fact, has existed since the time the article was promoted to featured status. -- tariqabjotu 08:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nudve, thanks for adding the above to this talk section, so future visitors will understand what the tag was overall about (i.e. the capital issue). It should be noted though that clearly there are many reasons in addition to the intro that people feel the article does not represent solid NPOV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the tag was referring to the intro, not the entire article. -- Nudve (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone (Gilabrand?) please explain why this source is considered better than the Times source from before? The two sources give two completely different accounts, but the current one is a primary source. As WP:NOR states, these sources need to be used very carefully and, although you described what Tell said carefully, it would be much better if you could find his account in a more quality location, not on a shoddy website with an obvious agenda. Even better would be a source that gives an overall survey of what occurred in Jerusalem during the war (for this piece, to Jews specifically), rather than an account from just one person's vantage point. And, Gilabrand, please format your references, especially if your edit summary is complaining how another source is "incomplete" (as well as falsely claiming it's phony). -- tariqabjotu 13:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

After attempting to access the NY Times article many times, and trying every Google possibility, there does not seem to be such an article by this particular journalist. The information sounds suspect to me. Meanwhile, I don't see why this Legionnaire (who goes by the name of Dr. Professor Tell) is less reliable than many of the crappy sources Wikipedia is so reliant on (from Ilan Pappe and PalestineRemembered to those tearjerking "eyewitness" reports of people who were 7 months old in 1948). I will try to find a "better" source, but in the meantime, this one is at least verifiable. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you need to hone your searching skills. Go to the home page of the The New York Times, type in the headline of the article, as provided in the citation, into the search box at the top of the page, and voila, it's the first hit.

Looking at the article, the Times source and the account from Tell do not actually conflict. In fact, Tell is even mentioned in the story. The problem is that the statements (the one you deleted and the one you inserted) come from different times. The Times article talks about the fighting in the Jewish Quarter, and then mentions how on Friday, May 28, 1948, two rabbis came out of the rubble to surrender and negotiate terms of agreement. That's where Tell's account picks up. The Times and Tell's account even agree on when this occurred (the former saying 9:30am, the latter saying "a few minutes past 9:00"). Both sources (basically) agree on what terms were negotiated, and then the Times article concludes by mentioning that the evacuation was imminent, although it does not describe what happens next in detail, like Tell does. But, this is what I mean when I say that we need a source that gives an overall view of the situation (and doesn't come from an overtly partisan website).

Lastly, your explanation of why you used a poor source is unacceptable; the presence of unsatisfactory sources in other articles does not mean you should use unsatisfactory sources in an article like this one that's struggling to maintain its featured status. -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I sourced all this with last Benny Morris's book : 1948.

I also made some modifications as suggested some times ago here above.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work overall Ceedjee, but please be careful and check your edits - you left some grammar mistakes. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to raise an issue for discussion, hoping that out of good faith people will not make further reverts until some kind of consensus can be reached.

Many have pointed out that the history section is heavy on twentieth century history. Someone also recently pointed out that the intro emphasizes modern history at the expense of the larger legacy of the city. I agree. However, the question is, what is considered minutaea worthy of cutting, and what is considered vital to understanding major turning points in Jerusalem history?

I would like to us to find a way to agree that the events of 1948 should be mentioned in brief, as they are now, and not deleted repeatedly, as they have been. As I've said before, I think we can all see that massacres, expulsions, and mass destruction are threaded throughout the history of the city; such events have been duly mentioned throughout the ancient history sections, and should be mentioned into the present, as they permanently change the physical layout and the demographic composition of the city.

On the other hand, I wonder if some the details of the mandate could be deleted? They seem like fine points and could be better placed within the History of Jerusalem article. Is there a way to condense this section so that the relevant points are distilled? I would od it myself but I am not an expert on the Mandate (and not a big fan of cutting) and am afraid I may cut relevant details. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Peter's statement that the intro deals too much with the present day. Even though Jerusalem has a lengthy history, this article should emphasize Jerusalem today (aside from the "History" section, which, of course, is about history). That's precisely why items like population are mentioned upfront; we're really talking about Jerusalem, 2008, albeit with thousands of years of history. So, naturally, the storied history and religious significance of the city should be mentioned as it has had a lasting impacting (and is the focus of Jerusalem), but the mentions of the city as a point of contention in the present-day conflict, as well as the capital of Israel, should remain as they play huge roles in Jerusalem now. I think the current intro does a good job of discussing all this without losing perspective.

The History section is where the undue weight can potentially become an issue, although I currently think it's not too bad now. I'm not sure what you mean by "deleted repeatedly", though; pieces were "deleted repeatedly" because the section(s) on post-1948 were excessively detailed. As for details regarding the British Mandate that can be removed, I'd first go for the part about most of the mayors being Arab, and then the part about furniture not being allowed near the Western Wall. Neither of these facts seem to have any lasting importance. -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I think Balfour declaration is also useless.

From the fact the Mayors were Arabs, I wanted to point out during the Mandate is was an Arab city. A table with the population from 1920 to 1948 would be better than this fact about the Mayors.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, an "Arab city"? You can't reach such conclusions from almost irrelevant points as mayors. In fact, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority at least since 1896, and Jews were the largest community (compared to Muslims and Christians) from 1844. Why the mayors were Arab, I don't know. I don't know who appointed the mayors, and I find it hard to believe it was a democratic election process. (even if it were, the mayors could still be Arab, for various reasons).

Anyway, don't try to make points that aren't even true. okedem (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Okedem,

Keep cool. By Arab city, I meant a city where there were numerous Arabs. It is referred as a mixed city by historians. In Jerusalem itself, it was (2/3 Jews ; 1/2 Arabs) and if the neighbourhood is taken into account 50/50. Ceedjee (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then not "Arab city", but "mixed city". What a riot we'd have if someone said Jerusalem was (or is) a "Jewish city"... okedem (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Ceedjee (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tariq - to answer your question, by repeatedly deleted, I am referring not to the surrounding details, but the essential facts. Thus, specifically, I didn't mind the reduction of the paragraph about 1948 displacement (of course I would prefer more detail, but I understood if other editors felt it should be more concise), but felt that rather than total deletion, there should be room for the essential points, reduced - in particular, the six words needed to mention Deir Yassin (which were deleted at least three times, and thank god, now remain). And, for instance, I did not dispute deletion of the details around Lifta (deletion of 'trucking' detail), I disputed the transformation of 'Lifta was expelled' into 'Lifta moved.'

More importantly, let's discuss the mandate period's level of detail? Excessive, no? What the section should reflect, briefly, is the pivotal role the British played in the unfolding of the conflict. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Guess need to take this to a mediator, as indicated above. Sigh. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you wanna drag us down that path, based on your wholly fictitious interpretation of the word "unification"? Your arguments are simply wrong, and you didn't even bother answering the people explaining to you why you're wrong. The fact that for some Palestinians there's limited (or no) access to the city has nothing to do with unification. The point is that whatever access there is or isn't, it's to both parts of the city. Instead of two units, West accessible by Israelis, East by Jordanians, now there's one unit, and access or lack thereof is to the entire city, not half of it. You're arguing against (or for?) a non-existent meaning here. okedem (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I did not answer every single point, because who has the time. Here I will quote Tariqabjotu: "This article is about Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem was, perhaps, "annexed", "occupied", "seized", or "conquered", but Jerusalem was not. Jerusalem was "(re)unified", as the two halves became whole (again)." His comment makes my point exactly, in that he refers to Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as if they were separate entities. If the city is unified from all perspectives (as opposed to the mainstream Israeli one only), how is it that a certain set of realities only applies to one half of the city and not the other? (By the way, when I inserted the language, "annexation of East jerusalem", I did indeed specifiy that this is a reality only faced by one half of the city, so let's not confuse matters.) Is a city truly 100% unified when 2/3 of its residents are citizens, and the other 1/3 are not, for whatever set of historical reasons? Is a city truly united when 2/3 identify as belonging to the nation Israel, and 1/3 identify as belonging to the nation Palestine?

What we see is a kind of geographic unification in the absence of full political unification or the unification of the citizenry within a system of elected representation (since East Jerusalemites can vote in municipal elections but tend to choose not to do so because they do not recognize Israeli rule). Whatever the reasons for the division between East and West Jerusalemites, and whatever the systemic gaps, if you actually live in Jerusalem and you've tried to drive down Road 1 in the last few years, it is clear that the city remains divided in as many senses as it is united.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it "politically" unified? Citizenship is available to any East Jerusalem Arab who wants it, and many have availed themselves of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would like an answer to this question: If the point being made with the heading was not political, why is "1967 War-present", which Hertz and Nudve have supported as a simple solution, not acceptable? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because those who make baseless attacks on their opponents to further their own positions shouldn't be rewarded. The word "unification" is perfectly legitimate, and your invention of an alternative meaning of the word should not prevent us from using the more descriptive header. Accepting such tactics here will only give the impression that your methods are admissible. -- tariqabjotu 22:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reunificatication" is more informative and accurate, and parallels the previous "Division" title. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

LL, I've been slightly misquoted. I said that "1967 War" (without the "-present", added later) was a solution. I found it a big improvement over what went before. Reading further, you will see I supported changing it to "1967 War outcome: unification", as an even better solution, and said I had no objection to re-unifying the sections under "Division and unification". You continue to bring in extraneous issues and politicize a simple physical fact. If I were a mediator, the first thing I would ask is whether you have really listened to what fellow editors are trying to tell you, and have shown a willingness to yield to a general consensus that may be contrary to your preference. Persistent refusal to do so can be seen as disruptive behavior. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have definitely been listening. I have, as you know, been working for apolitical language, ("1967 War" minus commentary), and have heard no reasonable explanation as to why this is not an acceptable solution. I will yield, though, that part of the problem is definitely me, here. I have not been treating what you have had to say collectively on the talk page, as a consensus - I have felt as if I am representing another set of views that casts doubt on the presumption of consensus. However, it has become apparent in the last day that I truly am alone in arguing a point of view I know most Palestinians hold. So perhaps most of the Palestinian editors who are busy with Palestinian culture articles, don't care as much about this matter as I thought. It is probably quite arrogant of me to have assumed otherwise, and the truth is, I can see why Palestinian editors might want to stay away from such controversies, and stick to nurturing entries on more positive things. However, I'd like to note that I am NOT alone in arguing for making an effort to stick to the least-offending, most neutral language possible, in headings - some of you share that common aim, with me. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Right - the rest of us are biased and constantly politicizing the article. That must be because we're pro-Zionists. You alone are upholding neutrality (/sarcasm mode off). How insulting that is, and sure looks like a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". You may have been listening, but you have not understood. Won't you consider that when you run into heavy resistance, it could, at least sometimes, be because you are mistaken? Recommended reading: WP:IDHT. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wooooooooooops. I made a mistake when editing my last statement. I dropped a word when moving the sentence from elsewhere. It should have read, "I am NOT alone" in working for neutral language. I can see why you would go close to ballistic reading that entry minus that one crucial word. Sorry. (By the way, none of the above was sarcastic. and, I have read, understood, and disagreed. It has occurred to me that either side could be mistaken. But fundamentally I believe that either, Palestinian and Israeli views should both be represented, or neither should.) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's to better proofreading. The correction does put things in a different light. I strongly disagree that saying the city was divided and then reunified is pro- or anti- anybody; it's a simple objective statement, self-evident if you can dispense with the political distorting lenses. If you continue to insist this is a matter of Palestinian vs. Israeli views, we're apt to be stuck on it even longer. I am keeping this response short because I believe more than enough has been said already. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You twisted my statement to say something it does not. His comment makes my point exactly, in that he refers to Jerusalem and East Jerusalem as if they were separate entities. Um... this is equivalent to me talking about New York City and Harlem; one is inside the other, one composes part of the whole. How is that a problem? What East Jerusalemites think about the unification of the city is up to them, but rejecting the unification (on the grounds that Israel did X, Y, and Z) does not mean it did not occur. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. This article is about Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem, you said. This is what I was thinking just now: Is an article about New York about New york, not harlem?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't specifically about East Jerusalem, but about the entire city. This is why general descriptions, titles, etc, need to refer to the entire city. Thus, a heading saying "Annexation" would be misleading - only a part of Jerusalem is said to be "annexed", not all of it. "Unification", or "Division", however, refer to the entire city. Similarly, we wouldn't write, in the history section, a sub-section titled "Jordanian period" - as the Jordanians never controlled Jerusalem (the whole of it), only East Jerusalem. okedem (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: The edit I made did not say merely "annexation." It referred, very specifically, "annexation of East Jerusalem." I did not apply the term, for a split second, to Jerusalem as a whole, or to the entry (except on the talk page, at a failed attempt at brevity). However, none of this really matters because, I repeat, all I want to see is a heading which says, neutrally,"1967 War." Please try to attend to the specifics of the edits I have been trying to make so I do not have to repeat myself and drive everyone else crazy like a parrot. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Shortly, the problem is that you're claiming "Unification" is one-sided, where it describes a physical reality. You're trying to push for that peculiar interpretation using some irrelevant claims, like what happened to Palestinian access to Jerusalem, even though that point actually goes against your case (Palestinians have better or worse access to all of Jerusalem, without division to East or West). You're trying to prevent use of a perfectly factual word, with bad claims, and worse interpretations. okedem (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's your view. Actually I should not have said that for East Jerusalemites, the city is 100% united, that's not what I actually think. It's a mixed unfication/annexation experience for them. Let's not talk about West Bank Palestinians anymore, I understand your point about focusing just on Jerus, though I see things differently of course. Otherwise, I'm glad to see that there has less mudslinging of late and more attention to the facts, but I'm taking a break from, not the entry itself, but this talkpage for a whileLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

What would you think about : A controversial reunification.

Indeed : factually, it was re-unified (after the partition of '48).

But this re-unification was also controversial for all the reasons we know.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Most eyes age beyond the evidence at one's feet by late adolescence. Miracles of obvious-sightedness do occur. Take the youth and truth in this grand old Zionist, for example

Palestinians had title to two thirds of West Jerusalem before 1948 but . .

The Quiet Ethnic Cleansing of East Jerusalem

I'm not terribly concerned by that section heading. But I'm wondering now whether Jerusalem is Israel's "largest city" only by virtue of including the area beyond the Green Line. Of course, this issue has probably been hashed out before. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but as all that area (within and beyond the Green Line) is administered by a single municipal authority, I don't think it's much of a problem. okedem (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed some "information" from Global Politician, an obscure far-right Internet magazine out of New York. It claimed that under UNGA 181, "The international regime was to remain in force for a period of ten years, whereupon a referendum was to be held in which the residents of Jerusalem were to decide the future regime of the city." This is simply false, as can be verified from just reading 181. The source contains many other nonsensical claims, most of which seem to be drawn from the Revisionist, Eretz-Israel ideology, claiming that the establishment of Transjordan really represented a partition of Palestine, with the entire western half belonging to the Jews, etc etc.

People, please don't use these kinds of sources. There is not really a shortage of scholarly works on Jerusalem. Stick to books in university presses, official resolutions and reports of bodies like the UN, etc. <eleland/talkedits> 09:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying nothing about the specific magazine, and agreeing with you regarding the need for respectable source, I do want to make a clarification. The quoted claim is supported by the resolution, quoting:

"The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of experience acquired with its functioning. The residents the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.".

(Section III-D of the resolution, see [9], [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181, etc.).

The claim you quoted might not be entirely accurate (would the referendum be binding? I'm not familiar with the rest of the material regarding this), but it's not nonsensical in any way. okedem (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have since replaced the source[10]. -- Nudve (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

history of the middle east is a department which this user will never work in.

but history of judaism -- it's a wikiproject -- has excellent sources to use.

thanks for using jewish sources to describe the city which the saudi salafists

) do not even claim as their own.

the mufti amin al-husseini lost the election for the post of muslim leader,

but high commissioner herbert samuel was ordered to appoint him anyway.

there are well-documented accounts of laws banning the ownership of firearms

being applied to jews only

and of the 'economic absorptive capacity of the mandate'

being used against refugees from the shoah

(the kill all german jews campaign).

to ban their 'illegal immigration' into land purchased by the jewish agency from

arab landlords.

the massacres of 1920, 1929, and 1947-49

demonstrate what could have happened if the zionist entity had never achieved statehood.

Yosef.garibaldi.gmail (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or has that part been completely misinterpreted from the source (Cue8019 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

I have no reason to doubt the material. I have good reason to doubt its appropriateness in a page on a major historical city. There is a very long article one could write on intercommunal frictions, with swathes of material on Christian antisemitism, Jewish intolerance, Muslim hostilities. Do we need this. If the Ottomans placed butcheries there strategically to annoy Christians and Muslims (one source) I suppose people are going to strive for balance by harvesting the literature for other material about butcheries and sectarian strife to achieve balance, when the simple thing to do is keep this subtle tilting of edits towards negative stereotypes, off the page. I happen to know a bit about butcheries there, and this immediately came to mind. Neither it nor Jayjg's piece from Gilbert is appropriate in my view. I.,e.

‘The Ashkenazim in Jerusalem form a kind of caste apart, so to speak, and have almost nothing in common with their fellow Jews of the Sephardi rite. Their community is entirely distinct from ours: they have their own revenues, their own tax on meat, their shohetim, their temples, and their schools. They are much more intransigent than the Sephardim for a good number of the latter buy their meat from Ashkenazi butchers, but an Ashhkenazi would never buy meat from a Sephardi butcher: this meat is even considered taref (ritually unclean) according to the interpretation of the law of most Ashkenazi doctors. Concerning the question of instruction, they are absolutely inflexible. From the top to the bottom of the hierarchy, the teaching of any and all profane subjects is declared to be blasphemy against the Law of Moses.. instead of the Bible, it is the Talmud that they scour and scrutinize in all of its parts;. They are still and for a long time to come, the outstanding representatives of the spirit of obscurantism and conservatism.' Aron Rodrigue, Jews and Muslims: Images of Sephardi and Eastern Jewries in Modern Times', University of Washington Press, 2003.p.169

This is a Sephardi survey of tensions there, in the archives of the Alliance Israelite Universelle. Keeping this material in opens up a bad precedent, gentlemen. Reconsider Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, why do you refer to it as "Jayjg's piece from Gilbert"? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Jayjg has suggested (via edit summary) that Aaronshavit bring this issue to the talk page, perhaps Jayjg would also like to take up the invitation to defend inclusion of this sentence? If no-one is willing even to try defending it, it should go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The material immediately preceding it is from the exact same source. The source is, in fact, used many times in this article. Material from that very page in Gilbert's Atlas is used in the article. Why, then, is this specific material not appropriate? Perhaps Aaron can explain. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an odd defence. 'He said this, I'll put it in. He said that, stick that in too. Oh, he's also written this as well, thump it in too'. On memory Sir MG has written over 40 voluminous tomes, I have many of them. But articles are supposed to be written with a laconic tact for the gist. I'm imagining a fork on the history of butcheries (literal) in Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my question above. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did. Is the art of reading so totally consigned to desuetude? 4 hundred years of Ottoman history 21 lines, 10% on the tannery and slaughter-houses as an insult to Jews and Christians. The tanneries of Jerusalem, like those in Hebron, have a long history (Jerusalem's goes back at least to Ge hinnom, and like all tanneries and slaughter houses were primarily located where spring water sources were abundant. The location here is not 'Ottoman' but goes back to a legend about Saladin's insult to the Crusaders' palace, pre-Ottoman. You'll find this vignette all over 19th century literature, written to rouse outrage among evangelizing Christians and Jews abroad. It was if anything aimed originally at the order of the Knights of St.John. By all means make a fork and write the history of butcheries and tanneries in Jerusalem. That in an article on a city boasting 4000 years of history, one finds room for one 'Turkish' insult to infidels is interesting, but creates a precedent for the numerous insults, structural and otherwise, hurled by all 3 communities at each other. You are opening up a can of worms. Delete it, clamp down that lid, or invite all to dig up (I've quite a bit on these things, but refuse to edit this material in) stuff to make one or other of three congregations look bigoted. They all were, and often still are.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no response to my question of 07:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC). As for "the numerous insults, structural and otherwise, hurled by all 3 communities at each other", from the 7th century until the 20th, Jews were in no position to "hurl insults" at their rulers, Muslim or Christian. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh that. You adopted the edit. I thought things like that were obvious. As to the other it's all in the 'until' and your unfamiliarity with a certain vein of literature. But I will not harp on the point. The point you refuse to respond to is, what is 10% of the space on 400 years of Ottoman rule doing dealing with tanneries and slaughterhouses that were there before the Ottomans? Why showcase this in the history of a city which is so thoroughly documented that one has trouble covering important details in a short space. (The answer is obvious, so you needn't reply). Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on whether or not the material should be in the article per se. I do have strong objection to people removing it for completely bogus reasons, including the reasons given in Aaronshavit's edit summaries. Regarding my "unfamiliarity with a certain vein of literature", Comment on content, not on the contributor.Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did comment on content, the content of your reply. The edit on the page has Christians and Jews under Ottoman rule both subject to noisome vexation. I gave my reasons for removing it (plenty of intercommunal friction). I did not speak of rulers, now you introduce them. The text speaks of a shared victimhood, you reply that the Jews were in a singular position, under both Christian and Muslim rule. The point is we are talking of an edit on Jerusalem which has Christians and Jews suffering from Ottoman planning, not Jews suffering from Muslim and Christian oppression. This is getting silly. You still will not explain to me why 10% of the brief Ottoman period of rule should be associated with an anecdotal vignette on abattoirs that was a topos of 19th.century Christian and Jewish travel literature. This and WP:Undue are sufficient grounds to elide the text. Irrelevant to a brief article on Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears I will have to repeat myself to an extent. I take issue with non-policy based deletions of relevant, properly sourced, reliable material, which describes all of Aaronshavit's deletions. I also take issue with irrelevant quotes (e.g. the one from Rodrigue), and silly insinuations (e.g. that Jews "hurled numerous insults" at their Muslim rulers). I also take issue with personal comments, like the one about my "unfamiliarity with a certain vein of literature". It was a comment about the contributor, not the content: stop denying it, and don't do it again. However, I do not take issue with the sole actual policy based objection, that of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, my habit is to look at the material an editor deletes, and make my own independent judgement on the material. I don't care who the editor is, and am not influenced much by his explanations. This material was (a) properly and (b) reliably sourced but (c) irrelevant. Whatever Aaronshavit's reasons for deleting or yours for preserving the material, my reason for suggesting it be deleted are that simply it is 'irrelevant'. Could I request the courtesy to not distort my words in such a way as to make me, suitably 'rephrased', appear anti-semitic. For the record:-

(a)'three communities hurling insults at each other' is one thing, I said it.

(b)'Jews 'hurled numerous insults' at their Muslim rulers' Your twisting of (a)

as to WP:NPA, if my colleague is not familiar with certain historical details, and I point to several, and he persists in not showing familiarity with these and other details, I do tend to suggest he or she read up the relevant literature, and I do hint that the person is not familiar with the literature. You challenged me once on this, said I was wrong, and when I cited Maimonides to show you were indeed unfamiliar with such material . .This is a civil prod, not a personal attack. I have large gaps in my knowledge, and if anyone pulls me up on these lacunae, I am invariably grateful, and take the reminder as a prompt to work harder, which is what we should all do. But enough of this. The material is irrelevant, aleatory, violates WP:Undue. I leave it to the community of long-time editors to determine for or against delete, since I do not edit here.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The material is quite obviously relevant to the topic; it's about Ottoman zoning policies in Jerusalem, and it's in the Ottoman section in the Jerusalem article. I have no idea what you're talking about re: Maimonides, nor do I care, since that truly is "irrelevant". The only argument you actually have is WP:UNDUE, which is a valid one. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That is obvious and yet ignores the point. Relevance has two senses. Everything in the historical record of Jerusalem or anywhere else is 'relevant' to the topic, that goes without saying. The problem was noted by Borges. Were historical writing commensurate with the facts of history, it would be impossible, for it would require a space of inscription coextensive with the dimension of historical time. One has to select, with severity. Much did occur under Ottoman rule, and there is no mention of it. Why mention this, of all imaginable things to cull from the literature? That is why my raising WP:UNDUE implicates, automatically, 'relevance' (not to a comprehensive history of Jerusalem) but to an extremely synthetic overview of the city such as is required by Wiki rules of article composition. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Relevance" is about original research, WP:UNDUE is about a neutral point of view. You have confused the two. Anything from a reliable source that directly discusses the history of Jerusalem is "relevant"; however, much, perhaps most of it does not belong in the article. One may exclude the information because it gives undue weight to an aspect of the history of the city, one may exclude the information because it is too detailed for an over-view article. Those are UNDUE arguments, they are not "relevance" arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that if Aaronshavit removed the passage using an edit summary referencing WP:UNDUE there might not be an objection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a not found error on the links to this. Anyone know where it's moved or got an alternative source for what it sibstantiates? In particular, I was wanting to verify when the Romans recaptured the city. An anon has changed the date in a recent edit.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The section has 2 issues I can see:

• It says that the light rail will be completed in January 2009, which is wrong. The date should be August 2010, AFAIK. The problem is finding an up-to-date source.
• It makes no mention of the only current rail connection to Jerusalem, the Jaffa–Jerusalem railway.

I would correct these things myself, but due to the status of the article they should be immediately sourced and I can't look for sources right now. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the light railway thing. The section already mentions the Malha station, isn't that enough? -- Nudve (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Which was it, then? Jews banned until the 7th century, or the 4th century?

71.233.197.161 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no Archaeological section on the front page of the Jerusalem Article? Jerusalem is the largest archeological site in the world yet no section on the front page...there is far less archaeology in athens yet there is a prominent place in that article regarding archaeology. I suspect the reason is that the overwhelming arachaological evidence is that it shows very clearly that Jerusalem has always been a Jewish city and never an arab or christian centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.143.0 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Bible Unearthed" 2002 is a highly regarded book by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman on the archaeology of the Biblical period. It is cited a very respectable 82 times according to Google Scholar. www.amazon.com gives it a very respectable 111 reviews, of which 75% are 4star or 5star. Most of the things they say were mainstream in 1999 according to this mirrored Haaretz article by another top Israeli archaeologist, Ze'ev Herzog.

Jerusalem in 10th century BCE p.142 "finally to understand why Jerusalem and Judah are so poor in finds in the tenth century. The reason is that Judah was still a remote and undeveloped region at that time. ... The land was overwhelmingly rural - with no trace of written documents, inscriptions, or even signs of the kind of widespread literacy that would be necessary for the functioning of a proper monarchy. ... Jerusalem itself was, at best, no more than a typical highland village. We can say no more than that ... about five thousand people scattered among Jerusalem, Hebron, and about twenty small villages in Judah, with additional groups probably continuing as pastoralists. ... in the tenth century, their rule extended over no empire, no palatial cities, no spectacular capital. Archeologically we can say no more about David and Solomon except that they existed"

Jerusalem and Judaism 7th century BCE p.2 "Henceforth, Jerusalem's Temple ... would be recognized as the only legitimate place of worship for the people of Israel. In that innovation, modern monotheism was born ... The built - up area of Jerusalem in the seventh century BCE covered an area ... about half the size of the present Old City of Jerusalem. Its population of around fifteen thousand ... hardly more than a small Middle Eastern market town ... Yet Jerusalem had never before been even as large as this."

David and Solomon's empire p.132 "As far as we can see on the basis of the archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated, and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages, and towns." and on p.238 "monumental inscriptions and personal seals - essential signs of a fully developed state - appear in Judah only two hundred years after Solomon, in the late eighth century BCE. Most of the known ostraca and inscribed weight stones - further evidence of bureaucratic record keeping and regularized trade standards - appear only in the seventh century ... now clear that Iron Age Judah enjoyed no precocious golden age. David and his son Solomon and the subsequent members of the Davidic dynasty ruled over a marginal, isolated, rural region, with no signs of great wealth or centralized administration."

Solomon's temple p.140 "the bit hilani palaces of Iron Age Syria - which were supposed to be the prototypes for the Solomonic palaces at Megiddo - appear for the first time in Syria in the early ninth century BCE, at least half a century after the time of Solomon. How would it have been possible for Solomon's architects to adopt an architectural style that did not yet exist?".

I'm no expert on any of this and don't plan to edit, but there is a lot more of the above available to anyone interested in improving the article. PR^talk 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a respectable source and yet very debatable. Its theory is not fully accepted in the Biblical archaeologist community. In any case, there is a common error saying that Finkelstein and Silberman deny the existence of the Jewish temple or the existence of the kingdom of Judah. In fact Finkelstein and Silberman acknowledge the common theories about the ancient Near East from around 700 BCE onwards. Their alternative historical account concerns three centuries, from around 1000 BCE to around 700 BCE. DrorK (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the hyphens in the triliteral root slm? Akkadian being commonly used by many peoples of the ANE we occasionally find it used by speakers whose background in other language groups gives rise to dialects of Akkadian. Certainly in the Amarna letters we have people writing in semitic Akkadian from the lands of Egypt, Hatti, Hurria, Amurru, Syria, and elsewhere whose prefixes, infixes, suffixes, gramatical markers, reduplicatian, ergativity and sDmf find their way in to the words but not so far as I know into the roots. Using hyphens in a root is not kosher Rktect (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, everything in the section needs proper referencing to authorities who make each claim. This is a bit of a minefield. I've made a couple of changes, added a couple of references, and found this which we can't use but is interesting: [11] dougweller (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)