Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resolution 478[edit]

Wisamzaqoot,

When changing an article, which has been stable for a while, and even received Featured Article status using its current phrasing, you need to tread lightly. If your edit is disputed by others, don't just revert. Use the talk page to explain why you think your edit would improve the article.

Why I reverted your edit:

  1. Your wording is wrong. The UN cannot rescind a country's laws.
  2. The lead deals with the controversy, says the status as capital is not recognized by most countries, and links to "Positions on Jerusalem" for more discussion of the issue.
  3. Resolution 478 is discussed in length in the section "Capital of Israel".
  4. The current phrasing is a result of endless discussions, and represents a consensus among many editors of different opinions. Don't trample over that consensus.

okedem 09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "cluster" consisting of the North, East and South of a city[edit]

There is a sentence in the third paragraph, "The Arab population is clustered in the north, east and south." I have no experience of the geography or demographics of Jerusalem, but how can a cluster consist of the North, East and South of a city? This sentence is either ambiguous or incorrect. It would be incorrect if the Northern, Eastern and Southern areas of the city were dominated by Arabs. It would be ambiguous if there are separate clusters of Arabs in the separate quarters of the city. Regardless, the sentence needs to be clarified. Robert Ham 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fixed now Robert Ham 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI. Jerusalem categorization[edit]

Please see related discussion at

Discussion is now archived here: [1]
It lists many examples of this still-ongoing POV campaign. --Timeshifter 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call this a POV campaign. -- tariqabjotu 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have called it that. Tewfik is still removing articles and categories from Category:Disputed territories. He is even removing maps. Anything that indicates that Jerusalem is disputed territory. --Timeshifter 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial categorisation[edit]

Attempts have recently been made to categorise a number of Jerusalem-related categories and topics in various categories, some more controversial than others, and many of them not in line with categorising conventions (a partial example: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). As subcategories and entries of this article should only include content accepted by the consensus on this page, I've present the issues here for discussion. Most salient to my mind are whether Jerusalem be classified as in the West Bank (as opposed to East Jerusalem, which is already in that category), and does Jerusalem belong in Category:Disputed territories (again, as opposed to East Jerusalem, which does)? Eagerly awaiting feedback. TewfikTalk 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disputed territories. According to the article on Territorial disputes, a territorial dispute is either between two states, or "one state after it has conquered it from a former state no longer currently recognized by the occupying power." Strictly according to this definition, Jerusalem cannot be a disputed territory because the Palestinians have no state, and the prior occupying power, Jordan, ceeded its claims to the PLO. The PLO does not constitute a state at present.
However, this definition goes contrary to common sense. Of course Jerusalem is a disputed territory. The problem is whether or not Category:Disputed territories adheres to a strict definition of "disputed territory", or to common sense. If it adheres to a strict definition, perhaps a new category should be created; something along the lines of Category:Land with disputed control, which adheres to common sense. Robert Ham 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia prioritizes for the common meanings of terms over other meanings. Other categories that apply are Category:Divided cities and Category:Cities in the West Bank. For more info see the WP:ANI discussion linked in the previous talk section, and also Category talk:Jerusalem. I believe these examples are very relevant:
Having said that, I don't think I'm entirely right. Part of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, is a disputed territory. In considering whether it's legitimate to say "Jerusalem is a disputed territory", the issue, really, is whether East Jerusalem is big enough that its disputed status justifies the whole of Jerusalem being considered disputed; whether its disputed status is a major influence of considerations of the whole. The problem is that such a judgement is entirely subjective. However, I suspect that most people would agree that the disputed territory is very much a major influence on considerations of the whole. Robert Ham 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed part of Jerusalem is very much a consideration of the whole world. The disputed territory status of part of Jerusalem is a major obstacle to Mideast peace. The Al-Aqsa Intifada was sparked (planned or not) by Ariel Sharon's visit to a disputed part of Jerusalem. For more specific info about the disputed parts of Jerusalem, these articles have more info: List of East Jerusalem locations and Positions on Jerusalem.--Timeshifter 02:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is folly to claim that Jerusalem is not "disputed territory." Regardless of the motivations or legitimacy of the claims of either side, Jerusalem is a territory whose ownership is under bitter dispute, and is internationally recognized as such. It would be lunacy for Wikipedia to deny this fact on the grounds that it is somehow "offensive." FCYTravis 04:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories section 1[edit]

It belongs in both Category:Cities in the West Bank and Category:Disputed territories. The former is quite clear-cut as Jerusalem is in the West Bank. Saying that is not espousing a POV, but rather stating a fact verifiable by any map. It does not matter that the whole city is not in the West Bank. Regarding the latter category... although East Jerusalem is more disputed than West Jerusalem, the city as a whole is still disputed (in the layman's meaning of the word "disputed") and includes East Jerusalem anyway. -- tariqabjotu 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, who disputes Israel's claims to West Jerusalem? Robert Ham 10:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom, because it's view is that Jerusalem should have been the centre of aCorpus separatum and that both the Israeli and Jordanian seizures of parts of the city broke international law.
Iran and other nations/groups that dispute Israel's (aka in this context as The Zionist Entity's) claim to any territory whatsoever.--Peter cohen 12:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all undue weight. And also wrong. The UK's position is:

"HMG’s formal position is based on the 1950 statement: it recognises that Israel exercises de facto authority in West Jerusalem and, from 1950 to 1967, recognised that Jordan exercised de facto authority in East Jerusalem. Since the war of 1967, HMG has regarded Israel as being in military occupation of East Jerusalem, and in this connection subject to the rules of law applicable to such an occupation, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. HMG also holds that the provisions of Security Council Resolution 242 on the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war applies to East Jerusalem. The Venice Declaration and subsequent statements (both by the UK alone and with EU partners) have made clear that no unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are valid. The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should not again be divided. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties" - in other words de facto recognition of west jerusalem, not wanting to divide the city again (which is pretty positive towards Israel's cause) and accepting 242 and Oslo which also both accept Israel's rule over west Jerusalem). Amoruso 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your source states: "The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should not again be divided." --Timeshifter 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Later note. The emphasized part in the above quote is not in the current official UK page [10].--Timeshifter 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not in the official page. That's why I closed down the quoting signs and said "in other words". You really added nothing and just repeated what i said. Are you playing stupid in order to manipulate people ? Weird . Amoruso 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you put it in quotes. Here is the diff [11] of what you wrote (before you possibly make any changes to it). But let me help you out of the hole you are digging yourself into. I have found a couple official UK pages that cover the status of Jerusalem. One has "but considers that the city should not again be divided" and one does not. Here is the page with it: [12].--Timeshifter 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not your bold comment at the end of it. The clause but considers that the city should not again be divided does not appear on the UK website version, which is smack in the middle of your quote. Can you explain what version you used which has that phrasing, or did you introduce that into the quoted "quote" section yourself? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is included in several other locations (among them this location). Either way, Amuroso, your suggestion that Time was "playing stupid" was totally uncalled-for. Even if he was talking about your unquoted bold statement, mistaking that for part of your quote does not make someone "stupid". Now, can you please address my question below as to why you believe saying Jerusalem is in the West Bank is both false and offensive? -- tariqabjotu 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, the source I used was this: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1057335917798 , the first one in google btw for "united kingdom position on jerusalem". I don't think it was uncalled for. Saying that the emphasized part is not part of the UK position is really pretending to be extremely naive, like any reader would think otherwise. I understand that Timeshifter made Allegations that I misquoted or something silly like that, so firstly I'm expecting a formal apology from Timeshifter for making such an accusation. Now, to your question, Jerusalem is not in the west bank I would say for 3 reasons: Amoruso 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied higher up, too. There are a couple official UK pages on Jerusalem, at least. They are very close in what they say, but differ one from the other. So I was accurate in saying that it was not part of the official UK position. Because it seems that position varies depending on the UK web page.--Timeshifter 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more accurate to say that it is probably part of the UK position but the FCO are so incompetent that they can have basically the same text with small but significant differences on different parts of their website which can act as petrol on the flames in already heated situations such as the debate going on on this page and elsewhere. --Peter cohen 12:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. You say that your suggestion that Time was stupid was not uncalled-for, but you want Time to apologize for something he did not even say? He did not say the emphasized part was not part of the UK position and he did not "[make] allegations that [you] misquoted". I'm not asking you to apologize to Time for calling him stupid (or now "extremely naive"), but asking him to issue a "formal apology" to you is preposterous. Him pointing out the different wording was entirely valid. -- tariqabjotu 21:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the allegation was made by Peter Cohen, not Timeshifter. See WP:ANI. Therefore it's Peter Cohen who should apologize. It may have been simply miscommunication and misunderstanding between Timeshifter and I. Peter Cohen's behavior is however not excusable. Amoruso 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology has been posted where allegation originally made.--Peter cohen 12:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

categories section 2[edit]

(1) Geographically speaking, much of Jerusalem isn't. Therefore simply because East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem doesn't make Jerusalem a candidate for the category. If it did we could put Israel, the middle east, Asia and the entire Planet Earth in the west bank as well. There IS an article entitled East Jerusalem - that article is in West Bank - why isn't it enough ?? Amoruso 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso. Please see the first 2 paragraphs of B'Tselem - Legal Status of East Jerusalem and its Residents. --Timeshifter 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) East Jerusalem in itself is problematic as an article in a category called West Bank. The reason is that the Camp David Accords, the Madrid delegation and the Oslo Process 1+2+Cairo+Wye all emphasized that there WAS a difference. While the West Bank is synonymous in many circles including some articles in wikipedia for Occupied West Bank territory and Israel in its negotiations in the past with the Palestinians conceded almost the entire territory, East Jerusalem clearly wasn't. Therefore it's not just a geographical term, it's a political term. The west bank is in fact first and foremost a political term, since geographically it only means west bank of the river Jordan and includes parts of the Golan Heights as well as Southern Israel (not disputed I hope). Therefore, since it's a political term coined by Jordan (or possibly the bible in some other meaning) and used in the course of the Palestinian territory, it's controversial enough for use in East Jeruslaem and obviously not in Jerusalem article. As well as being like aforesaid totally redundant. Amoruso 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso. Please see the first 2 paragraphs of B'Tselem - Legal Status of East Jerusalem and its Residents. --Timeshifter 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(3) West Bank and Gaza are also called in Wikipedia and different circles as "Palestinian territories". Sure, that may include East Jerusalem going by the Green Line or those Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. BUT, the idea is also closely related to demographics. In contrast to the Gaza strip and West Bank, East Jerusalem is not overwhelmingly Arab and in fact according to some statistics has a Jewish majority. Jerusalem in its entirety has an overwhelming Jewish majority. Since West Bank is defined and cateogrised as Palestinian territories (even as PALESTINE sometimes, see Talk:Palestine and endless debates), it will be short of ludricous to include JERUSALEM as a Palestinian territory. I think it's clear it won't make any sense and confuse the reader seeing capital of Israel as part of an entity called Palestine or PNA in wikipedia. Amoruso 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From B'Tselem - East Jerusalem: "At the end of 2005, the population of Jerusalem stood at 723,700: 482,500 Jews (67 percent) and 241,200 Palestinians (33 percent). About 58 percent of the residents live on land that was annexed in 1967 (45 percent of whom are Jews, and 55 percent Palestinians)."--Timeshifter 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my opinion. Cheers, Amoruso 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your slippery slope argument is entirely fallacious. You are suggesting that because only part of the city is in the West Bank, that will lead to us adding Category:Countries in the West Bank (which does not exist) to Israel, Category:Regions in the West Bank (which does not exist) to Middle East, Category:Continents in the West Bank (which does not exist) to Asia, Category:Planets in the West Bank (which does not exist) to Earth. Aside from the fact those categories don't exist, they also do not make sense. Asia is not in the West Bank; the West Bank is in Asia. Similarly, I am currently in the United States, but the United States is not in me. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not fallacious. I'm not saying what you're trying to say. The point is that Category:West Bank can be added to Category:Jerusalem, Category:Israel, Category:Middle East, Category:Asia, Category:Earth. The use of the word "in" is insignificant here. Without the word "in" it will all be true. West Bank areas exist in all these places. But they shouldn't be there. Therefore your example doesn't help you... the problem is of course that Categories:Cities in the west bank for Jerusalem is wrong too. It is actually Categories:Cities parts of which are in the west bank and then it's also Category:Countries parts of which are in the West Bank, Category:Continents parts of which are in the West Bank, Category:Planets, parts of which are in the West Bank Amoruso 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about Category:West Bank; we're talking about Category:Cities in the West Bank, which is more specific. Even still (for argument's sake). Category:West Bank is a sub-category of Category:Palestinian territories, which is a sub-category of the Category:Middle East, which is a sub-category of Category:Asia, which is a sub-category of Category:Continents, which is a sub-category of Category:Earth. Categorizing an article in both a sub-category and its parent is against WP:CAT and in this case, there's no need for an exception. As for the second half of your comment, Turkey is in both Category:European countries and Category:Southwest Asian countries. Egypt is in Category:East Africa. Azerbaijan is in both Category:Eastern Europe and Category:Southwest Asian countries. -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Therefore it's not just a geographical term, it's a political term." Perhaps. But conversely (presuming, of course, it is a political term), "It's not just a political term, it's a geographic term." If you look at the West Bank and the East Jerusalem article, a geographic usage of the term (on Wikipedia) is applied quite often. I also am not convinced the Oslo Accords and Camp David Accords "emphasized that there WAS a difference"; they both appear quite ambiguous to me on that matter. I don't think it's really important, but East Jerusalem is mostly Arab and Jerusalem as a whole is not "overwhelmingly" Jewish, particularly because the Jewish percentage has been decreasing for decades now. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, you didn't really relate to any of the points. Amoruso 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted one of your points at the beginning of my paragraph. I believe you're ignoring the West Bank as a geographic term in favor of using West Bank as a political term, which is basically how you formed your second and third paragraphs. If it fit neither usage, that would be great. But the city certainly fulfills the geographic term, which is used rather commonly on the encyclopedia where this debate is occurring (i.e. here, on Wikipedia). -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

categories section 3[edit]

That source makes it sound like the UK may be leaning toward a form of the Corpus separatum solution proposed long ago in 1947. An internationally administered zone.
That means for now Jerusalem is still disputed territory. By the way, is this the current position of the UK? What is the source for your quote? And what is the date of the quote? --Timeshifter 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an extremely selective quotation from [13]. If the section THE UK POSITION ON JERUSALEM is read in full (and I urge all impartial editors to do so), then it is absolutely clear that the UK does not recognise Israeli sovereignty, only its de facto control. --Peter cohen 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your source also stated: "The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties"
East Jerusalem is still in the West Bank. The borders of the West Bank are determined by the Green Line. That remains true until ‘permanent status’ negotiations determine otherwise. So Jerusalem is still a city in both the West Bank and Israel.
Your source stated: "The Venice Declaration and subsequent statements (both by the UK alone and with EU partners) have made clear that no unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem are valid."
No unilateral declarations of Israel change the fact that Jerusalem is still a city in both the West Bank and Israel. --Timeshifter 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem is not a city in the West bank anyway. East Jerusalem is a territory, not city, one might refer to as part of West Bank, although West Bank is more of a political term and this is in violation of the Oslo Agreement which left the status of East Jerusalem to further negotiations. But... it all comes down to East Jerusalem article, not here. Amoruso 21:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. However, it also applies to Category:Cities in Israel. Specifically, it illuminates the fact that Jerusalem shouldn't be in Category:Cities in Israel, either. To put it in that category is to say that East Jerusalem is, in fact, a part of Israel. Given that the sovereignty of East Jerusalem is a highly controversial topic, placing Jerusalem in Category:Cities in Israel violates WP:NPOV. Robert Ham 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You're actually saying that Jerusalem isn't in Israel, because sovereignty over a portion of it is controversial? Apart from the fact that everything in the area is controversial to somebody, this discussion is getting nuttier and nuttier. Does it really serve the reader to find Jerusalem, of all places, not listed among the cities of Israel? By the way, the second revert was inadvertent - it looked like the first one hadn't registered. Hertz1888 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that; Amoruso is. His logic was regarding Jerusalem being in the West Bank, but the implication of the logical inverse is is to answer "Yes" to your question. And this is actually correct; Jerusalem *isn't* in Israel unless you count East Jerusalem as part of Israel. I don't. Some people do. It's a contentious issue. When someone edits articles to positively reflect their particular view, they violate WP:NPOV. Sooner or later, the issue comes down to "What do you mean by 'in'?" Perhaps that should be discussed; what, precisely, does "in" mean in "Cities in West Bank" and "Cities in Israel"?
Of course there's the pragmatic view as well, which is that, yes, of course Jerusalem is in Israel. But again, by the same argument, Jerusalem is, of course, in the West Bank. It depends on whether you're being strict or pragmatic, and what the user expects. The user expects it to be an unbiased reflection of the state of affairs. The most unbiased reflection is that Jerusalem is in both Israel and the West Bank.
And also by the way, the many reverts of mine were due to me getting a "Technical problem" error page in response to numerous submits; evidently the actually submitting wasn't erroneous. Robert Ham 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that strictly, in the geographic sense, part of Jerusalem is in the West Bank. On the pragmatic plane, however, Israel defacto annexed that area following the 1967 war, administers it as part of Israel without distinction from the rest of the city, and differently from the rest of the West Bank. So while for 19 years East Jerusalem was administered by Jordan as part of the West Bank, for the next 40 years it has been pragmatically part of Israel and separated from the WB, which is why [aside from the points I raised in my previous posting, to which I'd also like to hear some suggestions] the status quo where East Jerusalem is categorised in the WB, while the main entry not, appeals to me. TewfikTalk 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing control of the city with the city. Control of Jerusalem has moved but the city has stayed where it is. Again, this comes back to what's meant by "in" in Category:Cities in Israel and Category:Cities in the West Bank. The common sense interpretation is geographical, not political. (Perhaps the problem here stems from the fact that there's rarely any need to distinguish between the two meanings.) So, using the common sense geographical interpretation, as you yourself conceed, part of Jerusalem is in the West Bank. Everything else in your argument is irrelevant. It would apply to Categories:Cities controlled by Israel but that isn't what we're discussing. Robert Ham 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that I'm not confused; you were differentiating between technical and pragmatic definitions, and I clarified that it is "technically" in WB, but that pragmatically, it wasn't controlled by Israel (as Ramallah or Bethlehem were), but was annexed to it, and administered separately. Either way, the main substance of my position is explained in my other comments, and this was just a clarification. TewfikTalk 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I haven't differentiated between technical and pragmatic definitions. I have differentiated between geographical and political definitions. Using the words "technical" and "pragmatic" is not a good idea; do you mean geographically technical, politically technical, militarily technical? The words are ambiguous. They aren't mutually exclusive. Using these words makes it unclear what you're talking about. Meanwhile, the words "geographical" and "political" are quite specific in this instance and don't lead to ambiguity or confusion.
You seem to be using the word "technical" to refer to geographical interpretation of the word "in", and "pragmatic" to refer to political interpretation. If this is so, your response does not contradict my arguments; it's simply an expansion of your previous political arguments when the issue is whether or not political arguments are appropriate. The phrases "controlled by Israel" and "annexed to Israel" are both political. Are you arguing that the word "in" in Category:Cities in Israel and Category:Cities in the West Bank should be interpreted politically, in contradiction to the common sense geographical interpretation? If so, why?
And as a point of order, is it too much to ask to indent responses properly? Your comment was clearly in response to mine, but you indented it as though it was a response to a comment further up. This reduces clarity, introducing the opportunity for confusion. I've corrected the indentation. Robert Ham 08:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See #Editing Problems --Peter cohen 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From B'Tselem - Legal Status of East Jerusalem and its Residents: "Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km, was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel. Prior to 1967, therefore, most of the area comprising present-day Jerusalem was not part of the city (West or East), but rather part of the West Bank."--Timeshifter 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories section 4[edit]

I'm adding Category:Divided cities based on comparisons with Nicosia, Berlin etc. In Berlin's case, West and East Berlin are both members of the category and Category:Berlin is a subcategory. As West Jerusalem doesn't have it's own article but redirects to the article here, I think that the main Jerusalem article is West Berlin's analogue. --Peter cohen 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not divided. It was united in 1967. If those categories are created add them in. Until then it's irrelevant. Amoruso 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This remark nearly makes me throw up from the laughing. You really bring THIS as an argument? You really expect pro-Palestinians to say "oh, you're right, the city was in 1967, I forgot that!" ... LOL. --Eidah 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact it was united... the question is whether it's good or not. But it's not divided. Really read before replying. Amoruso 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also please remember WP:CAT and I suggest stop adding so heated controversial categories with so litte support. Amoruso 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorising Jerusalem as in Israel and as a capital is just as controversial as categorising it as in the West Bank. It would be ridiculous to remove every category because one group of extremists or another might be offended. You also failed to actual address my reasoning for the Category:Divided cities.--Peter cohen 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, why don't you present a couple reasons why "Category:Cities in the West Bank" and "Category:Disputed territories" do not apply here. I have seen you call the categories "offensive", suggest that one is false, and claim the other is redundant. Well, I'm dying to hear why you believe informing readers that Jerusalem is partially (and, it appears, mostly) in the West Bank is offensive (and why that matters in the first place). The same goes for the "Disputed territories" bit. I also am puzzled as to why you believe saying Jerusalem is in the West Bank is false. As this map shows, Jerusalem most certainly is in the West Bank. Remember, this article is not just about West Jerusalem, it's about all of Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to you extensively above why both these cateogries are wrong. The real question is why do you want to add disputed territories to both articles ? It's a violation of WP:CAT since East Jerusalem is included in Jerusalem anyway. That's a waste of categorizing, although the article says wikipedia is not a tree form, in here it's an open and shut case. You can add Category:PLACES in West Bank and Category:Disputed territories to East Jerusalem article. Why isn't that enough ??? Amoruso 21:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of which part of WP:CAT is that a violation? Also, I'm not sure Category:Places in the West Bank is a good idea because that would allow landmarks (for instance) to be added to the category; I don't believe that's your intention. I still don't understand why you find the categories offensive, or now why this is an open-and-shut case; as this talk page shows, there are quite a few people who disagree with you. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you reply first why you feel it's important Category:Disputed territories be both in Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. It's polite to answer other people's questions before throwing away more. Amoruso 23:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso. Parts of West Jerusalem today were annexed from the West Bank. See my previous quote from B'Tselem - Legal Status of East Jerusalem and its Residents. --Timeshifter 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh My God, you're not being serious are you ??? Read the paragraphs again. B'Tselem is simply calling Jerusalem "West Jerusalem" meaning Israel took parts of "east Jerusalem" and incorporated it into Greater Jerusalem. These parts are still in the east and they're part of East Jerusalem. Do you even understand what Israel did ? That there's one municipality ? That the city is united under one rule and that there is no East and West, border, checkpoint or anything... it's simply eastern and western parts geographically. Sorry if I sound pissed, but really, these kind of arguments are fundamentaly simply false. Amoruso 07:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered farther down in the talk section titled "East and West Jerusalem. Parts annexed from West Bank".--Timeshifter 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso is right. You are all basing your information on sources that have a clear agenda. None of you have any idea of what is really going on here. Your battle over categorizations is ridiculous. You people must be very bored. --Gilabrand 07:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, don't go down this road. You didn't answer my question about why these categories are offensive either (and I'm not going to refuse to respond to you until you do) and I was in the middle of answering your question anyway. -- tariqabjotu 23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Because you asked... I'm not going to lose sleep if these categories are not added to this article (or Category:Jerusalem). I just don't like when people unnecessarily accuse others of "sneaky POV pushing" (I know you didn't say this one) or adding something "offensive" or "false" (or something to that effect), but don't feel obligated to come to the talk page to hash things out. Words like the ones I just mentioned poison the well and are not conducive to harmonious editing. Sorry if I'm grilling you on this matter, but I'm intentionally trying to get you explain the position you so harshly defended in edit summaries. -- tariqabjotu 23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories section 5[edit]

Since "sneaky POV pushing" is being brought up again, the reason that I termed it as such, whether you think I should or shouldn't have, was the long-term attempt to add so many challenged categories (including others relating to the Palestinian territories) to articles and categories relating to Jerusalem, while until I initiated this discussion, avoiding repeated invitations to discuss the matter here, where broad editor-review could determine whether it represented the content included in this controversial but high-quality entry thus far. As for the actual question at hand, I granted heavy weight to the fact that these seemingly basic categories had not stuck to this entry thus far, which on an old and extensively discussed entry like this, usually indicates that there was some reasoning for it. While I'm not familiar with all of the compromises etc. reached prior to my involvement here, I would very much be interested in the opinions of some of the other regular contributors. As might be apparent from my phrasing above, I see additional problems from the inclusion of both Jerusalem and East Jerusalem in the same categories, especially given the suggestion by Peter cohen that "Jerusalem should be categorised as a disputed territory and as part of the West Bank, or the category of East Jerusalem should be re-instated". If the principle would work with a "Category:East Jerusalem", then it would also be appropriate for the page of the same name. TewfikTalk 07:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Tewfik. East Jerusalem is no longer an accurate term for the annexed territories taken from the West Bank that have become Jerusalem suburbs. Many of those suburbs are north and south of Jerusalem. Se we would need a category named "Category:East-North-South Jerusalem." That category could then become a subcategory of Category:Disputed territories according to your reasoning. See the talk section (with maps) farther down called "East and West Jerusalem." It makes more sense to put Jerusalem in Category:Disputed territories.

Tewfik. You are still removing List of East Jerusalem locations from Category:Disputed territories. Here is the latest diff: [14]. Your edit summary was "I'll grant the [POV] map until a better one can be found, but this is still a 'list', and not a 'territory' ( East Jerusalem, OTOH, is so categorised)". Locations are territories according to the general sense of the term. See:

Tewfik. You also recently removed Category:Jerusalem from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. Please see this diff [15]. Jerusalem is not part of the Jerusalem Governorate??? --Timeshifter 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories section 6[edit]

tariqabjotu, it seems to me you're an honest editor. The reason that this was offensive and inappropriate is because nobody provided any valid reason why Category:Disputed territories should be both in East Jerusalem and Jerusalem. That's overly redundant and can only mean to imply that Jerusalem as a whole is disputed, which is not. That's really not sincere by anyone suggesting to use it using new excuses all the time (see lame suggestion at the top that parts of the west bank were "annexed" to West Jerusalem - ridicilous sentence not worthy of commenting - a misreading of the material I believe). So really I think that this is a issue where certain people may wish to delegetimize the State of Israel by inventing new disputes. Readers should be aware of Security Council Resolution 242. This SC resolution is binding upon Israel, all Arab States and the Palestines, since all these parties accepted the resoultion (!) It states that the basis for a peace treaty is Land for Peace for territories captured in 1967. Therefore - this is not a "quote" but the only conclusion - there is no dispute over areas captured before 1967, since they agree to a peace treaty only for areas post 5th June 1967. So if people will continute to bring excuses that the UK only "de facto" recognizes Jerusalem, then until UK becomes an enemy of Israel, these excuses have no place in wikipedia since they're not a party to the territorial dispute. Nor is the regime in Iran btw. Hope that clarifies it, Cheers, Amoruso 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - the Corpus Separatum idea is long dead. Even if it were implemented, after 10 years a referendum would have been conducted among the residents, to determine the fate of the city (continue the UN rule, annex it to one of the countries, divide it). No one actually holds on to that one, and Israel's control of the pre-1967 areas of Jerusalem is widely recognized.
Also, as anyone who visits Jerusalem can see, the "Divided cities" category has no place here - Jerusalem is one city, it's not divided in any way - it's all under Israeli rule, and you can't even see where the border used to be. okedem 11:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the Corpus separatum - See the talk section farther down called "East and west Jerusalem." From Taba summit: "Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians the idea of creating a special international regime for the "Holy Basin" -- an area including the Old City and some areas outside the walls including the Mount of Olives cemetery."--Timeshifter 12:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an area of 1KM squares in east jerusalem (!) Amoruso 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even the official Palestinian proposal is not to divide the city in any way municipally, but rather to have sovereignty over some parts including the old city keeping movement completely free and transparent. Amoruso 12:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Divided cities and the explanation at the top. Also look at Category:Divided cities and expecially the three entries to do with Berlin which has similar properties to Jerusalem as having free movement etc. Unlike, East Jerusalem and East and West Berlin, West Jerusalem does not have its own entry but is a redirect. Therefore the category tag that belongs there will have to end up on the redirected location. --Peter cohen 12:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shall follow the Berlin example. But the redirect is wrong and does not equal this page. Having it both on west and east jerusalem is not necessary since west jerusalem is not a widely known term like east jerusalem. Both East Berlin and West Berlin have a lot of content. West Jerusalem not - it can be incorporated into East Jerusalem for example... the point is that the unified city (Jerusalem/Berin etc) don't use the category because it's too confusing since categories don't refer to the historical nature of the place and will mislead the reader. Amoruso 14:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute about Jerusalem territories is ongoing. Berlin is history. And East Berlin is an accurate term. East Jerusalem is an inaccurate term. Especially as more and more of the West Bank north and south of Jerusalem are put behind the separation barrier and become even more as suburbs of Jerusalem. See Israeli West Bank barrier. See the talk section farther down called "East and West Jerusalem."--Timeshifter 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind everyone that the controversy is not limited to East Jerusalem or for that matter only Jerusalem. Hamas and other organizations consider all of Israel to be disputed, notwithstanding other organizations' positions that only East Jerusalem, or Jerusalem as delineated by the UNSCOP recommendation, etc., be considered controversial. Anything that is disputed by anyone is arguably disputed. It's pretty clear that among all territories outside the 1949 armistice lines, eastern parts of Jerusalem is in a separate category from areas on the West Bank. --Leifern 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true about Easy Jerusalem being in a separate category. It was a key point of contention at the last peace summit, the Taba Summit. It is probably the most disputed territory. It will probably be traded for other land, etc. if future negotiations follow the same pattern as the last ones. But that still makes it disputed territory that is in play in regards to trading it for something else. Hamas claims for any parts of the state of Israel within the Green Line are much less important. Those lands are not disputed much anymore by the rest of the world. --Timeshifter 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing problems[edit]

Anyone else experiencing problems with editing the main article? Two days in a row I've had difficulties where my changes have been posted but then Wikipedia can't display the updated page. --Peter cohen 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had difficulty at times in getting the page to load. It could be typical wikipedia server overload. Another possibility; the wikipedia servers are in Florida, I believe. The USA has laws allowing it to do surveillance of all foreign telephoning, email, internet activity. Especially when it uses any U.S. servers, networks, etc.. Do you live outside the USA? See also:
http://news.google.com/news?q=internet+surveillance
I have been a U.S. activist a long time concerning many issues. I long ago resigned myself to the fact the the U.S. government listens to whatever it wants anytime it wants. Laws or no laws. And they don't always use the best equipment. So delays and screwups on their part are common. And I believe some of them enjoy letting you know they listen in at times. There are so many branches of law enforcement that they can usually find a way to do it in such a way that they don't get hassled by other branches of law enforcement and intelligence. I ignore it. :) --Timeshifter 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the UK. I do occasionally have trouble overload elsewhere on wikipedia and lose a whole chunk of typing, but it seems to be only here where my edit happens and I don't get the return display.--Peter cohen 17:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When that happens to me, I usually can retrieve that chunk of typing by clicking the back button at the top of the browser. Then I copy my text to Notepad2, the freeware text editor I use when I am in a hurry. It opens very fast. Then I reload the wikipedia page, and look to see if my text made it into the article. If it did not, then I start over, and click the edit button. I paste in the text from Notepad2 and see if I can save it. If not, I do other projects for awhile, and come back to it later. I have the Notepad2 text still sitting around for use later. --Timeshifter 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most browsers use tabs these days. In cases of an edit-conflict (or this problem, which I've never had), click on <<BACK>> and open another tab on the ARTICLE or DISCUSSION page. Paste from the first tab to the second tab. PalestineRemembered 06:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on the assorted advice. I know I'm less likely to lose lots of changes if I preview regularly as I work on the article. Something which would also help reduce the number of times I have to retype things, but I still find myself hitting "Save page" by mistake. --Peter cohen 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see from recent comments that User:Hertz1888 and User:Robert Ham seem to be having similar difficulties. Is this a possible sign of a technical difficulty connected with the page?--Peter cohen 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that when editing the page, there is a warning that it is a large page and it may be worth breaking it into smaller articles. I suspect it's the size that's at issue, causing a timeout. Perhaps breaking the page up is a sensible idea.
I also note that the problems I had illuminate a functional bug with the Wiki code. There should be two "Technical difficulty" error pages, one in response to a normal page request and one in response to an edit submission, the latter making it clear that the edit was submitted and applied and needn't be sent again. Robert Ham 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is larger than the article page and I've not (yet) had similar problems here. I agree that clearer error message would help. --Peter cohen 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Robert Ham 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also now experiencing very long load times for the article. I just want to say high to my peeps in high places. Please protect America from those terrorist wikipedia editors spreading peace and other evil-doings through an informed public. ;) --Timeshifter 14:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The saved Jerusalem article is 858 kilobytes. The saved Iraq War article has almost as many kilobytes, 741 kilobytes. The Iraq War article opened much faster. I opened it soon after I opened the Jerusalem article that took so long. I have cable broadband internet access. I am using the latest Firefox browser. I saved the articles to separate folders, and looked at the folder properties to get the kilobytes for each folder. --Timeshifter 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting.... :)
"CIA, FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits." Washington Post. August 16, 2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601727.html
Hmmm. "Just because you're paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you." --Timeshifter 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this in the HTML source code for the page: 

Pre-expand include size: 1115797 bytes
Post-expand include size: 354264 bytes
Template argument size: 197507 bytes
Maximum: 2048000 bytes

Does this help at all?

I also left a request for help here:

I believe there are way too many minor templates on the page. They should be substituted in my opinion. --Timeshifter 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso taken to RfC, notification here removed[edit]

I posted a notification of an RfC on User:Amoruso under the title "Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor?".

The notification was removed after 14 minutes with this diff by IP 62.215.3.45. This IP had made just 16 edits in the last 3 days (otherwise none since 2004, when there were 5). The behaviour of this IP at this diff, editing the comments of others, might be classed as "suspicious".

User:Amoruso has also removed the notification of the RfC from his own TalkPage, he did this after 10 minutes. PalestineRemembered 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembred, you're risking revival of your indefinite-time ban[edit]

I archived it on my talk page, didn't remove it PalestineRemembered,stop distrupting wikipedia. Your personal grudge over Patria disaster (!), really has nothing to do with Jerusalem and you're wasting webspace. Amoruso 07:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East and West Jerusalem. Parts annexed from West Bank[edit]

From B'Tselem - Legal Status of East Jerusalem and its Residents: "Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km, was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel. Prior to 1967, therefore, most of the area comprising present-day Jerusalem was not part of the city (West or East), but rather part of the West Bank."

Jerusalem was a major reason for the failure of the last peace negotiation summits. See Taba summit#Jerusalem:

"Jerusalem. Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Both sides favored the idea of an open city. The Israeli side accepted that Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states: Yerushalaim, capital of Israel and Al-Quds, capital of the state of Palestine. Both parties accepted the principle of respective control over each side's respective holy sites. Israel's sovereignty over the Western Wall would be recognized although there remained a dispute regarding the delineation of the area covered by the Western Wall and especially the link to what is referred to in Clinton's ideas as the space sacred to Judaism of which it is part. Both sides agreed that the question of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount has not been resolved."

See also: Taba summit#Summary:

"Jerusalem: Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians the idea of creating a special international regime for the "Holy Basin" -- an area including the Old City and some areas outside the walls including the Mount of Olives cemetery. The Palestinians rejected the proposal, insisting on Palestinian sovereignty instead."

"Territory and settlements: Israel reduced its demands to 6% with territorial compensation that would offset about 3%, while the Palestinians proposed an Israeli annexation of about 3% along with a territorial compensation of the same amount. The Israeli proposal would have given the Palestinians some 97% of the land area of the West Bank, but there was no final agreement."

So tell me again why Jerusalem does not belong in Category:Disputed territories?--Timeshifter 12:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

  • B'tselem's view: See my response above. Btselem call Jerusalem west Jerusalem because this what was in Israel's hands. In other words - "Israel took East Jerusalem and made it part of Israel" - this is what Btselem is saying simply replacing the word "Israel" with "West Jerusalem" which WAS Israel. See now ?
  • All the other quotes deal with East Jerusalem: The old city, the western wall, the temple mount...you proved the point. Only east jerusalem is disputed, and even only parts of it are - Palestinians usually do not demand evacuation of jewish neighborhoods in eastern jerusalem, they demand to have control over the arab neighborhoods AND the old city. You quoted it exactly - "Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods" (thanks) (they're all in east jerusalem). Amoruso 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of Jerusalem, no matter how you slice it, is disputed territory. Here is a map showing that "East" and "West" are slippery terms. Look at the Green Line on the map to see what I mean. Draw a line vertically through the middle of Jerusalem, and see that a lot of territory was annexed to West Jerusalem too. So this article needs to be listed under Category:Disputed territories. --Timeshifter 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Timeshifter - what do you mean annexed to West Jerusalem ? There's no place called West Jerusalem. There's Jerusalem, some parts of it yes are disputed - these parts have been dubbed East Jerusalem by the entire world. Slippery term ? Geographically ? That's how they're called - east jerusalem... Nothing was annexed to west jerusalem. See the colors, it's quite good map. All the grey stuff named "West Jerusalem" in the map was there before 1967. Then you have different colors for the jewish and the arab neighborhoods in east jerusalem. It's ok not to know this Timeshifter and I hope you now understand my friend. Amoruso 12:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Amoruso 12:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Here is another version of the map below. I put it at full size so that we can read the names of the suburbs and towns. The 2 maps are sometimes difficult to read and figure out what labels apply to what. For the SVG map it depends on the font size in your browser. The 2 maps together are more useful than just one of them. I see some annexed Jerusalem suburbs that are not within the boundary lines of East Jerusalem. See the previous map to see the legend for the maps. To the right is a map of the West Bank that shows the built up areas of Jerusalem that lie in the West Bank. See the gray shading. --Timeshifter 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, what used to be East Jerusalem, under Jordanian rule, is no longer relevant. Today the term "East Jerusalem" usually refers to everything that is currently a part of Jerusalem that was captured in 1967. When someone says "West Jerusalem", they're not talking strict geographical terms. No one would "Draw a line vertically through the middle of Jerusalem" - it's meaningless. "West Jerusalem" refers to the part of Jerusalem under Israeli control before 1967.
Your comments show that you know way too little on the subject. Your quotes also show that only East Jerusalem (areas captured in 1967, whether or not they were part of the municipal area of Jordanian Jerusalem) are in dispute. okedem 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, you see that red-pinkish border line ? The legend says this line signifies East Jerusalem boundary - this includes also parts that are more to the south etc. Now which suburbs are you referring to again ? You posted this map so study it please carefully first. Note the green bold line. Whatever is not in the green bold line but is in the red pinkish line is East Jerusalem. And this area consists all the disputed places. Nothing inside the green bold line (west jerusalem) is disputed. Cheers, Amoruso 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the East Jerusalem maps. Now the one with the legend is full size. It is now much easier for most readers here to understand the various lines drawn on the map. There are areas to the north and south that have been annexed into Jerusalem. It seems that the territory covered by the term "East Jerusalem" kept expanding as annexations occured. Even though the annexed areas were not east of Jerusalem.
See also B'Tselem - The Separation Barrier. It is an article with a link to a large PDF map of the West Bank that shows details of Jerusalem and surroundings. It shows some of the latest inclusions into Jerusalem. By including them behind the separation barrier. See the areas north of Ramot Alon. These latest additions are not within the East Jerusalem line on the talk page maps here.
My point is that "East Jerusalem" is a slippery, expanding, inaccurate term. Therefore the article Jerusalem should be put in Category:Disputed territories, Category:Cities in the West Bank, and Category:Cities in Israel. --Timeshifter 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat again - there are no annexed areas which are not called East Jerusalem. The map you posted makes it perfectly clear. What we have attempted to explain to you is that it doesn't matter if it's in the south or the north - it's all called East Jerusalem. The legend of the map you posted proves that, so stop contradicting yourself please. It is a very accurate political term for any area captured during the Six Days War in June 1967. That's how it's called and known by any legal, political and philosophical entity. Therefore adding it to Jerusalem is not only redundant but false. Amoruso 07:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must not have looked at the more recent PDF map:
http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf
It shows the annexed areas around Jerusalem. In more detail. It shows the expanding nature of the Jerusalem suburbs. It shows that the term "East Jerusalem" for those annexed areas is no longer accurate. --Timeshifter 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doens't show that at all. It shows exactly that East Jerusalem is for all areas annexed to Jerusalem whether it's in the south or the north - if it's annexed to jerusalem it's called east jerusalem, if not it's settlements in the west bank. I hope you begin to understand this. Amoruso 09:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Jerusalem area of the PDF map at high resolution. Note the "East" Jerusalem boundary line. Note that it is different from the "East" Jerusalem area of earlier maps on this talk page and elsewhere.
In any case large parts of Jerusalem are annexed from the West Bank, and it seems that annexation continued for a long time. So, Category:Disputed territories applies to Jerusalem, not just "East" Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below. okedem 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial edits[edit]

I was hoping, Tariq, that you could revert this vandalism and this spamming which were not caught before the page protection. TewfikTalk 06:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the second change, but the first edit you mentioned is not vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 06:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be vandalism, but it is not true. The Western Wall is an important religious site but it is only a retaining wall. The holiest site is at some currently unknown spot on the Temple Mount or near it. In fact, "holy sites" are a Christian idea. The caption should thus be changed, because as is, it is POV.--Gilabrand 07:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that I'll AGF that the IP wasn't trying to subvert the entry and [grudgingly] retract the the charge of vandalism, but as the change is not related to the conflict which resulted in the protection, I would hope that some remedy could be found... TewfikTalk 08:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The protection won't last much longer. If you want to change the wording, you are free to do so after it expires. -- tariqabjotu 06:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Jerusalem categories.[edit]

The campaign continues. Tewfik is again removing categories agreed to on the talk page there. See this diff: [16]. He is removing categories agreed to by Amoruso!

Yet Tewfik has not entered into the category discussion on the talk page. It is typical mindless deletion by Tewfik.

Amoruso agreed to adding these categories to the article:

See this diff: [17]. --Timeshifter 18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian territories" categories[edit]

Another deletion attempt concerning various "Palestinian territories" categories. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7 and Category:Palestinian territories. I also posted this at Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics and Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics.

Does anyone besides me see how all this POV-pushing looks like to many wikipedia readers? Few readers want to try to correct this obvious systemic bias due to all the incredible amounts of deletion and reversion that goes on in this topic area. So they give up. But in spite of that some more people need to step up and fight for WP:NPOV. And there needs to be some serious blocking and banning (short or longterm) of certain obviously tendentious editors. Some may call me that, but I usually thoroughly discuss any possibly controversial edits on talk pages. --Timeshifter 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of language is out of place. Stop threatening people. It seems that the one pusing his WP:POV and trying to include false categories in contradiction to your own evidence (!) see above posting a map and writing the opposite, is you. That is disruptive to wikipedia. Seriously, like user:Okedem said, if you're not an expert on East Jerusalem issues, why post here at all ? Cheers, Amoruso 07:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break. Maps of Jerusalem area[edit]

I have threatened no one. You may not have looked at this more recent map:
http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf --Timeshifter 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with this map, but it is unclear what you are pointing to in it. What does it prove? nadav (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't prove anything... it proves exactly the opposite of what Timeshifter is trying to say. It proves he's not familiar with the politics and of the term "East Jerusalem". He's contradicting himself. Amoruso 09:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the PDF map at high resolution. Look in the Jerusalem area. Look at the boundary lines. Compare them to the other maps on this talk page. Note the differences. Note the expansion of the "East" Jerusalem boundary line. --Timeshifter 11:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF doesn't even list an "East Jerusalem boundary line" in the legend. I think you are confusing the separation barrier line in the PDF with the municipal boundary in the map on this page. I think the PDF shows the municipal boundary in thin black, in which case it matches perfectly with the map we have here. okedem 14:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break. Continued expansion by further annexation of West Bank[edit]

(Unindent) The red line is the completed separation barrier. The dotted red line is the barrier under construction. The facts on the ground are that the suburbs and boundaries of Jerusalem are expanding as more and more of the West Bank is built up around Jerusalem as explained here:

If you look at the map one sees that the purple line surrounds yet more areas to be annexed behind future extensions of the separation barrier. "East" Jerusalem is an archaic term, and no longer applies to what is happening now. --Timeshifter 03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okedem explained the core of your continuous confusion above. A new header with further erroneous statements which could confuse the innocent reader is unnecessary. Please understand the material first. Any annexations to Jerusalem of area captured in 1967 are called "East Jerusalem". All other settlements in the West Bank are simply that. Also you seem not to know what the west bank barrier is. The fact that places are beyond or behind the barrier has nothing to do with annexation. Please seriously it is quite disruptive to make erroneous statements over and over after many users explained to you the terms. Your personal WP:OR about what's "archaic" or not should be better left to other venues. Amoruso 06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion and repetition on your part does not qualify as a Wikipedia:reliable source. It is up to you to show that "East Jerusalem" includes all the continuing annexation of West Bank land around Jerusalem. I am sorry to confuse you with the facts. Here are some more:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Separation_Barrier/Index.asp
"A major aim was to build the Barrier east of as many settlements as possible, to make it easier to annex them into Israel."
The PDF map shows the latest changes in the barrier in order to complete the annexation of Northwest Jerusalem suburbs in the West Bank. I have maps and reliable sources. You have what? --Timeshifter 06:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just noticed your actual straw man argument - "It is up to you to show that "East Jerusalem" includes all the continuing annexation of West Bank land around Jerusalem." - No one ever claimed this. Some areas of the West Bank were put under Jerusalem's jurisdiction. Some areas of the West Bank are included in the "Israeli" side of the separation barrier. Those areas are not the same. The map you placed on this page proves my point. Let it go. okedem 08:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the separation barrier annexes parts of the West Bank to both Jerusalem and other areas of Israel. I never said otherwise. Another straw man argument. Give it up.--Timeshifter 12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so this is the root of the problem. You seem to think that putting some areas behind the barrier annexes them to Jerusalem. Obviously you have no idea what a municipal boundary means. Look it up. Maybe then you'll understand. okedem 12:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is tiring. You have no idea what you're talking about, and your arguments don't make any sense.
There's something called a municipal boundary. It demarcates the area of jurisdiction of a city council (or local council). Anything beyond that - is not part of the city. Just like many cities border Tel Aviv (i.e. Ramat Gan), but are not a part of it.
The barrier has nothing to do with Jerusalem's municipal area. It's not "Jerusalem's municipal barrier". If you don't understand the meaning of municipal jurisdiction, don't engage in discussions about the subject. okedem 07:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another straw man argument. I did not say that the separation barrier was the same as the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. And in cities worldwide their suburbs are frequently expanding well beyond the central city and its municipal jurisdiction. The separation barrier goes a long way up and down the West Bank, anyway. So it obviously is not a municipal barrier. --Timeshifter 08:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you've said nothing at all.
Let me clarify this - the PDF you linked to does not list Jerusalem's municipal boundary in the legend. One can assume the boundary is the thin black line, around the highlighted area. If one assumes so, then the PDF map is in complete agreement with the map on this page. There is no more information to be gleaned from this map. okedem 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have a municipal boundary in the legend. One just has to look at the area around Jerusalem on the PDF map, and read about the suburbs in Wikipedia and elsewhere. One easily sees the continuing annexation of West Bank lands into the suburbs of Jerusalem. The wikipedia and other info elsewhere says that they are suburbs of Jerusalem. The info also points out the expanding nature of the separation barrier as more and more West Bank land is enclosed behind it. Including some more suburbs of Jerusalem. Lots of info on that map. You just have to know how to turn up the resolution of the map. And/Or be willing to do so.--Timeshifter 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the map at the maximum useful resolution. Your arguments make no sense at all.
I'll try to make this clear - the term "East Jerusalem" refers to the area inside Jerusalem's municipal boundaries which was not under Israel's control before 1967. It has nothing to do with the separation barrier. Just because an area of the West Bank is now included in the Israeli side of the barrier, doesn't mean it's part of Jerusalem.
Since the PDF map doesn't specify the municipal boundaries, it has no use in this discussion, since it is the municipal boundary of Jerusalem that we're talking about.
If you wish to continue along your current line of argument, please address the points above specifically, and provide an example of the "suburbs" of which you speak. Also, I should point out that someplace being a suburb means nothing when it comes to municipal boundaries - Bat Yam is a suburb of Tel Aviv, yet most definitely not a part of Tel Aviv. okedem 12:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating technicalities of municipal boundaries, and the reality of modern cities and their suburbs. That is why the Jerusalem article itself needs to be in Category:Disputed territories, and not just East Jerusalem. Sorry to demolish your carefully constructed straw man argument. --Timeshifter 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In an article about a city, you want to ignore municipal boundaries. So how do you determine what is part of a city and what isn't? By seeing it's close on a map?
Quite frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're wasting everyone's time here. okedem 08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter - you are trying to back up your arguments with information from an organization with an undisguised political agenda. I find it mindboggling how many people who have never been to Israel think they are big experts after reading something on a website.--Gilabrand 07:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All organizations and media have biases. Only the naive believe otherwise. I find it amusing that so-called experts such as yourself are so flustered by the facts of a map. --Timeshifter 08:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is even more amusing is your use of quotes like - "A major aim was to build the Barrier east of as many settlements as possible, to make it easier to annex them into Israel" as an example of the kind of neutral stance that Wikipedia is supposedly aiming for, and then cite "maps" that anyone and his (computer literate) grandmother can draw, to support these claims. I am flustered by the "facts of a map"? Gimme a break.--Gilabrand 08:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a very large, detailed map to me. Let us see you create such a detailed map. It is amusing to see you flounder around the edges, yet ignore the points. --Timeshifter 12:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable indeed. Timeshifter btw, your "source" which claims "A major aim was to build the Barrier east of as many settlements as possible, to make it easier to annex them into Israel. - that's in the future anyway by your biased source and it doesn't even say "annex them into JERUSALEM". Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball You're clearly been proven wrong by many users, I suggest you drop it. Cheers, Amoruso 11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am highly amused to see you grasping at straws. Read the B'Tselem articles, and also take a look at the right sidebar of those articles. There is much more info linked there. It is about the annexation of different parts of the West Bank, (past, present, and future) into both Jerusalem and other parts of Israel. I link to facts. You link to what? LOL. --Timeshifter 12:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't linked to any facts, and the link you posted doesn't help your cause at all. You have provided nothing. Your claim that any areas of the west bank were annexed to Jerusalem, except for the area called East Jerusalem, is your own fabrication. Amoruso 06:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The annexations of East Jerusalem, and further annexations of Jerusalem suburbs, from the West Bank are well-documented. For yet more maps: [18]. --Timeshifter 08:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop inventing annexations, and don't even talk about what is and what isn't a part of East Jerusalem, when you choose to ignore municipal boundaries, which are the key for all of this. okedem 08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, start providing sources for your claims. Posting various random links of random maps has nothing to do with the subject. Cheers, Amoruso 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Annexation#Jerusalem: "In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, in which Israel had captured East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, Israel declared East and West Jerusalem one united city, incorporating the eastern part into one municipality and awarding its residents with citizenship, but soon after declaring to the UN that its measures were not annexation. In 1980 Israel passed the Jerusalem Law, which redeclared the unity of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but did not declare its borders. Some consider the latter act annexation, but without explicit declaration of sovereignty this is in doubt."--Timeshifter 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you chose to bring a quote which clearly distinguishes between the West Bank and East Jerusalem. okedem 10:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Israel had to at least make a show of respecting world opinion as represented by the UN. So Israel had to say its measures were not annexation. So parts of Jerusalem are in the West Bank - even according to Israel. Certainly according to the UN. --Timeshifter 23:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? That doesn't even have anything to do with what I said.
Even worse, now you seem to be confusing legal, political concepts, such as annexations, with geographical divisions. okedem 06:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See later talk section titled: #Maps of Greater Jerusalem and West Bank. --Timeshifter 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in the West Bank[edit]

I added this, given that there seemed to be no response to the previous assertion that the common sense geographical interpretation of "in the West Bank" means that Jerusalem belongs within Category:Cities in the West Bank. This was reverted by User:Amoruso citing "previous discussions." Seeing as the issue clearly isn't resolved, I'll ask the simple question, primarily aimed at Amoruso:

Why should Jerusalem not be included in Category:Cities in the West Bank, given that the common sense geographical interpretation of "in the West Bank" means it belongs in the category? Robert Ham 12:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, several of the objections have not been answered. I think my comment ("As for the actual question at hand, I granted heavy weight") encapsulates many of the issues. TewfikTalk 19:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which objections? Could you restate them here for clarity? Robert Ham 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the talk section that Tewfik is referring to: #Categories section 5. --Timeshifter 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you restate the objections here for clarity? (Specifically, the objections as opposed to the discussion.) Robert Ham 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Ham, please read the entire discussion above, there have many refrences to this (false category). While East Jerusalem may be considered part of West Bank (although that in itself is disputed and usually referred to as "East Jerusalem" purposely as something else than the West Bank - including the Oslo Agreements where Jerusalem issues were left in the negotitations to a later stage - read here:[19] it repeatedly says "West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem" - that means it's 3 distinct places. - Jerusalem is not a West Bank city. Just because parts of it may be (controvesially) be part of the west bank, it doesn't make the city a city in the west bank. This was explained thoruoghly above. The category needs to serve a purpose and there's no point in arguing semantics over such an inappropriate cateogry. how can you seriously expect this category to be insereted when it's ultimately a sub category of Category:Palestinian Territories ? Jerusalem is not of any west bank municipality. It's not under a Palestinian Mayor as opposed to the real cities in the category such as Bethlehem, Nablus and Jenin and it's not a Settlement - Jewish city in the west bank since most of it is before 1967. It's obviously not the right category therefore and can only be induced as a redundant political POV category by some. Amoruso 06:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of Jerusalem are geographically in the West Bank. We are not talking politically. So at a minimum it should be in Category:West Bank. There are several cities worldwide that straddle 2 states, 2 nations, etc.. --Timeshifter 08:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, I see no reason to seriously consider comments from a person who disregards the concept of municipal boundaries in an article about a city. You've shown you have no understanding of the points discussed. okedem 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you continue to disregard the fact that parts of Jerusalem (whether behind municipal boundaries or the separation barrier) are in the West Bank. See Oslo Accords quote farther down. --Timeshifter 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you may think, just because something is on the Israeli side of the barrier, doesn't mean it's part of Jerusalem. The municipal boundaries are the only relevant thing when it comes to discussing the territory of a city. okedem 10:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. When discussing a city the common meaning oftentimes includes the suburbs. And in any case it is not relevant to the question at hand. That being whether parts of Jerusalem are geographically in the West Bank. There is no question that parts of Jerusalem behind its municipal boundary are in the West Bank. The same is true for the suburbs. --Timeshifter 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes necessarily. You don't get to invent meanings, or ignore borders. And don't claim "There is no question". There most definitely is - as many claim that Jerusalem and the West Bank are two different entities, as evidenced by some sources. okedem 06:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one inventing meanings and borders. Specifically, the West Bank border. --Timeshifter 06:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Your arguments are muddled beyond the point of logical claims.
The Oslo agreements show Jerusalem is considered separate from the West Bank. If you have any actual sources, not maps with suburbs you imagine to be part of Jerusalem, show them. okedem 07:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See later talk section titled: #Maps of Greater Jerusalem and West Bank. --Timeshifter 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso, I'd like to restate your objections as I understand them. This will illuminate any confusion. Could you confirm that these are indeed your objections, or correct them where they are wrong?
1. The Oslo Agreements are definitive. In them, the phrase "West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem" is used in various places. This implies that the named entities are geographically distinct and none can be considered to overlap with, or be contained within, any other. Therefore, it is not possible for Jerusalem to be "in" the West Bank.
2. (With the proviso that boundaries are both controversial and possibly undefined.) The boundaries of Jerusalem intersect with the boundaries of the West Bank. This means that some parts of Jerusalem are inside the West Bank, and some parts are outside. The use of "Cities in" categories is only meant for cities entirely contained within the object. Therefore, because parts of Jerusalem are outside of the West Bank, it is not a candidate for inclusion in Category:Cities in the West Bank. Robert Ham 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict deleted major text...)-in short, yes thanks, I'd add that since Jerusalem is not defined as part of the west bank by Israel (actual annexation and full control), and this was agreed to be a seperate issue by the Palestinians - that is binding under International Law, agreement being a core principle of International Law.[20] It is therefore controversial enough and perhaps in contradiction to WP:CAT because of the controversy to add the category West Bank to East Jerusalem article, it is further unnecessary, misleading and controversial to add it to the whole city, most of it is neither disputed nor challenged, and the disputed issue has its own article to be dealt with. Categories shouldn't be controversial nor highly misleading. Amoruso 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your objections contradict themselves. In 1., you're arguing that Jerusalem and the West Bank are geographically separate. In 2., you're arguing that they overlap. They can't be separate and overlap. Robert Ham 14:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never argued that. What overlaps is Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. Jerusalem and West Bank are seperate and do not overlap. Amoruso 16:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It repeatedly says "West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem" - that means it's 3 distinct places. - Jerusalem is not a West Bank city. Just because parts of it may be (controvesially) be part of the west bank, it doesn't make the city a city in the west bank." I find it hard to believe that you were confusing the West Bank with East Jerusalem in those statements. Robert Ham 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please see discussion here too http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Talk:East_Jerusalem#.5B.5B:Category:West_Bank.5D.5D for proof that these are seperate issues. If not , Jerusalem would have been defined as Area C. And it wasn't, not even east Jerusalem. It's the reason why West Bank and East Jerusalem are seperate articles, since both deal with regions - why there's no East Hebron article ? Because it's a seperate issue from the west bank, so how can it be here out of all places ?? Amoruso 13:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) From Oslo Accords: "Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided."--Timeshifter 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of Greater Jerusalem and West Bank[edit]

It is obvious from the maps that Jerusalem is partly in the West Bank, and therefore belongs in Category:Disputed territories and Category:West Bank.

Maps are key to much of the dispute concerning the status of parts of Jerusalem. For example; its categorization as part of "occupied territories" or "disputed territories" or the West Bank, etc.. More articles and categories:

From Oslo Accords introduction: "Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided."

Greater Jerusalem according to Jewish Virtual Library:

"The area known as 'Greater' Jerusalem usually refers to an approximately 100 square mile space surrounding the Old City of Jerusalem. This area includes both West and East Jerusalem, including the adjacent neighborhoods outside of the municipal boundaries of the city. ... Regarding the route of Israel’s security fence in the Jerusalem area, there have been a few competing strategies: to reinforce the municipal boundaries of the city, to alter the demographics in Israel’s favor, and to permanently draw the lines for 'Greater' Jerusalem."

Many good maps linked below from websites with various points of view.

Jerusalem maps section of passia.org:

Map at Jewish Virtual Library. Israeli proposal at Camp David (2000) for the division and expansion of Jerusalem.

"The Israeli proposal included the following main points: 1. Jewish areas outside Jerusalem's municipal boundaries would be annexed to the city, including such population centers as Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion. (Gush Etzion is a major settlement block just south of Jerusalem, and is not shown on the map).

Maps of Greater Jerusalem:

Map at Jewish Virtual Library. “Arab” East Jerusalem With “Greater” Jerusalem.

Map of separation barrier. With detailed Jerusalem section when viewed at high resolution:

Maps of Areas A, B, and C. Oslo Accords. From IRIS.org site (Information Regarding Israel's Security): http://www.iris.org.il/oslo_2000.htm

Maps of Jerusalem municipal boundaries:

Israeli-proposed divisions of Jerusalem:

Map. Camp David 2000. The Proposed Division of Jerusalem (July 2000).

From Taba Summit: "Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians the idea of creating a special international regime for the 'Holy Basin' -- an area including the Old City and some areas outside the walls including the Mount of Olives cemetery."

Map. Old City and Holy/Historical Basin area: http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/images/jer_maps/Holy-Basin.htm --Timeshifter 21:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to dozens of sites doesn't really help the discussion.
You haven't even formed a coherent claim.
Look. Here's how it goes:
  1. Only areas within Jerusalem's municipal borders can be considered a part of Jerusalem. There's a clear boundary, and if we ignore it, there's no point talking about the city. Jerusalem has a clear definition, and we should stick to it, not invent our own definitions and boundaries.
  2. A part of current day Jerusalem was captured in 1967:
    1. A part of that is was was then East Jerusalem.
    2. The other part was villages considered to be in the West Bank; areas that were included in Jerusalem's municipal boundaries after 1967.
  3. Today, the term "East Jerusalem" does not refer to the Eastern half of Jerusalem, or any such nonsense. It also doesn't refer just to what was the Jordanian part of Jerusalem (which was mainly the old city). Nowadays the term refers to all parts of current day Jerusalem that were captured in 1967.
  4. The diplomatic negotiations, like the Oslo Accords, differentiate between the "West Bank" and "Jerusalem", treating them as two different entities. So does every day use of the term "West Bank".
These are the facts. Based on these facts, we should not include Jerusalem in "cities in the West Bank". The category "Disputed territories", though, might make sense, though the whole area of West Jerusalem (this term is also not used in the geographical sense, but means all parts of current day Jerusalem which were under Israel's control before 1967) is not in serious dispute, and Israel's control of it is recognized by most of the world. okedem 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is YOUR claims that are incoherent. You concede that East Jerusalem is disputed territory, and by extension, I assume you also concede that the Jerusalem suburbs outside the municipal boundary are also disputed territories. But you also claim that East Jerusalem is not in the West Bank. Those 2 claims are not coherent with each other. The reason East Jerusalem is disputed territory is because it was annexed by Israel from the West Bank. So since you concede the disputed territory status can we add Category:Disputed territories to the bottom of the article?
We can continue discussing whether to add Category:West Bank. --Timeshifter 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem's suburbs are irrelevant. What you don't understand here, is that the term "West Bank" changed. It does not include the territory now in Jerusalem. This is backed by the Oslo Accords. okedem 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect on all points, and you can't prove any of your points. See Oslo Accords and West Bank. --Timeshifter 09:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On all my points? Even number 2?
I'm sick of this. I'm done arguing with you. It doesn't get us anywhere. okedem 10:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section[edit]

Currently offering a number of definitions which are attributed in the prose to "some" (weasel word), it could use some clean-up. Additionally, this source there says:

The oldest known name of Jerusalem was actually Urusalem, which was of Amorite derivation based on the Canaanite-Amoritic god Salem or Shalem. The rest of that name, uru, meant "founded by." The well-known American Biblical archeologist, W. F. Albright, had already identified the names of the two earliest Jerusalem rulers as the Amorites Saz Anu and Yaqir Ammo. Asali also reminds us that the Bible states the origins of the Amorites as Canaanite; they may in fact have been the earliest people of the land of Canaan. In the year 2,000 BCE, these people were succeeded by the Jebusites, who were also identified as Canaanites.

[21]

Anyone want to take a stab at re-editing this section? Tiamat 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem with this section. It places on equal footing various popular etymologies and and calls everyone who has a theory a "scholar" . In reality, I think modern academics only take seriously the derivation from the pagan god, with either the Amarna letters ref or a much earlier (non-biblical) ref. to a city called "Shalem." We should separate out this modern theory from the older theories based on folk inventions or religious tradition. nadav (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well that there must be strict distinction between academic/historical theories and those grounded in religion or homily. TewfikTalk 09:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source that might prove useful in this task. This article in Arab Studies Quarterly repeats that the name "Urushalem" is of Canaanite, specifically Amorite origin and that the other name for Jerusalem "Jebus" is also Canaanite, specifically Jebusite. Tiamat 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In school, they taught us that the name is devired from "Ir Shalom", meaning "City of Peace" (ironic, I know). A quick google comes up with several references to this, but I'm not sure how credible the sources are. Eg: http://www.nfty.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=3424&pge_id=1606, http://en.allexperts.com/q/Hebrew-Language-1605/Hebrew-meaning-Jerusalem.htm. SoulSkorpion (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in the West Bank (take 2)[edit]

There was a distinct breakdown in communication in the last attempt to clarify and get to the bottom of this issue. I'll ask a simple question again, in the hope of getting a clear response.

Why should Jerusalem not be included in Category:Cities in the West Bank? Robert Ham 09:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't in the West Bank. While some of it is area captured in 1967, some of which wasn't then part of Jerusalem, today's Jerusalem is considered separate from the West Bank (as evident by the Oslo Accords, previously discussed). okedem 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only discussion I've seen regarding the Oslo Accords is about the use of the phrase "West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem." Is this the evidence you are referring to? If not, could you point out where the Oslo Accords specify that the West Bank and Jerusalem are geographically separate? Robert Ham 10:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yes, that's the one.
Generally speaking, in all negotiations, the issue of Jerusalem (including all the areas annexed since 1967) is dealt with separately from the issue of the West Bank. This leads me to say that current day Jerusalem is not part of the West Bank, though some of its area was, previously, in the West Bank (I'm referring to areas which weren't part of Jordanian East Jerusalem). When these areas were annexed, their categorization changed. okedem 11:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between the issue of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem. The issue of Jerusalem refers to control of a city and access to it. Jerusalem refers to a group of buildings, roads, etc (some of which are inside the West Bank.) Similarly, the issue of the West Bank refers to control of a country and its sovereignty. The West Bank refers to a group of hills, rivers, cities, etc.
The issue of Jerusalem is separate from the issue of the West Bank because one concerns a city and the other concerns a country. There is an issue specifically with Jerusalem because of its extreme religious and historical importance, not only to the local parties but to a large proportion of the human race. This does not contradict the fact that part of the city is inside the country. The phrase "West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem" is simply a reflection of the treatment of separate issues during one particular dialogue. It is not "evidence" that they are geographically separate.
It is also worth noting that within the Oslo Accords, these issues are all undecided; that's what is being accorded about them. Arguing that we can use the labelling of them as undecided as a reflection of general thinking is nonsense. If general thinking about them was all the same then they would not be undecided. Robert Ham 12:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before the Oslo Accords do not say that East Jerusalem is no longer a part of the West Bank. Show me where the Oslo Accords say that. --Timeshifter 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with either of you. The usual definition of East Jerusalem nowadays is that it is the land that's part of the Jerusalem municipal borders that is also within the West Bank. West Bank is defined as all the land held by Jordan that was conquered in '67. Britannica defines it as follows: "area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria." On the other hand, I am baffled why anyone would see this as a reason to put Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank, since only East Jerusalem meets that description. So I support putting East Jerusalem in that category, but not the whole city. nadav (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076593/West-Bank
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106455/Jerusalem
You can only read the first paragraph of either one. It is not complicated. The Green Line (Israel) defines the West Bank. This is a perfect example of systemic bias. Part of the city is in Israel. Part of it is in the West Bank. Why should Wikipedia decide that Jerusalem is a city in Israel, but not also in the West Bank? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Does the current conqueror of Jerusalem decide? Because the USA conquered Iraq, do we say that it is U.S. territory? It is hubris. Quote from wikipedia article on hubris: "The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to molestation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, to molestation, or 'outrageous treatment', in general."--Timeshifter 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good, short summary of the UK view on Jerusalem: [22]. It also discusses the UN view which is the view of nearly the whole world. Wikipedia can not favor the view of the right wing of Israeli politics over the world view. WP:NPOV requires that we show all significant viewpoints by saying who says what. In a neutral way that favors no viewpoint in the narrative voice of wikipedia. That includes categorization. --Timeshifter 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in a perfect world the category system could reflect all our desires, but we have some practical constraints here. While there is an East Jerusalem article, there is no equivalent West Jerusalem article (the term may have fallen out use since 67) to put in the Israel category. Thus while East Jerusalem can be neatly classified on wikipedia, the rest of the city unfortunately cannot. Clearly, a very large part of the city is in Israel's hands, and it is the capital of the state, so the categories should reflect in some way that the city is connected to that country. I think it is just these practical considerations that induced the status quo. Ideally, the categorization would be done more symmetrically, but I don't see how to do that, nor do I care enough to ponder these trivialities. If you manage to think of some better system, ensure that it's still useful to the reader (which I think is the paramount consideration). Namely, the reader should be easily able to get from the Israel cat. to the Jerusalem article without too many steps. nadav (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem's municipal boundaries have been significantly expanded under Israeli rule so that a city of some 11 square kilometers in 1967 is now a massive municipality of some 70 120 square kilometers, much of which does lie in the West Bank. I think Timeshifter's insistence on including Jerusalem in the Cities in the West Bank category is correct, just as it is equally correct to note that it is in Israel (though considering that Israel has never formally defined its borders, one could argue against its inclusion in that category). Including it in both categories is NPOV. Including it only in one or other would be making a POV statement on where Jerusalem lies and to whom it belongs. We must represent all significant POVs, even in categorization. Tiamat 10:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument looks valid on the whole. If it comes down to either having both cats or none, then it's better to have both. I would prefer though some sort of creative fudging of the category names and structure to solve this problem, because including the West Bank cat here is potentially confusing: as you said, Israel doesn't have well-defined borders, whereas the west bank does, so including it could leave an uninformed reader confused about the physical location of the city. nadav (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that placing both categories there would be confusing if the article properly explained how Jerusalem has been significantly expanded under Israeli rule. Currently, it fails to do that. In fact, population growth in Jerusalem is related more to the city's territorial expansion that it is to an actual growth in numbers of those living within the original 11 kilometer boundary of the city. Currently, the article does not even mention that much of the land incorporated into Jerusalem's municipal boundaries by Israel is properly part of the West Bank. (Frankly, I don't really understand how with all these omissions, this article got "Featured status". But that's another issue). Both cats should be there and the article should be expanded to add this important information. Tiamat 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article should be in both categories. Otherwise, as noted above, this is WP:NPOV. Regarding why the article has "Featured status," I think it probably has something to do with the systemic bias noted by Timeshifter; the article at present is well in-line with the bias. I note particularly from WP:CSB, on editing by those with strong feelings about a topic:
"This may lead to articles that are not entirely objective or NPOV, but instead a mix of heavy-handed promotion or criticism of many topics, especially those which are contentious."
Even despite the bias, I believe the article explains the situation well enough, or at least makes a good enough attempt to point out that related problems exist, so that the inclusion in both categories would not be confusing. Robert Ham 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been giving myself a bit of a break from the Jerusalem discussions after my becomign over-excited a while a back and making what proved in the end to be a false accusation. I'm glad to see that categorisation is now coming down to common sense.--Peter cohen 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just surprised to see this edit saying that there was consensus on this point, since frankly, there was not. For one, I would like to see some response to my comments above questioning the inclusion of both Jerusalem and East Jerusalem in the same categories, especially given the suggestion by Peter cohen that "Jerusalem should be categorised as a disputed territory and as part of the West Bank, or the category of East Jerusalem should be re-instated". If the principle would work with a "Category:East Jerusalem", then it would also be appropriate for the page of the same name. TewfikTalk 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were a number of edits from navdav, Tiamat, Timeshifter, and myself, that were in favour. There was an objection from okedem which Timeshifter asked for clarification of. There was no response. That seems to be a consensus.
You haven't made any prior comments in this section. There are about 30 pages of text "above". Could you possibly restate clearly and succinctly, exactly what your objections are to including Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank? Robert Ham 09:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, when okedem says I'm sick of this. I'm done arguing with you. It doesn't get us anywhere. after extensive discussion, it is clear that his following through on that course is not an indication that he no longer objects or otherwise modified his position. Likewise, the others don't need to reply ad infinitum in order to maintain their position, whose contentions were clearly and extensively discussed above. TewfikTalk 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly restate clearly and succinctly, exactly what your objections are to including Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank? If you have made clear and succinct statements before, could you possibly paste them here? Robert Ham 13:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied such a comment two lines above. TewfikTalk 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Ham was asking for YOUR objections, Tewfik. --Timeshifter 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to go back weeks to find anyone except okedem supporting your position, Tewfik. Then you find Amoruso on August 16, 2007 and Gilabrand on August 15, 2007. Once people have seen the many maps in the map section of this talk page, there is little logic to opposing the addition of the West Bank categories. Wikipedia should not allow the religious and nationalist interests of the right wing of Israeli politics to determine what info is included in the encyclopedia. If one goes back farther, and many, many talk sections, one finds a few other people for and against inclusion of the West Bank category. I keep finding more maps too. So it is understandable why your position is unsupportable. --Timeshifter 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming that your maps somehow support your position. But you have already proven you don't know anything about the subject, nor do you even know how to read a map. You give fascinating new definitions to things like "city", and have no understanding of the idea of municipal boundaries. You can bring all the maps you want, but realize - they don't constitute any proof of your position. You see in them what you want to, not what's actually there. okedem 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem. I struck through your above insult of me (and the same insult farther down). Please see WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and WP:TALK#Editing_comments. --Timeshifter 09:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, that page specifically states "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission". My comment is not a "personal attack", as I'm not attacking your nationality, gender, character, affiliations, or any other personal characteristic, nor am I threatening you.
I am attacking the notion you know what you're talking about. Throughout this discussion you have proven the contrary on many occasions. Since this is germane to our discussions, especially to explain why I stopped replying to your posts, there no personal attack there. If you wish to be insulted, that's your full right.
Don't edit my comments again. okedem 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem. Nice try, but you are quoting WP:TALK out of context. That was in reference to "correct typing errors, grammar, etc." in that paragraph. Just below it is this:
"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything."
So I am again striking out "you have already proven you don't know anything about the subject". It is obvious I know something about the subject. And calling someone a dumbass (in so many words) is an insult along with attacking nationality, gender, character, affiliations, or any other personal characteristic. Feel free to remove the insult, or just leave in the strikeout line. If you leave in the insult I will report your violation to WP:ANI. This is not a threat. It is encouraged, and it is common practice, to give a polite warning before going to WP:ANI. Try using some wit in your lame personal attacks, and you might get farther. Have a nice day. :) --Timeshifter 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion, that you are not very knowledgeable, to say the least, about this subject. I have come to this conclusion, based on your comments throughout this discussion. That is not a personal attack, merely my observation based on this discussion. As my own comment was used here to call for an RfC, I felt the need to explain it, to say I was not reluctant to communicate, merely grew tired of communicating with you. This was as your notions here seem to exclude common definitions, and consist of murky claims, at best, with lots of maps proving little (or even contradicting your own claims).
I have removed your strike-out. I say again - do not edit my comments. It's vandalism, and I will not allow it.
If you feel the need to report me to whatever notice board here, go ahead. I'm sure they'll find your last comment especially enlightening. okedem 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I struck it out again. This is your third warning. "not very knowledgeable" is OK since it is subjective. Saying someone knows nothing after a whole talk page of discussion only makes you look dumb, not me. --Timeshifter 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing other people's comments is vandalism. Please cease. I have placed a warning on your talk page.
You write a lot, that's for sure, but the more you write, the less it seems you know. I too can write whole pages about a topic I know nothing of. It's not hard. okedem 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied in more detail farther down. I will let your personal attack stand. It only makes you look dumb anyway, not me. --Timeshifter 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Tewfik. We have rough consensus except from a few well-known obstructionists such as yourself. Since we have rough consensus you have no right to remove Category:Cities in the West Bank without discussion. See this diff from yesterday, Sept. 7, 2007, showing your undiscussed removal of the category: [23]. That category has been up since August 31, 2007. See this diff: [24].

If it is OK to put East Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank, or Category:West Bank, then it is OK to put Jerusalem also in Category:Cities in the West Bank, because East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem. If Category:Cities in the West Bank is removed from the article Jerusalem, then Category:Cities in Israel must also be removed. In order to meet the symmetry mentioned by nadav. The fact that parts of Jerusalem reside in the West Bank must not be censored. See WP:NPOV. Tiamut pointed out "Currently, the article does not even mention that much of the land incorporated into Jerusalem's municipal boundaries by Israel is properly part of the West Bank."

Robert Ham stated higher up that "I believe that the article should be in both categories. Otherwise, as noted above, this is WP:NPOV." It all comes down to WP:NPOV, Tewfik. Something I have frequently mentioned to you. Nadav also pointed out the need for convenience (emphasis added): "If you manage to think of some better system, ensure that it's still useful to the reader (which I think is the paramount consideration). Namely, the reader should be easily able to get from the Israel cat. to the Jerusalem article without too many steps." The same is true from the West Bank category. A reader should be easily able to get from the West Bank category to the Jerusalem article without too many steps. I put back the category, Category:Cities in the West Bank. --Timeshifter 13:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like "except from a few well-known obstructionists such as yourself" violate policies like WP:CIV, and don't change the reality that those objecting to this move have not altered their positions, and have quite extensively opposed Timeshifter's specific reasoning. Accompanying that edit with similar moves on Jerusalem District and Image:Israel_jerusalem_dist.png is certainly not in the spirit of transparent consensus-building.TewfikTalk 00:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recently reverted Robert Ham's addition of Category:Cities in the West Bank. You were the only person to have complained about his addition of it over a week ago. So you are obstructing the rough consensus. That makes you an obstructionist. You have been an obstructionist many times in the past. It has been noted several times on WP:ANI by various people. It is not a violation of WP:CIV to point this out.
I recently discovered the article Jerusalem District. So I applied WP:NPOV to it. Since we have achieved rough consensus here, then it is OK to add Category:West Bank to that article. To the right is a better map for the Jerusalem District. It shows the overlap between it and the West Bank. Overlapping categories is fairly common with categories. See these categories:
Category:Cities in the West Bank
Category:Cities in Israel
Category:Cities in Judea
Category:Cities in Samaria
I did not create those categories. --Timeshifter 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "rough consensus" within wiki discussions in places such as WP:Bold. Given that there is no resolution on the talk page, shouldn't we take up previous suggestions from outside and procede up the dispute resolution chain? I'm not familiar enough with the process to know which is the most appropriate option to take, but I'm sure there are veterans here of other disputes.--Peter cohen 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rough consensus is often what is used when some disputes go up the dispute resolution chain. For example in "articles for deletion" (AFD) discussions, and deletion reviews. What also often happens is that when there are a few obstinate people resolutely opposing a rough consensus is that the others just keep reverting that person until they tire of opposing the rough consensus. This often happens in topics with issues of extreme nationalism, religious fundamentalism, ongoing wars, etc.. They usually stop their campaigns after they get reverted over a few days and come close to WP:3RR. Or they quit for awhile and try again later. After a few rounds of this they usually give up their POV campaign altogether on that particular issue and article. They may try on another article though. And this is often after attempts at mediation have been tried. Often their purpose is delay. To delay for months or even years the inclusion of information they dislike. Tewfik has given up on nearly all other articles concerning this particular issue. But it seems he is taking a "last stand" on Jerusalem. There is a certain humor in this. Except that this obstinancy is also illustrative of why so many people have died over Jerusalem over the years. But getting back to the topic. Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, and to favor one religion, or one form of nationalism, over another is against WP:NPOV. So Jerusalem needs to be categorized according to all viewpoints. And the UN is certainly representative of a significant viewpoint. Even the USA does not say Jerusalem is a settled issue, and that the expansion of Jerusalem into West Bank territory means that it is no longer West Bank territory also. It is still West Bank territory, and Wikipedia does not get to decide the dispute in the favor of the right-wing of Israeli politics. --Timeshifter 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment on history of Jerusalem[edit]

I would appreciate opinions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Painting, to discuss whether or not Jacques de Molay was part of a force which re-took Jerusalem in 1299. Most books agree he didn't, but there is evidently a painting hanging in Versailles, which says that he did.[25] Opinions are requested. Thanks, Elonka 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(followup) This dispute has continued and expanded, and a formal RfC has been filed. Disputed issues include: Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300? And: Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300? Additional opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank[edit]

RFChist started at time=14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC), closed by Jaakobou: "It seems that the consensus of this RfC is to keep". JaakobouChalk Talk 12:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute has arisen about whether Jerusalem should be included in Category:Cities in the West Bank. It has reached the stage on the talk page page where editors are unwilling to continue communicating.

Thanks for adding this, Robert. Once we're going to RFC, is it better to confine things to the single issue of one label on one page, or to raise the general issue of how this page, East Jerusalem and Category:Jerusalem are all categorised, given that it is largely the same people arguing about all three? --Peter cohen 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you may claim, I am not "unwilling" to communicate.
I was sick of arguing with User:Timeshifter, since that experience was too grueling for me, being unable to cope with people who know nothing of the subject they're pertaining to be knowledgeable at. okedem 08:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem. I struck through your insult of me. See WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and WP:TALK#Editing_comments. --Timeshifter 09:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See full reply in the above section. Don't edit my comments. okedem 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply higher up. I again struck out "who know nothing of the subject they're pertaining to be knowledgeable at". --Timeshifter 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your strike-out. I say again - do not edit my comments. It's vandalism, and I will not allow it. okedem 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem. I struck out your personal attack again. This is your third warning. See further info in latest reply higher up. --Timeshifter 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing other people's comments is vandalism. Please cease. okedem 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note on your talk page that you mention having removed another person's comment from an article talk page. I did not remove the offending comment here. I just struck it out. So, as with the category issue, you assume your position is favored in spite of fairness issues, hypocrisy, and issues of WP:NPOV. I will let your personal attack stand. It only makes you look dumb, and hypocritical, not me. --Timeshifter 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, had you any idea what that incident was about, you wouldn't have tried to use it as an example. That user added a question to the talk page of Jews, asking if it's true that Jews have a "typical appearance". Since it has no relevance to the article, I removed it. Talk pages aren't for general discussion, especially not one that can offend a whole group. okedem 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it is OK to remove bigoted, offtopic general insults from some moron, but it is not OK to remove personal insults from someone named okedem? Is there a special dispensation from wikipedia called the "okedem exception" to WP:TALK?--Timeshifter 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't you get the memo?
If you can't see the difference, too bad. okedem 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear, personal insults from people such as yourself "who know nothing of the subject they're pertaining to be knowledgeable at" get a pass but a general insult from a bigoted moron does not get a pass? --Timeshifter 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments pertinent to the discussion "get a pass". Others - don't. okedem 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the discussion above, I can see that the case has been made for inclusion of Jerusalem in both categories to satisfy NPOV. What I don't see is an argument as to why it does not belong in the Category:Cities in the West Bank. Instead, I see comments on editors not comments content. Will someone who opposes the inclusion please articulate what policy/source/principle their position is based on? Tiamut 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the extensive discussion by a certain editor of my own and others' motivations, that is quite an inaccurate observation, to say the least. TewfikTalk 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tewfik. I said you were an obstructionist because you opposed a rough consensus by removing Category:Cities in the West Bank after it had stayed at the bottom of the article for more than a week without objection. Along with Category:Cities in Israel. Common courtesy alone would make you think of discussing further, before removing Category:Cities in the West Bank. The rough consensus for its inclusion means that the default position is to leave it in, and that it is you who should be making the case for its removal. It is you who should get a rough consensus before removing it. As with okedem,... it is about common courtesy. --Timeshifter 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Timeshifter, not all of us have access to Wikipedia at all times. Sometimes people go on trips, sometimes there's a lot of work (or study) taking up free time. Just because something was left in it's place for a few days, doesn't mean there's a concensus about it, especially when some editors' objections are well known from the discussion itself. okedem 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I repeat the question, yet to be answered: What policy/source/principle is being used to oppose the inclusion of Jerusalem in the Category:Cities in the West Bank? A strong case for its inclusion has been articulated; i.e. part of it does lie in the West Bank and for WP:NPOV if we include it in the Category:Cities in Israel, we must also include it the other. So what counter-argument to this or other points have been raised? Why should it not be included there? Tiamut 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that Jerusalem does not lie in the West Bank. While some of it's territory was captured in 1967, those areas were not, or are not (areas annexed by Israel after 1967) considered part of the West Bank.
Also, given that Jerusalem is under Israeli control, and serves as its capital, the basis for Category:Cities in Israel is much stronger then for Category:Cities in the West Bank, which lies solely on the somewhat unclear definition of a geographical area. okedem 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least you are discussing the issue now, and not personalities. You wrote "much stronger". So you acknowledge there is some merit to Jerusalem also being in Category:Cities in the West Bank.--Timeshifter 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have acknowledged the relative ambiguity of the term "West Bank", which is the point of this argument. I just feel the case against inclusion is stronger than for, and that the analogy drawn between "cities in Israel" and "cities in the West Bank" is flawed. okedem 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NPOV:
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial;"
The inclusion of Category:Cities in the West Bank is obviously a significant viewpoint of a large percentage of the world's population. --Timeshifter 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, NPOV is great, but what you quoted isn't always applicable. The issue isn't that some people view Jerusalem as being in the West Bank. We know that. But just because some people think it is, doesn't mean we should categorize it as such - some people don't think it's in the West Bank. Adding the category would mean that we prefer one viewpoint over the other.
Now, we have to do that sometimes. Categorization is harder than simple prose, since we can't change the phrasing, we can't soften the claims. We have to decide - yes, or no. In this binary decision, we can't please everyone. So we have to choose. We do so based on what is more accurate, to our best understanding. It's still a POV. okedem 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following through with your argument Okedem, some people don't think Jerusalem is a city in Israel. Should we remove it from that category as a result? Or should we apply WP:NPOV fairly and acknowledge that while some people think Jerusalem is in Israel, others think it is part of the Palestinian territories (political designation) or West Bank (geographical one, very NPOV). Tiamut 00:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not following my argument. Saying Jerusalem is in the West Bank isn't any more NPOV than saying it isn't. They're both viewpoints, between which we must choose.
The analogy with "cities in Israel" is false, as inclusion of one category has no bearing on the other. Here, too, we must choose between two differing viewpoints. That choice is easier, as I said earlier, as the case for inclusion in that matter is much stronger. okedem 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused about this claimed ambiguity and POV regarding the West Bank. The West Bank was defined after the Arab-Israeli war. From West Bank:
"The 1948 Arab-Israeli War saw the establishment of Israel in parts of the former mandate, while the West Bank was captured and annexed by Jordan. The 1949 Armistice Agreements defined its interim boundary. ... It was captured by Israel during the Six-Day War."
Perhaps I've missed some major event here, but there seems to have been no change in the definition of "the West Bank." The term still refers to the territory inside the green line. What ambiguity can there be over this? Robert Ham 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem is regarded as a separate entity, as can be seen here: [26] (also [27]; UN says “Annexation Wall will isolate Jerusalem from the West Bank”), [28] ("Hamas vows to 'liberate' West Bank, Jerusalem"), for example. okedem 13:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be confusion about the "separation" of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Jerusalem is one concept. The West Bank is a separate concept. They are separate concepts. As noted above, one is a country and the other is a city. That doesn't mean the city is not part of the country. Similarly, my cornea is a separate concept to my eye but that doesn't mean my cornea isn't part of my eye.
From the top paragraph of the report you linked to:
"the Annexation Wall Israel is constructing in the occupied West Bank will totally isolate the Palestinian populated areas in East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank."
I note particularly the phrase "the rest of the West Bank." Prior to this phrase, they are referring to some part of the West Bank. The words "the rest of" would be meaningless otherwise. The part they are referring to is East Jerusalem. Your source evidently believes that East Jerusalem is still considered to be part of the West Bank.
This, I think, exemplifies the issue. The headline uses "Jerusalem" and "West Bank" in a very high-level way that is perceived by some to mean that they are considered separate. However, when the issue is expanded, it becomes clear that, in fact, this is a simplification; that they are not geographically separate; and that "the West Bank" does, indeed, refer to parts of Jerusalem that are inside the green line, the only definition of "West Bank" that exists.
Wikipedia's intent is not to provide a reflection of curt headlines and information based on surface analyses and shallow arguments. The West Bank is well defined. Its borders are well defined. Wikipedia's own article reflects this. Jerusalem's municipal boundaries are similarly well defined. The two overlap. Areas inside of Jerusalem are also inside the West Bank. There is no ambiguity in this. The only ambiguity that exists is in the interpretation of simple phrases in various documents. Documents whose tenuous interpretations only imply that Jerusalem is separate from the West Bank are of no interest; only documents that state it explicitly are. Robert Ham 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must commend you on your well phrased arguments. The case for inclusion has little to do with NPOV or the category "Cities in Israel", and isn't really supported by maps, which some have tried to use. If current day Jerusalem only included, beyond the green line, the 1967 Jordanian East Jerusalem, your argument wouldn't hold. As Israel decided to annex more territory to Jerusalem's municipal borders, your arguments gains more merit.
As you make a stronger argument for inclusion, I concede the point, and withdraw my objection to inclusion. okedem 15:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commend your gracious withdrawal. As Tewfik hasn't responded, I'm going to assume that there are no more objections and add the category to the article. Robert Ham 07:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As okedem mentioned above, not everyone can be here all the time. That said, I'll let the edit stand for now, though I would appreciate if you could deal with the points that I've raised above. TewfikTalk 07:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly restate them here for clarity? Robert Ham 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern lies with the double categorisation, that of both Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, when the latter is the more specific and accurate target for such an ordering. As I mentioned twice above, the point is sharpened by Peter cohen's suggestion that "Jerusalem should be categorised as a disputed territory and as part of the West Bank, or the category of East Jerusalem should be re-instated". If categorisation would function by including a hypothetical "Category:East Jerusalem", then it would also function within the actual entry titled East Jerusalem. TewfikTalk 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you feel that the inclusions of East Jerusalem and Jerusalem are mutually exclusive. There are three responses to this. Firstly, they are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, the inclusion of one article in a category is not an argument for the exclusion of another. Finally, East Jerusalem shouldn't be included in Category:Cities in the West Bank as it isn't a city. Robert Ham 11:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFC response - from an uninvolved editor: it should be included in the category. And this from a strong Israel supporter. The Evil Spartan 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - calling yourself a "strong israel supporter" is not much of a reasonsing. i've heard that phrase come from people who riot against israel and vote for arab parties (not that i'm susggsting you did that). JaakobouChalk Talk 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFC response - i've read some of the arguments from the previous discussions and based on nadav's earlier comment:
The usual definition of East Jerusalem nowadays is that it is the land that's part of the Jerusalem municipal borders that is also within the West Bank. West Bank is defined as all the land held by Jordan that was conquered in '67. Britannica defines it as follows: "area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria." On the other hand, I am baffled why anyone would see this as a reason to put Jerusalem in Category:Cities in the West Bank, since only East Jerusalem meets that description. So I support putting East Jerusalem in that category, but not the whole city. - nadav.
i would disapprove of using the category for the whole city but would approve it's usage for East Jerusalem. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - despite my perspective, i've now read again through the entire discussion, and seeing that there is a consensus to include (never mind that it opposes my view), i think we can remove this RfC - i'll be so bold as to close it myself. if you feel i made a mistake, you can revert this and state your reasons. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE[edit]

This can be found in the Temple period section: "However, since most claims of the Fall of Jerusalem are gathered from the Ptolemaic records, which some dates have been found to be erroneous; Some point to the Destruction of Jerusalem occurring in 607 BCE. This would be about 70 years prior to 538-537 dates of the conquest of Babylon from the Persians and hence the Restoration of the Jews." Shouldn't there be a reference to such a claim? The 607 date for the destruction is quite controversial. I think it should be removed.--Darinador 06:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- [User:Distazo] November,12 2007, yes indeed, only the Watchtower Society claims that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bCE which is false, even the bible shows no such evidence. The watchtower says that the bible speaks about 70 years of captivity,however, Ezekiel 25 speaks about 70 years of destructions and being overpowered by Babylon, not of total captivity.

Ezekiel 25 talks about other nations being destroyed. It says nothing of Jerusalem. I think you might mean Jeremiah 25, particularly verses 8-11 [29]. But it doesn't speak of "70 years of destructions". Verse 11 says that after Jerusalem becomes a wasteland they would "serve the king of Babylon seventy years". That verse connects the beginning of their 70-year servitude to Babylon with the destruction of Jerusalem described in the previous few verses. - cybersaga (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Ptolemaus made some wrong statements, that does not suddenly make the Watchtower claims to be correct. They have no evidence that the 18th/19th year of Nebukadnezar (Jeremiah 52:12) was in fact in 607 instead of 586 bCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.24.89 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botteke (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC): Changes about 607 by me.[reply]

Video[edit]

File:Damascus Gate.ogg ok to include at bottom of article, it's footage showing life in old jerusalem, walking outside through damascus gate to 'new' jerusalem. If I don't hear in 3 days I'll include.. THanks. Isewell 15:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's avoid things that cause people's browsers to freeze... okedem 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cortado player should be reliable, and theora is a standard that wiki community has finally settled on. It's open source, with easy encoding available. I think that video is an important part of a modern encyclopedia (and multimedia is really the only area where encarta is still miles ahead), and so including rights-managed videos (pulled from wiki commons) is a good addition to an article. I didn't use the right template to include the video in this discussion, the multi-video template includes options to download the ogg file for playing in an external player, in case the default java-based cortado player doesnt work for you. Isewell 06:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, well, this video caused my browser (Firefox) to freeze and crash. That's fun...
I don't think there's any need for a video here. It's a city, and one video of walking through a street can hardly represent a city. There's a link to commons at the bottom - people can use it. okedem 09:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people look at media on the commons. I've tried cortado with 1.5, and 2.0 firefox - works ok - check your extensions or java install. When I think of whether something should be included in an article, I always ask myself if a child doing a school project on Jerusalem would be interested in this - and to me the answer is yes - I agree it doesn't represent the whole city, but it gives a flavour of what Old Jerusalem now looks like. If I add it to the article to get more opinions, would you revert? Can anyone else offer up an opinion on this? Thanks. Isewell 16:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Placing an object which may cause a user's browser to freeze up is unacceptable, and I will revert it. (My computer, by the way, is in fine working order, better than most users, who are less knowledgeable of computers.) I don't think it's worth it, and if a kid if doing a paper - they can go to commons if they want more. To see what old Jerusalem looks like, we can have pictures.
We can get more opinions here. okedem 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. In the meantime, please help out the burgeoning wiki video community by relaying your browser info to the people developing the Cortado streaming applet . Even if you don't think it's appropriate here, you have to agree that video is an important part of an online encyclopedia. Thanks. Isewell 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do think video can be used in many articles, just not this one, and not while it's still buggy. I'll visit that page soon. okedem 10:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a video is not a bad one, but this particular video is not representative of Jerusalem as a whole, just one street in the Old City marketplace, and is not very professional. I personally had no trouble seeing it, but thought it was too long, repetitive, and kind of boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilabrand (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The video worked great on my computer, and I thought it was very interesting. Quit griping about the video being "buggy" or "causing your browser to crash". Just because you can't afford a decent computer, doesn't mean that everyone has to suffer without a video. Go buy a better computer, update your software, or take a computer course if you have a problem. The video works great and should stay. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv as Israel's "diplomatic capital"[edit]

Apparently Jerusalem is Israel's official and administrative capital, and Tel Aviv is Israel's "diplomatic capital", whatever that means. And this entry supposedly supports that assertion. TewfikTalk 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik, this is just disruptive trolling. Or are you trying to campaign for a more sympathetic forum? <eleland/talkedits> 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though this isn't the right talk page - Eleland, your edit there is false. Please refrain from repeating it. okedem (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't the right talk page, but it appears Tewfik brought it here to attract editors he knew he could count on to support his POV. <eleland/talkedits> 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you come up with actual points to support your case, I will revert your edits. okedem (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's an "actual point" in your mind? One that you agree with? The entire world dispute's Israel's claim to Jerusalem. Plenty of RS's list Jerusalem as "seat of government", "capital" with a footnoted explanation of the dispute, etc. But you want Jerusalem to be listed undisputed as Israel's capital, a position affirmed only by the Israelis (and perhaps Costa Rica et al.) Actual point, indeed. <eleland/talkedits> 00:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there. Tel Aviv is not the capital, not the diplomatic capital, or any other name you'd invent for it.
Jerusalem answers every definition for capital, so it is the capital. On this page there's a fine explanation of what other countries think of it, and that's fine, but like it or not - Jerusalem is de-jure and de-facto capital of Israel. okedem (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign embassies[edit]

Footnote number 14 on this article says “[Tel Aviv] also contains most embassies, given the nonrecognition by many countries of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.” However, for some reason people keep changing the text it references to say "Hence, all foreign nations maintain their embassies outside of the city, mostly in Tel Aviv". The footnote does not say "all foreign nations", it says "many countries", and it does not say "outside of the city", it says "[Tel Aviv] also contains most embassies". You cannot make a footnote say something it does not actually say. Either represent the source fairly, or find a different source. I will be changing the text back so that it accurately reflects the footnote. David Sher (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the wording has been restored, but a different footnote added. The footnote lists the location of foreign embassies, but it doesn't say why Bolivia and Paraguay maintain their embassies in Mevaseret Zion, a suburb of Jerusalem. Is there any documentation that these embassies are in a suburb (and not in the city itself) because Bolivia and Paraguay do not recognize Jerusalem as Israeli's capital? I don't see it in either footnote. David Sher (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why Bolivia and Paraguay have their embassies in a Jerusalem suburb instead of Jerusalem proper, but I don't see why this issue is relevant to the wording of the text. The second of the two sources notes that the nonrecognition of Jerusalem has led to a lack of embassies in Jerusalem (actually, at the time that source was written, I believe there were still embassies in Jerusalem proper). -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One source says that most embassies are in Tel Aviv as a result. The second source is a page listing the cities or suburbs in which the embassies are found. You appear to be mixing the two sources together in order to make the claim that, for example, the embassies in the suburbs of Jerusalem are there because of non-recognition of Jerusalem (using the word "Hence"). "Chase me ladies, I'm the cavalry", and administrator here, was kind enough to lead me to the WP:RS policy, which in turn led me to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. I believe the way you have formulated the sentence you are violating both Verifiability and No original research. I think at a minimum the word "Hence" must be removed. David Sher 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the wording has been changed since then. I will try to fix it to comply with the policies. David Sher 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't throw policies at me; I am familiar with them.
Here's how I read the meaning of the original sentence (which, if I might add, I did not first write): The status of united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is disputed. This controversy has resulted in most of the embassies being in Tel Aviv, and none of them being in Jerusalem. This does not say that every single embassy outside Jerusalem is there because the governments of each of those embassies does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It just says that the controversy itself -- "the nonrecognition by many countries of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" (Kellerman 1993, p. 140) has resulted in a lack of embassies in Jerusalem. One might argue that the United States, for example, has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel through, among other things, its Jerusalem Embassy Act (although some argue that doesn't signify U.S. recognition). However, the U.S. still maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv.
Anyway, if you don't think the sentence accurately reflects that intended meaning, go ahead and change it. Don't, however, accuse me of violating policies and "mixing the two sources together" to make a claim that I never made. Articles such as this one are contentious enough without having editors ascribing malicious intent to benign errors or misunderstandings (this is not just you; it's rather commonplace). The problem with the current sentence is that it is still devoid of the preciseness of the original sentence; it's not that "many" embassies have moved out of the city. It's that all embassies have moved out of the city (or were never in the city to begin with). The reasons for those embassies being outside of the city may be varied (although I'm sure you can find a source that says almost all of them outside Jerusalem due to the controversy), but the sentence is not intended to address each embassy's reason.
By the way, I reverted to the version just prior to Gilabrand's revert. That revert inexplicably reverted over a few days of changes unrelated to the intro and reinstated a source of dubious neutrality and standing. -- tariqabjotu 06:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intended no insult by mentioning the policies. Rather, I was explaining my reasoning. I also did not mean to insult you by claiming you mixed to sources together. However, if you restore someone else's wording, I think you must take responsibility for that wording. The current wording still has the word "hence", a conclusion that the sources do not support. We cannot claim to know why every country has its embassy outside Jerusalem, particularly those which have their embassies in Jerusalem suburbs. I will try to re-word to comply with the policies. David Sher 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot claim to know why every country has its embassy outside Jerusalem, particularly those which have their embassies in Jerusalem suburbs.

Okay... and? No one is claiming to know why every country has its embassy outside Jerusalem. The source says "[Tel Aviv] also contains most embassies, given the nonrecognition by many countries of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." That does not say all of the embassies in Tel Aviv are there because they all don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but it does pin the nonrecognition by many countries as the reason most embassies are in Tel Aviv and not in Jerusalem. The original sentence did the same, so I don't see your issue.

I will try to re-word to comply with the policies.

I don't know how you can start your response by saying you meant no insult, but then proceed to again say that insult. You are not writing in compliance with policies anymore than I am. This is a matter of interpretation of a sentence (or perhaps a source) and clarifying it so it reflects the intended meaning. If you want, I could add more sources that support the correlation between the non-recognition and the lack of embassies in Jerusalem, but I honestly think you're just being too pedantic about this. -- tariqabjotu 03:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I have insulted you again. I apologize, that was not my intent. Do you object to the current wording? David Sher (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab pressure"[edit]

Gilabrand just reverted the article to his version from three days ago. Aside from reverting seemingly valid changes that happened in the interim, he re-added a statement that says:

Succumbing to Arab pressure, embassies have thus moved out of the city, mostly to Tel Aviv.

Oh c'mon. Arab pressure? I'm not one to proclaim POV, but this statement is just utterly ridiculous. I acknowledge that Gilabrand has indeed found a source that conforms to a bias (which is rather easy for a contentious article like this one), but there are other, real things (like United Nations Security Council Resolution 478) that are more directly linked to the lack of embassies in Jerusalem. That sentence regarding "Arab pressure" is appalling and an embarrassment to the article. I don't care if you can find a trivial source that supports it; it's utter nonsense. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities[edit]

1. How come in other articles sister cities are referred as twin cities? 2. Is it possible that Jerusalem has only one twin city? Every other city in Israel has more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deansg (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It's basically the same thing. Both terms are used.
  2. The sources I found only mentioned one twin/sister city. I'm sure there are others, but I've been unable to find sources for them. If you can find sources - go ahead and add them. okedem (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

protection[edit]

Edits by banned editor removed, per policy.

You make strong claims, with no evidence. Please refrain from doing so.
This page has undergone a whole lot of edits, and in its current form was found fit to be a Featured Article. It is the result of many months of discussions and improvements, between editors of differing points of view.
If you have any specific issues you'd like to discuss (concerning the article, not slander of other editors), please detail them here. okedem (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is replacing "Palestinian" with "Arab" in any way accurate or neutral?[edit]

Amaliq, I am quoting your question from the latest edit summary in the new section title above. In the context of the article, I advocate steering the language in that direction because: 1. You cite heritage as an important factor. Arab heritage goes back much farther historically and is more clearly defined. 2. Disambiguation. Sixty years ago, or less, "Palestinians" could be Jews or Arabs. 3. Not all Jerusalem Arabs identify as Palestianians (according to reports, many wish to remain within Israel should a redivision of Jerusalem come about), and would prefer to be termed Israeli Arabs. In any event, the desire of the Palestinian Arabs to make Jerusalem their capital is covered in at least two other places in the article, so this additional mention may be superfluous. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Can I just point out the following from WP:Consensus.

"No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The current revert war indicates that there is no consensus-version at present and what should happen now is discussion in this talk page to try to develop a new consensus. And if people continue reverting each other then an uninvolved admin should protect m:The Wrong Version to force people to discuss it here.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Issue[edit]

Should we call the area around the Dome of the Rock the Temple Mount or the Haram al-Sharif? (sorry for spelling errors.) Perhaps we should devise some neutral name for the area, as both previously listed imply support for either Islam or Judaism, respectively. If ths is already covered on the page, you have my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology in Jerusalem[edit]

There's are a few discussion threads at Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology dealing with Jerusalem excavations, etc. Also, wanted to let folks know that there may be enough material for a spin-out article on Archaeology in Jerusalem, which might be a See Also or spin-out from here, too. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_6&oldid=1143713770"