| Revision as of 14:32, 17 November 2010 editChesdovi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,098 edits →Occupation vs. military occupation← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:37, 29 December 2024 edit undoUltraodan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers1,265 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024: Responded to edit requestTag: editProtectedHelper |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}} |
|
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
{{VA|topic=Geography|level=3|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=April 2, 2007 |
|
|action1date=April 2, 2007 |
| Line 13: |
Line 9: |
|
|action2=FAC |
|
|action2=FAC |
|
|action2date=April 21, 2007 |
|
|action2date=April 21, 2007 |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive 1 |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive1 |
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|action2result=failed |
|
|action2oldid=124527925 |
|
|action2oldid=124527925 |
| Line 19: |
Line 15: |
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|action3date=21:24, 28 April 2007 |
|
|action3date=21:24, 28 April 2007 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive1 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive2 |
|
|action3result=promoted |
|
|action3result=promoted |
|
|action3oldid=126705851 |
|
|action3oldid=126705851 |
| Line 29: |
Line 25: |
|
|action4oldid=230067302 |
|
|action4oldid=230067302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|maindate=May 23, 2007 |
|
|maindate=May 23, 2007 |
|
|currentstatus=FFA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cities|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=Top|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
<!--{{tmbox |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
| type = notice |
|
|
| text = Archived Talk about Jerusalem as capital of Palestin may be found ] |
|
|
| textstyle = text-align: center; |
|
|
}}--> |
|
{{tmbox |
|
{{tmbox |
|
| type = notice |
|
| type = notice |
|
|
| text = In May/June 2013, there was a ''']''' about the lead section of this article. This discussion was <span class="plainlinks"></span> by the ], and '''its result remained binding for three years''' (until January 2016). While the binding results of this RfC have now expired, this page is subject to the following ]: As the results of ] regarding the article's lead represent the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion, a new ] must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. Editors editing the lead without consensus from an RfC are subject to sanctions such as page or topic bans or being blocked from editing. Reverts of blatant and obvious vandalism or edits made in violation of this sanction are exempt from this restriction. |
|
| text = Archived Talk about Jerusalem as capital of Israel may be found ] |
|
|
| textstyle = text-align: center; |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{todo|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|Ottoman=yes}} |
|
|target=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive index |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Cities|core=yes|capital=yes}} |
|
|mask=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive <#> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}} |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Top}} |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Top}} |
|
{{archives |auto=yes |search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2|units=months }} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|Interfaith=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Geography |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|counter = 28 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Jerusalem/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Jerusalem/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive index |
|
|
|mask1=Talk:Jerusalem/Archive <#> |
|
|
|mask2=Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion |
|
|
|mask3=Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion/Archive <#> |
|
|
|mask4=Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2003–2009 |
|
|
|mask5=Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010 |
|
|
|mask6=Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2011 |
|
|
|mask7=Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2012 |
|
|
|mask8=Talk:Jerusalem/Largest city |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archivebox| auto = long | |
|
|
;] |
|
|
*] (2003–2009) |
|
|
*] (2010) |
|
|
*] (2011) |
|
|
*] (2012) |
|
|
;Other archives |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|index = /Archive index | search = yes | bot = Lowercase sigmabot III |age=30}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2024 == |
|
== Palestinian Football club in Jerusalem == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, |
|
|
Can we add something like that in the Sports section: |
|
|
Also, the most popular Palestinian football team is called ] (since 1976) which plays in ]. They are not allowed to play any of their games at home and instead have to travel through the separation barrier to the Faisal al Husseini stadium in Al Ram. |
|
|
|
|
|
here is my sources but other sources are welcome too. --] (]) 02:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks good to me, especially CNN and PFA, providing both primary and secondary view. Let's see if it sticks. ] (]) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Page move protection == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there a big sign saying the page is protected from page moves? From what i can see on the talk page there is no serious dispute about the name of this article, so if it has been moved a lot it must just be vandalism. Why do we need the big template about page protection, most protected pages do not have such a template, which suggests the article title may not be endorsed. ] (]) 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:The template was changed from one with no visibility to one that is visible by someone who's not an admin. I changed it back to the original. ] (]) 10:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Source for capital of Israel == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a UN source blankly saying Jerusalem is capital of Israel ] (]) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Jerusalem|answered=yes}} |
|
== "East Jerusalem," "International Community" and "Occupied Palestinian Territory" == |
|
|
|
Consider changing "Jews" here to "Israelites": "Modern scholars argue that Jews branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture." The word "Jew" is generally used from the Second Temple period onwards. Before the Babylonian exile, the correct term is Israelites. This is discussed in ''From the Maccabees to the Mishnah'' by Shaye J.D. Cohen pages 8-9. ] (]) 01:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:which specific line or phrase were you referring to in the article, though? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I find the following portion of a sentence in the fourth paragraph of the Lead very troubling, misleading and erroneous: |
|
|
|
::@] gave the line in question - it's the second sentence in the third paragraph of the lead. What I'm uncertain of (or I would make the change myself) is whether this change should require a consensus first. ] (]) 18:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Since this has ], I've made the change. Anyone can revert and discuss it here if there are objections. ] (]) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2024 == |
|
*"…although the ''international community'' has rejected the annexation as illegal and considers ''East Jerusalem'' to be ''Palestinian territory'' held by Israel under military occupation." . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Jerusalem|answered=yes}} |
|
'''First''', ] is located in East Jerusalem yet the “international community” is in agreement that this area is part of Israel proper as it fell within the 1948/49 armistice lines. Thus, we need to rephrase the sentence to reflect that. It should be re-stated as, "…considers ''parts'' of East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory." . |
|
|
|
i just want write name of al-Quds real arabic name best ] (]) 21:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Please tell us how you want to write it and why it is better than the existing version. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''Second''', there is no international consensus concerning the status of East Jerusalem. There may have been a GA and SC resolution that passed but that in no way translates to international unanimity. In fact, according to , the United States and Canada actually abstained, reflecting their displeasure over the Resolution. Therefore, the sentence should read, "''some'' in the international community have rejected the annexation," (emphasis added). |
|
|
|
:I've marked this as answered, as there is no further action that can be taken until {{u|Youfind236}} responds. ] (]) 04:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Jerusalem as capital in Islamic era == |
|
'''Third''', while I find the term “occupation” to be personally offensive, I won’t argue that point because my personal opinion does not matter. What does matter is accuracy. Only one of the four sources noted refers to East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory,” and incidentally, this same source refers to the Temple Mount as “Haram Al-Sharif,” completely ignoring the Jewish connection. While the territory may be occupied, it is by no means an established fact that it is “Palestinian territory.” In fact, it has been the policy of the United States that the parties themselves would negotiate the ultimate status of East Jerusalem. In fact, at Camp David, it was proposed that Israel keep those portions of East Jerusalem that have a Jewish majority while the PA would keep portions of East Jerusalem with an Arab majority. Thus, while the territory can technically be referred to as “occupied,” (and I certainly don’t concede that point) it is certainly not “Palestinian” territory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Jerusalem was capital of ] |
|
Therefore, I propose that the sentence should be changed as follows: |
|
|
|
* Jerusalem capital of ] '''sanjak''' |
|
*"..although ''some'' in the international community have rejected the annexation as illegal and consider ''parts'' of East Jerusalem to be occupied territory." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* It was also capital of ] |
|
I welcome further discussion but clearly, the wording needs to be changed or the sentence entirely removed until agreed upon language is established.--] (]) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* And later ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I love a good intractable land dispute! Hmm, I'll have to come back in detail tomorrow as I must return to more pressing matters (i.e., making bathtub gin) but this could all be running up against the OR monster, a lot of the original looks well sourced. ] (]) 05:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
East Jerusalem refers to the area of Jerusalem held by Jordan between 1948 and 1967. The phrase "East Jerusalem" does not include Mt Scopus, see for example the following: |
|
|
*{{citation|title=Planning Jerusalem|last1=Efrat|first1=Elisha|last2=Noble|first2=Allen|journal=Geographical Review|volume=78|issue=4|page=p. 387}}:<blockquote>East Jerusalem usually refers to the parts of the city outside the walls of the Old City that were under Jordanian rule between 1948 and 1967. The population of East Jerusalem is mostly Arab. Mount Scopus, which lies northeast of the Old City, never was under Jordanian control and hence is considered to be an outlier of West Jerusalem, the third component.</blockquote> |
|
|
That renders moot the objection to the idea that saying East Jerusalem is considered occupied Palestinian territory includes Mt Scopus as "East Jerusalem" does not include Mt Scopus, thus removing the need for "parts".<p>Next, as to whether or not the view is that EJ is not only considered occupied but additionally considered Palestinian territory. In the Wall case, the ICJ repeatedly referred to "the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem)". The ICRC regularly makes statements about actions taken by Israel "in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory", see for example . The rejection of the annexation is almost without exception (the almost may not even be needed here). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
:And is a source that explicitly says ''East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied Palestinian territory by the international community''. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024 == |
|
::the sources, the sources... WP:V is very important, but the sources are often ignorant of all the facts, and being from newspapers, usually have space limitations restricting them from getting into more context. It is clear that Mount Scopus is not in 'occupied East Jerusalem' and this cannot be ignored. --] (]) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Shuki, the first source I provided says that Mt Scopus is not considered to be a part of ], rather it is an "outlier of West Jerusalem". The term "East Jerusalem" does not include Mount Scopus. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
:::Shuki, it looks like Nableezy has you on the Mt. Scopus point, unless you can bring other sources to bear. We can't bring private knowledge to WP, however accurate it may. <font color="green">]</font> 02:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}Not quite my good man. from Frommer's describes Mt Scopus as being "deep in the heart of Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem." Therefore, my opinion above stands in that the subject sentence should state: |
|
|
*"..although ''some'' in the international community have rejected the annexation as illegal and consider ''parts'' of East Jerusalem to be occupied territory." --] (]) 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is indeed in the heart of East Jerusalem, but it is not a part of EJ, and your source doesnt say that it is. Compare with which says that Vatican City is "in the heart of Rome". It isnt a part of Rome or even a part of Italy. That area has been considered a part of West Jerusalem in Israeli territory. I also provided a source that explicitly says "East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied Palestinian territory by the international community". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::I am still confused by political nuances of the ] and the ]. When people disambiguate Vatican toponym as "city-state", they are plain wrong. Basically Holy See is kind of state here and Vatican is only a territory on the Vatican Hill in Rome under the sovereignty of the Holy See. Now you see how troublesome it is. I guess when we're looking at the lede paragraph #4, current status, we look at the I/P variation of ] painted kerbstones. Some might call this paragraph a prominence issue. And I know we have to reflect '''in the lede''' notable controversies, per ]. However this is the article about municipality after all. We better discuss such political nuances in the body. Do we have already ''International law and Jerusalem'' article?] (]) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Whelp, let's just put it out there: we can talk about Jerusalem with a big disclaimer (the paragraph in question) or we could eradicate any mention of East Jerusalem's status in the lead and leave casual readers wondering why exactly people are so pissy about an area that is Israel's. It's just too complicated not to have a disclaimer; we have a municipality that extends beyond the sovereign borders, which makes no sense. We should probably put in a big disclaimer that this article is about Jerusalem the municipality and its shifting borders, as is done in the East Jerusalem article. ] (]) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I feel that part of the disagreement here is a terminology one. According to ] article the term is used in different, incompatible ways: to describe 49-67 Jordanian part of the city (6.4 km2) and also to describe facto annexed into Jerusalem municipality West Bank territory (70 km2) (including Jordanian part). Kind of metonymy if you want. Maybe in order to avoid confusion we need to disambiguate, when we use the term, per ]. As lede goes, we should definitely describe history (49, 67) and legal status (occupation). ] wikilink in the lede improves readability for curious reader for sure. I personally in favor of readable summarizing lede, 3 paragraphs usually do the trick. Current lede might be little bit bloated, generally. But that would require serious discussion and weighting priorities to trim things up a little bit to come up with new phrasing. ] (]) 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well, I think as it stands now, the section on EJ is way too detailed. Boil it down to a sentence or two, then deal with it in the body. <font color="green">]</font> 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What exactly would you suggest trimming? Agada's last edit had several problems, among them saying that "Modern Jerusalem" is Israel's largest city without clarifying that this is true if and only if you include the residents of the territory not in Israel as part of "Israel's largest city". Additionally, it removed the non-recognition of the capital. I recently added a total of 8 words, changing ''considers East Jerusalem occupied territory'' to ''considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation''. That couldnt possibly have by itself tipped the scale to being "too detailed". And even if it did tip it to being "too detailed", that doesnt mean that everything that has been discussed over the past year, such as the clarification on largest city or the non-recognition of the capital, should be removed unilaterally. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 01:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
:::::::Dude, did I not just defend your hindquarters above? I have no idea who inserted what in re EJ, all's I'm saying is, it's too frigging argumentative for a lead. But in the body, yes, by all means have claim versus counterclaim. <font color="green">]</font> 04:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::All right, what specifically would you remove from the lead? What is too detailed there? Should we just say that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel without noting that this is true only if you include the population and territory of what is not in Israel? Should we only say, after making clear that Jerusalem is the "capital of Israel", that the status of East Jerusalem is "disputed" or "a matter of contention" and not include that it is recognized by nearly the entire world as occupied Palestinian territory? Ill take suggestions seriously, I really will, but I dont see the few sentences in the lead about EJ as being "too detailed". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 11:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::::::::::After a quick look, I'd have it read something like this: "Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Israel, however, considers the entire city to be a part of Israel following its annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 Arab Israeli War." Everything I cut out of the middle could go in a footnote. I'm not saying it isn't important, what I'm saying is, in the totality of Jerusalem's long, long existence, is this one issue so important that it should take up that much room in the lead? <font color="green">]</font> 15:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::So in Jerusalem's long history, its status as the capital of the modern state of Israel belongs in the first sentence of the article but EJ's status as occupied Palestinian territory becomes something that "Palestinians want" as a future capital? Cmon man. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::::::::::::My mind, it is wide open... but I don't understand exactly what your beef is here. Do Palestinians ''not'' want it as a future capital? And I think the idea of it being "occupied Palestinian territory" is possibly slightly controversial, no? Which is why there can't be sentence after sentence hashing it out in the lead. <font color="green">]</font> 16:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::To begin with, it isnt controversial that EJ is considered oPt. It is disputed by Israel, but thats about it. I have problems with "future capital", but thats already in the article so we can ignore those issues for now. The fact is that the statement "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" has much less acceptance around the world than the sentence "East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory". But for some reason we can include the first but not the second. What is that reason? We repeatedly present Jerusalem as a single "unified" city that is "Israeli", that is we repeatedly accept the Israeli government's view as fact and ignore what nearly the entire world says. You dont think that view is slightly controversial? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::::::::::::::Hm. Well, this discussion has been had before, but it is my firm belief that foreign countries may not determine the location of another country's capital, however much they might wish to. If Jerusalem isn't the capital, then Israel, curiously, has no capital. I return your "Cmon man" to you with interest, on that point. I'm not sure I agree about oPt either. It looks a lot more like occupied Jordanian territory to me, if occupied it be, but the Jordanians have released their claim. So its status is... uncertain. But regardless, I don't think EJ, important as it is today, is so important that it can take up so much of the lead, even if I am dead wrong about the above facts. <font color="green">]</font> 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I really dont want to get into whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, to me the bigger problem is that in several places, including the lead, we say treat areas of Jerusalem that are not in Israel as part of an "Israeli city". It would be one thing if all the political material were removed, but that isnt what is suggested here. What is suggested is that whatever political information that does not back the idea that Jerusalem, "whole and united", is in Israel should be cut down. There lies the problem. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I'm all for getting into the dispute, but can the lead not be cut down? Can it not be in a footnote? Does that destroy the lead? <font color="green">]</font> 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Sure it could, I just dont like what you propose cutting. I dont have a problem removing ''The international community does not recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and most foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv and its suburbs. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Israel, however, considers the entire city to be a part of Israel following its annexation of East Jerusalem through the Jerusalem Law of 1980.'' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::I am happy with the progress made. ] (]) 00:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I like the Agada's idea of cutting down the lede but it's going to be a balancing act. ] (]) 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::The Jordanians ceded their claim to the PA (via the PLO) in '88, I think it was, and it's considered to be part of the oPt by all of the usual suspects (UN, ICJ, BBC, etc etc). You could make a case for giving it a different label but that's the usual category. |
|
|
:::::::::::::You raise a valid point on the issue of "If Jerusalem isn't the capital, then Israel, curiously, has no capital" but the rejection of the city as capital is founded on the jurisdictional issues of the ]. The international community's reasoning is that the law is invalid as written, as it attempts to extend Israeli sovereignty beyond the borders of Israel. ] (]) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Sure, but in the end it doesn't matter. Many countries condemn the government of ], but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ] questioned the legitimacy of his trial, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that facts on the ground did not eventually overtake him. <font color="green">]</font> 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I guess this is , for clarity. ] (]) 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I appreciate editors input above. I guess both "undividable" and "Jordianian" claims could be balanced in the body and do not belong to the lede. Mentioning population dispute, in first paragraph, is not really readable, when we touch EJ and status only latter in the lede. In any case I would not read it otherwise (i.e. EJ population might be excluded?) also without this inclusion clarification. Anyway we could expand this discussion in the body. Some new summarizing EJ phrasing do float around, I am leaning towards Iron's wording which is both balanced and reflect all points of view carefully. ] (]) 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I have explained my objection to removing what ID suggested we cut. And yes, when you say Jerusalem is Israel's largest city you need to say that includes territory not in Israel. If you want to remove the line on it being the Israel's largest city then you can remove that is true only if it includes EJ. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::::::::::I understand there is generally openness of mind in question of cutting & rephrasing. We clearly say about EJ, and what it means from International Law point of view. My OR is that most of Jerusalem municipal territory is outside "Israel-proper". No argument about it. However there is a question of flow - at first paragraph EJ is not clearly defined and thus comes as a surprise, also not really clear, how can you read it otherwise, that EJ population is not counted, really? ] (]) 20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I guess at this stage everyone has given (at least grudging) agreement. I do not want to make any sudden move, so I will wait to see if any objection is surfacing, before implementation stage. 10x everybody for discussion. ] (]) 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Do you really not understand what I have written, or is this reaction simply feigned? I have objected, multiple times, to the removal of the material that you claim everyone has agreed to remove. You would like to say that Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel, but you want to remove the fact that this is true only if "Jerusalem" includes a large amount of area and population from territory outside of Israel? You want to remove that EJ is considered occupied Palestinian territory and only leave the extreme minority view that EJ is Israeli territory? No, not everyone has given any sort of agreement, grudging or otherwise. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
:::::::::::::I read the discussion twice, who says Jerusalem is in Israel ;) Jerusalem municipal territory includes EJ (with all the consequences, like population). That's just the way it is. We say it all along. My feeling is the main threat for "bigness" comes from ] and ] areas, but let's not get into political motivational of people who draw municipal borders. So how about lede trimming? ] (]) 14:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Jerusalem|answered=yes}} |
|
== Occupation vs. ''military'' occupation == |
|
|
|
In the History section: "It remained under Islamic control through the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods, until it became part of the '''Ottoman Empire in 1517. In the modern period,''' Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a large part missing that can add valuable context and historical completeness for Misplaced Pages readers. After 1517 and before the modern era, I suggest adding: |
|
Israel extended its civil rule over EJ while the rest of the WB was still under military rule. Any ''military'' occupation in EJ is long gone. Of course it is still viewed as being "occupied", but I would not call it "military". Am I correct in asserting this? ] (]) 11:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Military occupation" does not necessarily mean that there are "boots on the ground", it only means that a state exercises "effective military control" over territory outside of its borders. But "occupied" means "military occupied". If the word "military" really bothers you we can come up with something else, but you removed not just "military" but also "occupied". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|
|
::I was under the impression the MO meant that an area was under military administration, not "effective control" of a states civil law. ] (]) 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"After centuries under Ottoman rule (1517–1917), Jerusalem underwent modernization and became a center of European and Jewish immigration in the 19th century. <ref>"Jerusalem." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. https://www.britannica.com/place/Jerusalem. Accessed December 1, 2024.</ref> Following World War I, the city came under British control during the Mandate for Palestine (1922–1948), a period marked by significant urban development and rising tensions between Jews, Arabs, and the British authorities. <ref>"Palestine: World War I and After." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/World-War-I-and-after. Accessed December 1, 2024.</ref>" ] (]) 12:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Timeline== |
|
|
|
:{{not done for now}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> I'm happy with the text. I would prefer better sources, ] is sometimes acceptable and I think it might be here but I'd be more comfortable with other sources. ] (]) 11:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Timelines can be nice, but the one inserted in this article pushes all the text down and leaves a gaping hole in the middle. I removed it, but someone objected. If someone can find a way to create an acceptable layout, please restore it - but not in the format it is now, where it veers drastically to one side, and is both disruptive and illegible. --] (]) 14:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
Consider changing "Jews" here to "Israelites": "Modern scholars argue that Jews branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture." The word "Jew" is generally used from the Second Temple period onwards. Before the Babylonian exile, the correct term is Israelites. This is discussed in From the Maccabees to the Mishnah by Shaye J.D. Cohen pages 8-9. Isaachier (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
In the History section: "It remained under Islamic control through the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods, until it became part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517. In the modern period, Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."
There is a large part missing that can add valuable context and historical completeness for Misplaced Pages readers. After 1517 and before the modern era, I suggest adding:
"After centuries under Ottoman rule (1517–1917), Jerusalem underwent modernization and became a center of European and Jewish immigration in the 19th century. Following World War I, the city came under British control during the Mandate for Palestine (1922–1948), a period marked by significant urban development and rising tensions between Jews, Arabs, and the British authorities. " Niho rei (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done for now: I'm happy with the text. I would prefer better sources, Britannica is sometimes acceptable and I think it might be here but I'd be more comfortable with other sources. Ultraodan (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
