Jump to content

Talk:Jerusalem

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sean.goylander (talk | contribs) at 08:27, 18 April 2016 (edit summary removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleJerusalem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 2, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 7, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


Jerusalem, Israel for pre-1967 locations

pre-RFC question: For those neighborhood articles that are inside the green line, such as Meah Shearim and Katamon, etc. I think Jerusalem, Israel should be the norm because it is Israel proper, however because the borders are not finalized, I would propose that instead of having it say Jerusalem, Israel it should say neighborhood in Jerusalem, Israel. Those neighborhoods were never part of Jordan or the PA and are not part of disputed territories. This would be only for those neighborhoods that are inside the green line or in Israel proper. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current situation bothers many editors, an RFC would likely end in no consensus, the RFC would waste editor's efforts which could be better used elsewhere, and if you really push it you might be about as happy as those Americans who wanted Jerusalem, Israel on their passports. Sepsis II (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I asked is that some say Israel and then some don't, and recently I saw one editor went on a revert spree getting rid of Israel from all the articles on the inside green line neighborhoods. So I brought it here. I didn't mean for an RFC, I meant for an informal RFC. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those neighborhoods have never been part of Israel, either, so saying "Israel" in that context would just amount to adopting the view of a single government with which other governments disagree. --Dailycare (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those neighborhoods *are* in Israel de facto and saying otherwise is misleading the public. Ideological and governmental opinions are irrelevant to the facts on the ground. Benjil (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dailycare,why do you say those neighborhoods have never been part of Israel? They are all in pre-1967 lines? I'm not understanding your argument. Please clarify. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He means that governments do not recognize even West-Jerusalem as part of Israel (for example they refuse to move their embassies there) while in fact they also do recognize West-Jerusalem as part of Israel (since they have no problem visiting there when they come, and on the opposite refuse usually to go to East-Jerusalem or at least come to Israeli offices there). Saying that these governments are inconsistent is an understatement. Benjil (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt how recognition works. The UK for example does not recognize any state as having sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. The recognize Israel's control of W Jerusalem and consider E Jerusalem held under illegal military occupation (see here). That a UK minister would visit W Jerusalem does not change that formal view that W Jerusalem is not Israeli sovereign territory. nableezy - 18:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your patronizing for your friends. You just proved this does not make any sense. They do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over West Jerusalem (which in fact is not true since until 1981 they did) but it's control is seen as legal, which is basically the same. Indeed that's not exactly coherent. Benjil (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be blunt, but Arabs lost W Jerusalem to Israel in 1948 and E Jerusalem in 1967 but still can not recognize those facts. 213.91.208.170 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy is right. Even the United States doesn't recognize West Jerusalem as part of Israel. That American officials meet with Israelis there, or in New York, isn't even remotely connected. During WWII, the Belgian government was in London and met with lots of people there. No-one, however, would then conclude London is in Belgium. --Dailycare (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous how people here are freaking out about recognition or non-recognition. It looks like the aim of Wikipedia is not to reflect data as it is in reality, but to create fake reality out of thin air, in order to meet their political agenda. The neighborhoods of Jerusalem are in Israel. That's the reality guys, in any dimension outside of this website. Maybe someday they will not be in Israel, or in any other country (for example after a third world war that will destroy half of the world), but as soon as it didn't happen yet, you can visit these neighborhoods and find out that all the citizens are with Israeli citizenship (Jews and Arabs), the legal system is Israeli, the schools are Israeli, the sanitation systems are Israeli, the healthcare and police is Israeli etc etc. Of course, you are free to write here that these neighborhoods are part of the "State of Santa-Claus" if you want, because a group of foreign politicians with ties decided so, but in reality it'll still be Israel. Elvenking (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After the horrors of WWII, the world agreed to not allow the forced seizure of land through war, thus the world is still waiting for Israel to negotiate peace with Palestine before recognizing any land changes. Sepsis II (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As well as should wait for the Palestinian territories to negotiate with Israel for peace and abandon the violence and incitement against Israelis. Elvenking (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Capital of Palestine" Quote

I find it purposefully deceptive. It is a real quote, but does not mean what modern readers think it means (Palestine as in State of Palestine). Of course it is referring to Palestine the region. It makes this clear by calling Palestine "the Holy Land, sometimes also called Judea". Anyway, I think the quote should either be explained so it isn't (as whoever inserted it likely intended) misinterpreted or removed altogether. Unfortunately the word palestine itself, once a geographical descriptor, has become politically loaded.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which quote are you referring to. The only quote I see is for Palestinian Basic Law and I assume you aren't talking about that because of course that is referring to Palestine, the state. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You assume correct. I mean "Jerusalem is still reckoned the capital city of Palestine". [1] The source was likely put in because someone thought it supported the Palestinian narrative, actually it doesn't. Its a Protestant Christian source which is very critical of the Ottoman regime in Palestine and its treatment of Greek Christians. It refers to Palestine in very Biblical terms, ex. "holy mount of Zion". --Monochrome_Monitor 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also comments one the "barreness" of Jerusalem because of its "want of inhabitants", terms not exactly favorable to the Palestinian narrative. In fact the sentence it quotes ends: "though much fallen from its ancient grandeaur"... referring to Israel and Judah.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I see what you see now in the source, but I think your link is wrong. You mean page 461 rather than 534, correct?[2]. Your conjectures about why it is like this have no use so why bother with that? You just need to propose a new wording and see what happens. I don't care about this but no doubt others will. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, you're correct. Wrong page, thanks. Hmmm, I think it would be much more balanced if it included the end of the sentence, which is cut off. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, and I hope all you anti-Semites die.

Muslim perverts

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem&oldid=715832974"