Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 2

Contents

1 Importance of Jerusalem to Jews and Judaism 2 Aide memoire/discuter 3 "on the border" 4 Possession

Importance of Jerusalem to Jews and Judaism

User:Wik keeps removing entire sections concerning the importance of Jerusalem to Jewish people and Judaism. Now, this is not about Israel's policies or wars anymore. I also consider this article a litmus test for the WP. So far, pretty sour. --Humus sapiens 23:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Although the importance of Jerusalem to Jews must be described in the article, the present (pre-Wik) text is a disgrace that doesn't even try to be NPOV. It reads like a sermon. --Zero 23:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've tightened that section and what's left of it is now in User:Humus_sapiens/sandbox/Importance_of_Jerusalem_to_Jews. You're welcome to modify/contribute. --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aide memoire/discuter

1. We should have a clear section in the article Jerusalem as the capital of Israel which covers all the factual stuff that's been brought up in the matter on these talk pages. The intro is made more controversial because of the lack of detailed information in the article proper, at least in my view.
2. The section entitled Jerusalem, Israel's officially designated capital under History is totally random. It should be titled Mayors. Or possibly Local government.
3. The demographics section is poor. By analogy with Demographics of France, etc, it should be current demographics. Historical demographics should go into the historical section (eg, put numbers next to "By the 1860s, the city, with an area of only 1 square kilometer, was already overcrowded"). Raw stats are in any case uninformative. I'm thinking it would be good to just delete that section, in its current form.
4. Image at the bottom is nice - well done.
5. "The status of East Jerusalem remains a highly controversial issue." - redundant
6. Needs image markup changed, where appropriate.

Martin 01:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"on the border"

I removed the following phrase: "[a city] which lies on the border between Israel and the West Bank". It is both Israel's official position, as well as my personal POV, and the POV of many oter Israelis (and presumably, also, some non-Israelis), that Jerusalem is entirely within Israel, and not "on the border" (Parts of Jerusalem which were in the West Bank prior to the Six-Day war were officially annexed to Israel in 1968). Therefore saying it is "on the border" is not NPOV (as well as saying that it is entirely in Israel, I suppose). -- uriber 09:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes: that's a very good point. Martin 13:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Possession

Israel's possession of the (entire) city is ...

Should this be "Israel's possession of East Jerusalem"? Also, is "possession" the right word - should it be "sovereignty over"? Martin 18:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "Israeli sovereignty over" seems much better. I don't like the term "East Jerusalem" - this is an archaic term from the days when Jerusaelem was actually divided into to separately-administered cities. I would say "those parts of Jerusaelm which came under Israeli control in 1967" (it's long, but more informative, and more NPOV). Anyway, I'm not going to get into a revert war with you if you choose to use "East Jerusalem". -- uriber 18:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The thing is: This all comes down to what kind of value judgement a word or an expression may bring. What we DON'T want is the article to convey the meaning that Jerusalem somehow belongs to Israel. Words like "capital" and "sovereignty" might lead to that interpretation, while "possession" was something that popped into my head as being about as neutral as they get. -- Dissident 19:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look at the context: it says "Israel's [whatever] of the (entire) city is not internationally recognized". How can that convey the meaning that Jerusalem "belongs" to Israel - whatever [whatever] is replaced by?

Jerusalem is, in fact, entirely under Israeli control (call it "occupation" if you want to take the Anti-Israeli side). This is not a disputed fact, and there is no reason to present it as such. There is no such thing as internationally "recognizing posession", or "recognizing belonging" (or even "belonging" alone, when dealing with countries and territories). What is disputed is sovereignty - and that's what isn't internationally recognized. -- uriber 19:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As it stands it is a nonsequiter. Before talking about Israel's possession of the city being disputed, you have to talk about who claims possession of the city in the first place. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 19:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik, you replaced

Israel controls the entire city and claims sovereignity over it. However, Israeli sovereignity over those parts of the city which came under Israeli control following the Six-Day War is not internationally recognized...

With

Israel's possession of the (entire) city however is not internationally recognized...

Could you explain to us what problems you have with the former version. You didn't say. I'm speculating, but perhaps you had a problem with the mis-spelling? I'll fix that. Martin 22:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's too long for an introductory paragraph. That's my problem with it. Just mentioning that part of the city is in dispute is enough. anthony (see warning) 10:09, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)