Talk:Jerusalem (disambiguation)

message: Would it be appropriate to have under "See Also" some additional links, for example, to Jerusalem artichoke?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.149.155  (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2006 
:   No; see Wikipedia:Mosdab#Examples_of individual_entries that_should_not_be_created.--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ("See also" secn) 

message: Should there not be an article for 'West Jerusalem' in its own right? Surely even irredentist israelis would acknowledge that there existed between, say 1949 and 1967, an urban entity seperate from East Jerusalem? The example of West Berlin suggests that there is a precedent for mainting the historical record for such an entity even after unification (by whatever means). Boldymumbles 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The greater continuity between the western partition of the city and the current unpartitioned city, compared to East Jerusalem (which may require discussion of the change of control in '56, security measures differing now from the rest of the city, the trend of purchases and/or faked purchases of homes, whose legitimacy neighbors or activists dispute, etc.) means that the above argument does not even establish that the case for WJ is as strong as that for EJ.   The current situation where that Dab and East Jerusalem appear in the "See also" is not obviously correct: see #East, West, etc. below.   In any case, WP could of course have a separate article (like West Jerusalem (1949 partition) since West Jerusalem is currently a (non-compliant) Dab. The work involved being large, it would probably be wise to formally propose splitting the Jerusalem article, identifying the portions of it that would be moved to the new one (since overlapping coverage has to be minimized), and outlining the additional material needed, before creating the article.--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  (West Jerusalem) 

message: It is not acceptable by any means to highlight the Israeli part of view to describe Jerusalem,  it is indeed an occupied city and the photos inserted within the article are speaking about the occupied part of the city.
It is a city occupied by Israel,
Palestinians consider it as their capital since thousands of years.
United nations, all the world and USA,  no single country see Jerusalem as capital of Israel,
at least this is a factual mistake  that need correction immediately.
We can not accept all lies mentioned within this article, and if this will continue, we will launch  Legal and public camping against Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.11.235 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The above contrib violates WP policy. The non-signing IP (apparently an ADSL customer of Jordan Telecom Group (Orange)), and other interested users, should consult wp:legal threat.   That aside, see #Jerusalem is a city in Israel below.--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel 

message: Only the old city is occupied, while western Jerusalem (where Israeli Knesset, governmnet and high court sits) is undoubtly on Israeli's land.
84.109.73.22 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem is the capital of Israel 

message: Per Wikipedia:Mosdab#Examples of_individual entries_that_should not_be_created, Dab entries for East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem should be tolerated on the Dab only if we believe our users are likely to have encountered writers who say "Jerusalem" even tho they mean West Jerusalem, or even tho they mean East Jerusalem. (That is plausible: those whose target audience never go to, mention, or think about one may say "Jerusalem" expecting their audience to understand the more familiar one is the only one that makes sense in the author's context.) Since the section linked just above was written bcz of the frequency with which editors assume a Dab is a list of pages connected to Title "merely because Title is part of the name", the presumption that entries with explicit additional words are there for a good reason is not strong, and it is probably worth presenting evidence in this talk-page section that the need for each of these two See-also entries is real.--Jerzy•t 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  East, West, etc. 

message: I undid 's edit of the accompanying Dab, despite their accurate perception that the hymn's entry was misplaced, apparently due to a previous editor's error of treating the hymn as something other than a song. IIRC, i started a partial undo, thinking to preserve S's move while restoring their removal.    As it turns out, the problems ran deeper, and for no fault of S's, there was so much else to be fixed surrounding the destination of their move that it seemed simpler to fully undo the edit.    The Dab is one of many that unintentionally may leave the impression that WP's usage of "song" is just jargon for "record album cut"; that misconception would explain some previous editor putting the article on the hymn (whose scope is composition rather than performance) separate from the recordings of performances. S. rightly judged that a hymn is a song (as for instance a jingle or a fight song is) but IMO probably fell into the other side of essentially the same trap: it would appear they dropped the Vangelis entry bcz it was not a distinct song, but only a performance or arrangement of the same song (the hymn). On the contrary, for our purposes both are songs, because the grouping of entries is simply a finding tool for readers who know that a band, an album, and a song are (with rare exceptions) clearly distinguishable things, without any intention to engage the reader in the metaphysics of design vs. implementation or different instances of a single construct.    Far more important than that kind of distinction, we're dealing with articles, and almost always with current, actual articles rather than prospective, hypothetical ones. The Jerusalem composed in 1916, the Vangelis arrangement and/or recording of it, and the handier title "Jerusalem" for the poem are each a "Jerusalem" that the reader may be seeking, and the Dab must have entries for each, even at the cost of dumping apples and oranges, or rather apples and hippos, into the same bin: we must include all the topics called "Jerusalem"; a simple but metaphysically incoherant organization of them is better than a crystalline model that takes longer to navigate.    IMO, the crucial neglected organization facet was the fact that the hymn is not represented simply by the 1916 setting and the Vangelis arrangement: a good fraction of the recordings are also takes on the same lyrics and melody. There's a good chance that users looking for a "song" in any of the three senses will recognize the initial line (or, in the case of the (IMO) mash-up by The Fall, which drops the initial lines, some of the pungent martial images) and focus in on those songs while ignoring the mixed bag of independent songs "Jerusalem".    So thanks to Smyth for your diligent inspection of the Dab, and please keep up the good work. --Jerzy•t 09:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Chamber ? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem Chamber ?