Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 4

message: Šachar 'Dawn' and Šalim 'Sunset/Dusk' in Canaanite (Ugaritic) religion they were twin Gods, the first, if not only, pair of gracious gods of peace, the children and cleavers of the sea. They were born of El and Athirat or her female companion. The new family builds a sanctuary in the desert and lives there for eight years. According to Isaiah 14:12, Šachar was the father of Helel or Lucifer, the 'light-bringer', usually taken to mean the morning-star.
Given that during the "Canaanite period, Jerusalem had the name Urušalim, meaning 'the city of peace'" could not his equally have meant "City of Shalim, i.e. the Sunset", and be the site referred to where the sanctuary to peace (The temple of Solomon) was built?  Especially since (Hebrew: שְׁלֹמֹה, (Shelomo) Standard Šəlomo Tiberian Šəlōmōh; Arabic: سليمان, Sulayman; all essentially meaning "peace"), and according to Israel Finkelstein's archaeological research, the Solomonic Empire as it was supposed to exist cannot be found. The name Shalim is also found in the names of Assyrian monarchs such as Shalmaneser (Shulmanu-asharidu). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John D. Croft (talk • contribs) 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Jerusalem 

message: I removed three more sources – the ones that were other encyclopedias. They are, for the most part, doing the same thing we are (compiling information) so, although they are correct, it would be better to use other sources, if possible. Three sources still exist so I thought removing the encyclopedia sources was fine; others could also easily be found if there is a dire need for more. In regards to the footnote I added, I simply copied what was stated in the footnote in the Israel article; I assumed that wording got consensus there at some point. Either way, in my opinion, it summarizes the situation well while not dodging the word capital which seems to be a non-negotiable. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove sources; in contentious articles more sources are always required, never fewer. Contrary to the suspicions of the IP editor above, extra sources are always needed for this kind of thing because otherwise people start removing simple facts from articles because they contradict their own political biases. I've allowed a couple of sources to be deleted, but that's the limit. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Articles signed by experts should be regarded as more reliable than unsigned articles. Unsigned articles should not be used to support any controversial or complex points. Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones. So, essentially we're using three tertiary sources to help support a controversial point, even though there are more than enough secondary sources available. If you want six sources, get six good sources; resorting to three encyclopedias suggests we were having trouble finding enough sources to back our point. Please also respond to my comment about the footnote that you removed. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that wording was changed, and not by consensus, less that two weeks ago. Before then it never said anything about unsigned articles not being "used to support any controversial or complex points", and specifically mentioned Encylopedia Brittanica as a reliable source. I've restored the original wording. If you want to add the other footnote, please feel free to, but please don't combine it with a complex edit removing other footnotes. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to say I didn't mean to remove that part, just say that. Don't make it sound as if there was some ulterior motive in making more than one change at a time. And don't make it sound as if it's a federal crime to revert only part of an edit. Sheesh. -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources (January 2007)

message: I hope you all don't mind the changes I made to the infobox. Most notably, I used a different city photo since panoramic photos aren't infobox-friendly (due to their extra-wide proportions). Additionally, I added the flag of Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why there are two of these "infoboxes" on the page. Aesthetically, I think it detracts and leaves large gaps.
--Gilabrand 09:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: This edit made this section completely disappear while it was not yet decided whether its supposed to be in the article or not. If someone cares about this section, decide about its fate. Thanks. – Alensha talk 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Born in Jerusalem

message: I'm not really a fan of having galleries in articles that serve no purpose, and this article has three. In my opinion, I think we need to cut down on the astounding thirty-eight (38) images in the article. If people want to look at pictures of Jerusalem, they should head over to Wikimedia Commons (which is prominently linked from the bottom of the page). Instead of crowding the images with unnecessary images, we should be striving to only include images that relate to topics covered in the text. For example, the closeup image of Mount Olives (Jerusalem from mt olives.jpg) is not needed by the name section since it is not discussed. If there are images that are especially aesthetic but don't belong anywhere else, perhaps we could consider placing a couple next to the external links. -- tariqabjotu 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries Galore 

message: As is probably obvious for those watching this article, I added a to-do list at the top of the page. I encourage everyone to add items to the list for things that need to be done as well encourage everyone to try and take care of some of the items. If you object to some of the points in the to-do list, please do not post your objections in the to-do list itself, but instead on this talk page (perhaps under this section). I will, hopefully, be putting a great deal of effort over the next few weeks into improving the article. -- tariqabjotu 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are all very touchy about the slightest change in this article, but there are many fluff terms and inaccuracies that need correcting to make it sound like English. For one thing, the term in English is Judean Hills, not mountains. Another issue is the word "storied" as in "Jerusalem has a storied history." That means nothing in English. I presume the meaning is "layered" or "complex" or "convoluted" or some such. I think "intense" might do the trick. 
--Gilabrand 07:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are making good improvements in copyediting.  Thanks for proposing changes to the opening here first though, since it is so shenuy bemahloket (by the way, you should usually post towards bottom of talk page since thats where people check).  In regards to your proposals:
*Judean Hills.  I did a Google search, which found: 66,600 for "judean hills" ; 58,900 results for "judean mountains" ; 13,500 results for "hills of judea" ; and a much smaller number for "mountains of Judea" .  SO it looks like you are right.  However, I don't think this is the right venue for this discussion.  There was already an edit war and argument over this at Talk:Judean Mountains.
*"storied". I like this word and think it is appropriate. See , which defines it as "having an interesting history : celebrated in story or history <a storied institution>". Sounds like Jerusalem to me. nadav 10:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: It's necessary. This is not the place for political struggles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.90.167.95 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps someone who could provide a truly neutral point of view would edit this artical?  

message: According to Charles H. Miller, who authored the article on the city in the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:
:The earliest literary references to "Rushalimum" appear in Egyptian Execration Texts of the twentieth and nineteenth centuries BC  The fourteenth-century BC Amarna Letters speak of "Urusalim."  "Yerushalem" was probably the original pronunciation in Hebrew, later modified to the dual form "Yerushalayyim."  The name seems to mean "Foundation of [the god] Shalem."  Shalem and his twin, Shahar, are known from Ugaritic texts as the gods of twilight and dawn respectively. Scholarly opinion is divided over the identification of Melchizedek's "Salem" with Jerusalem. (In The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, revised edition, ed. by Paul J. Achtemeier (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).
How does this square with the current intro. text? Fishhead64 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name

message: Maybe on this article or something related to the history of jerusalem, someone should put something to the effect that the pentagram is the original seal of jerusalem(see pentagram for more details). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.78.62 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, it is an image of an ancient coin rather than "the original seal of jerusalem". ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orginal Seal 

message: : Once a small town during Ottoman times with Jews already forming the largest religious group, Jewish immigrants and the economic opportunity that followed has helped make Jerusalem a vibrant metropolitan capital of the State of Israel. 
:#Jerusalem :: Demographic trends
:#Jerusalem's Population
:#Jerusalem :: Muslims
I don't believe this sentence belongs in the introduction. For one thing, it is not relevant to the content in adjacent sentences (Surrounding the Old City are more modern areas of Jerusalem. and The civic and cultural center of modern Israel extends from western Jerusalem toward the country's other urban areas to the west, while areas populated mostly by Arabs could be found in the northern, eastern and southern districts.) Additionally, the sources do not support the statement. The Jewish Virtual Library source ([2]) is especially insignificant because it only shows the population change since the middle of the 19th century. The third source is unrelated to the sentence; the only mention of historical religious populations comes in the first sentence of the article (Muslims formed only a minority of the Arab population of Jerusalem in the first decade of the 20th century but by 2000 outnumbered Christians by an overwhelming margin.), which has very little relationship to the sentence. The first source is probably where the meat of the sentence originates. However, the sentence is misleading because it gives the impression that Jews were the largest religious group throughout the Ottoman period (c. 1500 - c. 1910) when that's not true; in 1563, Muslims were 78% of the city's population and in 1800, Muslims were 44% of the population (compared to the Jewish 25%). I understand that the historical demographics are probably significant, but they should be relegated, with more detail, to the Demographics section, where they are more relevant. I'd be willing to help out, if desired or necessary. -- tariqabjotu 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I agree with Tariq that this newly added info from intro should be removed, and can be added with proper citation in the "Demographics", if at all. In my lay eyes, the city did not appear to be small town at all, though! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition to the intro 

message: Hello everyone! Can someone tell me what the correct designation is for a citizen of Jerusalem? For someone from Jerusalem? Is it Jerusalite? I just am at a loss for this in my writtings! Any help will be appreciated! Drachenfyre 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's Jerusalemite. I'm 95% confident about that since I've seen that used in The Jerusalem Post, among other places; a Google search confirms that. -- tariqabjotu 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizen of Jerusalem 

message: A link to Tolerance Monument was added to "See also" several days ago. I removed it due to its relative unimportance and the existence of List of places in Jerusalem, but it has since been re-added. Shall it remain? -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you were quit right to remove it. There are far more famous buildings and monuments. nadav 04:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, where is the link to List of places in Jerusalem? Shouldn't that take its place in See also? nadav 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in  (near the top of the page), but it probably should also be added to "See also". -- tariqabjotu 05:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you were right. okedem 07:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tolerance Monument]] 

message: Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly.  In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.
*Neutral. I'll take anything people agree to (as long as it's not very anti-Israel).  nadav 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1

message: Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands many times. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the city was divided into two parts, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem was designated Israel's capital in 1949. After the 1967 conflict, Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared the unified city to be its capital. However, East Jerusalem has a majority Palestinian population, and Palestinans as well as the United Nations do not recognize the annexation. The annexation has been a major source of conflict, as Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state.
* Oppose This places too much emphasis on recent events, which, in the grand scheme of things, are insignificant. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2

message: Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's seat of government, capital,[iii] and largest city both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes as far back as the 4th millennium BCE. Since then, its inhabitants have included Jebusites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Israelis. Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state.
* Support -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 3

message: In my opinion there are way too many photos of the Dome of the Rock. There is much more to Jerusalem than that, and it should be reflected in the pictures. The quality of most of them also leaves something to be desired. If you agree, let me know and I will put up some of mine. 
Oh, and Nadav, thanks for the welcome. You asked what I think of this article for featured status. Personally, I think it needs more work - more copyediting in particular and less pandering to certain groups that are trying hard to push their political agendas. Jerusalem is unlike any city in the world, and the article should reflect something of that.
--Gilabrand 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, now there are 3 pictures of dome of the Rock. We should remove one.  If you have any good pics of the new city, it would be nice.  I also tried adding a historical pic of Yaffa street. Tariq, is the pic not appropriate at all? I thought it was interesting because it shows the division between the East and West sides, and how things were built outside the walls.  I also found some pictures on the hebrew wikipedia: , , , . -nadav 10:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... fine... put it back. I'm not sure who changed their sizes, but I think the pictures are too big now. There are some as large as 350 pixels, which could be a problem for users with lower resolutions. I also don't understand why the images were put in tables; that just moves images away from their relevant section and can potentially cause conflicts with preceding images. -- tariqabjotu 10:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I also can't decide whether it was better with some images aligned to the left.  nadav 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no opinion about the tables or alignment, but the reason I restored the  picture I did was because it is a unique panorama of both the old and new cities. I do realise that the picture of the Dome of the Rock is from the same angle (essentially a zoomed-in or cropped version), and I'm not sure I have a good solution for the ambiguity. The shot from the old city to the Mounts of Olives and Scopus seems a bit dull and could perhaps be replaced with a "three towers" panorama of the famous northeast skyline, though I'll have to go about locating one. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I hate to be a pain (apparently not), but it would be great if someone can think of some creative way to include :Image:DavidTower.jpg in the entry, since it really is an iconic image associated closely with the city. Anyone able to find the above mentioned photograph (NE skyline with the three towers) would also have my gratitude. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not too concerned about including a photo of a building essentially dating to the Suleiman reconstruction of the walls in the 16th century, relatively modern by Old City standards, considering we already have a lot of Old City photos. nadav 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: This section was unclear and my edits were an attempt to make it more logical. I don't see why these edits should be removed, especially since they add pertinent information regarding the physical condition of the streets (and as a resident of Jerusalem for over 36 years, I do have some knowledge on this subject...)
:--Gilabrand 11:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you are correct.  Unfortunately in this case, we still have to follow wikipedia policies against original research and things that cannot be verified in published secondary sources.  These are useful policies: if a reader asks where we get our facts, we cannot just refer him to your knowledge of the city (what would the footnote look like?). As an Israeli, following these kinds of rules is against my natural tendency :), but I know why they exist and respect them.  nadav 11:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously, the best solution is just to find a source that corroborates your facts.  nadav 11:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You know what? I think the whole paragraph should go. I found no such comparison between East and West Jerusalem in any Google search, and if you can't check the Nusseibeh material it is based on, who knows if isn't fabricated. To me it sounds like hogwash - there is no reason for East Jerusalem to have have more "air pollution due to traffic congestion" than West Jerusalem unless someone is interested in digging up more issues to add fuel to the flames. So forget my edits as well. They were an attempt to make the argument sound more logical, but maybe it isn't logical to begin with. --Gilabrand 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you can read the book source. Click on the ISBN, then click on Google Book search (which will lead you to the exact book), then use the search bar on the right side to find the relevant pages ("East Jerusalem" is a suitable search term). The book explains somewhat extensively why there is more pollution from cars in East Jerusalem. Not everything in this article is an attempt to be polemic (in fact, nothing in this article is an attempt to be polemic). -- tariqabjotu 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pollution 

message: Not every single word here needs a little number beside it. 
Statements that are easily verified by reading a linked article don't need specific sources, or it'll turn into an abomination.
The "Name" cite - what source would you like here? Any Hebrew speaker will tell you that if we treat the "aim" as a suffix, what remains (Yerushal) is not a word. Where do you want me to link - to a dictionary that can't find the word?
okedem 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree out of principle to the citation of easily verifiable and undisputed information such as the geographic location of the city, the importance of Church of the Holy Sepulchre to Christians, or the nature of an institute like Yad Vashem. If we start citing maps etc., then there is no limit to where  tags can be placed, and that could quickly become a method of disrupting the entry. Cheers, TewfikTalk 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I didn't really want to edit war over it. okedem 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am interested, however, in learning where the "two hills" theory of the name comes from. nadav 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading about it once, but can't recall where. Anyway, here's a respectable looking source about the name:  (Hebrew only, sorry). okedem 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed an excellent source and goes into a lot of depth.  Shame it's in the wrong language.  Another possible source is .  Concerning the two hills, looks like that theory should be removed for now.  nadav 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does mention the hills, but it doesn't look very reliable.  nadav 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we now remove the sourcing for basic information (the maps for Jerusalem's geographic location), as well uncontroversial sourcing available via wikilink to main entry (Egged as 2nd largest bus company)? Obviously, matters of dispute (the etymology mentioned above) should retain sourcing. TewfikTalk 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we do that? -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Aren't we entitled to rest on the FA laurels for at least a few days before proposing such changes...? nadav 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nadav: rest? =D Tariq: see my 'principled stand' against unnecessary sourcing above ;-) TewfikTalk 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: "Today, Jerusalem remains central to the Arab-Israeli conflict:"
I find this statement problematic and have removed it for the following reasons:
*1) When I go to the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict, not a word is said there about Jerusalem, let alone that it is central to the conflict. So before we can have such a statement it should at least point to an explanation.
*2) The Arab-Israeli conflict started long before the establishment of the State of Israel. From the 1947 partition plan, Jordan’s annexation of Jerusalem all along to the Six Day War the conflict wasn't resolved without Jerusalem being central to the conflict.
*3) If it's today central to the conflict is highly questionable and it's certainly POV. If it should stay then it should at least be attributed to whose view this is. Itzse 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps more specific is the fact that Jerusalem is central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the Arab-Israeli conflict, but since the paragraph seems to survive just fine without the clause, I won't object to the removal. -- tariqabjotu 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab-Israeli conflict  

message: I've change "Central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "a significant issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". There are other issues that are equally important, if not moreso; for example, the Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian claim of a "right of return". For groups like Hamas, Israel's very existence is the central issue, Jerusalem is a side point. All the negotiations up until now have left Jerusalem as a "to be determined" item, so it's clear that progress can be made without solving the Jerusalem question. In summary, a significant issue, but not central. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been left as a "final status" item because it is seen as intractable, and it was one the biggest reasons the Barak offer failed.  Anyways, your change is good; the phrase is unsourced so it shouldn't be even the slightest bit contentious. nadav 08:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"