Category talk:Jerusalem

Discussion

Please see this diff. Tewfik removed Category:Disputed territories and Category:Cities in the West Bank. He left in Category:Cities in Judea. His edit summary was "please don't use categories to say what doesn't stand in the entry's text."

From Jerusalem:

The Arab population is clustered in the north, east and south. Today, Jerusalem remains a bone of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem (captured in the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial, as Palestinians view this part of the city as the capital of a future Palestinian state.[10][11] The status of a "united Jerusalem" as Israel's "eternal capital"[12][13]has not been officially recognized by most of the international community, and nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.[14]

--Timeshifter 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it more correct to put Category:Cities in the West Bank and Category:Disputed territories just on East Jerusalem? Categories are not meant for controversial things, and I think it's a waste of time to worry about these mostly irrelevant little pieces of text that appear at the bottom of the screen. Let's spend our time on improving the content, not the relatively unimportant navigational tools. nadav (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then, please stop trying to delete the "relatively unimportant navigational tools" such as Category:East Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Me? I just put that one up for CfD because I thought the discussion on that category's talk page ended in consensus which wasn't carried out. I didn't think it was controversial. nadav (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it appears to be. If an East jerusalem category remains, then places etc in it can go there and can be clearly in a disputed category. If not, then the disputed territory labels will have to go on the whole city. Which is disputed anyway. The UK does not recognise either the Israeli or Palestinian claims to any of the city as it existed in 1947. Although the newer suburbs might be recognised as part of one or other territory. --Peter cohen 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem has existed for several years, and its present form has been wrought through countless discussions and disputes. This is hardly the first time that someone has tried to categorise Jerusalem as either in the Palestinian territories, the West Bank, or even as disputed. All of these issues have been dealt with countless times on Talk:Jerusalem, which is really the appropriate place for trying to change any status quo. While I don't want to carry on here, you should realise that Jerusalem is hardly considered 'by default part of the West Bank'; the UK for one never accepted Jordan's annexation of Jerusalem, which it still held was part of corpus separatum. Tewfik^Talk 23:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel has annexed suburbs in the West Bank since the UK's positions back in 1947, etc.. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank in the geographical sense of the West Bank that was captured by Israel in 1967. In any case there is no dispute that parts of Jerusalem are "disputed territories." That has already been settled. See the introduction to the article Jerusalem. If we are going to remove Category:Cities in the West Bank, then we also need to remove Category:Cities in Israel. --Timeshifter 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but the threat of removing other categories doesn't change that what you say is exactly the opposite of the consensus reached on the article and just confirmed on FA. I've told you several times to try to build consensus on the main page instead of unilaterally making these additions. Tewfik^Talk 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is you, Tewfik, that is making a unilateral change in spite of what the article says. I repeat the quote below from the article. From Jerusalem (emphasis added):

The Arab population is clustered in the north, east and south. Today, Jerusalem remains a bone of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem (captured in the 1967 Six-Day War) has been particularly controversial, as Palestinians view this part of the city as the capital of a future Palestinian state.[10][11] The status of a "united Jerusalem" as Israel's "eternal capital"[12][13] has not been officially recognized by most of the international community, and nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.[14]

Tewfik. You must not be reading the same article I am reading. --Timeshifter 00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the maps in East Jerusalem and Corpus separatum, paying particualr attention to Shu'fat, it is clear that there are part's of East Jerusalem that are not in the Corpus but in the West Bank proper. --Peter cohen 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And consensus was achieved by editors who are aware of these maps. Consider that if it was as obvious as you say, then Jerusalem would have been categorised as such a long time ago. Note to Timeshifter: nowhere in that passage do we describe Jerusalem as the Palestinian territories, the West Bank, or any of the other terms you are trying to include. I again refer you to the Talk page. Tewfik^Talk 07:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

From Jerusalem: "Palestinians view this part of the city as the capital of a future Palestinian state.[10][11]." East Jerusalem is obviously disputed territory. So it belongs in Category:Disputed territories. And all of 1947 Jerusalem is disputed territory according to the UK. And East Jerusalem is within the boundaries of the 1967 Green Line.

And in the article East Jerusalem, it says: "The term 'East Jerusalem' usually refers to the entire area that had been under Jordanian rule and came under the administration of the Jerusalem municipality in 1967, covering some 70 km², or it may sometimes refer just to the territory of the pre-1967 Jordanian municipality, covering 6.4 km². Mount Scopus, which was an Israeli enclave inside Jordanian territory before 1967, is not considered part of East Jerusalem."

So on all points you are wrong. --Timeshifter 09:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Where is the border of the West Bank? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See West Bank. I just added back Category:Disputed territories. East Jerusalem is disputed territory. And there is now no separate category for East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is considered part of the West Bank by the international community. See Category:Jerusalem Governorate and List of East Jerusalem locations.--Timeshifter 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, re-create category East Jerusalem and make your argument there or alternatively insert West Bank into the category. Jerusalem is also part of Israel, so you can just put it in the category as well, and then the middle east as well, and perhaps Europe or Asia as well and then Earth as well.. it's never ending. Cheers, Amoruso 12:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See the Peter Cohen comment higher up: "The UK does not recognise either the Israeli or Palestinian claims to any of the city as it existed in 1947."--Timeshifter 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the British Empire is long out of the business setting regional/geographic/international borders. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the comment is false. The UK recognizes "West" Jerusalem as part of Israel like any other country de facto. There are many legal precedents to this and rulings. They formally might say they don't "recognize the capital status" but that's something completely different. If this is not clear to someone, it should be made clear to avoid ignorant remarks like that. Amoruso 11:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A more exact statement of the position can be found under "THE UK POSITION ON JERUSALEM" at [1]. De facto control is recognised but the UK's reservations are rather more than querying its status as a capital. The position is that "no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem". --Peter cohen 12:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel is also "out of the business setting regional/geographic/international borders". The USA, and many Americans like me, are no longer writing a blank check for the creation of the Israeli Empire, or "greater Israel."

Why do you think you have a right to remove

Category:Cities in the West Bank?

It is not a decided issue. You can't just decide for the world.

Therefore since part of the city is considered to be part of Israel, and part is considered to be part of the West Bank, then the relevant categories must be used. Wikipedia can't favor either side. Wikipedia is not party to the conflict.

Is not this wikipedia, and does not wikipedia use WP:NPOV, and not Humus POV? Are you not an admin, and do you not have to support WP:NPOV in order to be an admin?

Adding in only Category:Cities in Judea and Category:Cities in Israel (as in your last diff) is a violation of WP:NPOV.--Timeshifter 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Two possible answers to that.

• The area as referred to by Timeshifter. It is the lump of land between the 1949 armistice lines and the River Jordan (minus the Israeli enclave(s) of the time). Under this interpretation much of Jerusalem is in the West Bank, rather more is in Israel.
• The area I referred to as "the West Bank proper" above. It is the part of the area referred to by Timeshifter that was not in the Corpus separatum. Under that definition, a small amount of modern Jerusalem is in the West Bank. A far larger part, including territories West of the armistice line are in the Corpus, and those parts of modern Jerusalem West of the armistice line that are not in the Corpus are in Israel proper.--Peter cohen 11:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Disputed territories

Category:Jerusalem. Why is this category not part of Category:Disputed territories? There is no category called "East Jerusalem" anymore.

The West Bank is also disputed territory. But it is not sufficient just to say that only it should be listed in the disputed territory category.

The article East Jerusalem is listed in the disputed territories category.

Category:Jerusalem Governorate is listed in the disputed territories category.

Category:Jerusalem Governorate is listed as a subcategory of Category:Jerusalem.

Therefore Category:Jerusalem is part of Category:Disputed territories.--Timeshifter 12:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a logical flaw in that syllogism. If a member of the category belongs in "Disputed territories", it doesn't mean the entire category also belongs there. nadav (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the most disputed territory on the planet, and since you helped delete the category "East Jerusalem", then there is a logical flaw in your claiming that we can't put Jerusalem in the disputed territories category. Also, not every square inch of Kashmir is disputed territory. Yet it is in the disputed territories category. Same for Kurdistan, etc..

If I recreate the category East Jerusalem, are you going to try to delete it again? --Timeshifter 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The semi-automatic reverting and the suggestion that Timeshifter is engaging in "sneaky POV pushing" is appalling. Disagreeing is one thing, but making baseless accusations to excuse not having to actually explain your position is ridiculous. That being said, Jerusalem is partially in the West Bank, so why is that category an issue? Category:Turkey is in both Category:European countries and Category:Southwest Asian countries (even though Turkey is in neither of those categories). Category:Russia is in both Category:Asian countries and Category:European countries (even though Russia is in neither of those categories). If there is a reason why some are so vehemently against the category, please explain why here. However, please note that I don't find the categorization of categories particularly important; categorization of articles seems to be more useful to me. -- tariqabjotu 05:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Jerusalem should be categorised as such should be discussed on that Talk page where all previous consensus was hammered out. Adding those and more controversial categories to numerous Jerusalem-related topics and categories while ignoring the one place where wide review could embrace or reject such a move, and then running to AN/I, which is not the venue for a content discussion, is OTOH inappropriate. Tewfik^Talk 04:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is not in response to my comment, please move it to the appropriate location, as it's a bit out-of-place here. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is in response to you, as an explanation of my edit. Tewfik^Talk 07:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Given how polarised the different POVs are, are we likely to reach agreement among involved editors or should we move to the next step of dispute resolution and ask for comments? One of the possible routes mentioned here is the reintroduction of the deleted category Category:East Jerusalem. I think if that is going to happen it would be better to agree it at a high level than just article or category talk pages.

If that's not worth a polite, and substantive, response, I don't know what is. El_C 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just put the article Jerusalem in Category:Disputed territories and Category:Cities in the West Bank. Let us see if those categories are removed. In the Jerusalem article it discusses the info in Positions on Jerusalem. So to not use the categories I just added contradicts the article info. --Timeshifter 07:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion here. Maybe we can reach a sensible position but I still feel it was necessary to bring the attention of previously uninvolved editors through my post on the incidents page. --Peter cohen 11:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Amoruso continues to remove the relevant categories even as this discussion is going on here. Please see this diff[2] from just a little while ago. Amoruso removed the article Jerusalem from these 2 categories:

Category:Cities in the West Bank

Category:Disputed territories

His edit summary was "remove offensive controversial redundant categories that were also added to other page it seems." What the heck does he mean by offensive? So now he has removed both the Jerusalem article and the Jerusalem category from the relevant categories.--Timeshifter 12:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to admit that your putting those categories into the Jerusalem article was rather provocative given the conflict here. It's quite hypocritical for you to feel entitled to repeatedly add these categories, but affronted when others repeatedly remove them. -- tariqabjotu 06:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not repeatedly add the categories to the Jerusalem article. I added them once. Repetition is not what offends me the most anyway. What offends me the most is that the categories apply according to the info in the articles themselves. Info that the offending editors left in the article! It is completely illogical for those same editors to then remove the relevant categories! --Timeshifter 12:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities in the West Bank

I removed Category:Cities in Judea and Category:Cities in Israel. Since Humus sapiens removed Category:Cities in the West Bank. Parts of Jerusalem are in the West Bank and parts are in Israel. So for WP:NPOV fairness either all the categories remain, or all are removed. --Timeshifter 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem

I thought it was time that the adults were brought in. The status of Jerusalem is quite blatantly disputed and listing it under Judea, Israel, Asian capitals etc but not under West Bank or disputed cities is quite clearly not NPOV. --Peter cohen 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there. I suggest people read Positions on Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 07:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The WP:ANI discussion is now archived here: [3]. It lists many examples of this still-ongoing POV campaign. --Timeshifter 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Here is a summary of similar examples of categorization.

Jerusalem is divided between Israel and the West Bank. So Category:Jerusalem should be in both Category:Cities in Israel and Category:Cities in the West Bank.

Category:Turkey is in both Category:European countries and Category:Southwest Asian countries.

Category:Middle East is in both Category:Asia and Category:Africa.

Category:Russia is in both Category:Asian countries and Category:European countries. --Timeshifter 11:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this logic. I'm sure I said elsewhere (possibly one of the various delete discussions) that I believed in adding categories to reflect the multiple POVs rather than removing all disputed categories.

Another category for inclusion on the same basis. Category:Divided cities to which Category:Berlin belongs. --Peter cohen 10:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jerusalem Governorate

This is really bizarre. Tewfik recently removed Category:Jerusalem and List of East Jerusalem locations from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. Please see these diffs [4] [5].

Jerusalem is not part of the Jerusalem Governorate???--Timeshifter 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Placement of parent categories

Reposting and continuation of discussion from User talk:IZAK#Confusing articles with categories:

Hi Tariqabjotu: You are confusing "articles" with "categories" because there is both an article about Jerusalem and a category for it at Category:Jerusalem. Therefore all parent categories belong under Category:Jerusalem and not under the Jerusalem article. To have it only under the article limits the categories which include far more topics relating to Jerusalem. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Grouping categories and Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "confusing 'articles' with 'categories'"; I meant what my edit summary said and I don't even believe my edit was incorrect. Take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, and specifically the question "How do I categorize categories which have a main article?". The answer to that question is "The article should be left in those categories it would belong to if it had no category of its own". Well, that would include Category:Capitals in Asia, Category:Cities in Israel, Category:Cities in the West Bank, and (not sure on this one) Category:Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church – and those are the categories I re-added. The first three categories most certainly would belong in Jerusalem because, as I noted in my edit summary, there is no daughter article (sub-article) that could conceivably accommodate those categories better. That's as opposed to, say, Category:History of Jerusalem, which would be better suited in History of Jerusalem. I'm not entirely sure about the Titular Sees category because I honestly don't know much about the subject, but from what I could ascertain, the same was the case for that category. I didn't re-add any of the other categories you removed because I either didn't know enough (or could find enough) to make a judgment call or because, like with Category:History of Jerusalem, it truly doesn't belong on the Jerusalem article. (P.S. There's no need to re-add Category:Capitals in Asia because it's in a transcluded template.)

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule. -- tariqabjotu 07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Tariqabjotu: Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention. I honestly think that you are interpreting categorization guidelines far, far, toooo broadly. The way you are saying things, then one may as well take all the parent-categories that are placed below the Category:Jerusalem page and just put them under the plain Jerusalem article. That would make no sense! The purpose of having an article match a category is that the article becomes the lead article for the category by the same name so that subsequently all parent categories for that article are placed only under the category page, leaving the lead article uncluttered. Otherwise you would be defeating the purpose of categories which are meant to serve as stronger vehicles than a simple page. Thus to place the parent categories under the Category:Jerusalem strengthens them, whereas having the same parent categories under both the article for Jerusalem as well as under Category:Jerusalem makes it redundant and in fact any editor would know that it should be trimmed and that categories go to category page as much as possible. I have been working with categories for a long time and your errors and misconceptions are unfortunately common, but few people continue their mistakes after I point it out to them. Please give this your thoughtful consideration. Thank you very much. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't present a straw man argument; I did not take all the parent categories under Category:Jerusalem and put them in the main article. I did not advocate such a thing, but if there were other categories that would, as the FAQ stated, clearly be put in the Jerusalem article had there been no corresponding category, they should indeed be placed there.

You must not have read the FAQ link included in my previous statement because you totally disregarded what it said. Specifically, you stated:

The purpose of having an article match a category is that the article becomes the lead article for the category by the same name so that subsequently all parent categories for that article are placed only under the category page, leaving the lead article uncluttered.

Aside from noting the unnecessarily patronizing tone created by the italics, I must say that your position above clearly contradicts the piece I quoted in the FAQ:

The article should be left in those categories it would belong to if it had no category of its own...

This sentiment, in regard to categories which have a main article, is corroborated by Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule and Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines, number 5. If there is another part of the category policies and guidelines that negates the piece I quoted, please present that. However, at this point, it looks like you are just trying to tell me how you believe categories are supposed to work (again, in a patronizing tone, as if I just started editing here yesterday) instead of how they actually are supposed to work. The fact that you have been working with categories for awhile does not mean you're correct; I would like to see something that supports your position. I'll give you a couple more chances: if you can provide some evidence, fine, I'll drop it (although I'd certainly request a clarification on this matter). If you can't, I'll proceed to revert your removal of these categories. -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: (1) Can you explain why you would want to place a parent category under both the Jerusalem article as well as under the Category:Jerusalem? What would be the point of that? Usually, when some main articles are crowded up with parent-categories, those parent-categories could and should be placed under the same category for which an article is the lead. (Most editors are not interested or familiar with the methods of categorization.) (2) I do not see from anything you cite that says if there is already a main category, like Category:Jerusalem, that is built directly upon an article, like the Jerusalem article, that some categories should go under the article instead of the category while most are not. Sure, if there is no main category that matches an article by the same name, then by all means lump as many categories under that article's page, but not if that page (article) has its own category. (3) Often when categories are only under article pages, they are limited to that one article. But when parent categries can go under a category that is built upon the lead article, both the sub-category and the parent categories benefit because they are then part of a system that links with other categories and not just articles. IZAK (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to question one:

Well, first, I'll start with a pragmatic answer: when someone arrives at the Jerusalem article and looks at the bottom of the pages for categories, it is of little use to them to just see Category:Jerusalem. (Let's ignore, for the moment, Category:Capitals in Asia, because that's embedded in a template.) Of course Jerusalem is an article related to Jerusalem; that tells someone nothing about the city, and is useless when it comes to helping the reader navigate to similar articles. New or inexperienced users may have no idea that they could click on that category, and then click on the categories at the bottom of the Category:Jerusalem page. And there is no reason they should: the categories are not here primarily to categorize categories; they're here to categorize articles. Important categories that directly relate to the city (i.e. would most likely be in the article had there been no Category:Jerusalem) should be in the article.

Okay, now the answer based on policy. From Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule:

When an article and the subcategory with the same name end up in the same category, the double listing sends the message to the user that there is an article about the topic, and there are also more articles to be found in the subcategory of the same name. It makes it easier to find main topic articles (by eliminating having to go to the subcategory). It also creates a complete listing of articles at the higher level category. It points readers of the topic article to the category and vice versa.

In response to question two:

See the piece I quoted from the second half of my answer to your first question. Furthermore, note the following (also from Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule):

When an article is the topic article for a category, articles should be placed in the category with the same name. However, the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way. The article belongs in categories populated with similar articles. The category should be put into categories populated with similar subcategories. For example, see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush.

Note how it says "the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way." From the example involving George W. Bush, you'll see that there are only two parent categories that overlap between George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush – Category:Bush family and Category:Presidents of the United States. George W. Bush includes many more categories that just those two, and it still includes those two. It is also interesting that you said, "Sure, if there is no main category that matches an article by the same name, then by all means lump as many categories under that article's page..." YES, and the FAQ says that if an article has a corresponding category, you're supposed to add categories that would be on the article had there not been a corresponding category.

In response to question three:

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but I believe my answers to your first two points should be sufficient. I am not suggesting that all of the categories you put on Category:Jerusalem should be removed from there and put back on Jerusalem. I am not excluding the possibility that this should occur with some of the categories, but I'm mostly talking about putting categories on both the category page and the article page.

Again, please prevent some evidence from guideline or policy. Otherwise, I'm going to proceed to revert your category removals. -- tariqabjotu 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tariqabjotu: Here are my responses: (1) You say: "when someone arrives at the Jerusalem article and looks at the bottom of the pages for categories, it is of little use to them to just see Category:Jerusalem." You are citing a case of someone who has no clue about how Wikipedia's category system functions. Such a person will have to learn. Can you imagine if every last parent category and parent-of-parent categories would be placed under articles with their own categories. There would then be situations where articles would have fifty categories under them that could well exceed the length of the article itself. So this "pragmatic response" is totally unreasonable and has no validity. (2) Your answer based on "Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule: When an article and the subcategory with the same name end up in the same category, the double listing sends the message to the user that there is an article about the topic..." does NOT say that you have the green light to place ten categories under a main article when that article has its own category. And this is not talking about the categories under the article. It is decribing how a main article and its own category by the same name function and that would mean the helpfulenss of proceeding to the category. There is nothing here that says that one may place twenty parent-categories under an article that has a category of its own with the name. (3) This quote is very ambiguous and you are really twisting it to fit your wishes: "When an article is the topic article for a category, articles should be placed in the category with the same name. However, the article and the category do not have to be categorized the same way. The article belongs in categories populated with similar articles. The category should be put into categories populated with similar subcategories. For example, see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush." Note how the words "should" and "do not have to be" and "should" again showing that these are not hard and fast rules and it assumes that editors will use good organizational and categorization skills that will not clutter up pages. Sure many people love to slap multiple categories all over the place, but that defeats the purpose of categorization. Indeed you quote something that backs me up here, that: "When an article is the topic article for a category, articles should be placed in the category with the same name" which is the first point. You want to rely on exceptions, as many do, to clutter up article pages with all the category pages they can squeeze onto it, then it's a game, but is is not the mark of devotion to "pure categorization" because what you are proposing in this instance is to use the system of categorization to defaet itself by making it meangingless to categorize, and I just cannot see how that helps (except for the poor person who does not know how categoriztion works on Wikipedia...so they will have to learn.) (4) What's this supposed to mean: "...YES, and the FAQ says that if an article has a corresponding category, you're supposed to add categories that would be on the article had there not been a corresponding category."? It means that you are suppoed to add the (parent) categories to the articles category and not to the article. Please do not use language as if it has no meaning but only to suit your agenda. I also don't follow what you are saying about "Category:Bush family and Category:Presidents of the United States" because they would clearly be parent categories for Category:George W. Bush. It's not even a question. But I am not editing over there and I cannot speak for other's errors. I am dealing with our subject of Jerusalem. (5) Your final quote that "I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but I believe my answers to your first two points should be sufficient. I am not suggesting that all of the categories you put on Category:Jerusalem should be removed from there and put back on Jerusalem. I am not excluding the possibility that this should occur with some of the categories, but I'm mostly talking about putting categories on both the category page and the article page" -- just shows that you have no guiding rules and that you are making it up as you go along. Are you now the "judge" of parent categories that you can find under the Category:Jerusalem page should be placed under the Jerusalem article. My position is simple: ALL parent categories (unless they are attached and result from templates that cannot be moved without changing the template on the page) go under the Category:Jerusalem page. And you are saying that, as a result of misreading and misapplying half and partial statements in FAQs, that out of EIGHTEEN parent categories (Category:Amarna letters locations; Category:Ancient Pilgrim Centres; Category:Canaan; Category:Capitals in Asia; Category:Christian history; Category:Cities in Israel; Category:Cities in the West Bank; Category:Crusades; Category:Hebrew Bible cities; Category:Historic Jewish communities; Category:Holy cities; Category:Islamic history; Category:Jerusalem District; Category:Jerusalem Governorate; Category:Land of Israel; Category:Orthodox Jewish communities; Category:Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church; Category:Torah cities) you will pick and choose some of those parent categories and leave out others, based on confsued and and unclear reasons, and put then under the Jerusalem article page while you leave the others out. IZAK (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) The approach you are taking here is rather arrogant. See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Reasons for duplication:

The basic principle is the duplication makes it easier, not harder, for users to find articles.

And further down, under Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#User benefit rule:

Does the removal of duplication affect the reader, making it hard to browse through subjects or spot their target easily? If the answer is yes, you should not remove the duplication.

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or something like Digg; this is an encyclopedia and is meant to serve its readers (which of course includes us), not just its editors. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Wikipedia's readers are not experts on the inner workings of our categories, and even those who are should not be expecting that the most important categories for an article should be hidden under a category name that conveys no information about the subject of the article (i.e. under Category:Jerusalem when you're in the Jerusalem article itself). Your repeated claims that adding just a few more categories back to the main article will lead to a slippery slope whereby "fifty" categories will be added is fallacious. There are many, many articles on Wikipedia that do not have corresponding categories with the same name. Do those articles have fifty categories on them? No, of course not. So, please don't present such a frivolous argument. Behind these usernames aren't robots, but human beings – human beings that can make reasonable judgments about which categories are most appropriate for the article. Your method of preventing the slippery slope from occurring (i.e. reducing certain articles to just one category) not only reduces the usefulness of categories, but also is shown to be a very unpopular method (read "wrong") on Wikipedia. Hence, you will have a very difficult time finding articles that are only in the category of the same name.

(2) In your second point you say:

Your answer based on "Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic article rule: ..." does NOT say that you have the green light to place ten categories under a main article when that article has its own category.

You're pulling numbers ("ten") out of thin air again, but if there are ten categories that fit the description under the "Topic article rule" section, then yes, you could put ten categories under the main article. In fact, the "Topic article rule" seems to specifically be condoning such action, given that it points to the George W. Bush article, which has twenty-five categories (not including style categories and the Category:George W. Bush). (Caveat: I'm not certain I agree with all twenty-five of those categories being in the George W. Bush article, but there is no doubt many of them do belong there.)

You proceed to say:

And this is not talking about the categories under the article. It is describing how a main article and its own category by the same name function and that would mean the helpfulenss of proceeding to the category.

That's not correct. You obviously are unaware of the purpose of Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. Look at the guideline's third sentence (in the intro):

However there are some articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category.

That's what the entire page is about (as you can see by reading the entire guideline): when categories should be in both a subcategory and a parent category. So your absolutist approach to this matter – that an article never should be under a subcategory and a parent category (as would be the case if you put Jerusalem in Category:Jerusalem and any other category, like Category:Cities in Israel) – is contradicted by this guideline. I have been trying to tell you this the whole time.

(3) You state:

Note how the words "should" and "do not have to be" and "should" again showing that these are not hard and fast rules and it assumes that editors will use good organizational and categorization skills that will not clutter up pages.

You're starting to confuse me here. In your second point, you say the text doesn't say what I'm interpreting it to say (which is not true) and now you're saying we can ignore it because it says "should" as opposed to something a little stronger than that. C'mon, I have better things to do here than wrangle with you over petty differences in semantics: the point of the guideline is quite clear. You continue to suggest that the first sentence of the topic rule proves that you're right. What??? Is this some kind of joke? I have never disputed the fact that Jerusalem should be in Category:Jerusalem. Seriously, I'm not sure I can suffer through responding to the rest of this point. I've tried to lay low on this issue for a bit, holding out for the possibility that you might actually have a policy or guideline that supports your position. But your position has really transcended into some highly bizarre realm. You are persistently putting words in my mouth ("You want to rely on exceptions, as many do, to clutter up article pages...") and making silly, outlandish accusations ("then it's a game"), all while being so arrogant, suggesting that you are the only one who knows how categories work. I have shown you how you are incorrect, and I have attempted to explain this to you several times, but for some reason you are back here, with an even longer comment, with even more esoteric explanations, with even more ridiculous claims. C'mon IZAK, are you really standing behind this? Either your threshold for "cluttered" is excessively low, or you are coming up with baseless rationales because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

(4) You state:

What's this supposed to mean: "...YES, and the FAQ says that if an article has a corresponding category, you're supposed to add categories that would be on the article had there not been a corresponding category."? It means that you are suppoed to add the (parent) categories to the articles category and not to the article.

I. Can. Not. Believe. This. Read what the FAQ says (under "How do I categorize categories which have a main article?"):

The article should be left in those categories it would belong to if it had no category of its own

Okay. Now, read it again. You can look at Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories again if you still don't understand. It does not say what you claim it says (that it's talking about putting parent categories in an article's category), but in fact says that the article (those are the first two words of the above quote) should be left in those categories (see: it's talking about putting the article in categories) it would belong to if it had no category of its own (so you're supposed to pretend, just for a moment, that Category:Jerusalem does not exist and then place the appropriate categories on Jerusalem). I am finished with this. I am not responding to your point about the George W. Bush article.

(5) Now, to the end of this thing:

Your final quote ... just shows that you have no guiding rules and that you are making it up as you go along.

Wow. I actually do have guiding rules; I've been telling you about them all along, and you've been ignoring them all along.

My position is simple: ALL parent categories (unless they are attached and result from templates that cannot be moved without changing the template on the page) go under the Category:Jerusalem page.

Right, that's your position – a position that is not supported by guidelines. We are not here to add categories according to your wishes. We have guidelines that explain the amount of discretion that can be used in placing categories. Your standards of including templates is unacceptably low and the tenor in which you have repeatedly advanced them (i.e. as if you are the only one who knows how categories work) is not worth my time. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: At this time, there are EIGHTEEN parent categories under Category:Jerusalem:

1. Category:Amarna letters locations
2. Category:Ancient Pilgrim Centres
3. Category:Canaan
4. Category:Capitals in Asia
5. Category:Christian history
6. Category:Cities in Israel
7. Category:Cities in the West Bank
8. Category:Crusades
9. Category:Hebrew Bible cities
10. Category:Historic Jewish communities
11. Category:Holy cities
12. Category:Islamic history
13. Category:Jerusalem District
14. Category:Jerusalem Governorate
15. Category:Land of Israel
16. Category:Orthodox Jewish communities
17. Category:Titular Sees of the Coptic Orthodox Church
18. Category:Torah cities

Can you truly and honestly say that they should all be placed under the Jerusalem article page or will you pick and choose the ones that suit your POV fancies and tastes and leave out the rest? If you were to be fair, and logical (according to you), you would propose that from now on, the commonly accepted practice of placing parent categories under sub-category pages first, and remove them from cluttering up article pages, should be abolished. So then what would be the purpose of categories then if categories never get to function as categories? Either you put all eighteen parent categories under the Jerusalem article or they are to remain under the Category:Jerusalem page. Make up your mind. You can't have some categories under the Jerusalem article and leave out the others as that would make no sense and be unfair (because, understandably, different editors have different POVs), disrupt the entire operation and purpose of categorization, and create chaos and confusion. IZAK (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)