Talk:Jerusalem

CITY OF DAVID

the real jerusalem is the " city of david " that located south-east from the walls of today. jewish cities are built in a shape of a human foot. פארוק (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"In Christianity, Jerusalem has been a holy city since, according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified in c. 30 CE...."

Remove "according to the New Testament" from "In Christianity, Jerusalem has been a holy city since, according to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified in c. 30 CE...," since Christ's crucifixion is attested by outside sources, i.e., Josephus and Tacitus.

According to John Dominic Crossan, "Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litteratusnovus (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with this edit?

Discussion copied from User_talk:Sean.hoyland about map edit reverts on this page, and continued here.

What's the problem with this edit? It shows where Jerusalem is in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, Syria doesn't claim to own Jerusalem therefore the Golan Height shouldn't be there so it's the perfect map with NPOV since it shows both israel and the west bank-- Someone35  17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the map can be viewed as claiming the entire area "from the river to the sea" as being one state. It isnt, and Jerusalem is not in Mandate Palestine. nableezy - 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What Nableezy said. However, I do agree that the street map needs replacing...but with a contemporary map. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The map used currently is up to date and properly licensed. However, using a contemporary map of some country would open a can of worms: "we want map of Palestine" from other side "No, we want map of Israel" . In no time we have demonstrations of protestors and Occupy Movement, there are tents all around and the police is using a Pepper Spray... The map claims stuff, like oh my God, people get excited ;) from other hand I am stuffed with Turkey and gravy and got myself a huge TV screen on Black Friday. Still not sure why Thanksgiving article talks about scare quotes "Pilgrims" and not a proper and NPOV compliant "Foreign Invaders". Still, I can not open a Casino, unless I move to Nevada, so probably I am not a "native"... So?... Whatever... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be unnaturally wrong...damn it. Surely it's possible, in principal, to find a map that shows Israel with a nice green line around it and the Palestinian territories and for us to put a big red dot on it vaguely where Jerusalem is ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An interesting idea, have not we tried it? My solution is to call this map "Israel + Occupied territories" instead of just "Israel", so people would not get that excited. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this one calms things down. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not even that, I see. Sheesh. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you were referring to the map that I just reverted. You changed it to "Israel" ... how do you think that would calm things down? -asad (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the previous map didn't have the West Bank, Gaza and Golan marked. This one did and placed Jerusalem on the border where it is. But I see that's not enough because the map name is Israel. Alright. Maybe I'll take Agada's lead and make a version called Israel and Occuppied Palestine. Would that solve the problem? We need a map to show where it's located, not a street map. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sean, I think from your comment you'd agree with the map I used that has all the territories marked, and can revert it again. It's become a little ridiculous and doesn't need so much tension. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that map is that it is showing East Jerusalem as a separate entity than the West Bank. It also is marking administrative districts of Israel and not the West Bank (which I guess that is why the map is called "Israel" to begin with). I know it is not a subject of discussion now, but it also does not show the international border between Syria and Israel in the Golan. It also gives the same color to the Golan Heights as it does to the West Bank and Gaza. -asad (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

All this (or the intelligible parts) belongs on the article talk page. Sean's user talk is not where content in an article is decided. nableezy - 19:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I love your sense of humor, Nab, but you didn't have a problem commenting on it before. As the situation stands today, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The map isn't meant to be a referendum on international agreement to it. It's a map of Israel and that's what it looks like. Everyone recognizes that this is Israel's map regardless of whether they agree with it. We're not here to fight that war, you know. It's current information, that's all. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered a single question about why a single edit was wrong. I have some thoughts on what you think of the situation as it stands today (for example, as it stands today East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being Palestinian territory held under Israeli occupation and illegally annexed (effectively) by Israel, and likewise the declared capital of Palestine), but again this belongs on an article talk page. Not Sean's user talk page. nableezy - 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything you say is true and it says so in the body of the article without any reserve whatsoever. The article also explains Israel's position on it, that you agree is Israel's position, which you also don't agree with. That's all fine. So if the article explains everything and explains why a map of Israel looks this way, why does the map have to do hoolahoops around everybody? It's only a map, for heaven's sake. Please try to be a little more... you know, Nab... a team player. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

Are you not interested in continuing this on the article's talk page? You keep bringing up points that could be addressed, but this is not the right place to do it. -asad (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why an encyclopedia article should present the minority view that Jerusalem is "in Israel" as opposed to having much of it in the Palestinian territories? Is there a reason why a map of Israel should be used instead of, oh, this one? And finally, is there a reason why you are so insistent on not discussing article content at, you know, the article's talk page? nableezy - 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is a very good reason. Because the map isn't about minority or majority views. It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. So a map of a country's capital goes by the country currently presiding over the city. When that changes and we reach an agreement about Jerusalem, we'll change the map. A map is a location, not a political statement. I'm also not insistent on discussing this here but I think that we'd need to also move most of the previous discussion there if we don't want to repeat ourselves. If we're all willing to agree about what parts of this discussion to move, a little better than we're able to agree about other things, that would be nice. But I don't see Sean complaining. Yet. I wouldn't. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense, of course maps are political statements. The boundaries they create are political, and the names they use are political, and the location of both is political. That is why a majority of Israeli teenagers are unable to identify the Green Line, because the makers of their text books have made the conscious political decision to remove it from the map. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some states recognize no Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, and nearly the entire world recognizes no such sovereignty over East Jerusalem. These blanket statements like is in Israel or is Israel's capital in which you present a POV, a minority one at that, as though it were a fact is part of the problem here. You think that Jerusalem is in Israel, the end. And so you think that the map in the Jerusalem article should be one of Israel. However, the view that Jerusalem is in Israel is not a fact, it isnt even a majority POV. Hell, unless you define what is "Jerusalem" it doesn't even mean anything. What "Jerusalem" is in Israel? The area west of the Green Line? Because the United Kingdom still considers that to be part of the corpus seperatum. The Temple Mount? The rest of East Jerusalem? Why is it that you do not see that you are in fact making a political statement by placing a map of Israel in an article on a place where much of what it discusses is not in Israel? East Jerusalem is not in Israel, that is what the overwhelming majority of sources say. Western Jerusalem may be, or it may not be, depending on the source. But claiming that "Jerusalem is in Israel", through text or through the use of a map, is a political statement, and I cannot believe that anybody can honestly claim otherwise. nableezy - 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish you'd be nice and not say things like "what nonsense" and then try to educate me and go off into things that have nothing to do with the map except for being forced into it to make a political statement. I think I'm trying not to do that with you and just talking about the relevance of the map. A map of Ramallah puts it into Palestinian territory because that's the jurisdiction it's under. It's not about how many people agree with that or how many don't. It's the current situation of the city and that's all. Period. This isn't about your beliefs against mine, because frankly, and believe me, I know what I think about it and I know how you feel, and neither one of us is going to change the other, so why bother? The only purpose you serve is to let off steam for yourself. Which is alright with me. But if it interferes with our being able to work together here, and it makes a mess of Wikipedia, then maybe you and I should meet somewhere and settle all this over a beer or cup of coffee on a beach somewhere, and we can then come back here without all the extra baggage. I'm here because I like this project and like what it stands for, even though I sometimes have opinions that don't always mesh with it. I'll respect that and I let the project be what it is because it's not about what I think. With you, I feel that your politics are the end all of everything you do here and you make little effort to understand that the project is a lot more collective. So, whatever. I wont't argue politics with you. It's not what I'm here for. And you know, Nab. I think you'd get a lot more done if you let things go and think about the whole package beyond your angst on the situation. I think you'll feel better and won't need to bring the loaded emotions into every edit. And I think we'd all be able to work together and maybe even serve as a model for being able to solve conflicts. Maybe it's too much to ask, but dammit, I know there's a person in you that understands what I'm saying. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My use of the word "nonsense" was limited to the claim that a map is not a political statement. I dont see a response to my comment on that point. If you would like to discuss my supposed angst or what you think you know about my feelings there is a place for that. It isnt here. Using a map of Israel for a place that is largely not in Israel is a political statement. It pushes a minority POV as though it were a fact. That is a violation of WP:NPOV, a core, non-negotiable, policy of this website. Ill respond to one claim you made here, that [my] politics are the end all of everything [I] do here and [I] make little effort to understand that the project is a lot more collective. I dont think I have placed a map of Palestine with alt text that says Jerusalem is in Palestine in the article. I dont think I have attempted to make [my] politics be displayed as though they were facts in the article. It is you who placed a map of Israel with alt text that Jerusalem is in Israel in an article on a place that is largely not in Israel. Kindly look in the mirror when you start pontificating about others attempting to force their politics into articles. Any further comments about me personally here will not be responded to, I have a user talk page that you are welcome to use. This is an article talk page, please remember that. nableezy - 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean. If you would have said "Look Mike, I understand what you're saying about the fact that Jerusalem is currently under Israeli jurisdiction and so that places it currently in Israel for purposes of the map, but a lot of RS sources and myself don't acknowledge Israel's sovereignty over it so we don't want to say that Jerusalem is in Israel, even if it currently is, and certainly not even in a map", then I'd say, "well, at least he understands me". But instead you're not even considering what I'm saying and rather turning it into a POV issue when I'm not stating an opinion. You want me to respond to you and I always do, but you rarely give the impression you even thought about anything I said. Now, if you remember above, I didn't do that with you. I said clearly that I understood what you're saying but the placement in the map isn't about who recognizes Israel and who doesn't. All I'm hoping for here is the same type of understanding in return and not pointed accusations as if you hold some greater fact or truth than I do because you're armed with millions of sources. And for all the RS out there, Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel. Go to East Jerusalem and ask everyone what country their ID cards say they live in and where they get their electricity and water and they'll tell you. Neither my opinion nor yours counts here as much as a reality on the ground. Based on what you're saying none of the maps of Israel are acceptable in Wikipedia anyway, which you must agree is stretching things a little. Take a look at other encyclopedias and notice they leave the issue of sovereignty for the text and use proper maps of the current boundaries on the ground to show places. It's not a POV issue at all. It only serves a purpose for recognizable placement. There's a limit to how much we should be splitting hairs like this and making articles look unprofessional. Having a street map of Jerusalem in that spot looking so silly should be a concern for everyone and shouldn't be turned into a political match. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I rarely give the impression that I have thought about what you said? I give that impression when I quote what you say and respond to the points? What does Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel mean? What does in Israel mean? Does it mean in the territory that Israel holds under occupation? Or does it mean the territory recognized as Israeli territory be nearly every country on the planet? This isnt about who recognizes Israel and who doesn't, and the fact that you take my comments as being in any way related makes me, well, that you havent even thought about anything I said. What does it mean for a place to be in Israel? Because much of what this article covers is a place that is outside of the boundary that separates what is in Israel and what is in the Israel-occupied territories. Like it or not, that boundary is real, and this tactic of repeating the same POV as though it were a fact that Jerusalem at the present time is located in Israel does not change that. East Jerusalem is in the Palestinian territories. It is held under occupation by Israel. It is not in Israel, no matter how many times you repeat the line. Unless you define Israel to include the Israeli-occupied territories then East Jerusalem is not in Israel. If you cant understand why it is a political statement, a rather fringe sized one comparatively speaking, to say that Jerusalem is in Israel then I dont know what else to say. nableezy - 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You quote me and then go on to add irrelevant baggage from your political crusade to what I said. Jerusalem is effectively in Israel because it is administered by Israel and it is not yet divided, the way you want the map to show. East Jerusalem is not administered by the PA or a Palestinian government. The geographic placement of Jerusalem in Israel is appropriately relative to its administration because that's how geographic locations of cities are defined, by areas of administration. They are not defined by disputes over borders nor by the excess political explanations you add to what I said. All you say is political information that is already covered in the body of the article itself extensively. You are contaminating Wikipedia with your irrelevant political crusades, as you do in this article. You go around Wikipedia and contaminate it with excessive disparaging of Israel, armed with countless sources who disagree with its position, and now you've come to contaminate the page on Jerusalem with your comments above, which have nothing to do with the geographical location of Jerusalem relative to its administration, that the map is about.

Your irrelevant political crusade is so extremely one sided that it should cast doubt on your ability to remain neutral. You don't consider that the reason Jerusalem is divided is because the Palestinians refuse to end the conflict even though Israel concedes all the territories it captured in 1967, with mutually agreed upon adjustments, as the UN Quartet and most of the world agree to being a fair solution. You don't consider that the official reason East Jerusalem is not yet administered by the Palestinians within an independent state, is the nearly racist Palestinian demand of removing Jews from their homes because there are places in the world where Jews should not be allowed to live. You don't consider the inhumane Palesinian demands for restrictions on, and dismantlement of settlements. You don't consider their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, when they have no problem with Arab countries being recognized as Arab Muslim states by the entire world, is the reason they give for refusing to end the conflict. You don't consider that it is the violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world, prominent everywhere, that is aggravating inevitable Palestinian independence. You never openly considered that Israel is doing everything it can to overcome and correct this self-destructive violent nature in the Arab world and forge a Palestinian state. You never once noted that it is mainly to Israel's credit that the Palestinians are flourishing in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and that they may soon be able to administer an independent state there altogether.

You don't consider any of this and yet you dare come here to contaminate Wikepedia and the page on Jerusalem with your extremely one-sided political crusade against Israel, that's irrelevant to specific encyclopedia content and irrelevant to this map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant baggage? Really? Where did I say that EJ is "administered" by the PNA? And how does it being "administered" by Israel make it in Israel? How do you still not understand this? EJ is not in Israel, it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. Your imagination on Israel doing everything it can to overcome and correct this self-destructive violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world is not what interests me, but I do find it stunningly hilarious that you make that statement and at the same time say that I am on a political crusade, when it is you claiming occupied territory as being in Israel and demanding that the language of the occupier be imposed upon the land of the occupied. The use of the word crusade is also quite charming, as its original use was that of European invaders slaughtering Arab Muslims in Jerusalem. That you then call a demand for the dismantlement of illegal Jewish only colonies in occupied territory nearly racist and inhumane is likewise extremely charming. That you then invent that Israel has agreed to withdraw from the occupied territories with "mutually agreed upon adjustments" is not so much charming as it is a complete fabrication. You have to understand something; I am not interested in the absurd claims of a settler. I am interested in what the sources say, and they say that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory and that it is not in Israel. Kindly leave your ranting for your blog, I have no intention of letting you draw me into an argument over whatever nonsense comes out of your fingers. I dont care what you think about the violent culture of the Arab/Muslim world, or the almost racist and inhumane Palestinian demands, or what you think is a political crusade. Kindly refrain from such comments in the future. This is not a forum or your personal blog, this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article. I thank you in advance. As far as the one thing worth responding to in your comment, the geographical location of Jerusalem is straddling the Green Line, which separates what is in Israel and what is in the Palestinian territories. This really is not that difficult to understand. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What is difficult to understand about a city's geographical location being relative to its administrative area? Why must you wave your select RS sources, crafted to wage a political crusade, on this poor map that has nothing to do with the politics? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, the geographical location is in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. You seem to want to ignore that a large portion of the city is in the occupied Palestinian territories and reduce the issue to it simply being in Israel. That you still cannot understand that this is in fact highly political leaves me baffled. nableezy - 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the word 'political crusade' several times to describe an insistence that the legal situation as delineated in RS be duly represented is a WP:AGF violation, and a form of attack. Editors are neutral in so far as they cleave honesty to what the best RS say of any situation, which is that the status of Jerusalem in international law is as Nableezy says it is. So, lay off the attack language please.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not attack language. It is a proper statement on an edit revert and the reasons an editor gives for it. A million RS's are irrelevant to the revert on the map. In this case, and many others, they are merely weapons for a political crusade. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is, especially given the meaning of the word crusade and how that word is viewed among Arabs, despite our violent culture. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. I drew Batman comics for nearly two decades and had the words "Caped Crusader" in them countless times. I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the term, including Arabs. I use it here in the context of the word itself, not the "Crusades". It is you who insists on twisting everything in these discussions to wage political battles specifically intended to disparage Israel. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. One cannot use that word in these contexts without conjuring up the use of the word endorsed by George Bush in early 2003. This is a matter of linguistic and cultural tact. Words innocent in our youth take on colour as history alters them. You cannot use 'a final solution' for a detective novel of Conan Doyle's without conjuring up Die Endlösung. And, for the nth time, please stop, by your use of provocative caricature of your interlocutors' views, trying to turn arguments you disagree with into badfaith innuendoes about those who make them, which is what your gross, and indeed reportable, negative characterizations of 'Arabs' and 'Palestinians' amount to. It does not work on wikipedia, except if those who read these remarks turn them inside out to look at the attitude projected, as through a glass, darkly.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have thought of all that before you brought "'colonizers', 'thieves', 'under belligerent occupation'. These are the Palestinian POV-equivalents of 'Judea and Samaria'" into the fray. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

under belligerent occupation is not a Palestinian POV. nableezy - 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really now, Nableezy. No need to cast aspersions on Nishidani's perceptive judgement based on "reliable source". If he believes that "Judea and Samaria" means 'colonizers' and 'thieves', then what's a pinch of 'under belligerent occupation' between friends? Maybe we should let that one slide. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy is right, and I was wrong. 'Under belligerent occupation' is the technical term in international law. Again, could I ask you to desist from violently distorting what other people say, apparently to create an image of ideological fixation that is not there. I used the terms 'colonizers', 'thieves' to describe the attitudes frequently found among Palestinians, and their supporters. Noting this does not mean I believe. My beliefs have nothing intrinsically to do with the description of one POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You can ask all you want but I will not stop telling the truth about what Nableezy and yourself are doing here. And please don't try to pretend to be. Your lopsided arguments register an extreme bias with every word you write. If you can't be honest with us about how you brought that statement into the conversation, then you're also not being honest with yourself and the credibility of everything you say becomes even more suspect. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And would you like the favor of telling the truth about what you are doing here? The words propaganda, hasbara, distort, and more than a few others come to mind. nableezy - 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats quite enough. Your persistence in engaging in such histrionics as calling a wish for an encyclopedia article to be something other than a propaganda piece by using reliable sources that make clear that EJ is not in Israel and is in the occupied Palestinian territories to be a political crusade is becoming more and more tiring by the minute. This is a talk page for an encyclopedia article, an article that will follow reliable sources. You are not free to disregard those sources in an attempt to wage the political crusade of claiming occupied territory as being in Israel. The sources are clear on this point, and so to will the article. Of the two of us, only one has pushed into the article their personal political view. Of the two of us, only one of us is disregarding the sources. Of the two of us, only one of us is continuing in a political crusade. Ill let you guess which one, but with a hint. It isnt me. nableezy - 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your sources and their purpose are an irrelevant political tool. Their political nature has nothing to do with the geographical location of a city relative to the administrative area it's governed under for purposes of a map. And please do me a favor by not being so presumptuous that you believe I need education from you on encyclopedia content. I'll not get into the cleanups I've had to make after you lately. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You say my sources are a political tool, an irrelevant one even, and then say that geographical location of a city relative to the administrative area it's governed under for purposes of a map as though that sentence is not itself political. You still have not understood the actual issue. Saying that Jerusalem is in Israel and having a map that shows Jerusalem as being in Israel, if Jerusalem includes East Jerusalem, is a political statement. Nearly every competent party on the planet agrees that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. A thousand sources can be brought that says that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. Yet you feel somehow qualified to be so presumptuous as to completely disregard all those sources as an irrelevant political tool when you are performing an overtly political act, an act that reduces an encyclopedia article into a propaganda piece, that aligns this encyclopedia with claims that have been widely condemned as violations of international law. This encyclopedia is not a production of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and you do not get to shove aside sources because they contradict the position you would like the encyclopedia to take. All this effort to twist the language by saying things like relative to the administrative area it's governed under as though that phrase means something betrays the fact that you are unable to respond to the well-established fact that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. It is held under military occupation by Israel. Israel has applied its civil law to that territory, in an act ruled null and void by the UN Security Council and held to be a violation of international law, but it remains occupied Palestinian territory. East Jerusalem is not in Israel, it is in the Israeli-occupied territories. Those are not the same thing, and Wikipedia will not be portraying extreme minority claims as though they were fact in its articles. Yes, Israel controls, or administers East Jerusalem. That does not mean East Jerusalem is in Israel. You can continue to feel free to claim that the sources that make this point crystal clear are irrelevant, but on Wikipedia that claim is what is irrelevant. The sources are what counts, not your personal wish to see this article take your personal political opinions and portray them as fact. nableezy - 02:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do I keep hearing a haughtiness in your excuses? "On Wikipedia that claim is what is irrelevant." Oh dear. Did someone make you the spokesman for Wikipedia and forgot to tell everyone? You've never heard of an RS source that doesn't apply to some cases? And with this you claim to be spokesman for the project? Can we please have a vote on that before you rewrite the whole encyclopedia? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing with your ignoring of the issue. It is really quite charming. I say something backed by thousands of sources, you say it is irrelevant political baggage. And then you make the expansionist claim that Jerusalem is in Israel, and then make the encyclopedia endorse your unsupported claim. My claim to be spokesman for the project? If you want to argue to the wider community that every source that makes clear that your expansionist views that you have attempted to force in to this article have equal footing with countless scholarly sources you can try that. Id very much enjoy seeing how the wider community acts when your extreme minority POV-pushing campaign is contrasted with countless sources. nableezy - 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sort of at a loss as to where to respond, but I mostly agree with what Nableezy said with regards to the reasoning as to why the map as you reverted it to wouldn't work. Here is what I think are the problems with the map you are proposing:

-It shows all the administrative districts of Israel, thus implying we are looking at a map of Israel, not the Occupied Territories.

-It gives a different shade of color to Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem than that of the West Bank. Keep in mind, no country recognizes Israel's annexation of land east of the "green" line.

-It denotes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights with the same color although the West Bank and Gaza Strip are internationally recognized as being an occupied territory different than that of occupied, sovereign, Syrian territory.

-Though without real relation to the subject at hand here, there is no solid-lined border between Israel and the Golan Heights. One could interpret the map as if the Golan Heights do not belong to any country, although it is, nearly without exception, considered to be Occupied-Syrian Territory.

Given the disputed nature of the different political implications of West Jerusalem vs East Jerusalem, I think the map is fine showing the entire region of Israel or historic Palestine. Though I think it would be better if more of the Levant region itself could be displayed. -asad (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That map is the only reasonable map for this use because for all intents and purposes, Jerusalem's physical location is in Israeli jurisdiction. Everything you say above is addressed in the text of the article and doesn't have to be slapped on this map. But I'm not holding out for some common sense anymore. I'm trying to solve the problem with a terrain map File:Dead Sea terrain location map.jpg that I copied from another one and changed the name so it doesn't have Israel in it, for crying out loud. Then everyone will be happy as WP enters a yet higher level of buffoonery. The map isn't yet working with the infobox template. I left a message with the user who created it and hope to get some help soon. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does Jerusalem's physical location is in Israeli jurisdiction mean? Does it mean that Israel controls all of Jerusalem? Because that doesnt mean that it is in Israel. There are any number of solutions for this, the most obvious being one that shows the Green Line and the map alt text and caption say that Jerusalem is in Israel and Palestinian territories. nableezy - 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It means just what it says. It does not need your excessive interpretations that are irrelevant to what I said. It does not need your political crusade to explain it, because it explains itself perfectly by itself. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that wasnt an answer. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people just love to play "Uh no, not in Israel" game, by Jupiter's cock. I think this is not important, Jerusalem is somewhere there between the Dead Sea and Mediterranean Sea in Southern Levant. We have coordinates up there on the article page. Click and use your favorite map provider. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have coordinates and of course they say Jerusalem is in Israel via the ISO 3166-2 region code being set to IL. Funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it would make sense either: (a) to use both "IL" and "PS" ISO 3166-2 region codes or (b) to use none, if other editors do not object. If anyone could craft IL/PS common map, it would be also welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So do everyone agree about Michael's map? I guess that now Nableezy and asad won't have any excuses left against making this article better...-- Someone35  15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You would be well-advised to refrain from making such mendacious attacks on others. nableezy - 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It is silly that we have to resort to the "my way or the highway" bit. No compelling arguments have been made to my suggestions for map. We are talking about Jerusalem, the political entity, not the geographic entity. What we need is something like this, but with the colors changed to reflect both Israel and the West Bank as being highlighted. -asad (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote for no ISO region code. I wonder if there is a large scale map of the ME we could use that would just show roughly where it is on this planet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A map with of Israel and the Palestinian territories with the Green Line prominently displayed and Jerusalem shown as straddling that boundary would be, in my opinion, the best option. I can work on creating such a map if I cant find one (probably modeled on this). Who would object to that and why? nableezy - 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you planning on including with it? The wall route? The Palestinian Authority controlled areas? -asad (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither, a map of Israel and oPt with the Green Line, and just the Green Line. nableezy - 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe closer to this with the Golan removed and much of the map wiped. nableezy - 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with this one? Or the borderless one? You don't need to create new maps, there are already existing maps that are OK.-- Someone35  17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is too much unnecessary detail in that map for our purposes here, and for somebody not aware of all the issues here it may be difficult to locate Jerusalem, which is the point of the map. nableezy - 17:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you can circle it in red color so it will be notable or paint the name "Jerusalem" in red or another prominent color, I guess you have better things to do than making maps of the Middle East-- Someone35  18:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think an obvious problem with that map is that bits of the West Bank are coloured the same colour as Israel, which is misleading. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot put any map we agree on into that infobox because we specifically need a "location map" with the proper coordinate data that will allow it to place the word "Jerusalem" with red dot in the exact place. That's how this template works, it only accepts "location maps". I'm in a discussion with the editor who creates some of them and hope to have a solution from him soon. We also need to separate some issues. The coordinates ISO are a function of the template but have nothing to do with the map. It's an issue that needs to be taken care of separately. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

That isnt true. We can use whatever image we want for a map, it does not need to be a pushpin map. nableezy - 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I saw that afterwards. But not all images work there. The map maker said some sizes don't work. I don't know about that but not all maps I tried showed up without errors. I'm suggesting the one I've just placed. I think the page looks good like this and avoids the problem altogether. If someone want to know about borders, they can take the coordinates to any other map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You took a unilateral decision to put the map you thought was best despite fierce objection and current discussion here with no consensus. You sure are not making friends here with your bull-headed approach to editing and your political ranting and raving. -asad (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fierce objection to this map? Look Asad. I'm not here to rant but I'll try to stop the politicization being pushed here. What's your problem with the map? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[1] -asad (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was in relation to this map. But alright. In less than 20 minutes I'll replace it with a version of the one you like after modifications based on your request. I'm easy when you get to know me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a version of that map that I modified by your comments and for a little nicer aesthetics, the first one seemed too loud: File:Central-IL WB Gaza map.png

Because you're the only one who objected to the other one and wanted this one, I'll wait for you to approve it before replacing what's there. If there's anything you want changed, let me know. I'll do it immediately and upload another version. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine, except there is a weird black line close to where it says "Tul Karem". There are a lot of Israeli costal cities that are missing. Is there a reason for that? -asad (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the cities but that's how the other map was. I can add them in and remove the black line that was also there. Hang on. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why use a map with so much information that's not relevant to this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive said what I think should be the map, Just a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories with Jerusalem shown straddling the Green Line. I havent seen a real objection to that. Ill not count the but, but, but it is in Israel as a real objection. nableezy - 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You are purposely misrepresenting and lying about what I said, which was only in context of administration that a city is defined by. If you had another idea, then go work it out with Asad who said he agrees with you and now you say you don't agree with the map he wanted. It would be nice if you guys could get your story together considering you're never the ones to improve anything here. All you do is remove, destroy, disparage and cause commotion. And now you say my comments are hypocritical and asinine. I see you want to escalate an already impossible chaos that you are causing. I don't think that's what we're here for but if these are the terms of your participation in this project, then I think WP has ways to deal with editors like you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt true, and any person can examine this talk page and see for themselves. You said above that It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. And I am escalating? I am the one filling the talk page with irrelevant ranting about the self-destructive violent nature of the Arabs, I am the one calling all those that oppose the POV push of claiming occupied territory as Israel's disrupting Wikipedia with their political battles, I am the one who could care less about the encyclopedia? Because I am the one who, shock and horror, actually wishes to have an encyclopedia article reflect reliable sources and not the expansionist goals of a few editors? Yes, hypocritical and asinine. And if you keep it up you may well see how Wikipedia deals with editors like you. nableezy - 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of hell freezing over, I agree with Nableezy. Use one of those yellowish maps that shows Jerusalem straddling the green line without all the unnecessary information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I figured you would agree with me. Not sure if that is more surprising than you actually doing so. nableezy - 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Maps of locations of municipalities refer to administrative area not territorial claims or disputes. This is not intended to be a map about the territory, rather a map showing the location of the city of Jerusalem as an administered municipality, which is what cities are. It shouldn't look like it's divided into two parts to suggest E Jerusalem is administered by an entity in the West Bank. There are no reliable sources to support such a map that Nableezy wants. The map that's there now is wrong. We had a good one but Nableezy and friends are all in a huff about the territory. That's not what this map is about. If he wants to add a special map in the body of the article that tells the territorial division, fine. But it shouldn't be in the infobox. There are no such maps anyway, btw, because most maps for such use rely on administrative areas. You can find a special map about the 49 armistice line, and can add it into the body of the article to tell the story, but it's not appropriate for this infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no. nableezy - 22:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So, does anyone have an objection to this map? --MichaelNetzer (talk 23:42, 1 December 2011‎ (UTC)

A dot or star or something on the left map would be good I think, but otherwise this looks like the correct map to use for this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I object. There are several problems with that map. For one, it places a border between Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Jordan, but no border between Israel and Syria (red is a border in that map) and instead places a border between Syria and the Golan. It also separates Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. nableezy - 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How does it separate Jerusalem from WB? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The most prominent boundary on the map in the area of Jerusalem is the barrier route, not the Green Line, and with the coloring and the inclusion of the barrier route it appears that all of Jerusalem, in fact Greater Jerusalem is within Israel. I'll try to work on a map tonight, it will be relatively close to the one had been in the article but with most of the rest of the map blanked. Maybe keep a few cities for reference, Im thinking Nablus, Hebron, Bethlehem, Tel Aviv and maybe Beersheba. But could you please stop unilaterally changing the map? I have restrained myself from reverting you, but you dont have any consensus for your change. Stop doing this. nableezy - 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the map on the page helps everyone understand the visualization. And it's only a map that's easily changed. I don't think it should bother anyone and if it does they can revert, it's not a big deal. I'll try to refrain if it bothers you, but really... --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No it doesnt, you can link to a map here. In fact, that is what everybody except for you has been doing. So, please self-revert until we can establish a consensus on what map to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 December 2011

It's not just about seeing the map in its image file. In this case the infobox is so loaded with detail that seeing the map in it helps discern its suitability. Two other editors have approved it and your objection is not based on anything relevant to the map. This map is supported by the best RSs regarding the administrative areas it represents. Your demand for old borders, regardless of how many RSs you wave on it, is misplaced with regards to what this map needs to show. Unless you make a more relevant case for changing it, we will not allow you to continue strong-arming the map to push a political view that doesn't belong on it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You dont get to force your own views into the article. Since you refuse to revert I will, since I dont accept your attempt to strong-arm in your views into this article. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to self-revert. The new map is an improvement. More concise, without unneeded details. Thank you for investing your time into it, Mike. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then Ill revert. Thank you Agada for providing us, once again, with your usual quality of commentary. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead reads:-

Israel captured East Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it. Currently, Israel's Basic Law refers to Jerusalem as the country's "undivided capital". The international community has rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation

Any map should reflect the fact that a line runs through the city, reflecting distinct legal POVs concerning its disputed status to the East. The box is an info box, not a disinfo box. That map-making cannot avoid the politicisation of the way a territory is perceived is an acquired truism of the speciialized discipline of cartography. See generally Denis Wood, with John Fels, John and John Krygier, Rethinking the power of maps, Guilford Press, 2010. There's a considerable literature on precisely this, which anyone unbowed by the weight of prejudice can google and access. There shouldn't be any fuss over this. It is obvious that maps are not 'neutral'. This is true the world over. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Golan territory is identified by the yellow color as not being the same as the white. The red border is the effective present border. It doesn't mean it's legal or recognized. It's just the present border. When someone tours the area, they don't find a border between Israel and the Golan but they come to the border between Golan and Syria. The line around Jerusalem is an administrative demarcation. The city is under civilian admin while WB is under a military one. This is the relevant information of the reality on the ground and that's what the map shows. I understand what you're saying but I don't see how you can deny this information. It's more important for the sake of the map than the territorial dispute which is a separate issue, and covered extensively in the article. There are no RS sources that would say this map shows something incorrect. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. The Purple Line is not the "effective present border", it is what separates Syrian controlled territory and Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. Im not getting into this with you here, it isnt relevant and I dont feel like pounding my head against a wall for the next few hours. And as a matter of fact several sources will say that display is incorrect. Among them the United Nations, the United States and any number of other sources. nableezy - 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's compromise and call it "the border that separates Syrian controlled territory from Israeli-occupied Syrian territory". But there is no reliable source on Earth that will say what this map represents is incorrect. It might not represent something else, but what it represents is correct. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Purple Line is not a border, and the issue remains that what appears to be an international border is placed within Syrian territory but not between Syria and Israel. The "border" between Israel and Syria is the 1923 border agreed to by Britain and France. The map you are using shows Syrian territory as being Israeli territory. That isnt much better than showing Palestinian territory as being Israeli territory, and I cant believe I have to repeat this but for a different occupied territory. nableezy - 04:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion is irrelevant to the article in that some editors want to turn this map into a referendum on the entire IP conflict. But saying the political issues are covered in body of the article and don't need to be in the map, goes in one ear and out the other. They are not listening to anyone and they certainly don't seem interested in collaboration. They're here to fight a war on the pages of Wikipedia and this map is a perfect example of it. Asad thought it was more important to load the map with irrelevant politics than it is to just show where it is on the terrain. This is the problem with editors coming for the expressed purpose of disrupting Wikipedia with their political battles. They don't listen, they don't discuss with any concern, and they could care less about the encyclopedia. They never build or improve anything, all they do is disrupt everyone's work by removing it and causing large irrelevant disputes. They come armed with the magic "RS" word as if the project has been taken hostage by their select sources. That's why we're using a map with so much irrelevant information. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Says the person claiming occupied Palestinian territory is in Israel, and doing so in an article no less. Political battles may ass, look in the mirror. Ill put my record, or Nishidani's, up against your any day and we can see who is building and who is disrupting. But once again, this is an article talk page. Kindly stop making these hypocritical and truly asinine comments. nableezy - 13:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said any territory is in Israel, if you didn't notice. Of course, you wouldn't notice that I only talked about the administration of a city, because you're too busy fighting a war for Palestine instead of improving the encyclopedia. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. You used a map that placed the city in Israel, that had alt text that said Jerusalem is located in Israel, and said on this talk page that It's about the present state of Jerusalem, which is in Israel and under Israeli jurisdiction until further notice. You really should reconsider your proclivity for making things up, especially if you are going to contradict yourself in the future. It is much wiser to ensure that you are being truthful to begin with, that way it is not as hard to keep your story straight. nableezy - 13:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A municipality is defined by its area of administration. Jerusalem is a municipality, a city. Thus Jerusalem's placement on the map reflects its area of administration, not a border dispute that has no consequence on the administration of the city. Israel takes responsibility for all of the residents of Jerusalem and administers their needs. When that changes and the municipality is divided into two administrative areas, then we can discuss a suitable geographical representation of Jerusalem. You never once responded to my saying this as if nothing I say counts except your passionate war filter about occupied territories. This is not what collaboration is about. It's not what discussion and exchange of ideas are about. You are expected to be considerate of another editors argument, but you know no such thing. You should try to learn from me what it is to be considerate and attentive. I'm the one who spent hours making that map look presentable in order to appease Asad's political hunger that you also crave. When the day comes that you start showing some respect and collaborative spirit, then we can put these disputes behind us. Until then, if you choose war, then you'll have it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You still do not get it. You made an encyclopedia article say that occupied Palestinian territory is in Israel. The geographic location of Jerusalem is in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If you would like me to be considerate, you might want to reconsider the ridiculous rants you have filled this talk page with. I am not the one discussing an Israeli compulsion for dominance over the natives and their land, a colonial enterprise that seeks to subjugate and control, or any other POV that I may or may not hold. You are the one doing this. I have responded to you several times, and each times you brush aside that response and say something like RSs are an irrelevant political tool or the geographic location is in Israel without once considering that your overtly political campaign compromises the integrity of the article by allowing minority claims to be presented as objective truth and trampling over well-established facts. Again, this is an article talk page. I dont want to discuss your personal views, they dont interest me. I dont edit Wikipedia to read the views of some settler, if I wanted to do that I would ask you to start a blog. This is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. And those sources say, very clearly, that East Jerusalem is not in Israel. That Israel controls (occupies is the correct word) East Jerusalem does not make East Jerusalem in Israel. You are the one performing overtly political actions in article space, and then you accuse those of us who call you on your expansionist hasbara campaign to be engaged in a political battle. Yeah, right. Kindly desist with these charges. If you do not I will do what I have to to ensure that we no longer have to read such hypocrisy. nableezy - 14:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you accuse me falsely. Its placement in Israel is not one of territorial dispute. The map I used is with Israel's administration is the best one because the administration of a city is what defines it. Not disputes over its territory. That is a majority RS view about municipalities. The territorial disputes are covered in the article. Your sources about territory are irrelevant to the map. Your distorting what I say, as if to mean that I don't recognize the territorial dispute is disingenuous and misleading, and insidious. You can keep talking as if you only know how to talk to yourself. I will take every opportunity to show how you're misrepresenting my statements to mean something they don't intend, in order to continue waging your war here armed with irrelevant sources to this map. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your own words are clear, and these attempts to change those clear words into something else is a familiar tactic but not an effective one. I dont care about what you recognize, and I have made no comment on what you recognize, only what you have put into an encyclopedia article. You still dont get the point. No matter who controls or occupies East Jerusalem, its location is in the oPt, and claiming that it is in Israel because Israel administers the city is about a rank a POV push as I have seen in some time. nableezy - 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like in the 30s people said that Jerusalem was in Great Britain and in the 19th century people said it was in the Ottoman Empire because they ruled it, it is now in Israel since the Israeli taxpayer's money goes to social security for Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem as well as to Jews in Western Jerusalem and since all the residents of Eastern Jerusalem have Israeli passports-- Someone35  19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that Jerusalem was in Great Britain, and Jerusalem was in the Ottoman Empire. It was not "Ottoman-occupied" or whatever term you want to claim would be equivalent to the current status. And no, residents of East Jerusalem do not have Israeli passports, they have the status of permanent resident, not citizens. But that is irrelevant, East Jerusalem is considered to be, by nearly the entire world, in the occupied Palestinian territories, not in Israel. Your belief does not trump the sources, and the sources are clear on this point. nableezy - 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say the Ottoman Empire wasn't an occupier of Jerusalem? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The term belligerent occupation has a specific meaning, and the transformation from the idea of a right of conquest to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force as a principle of international law took place around WW I. If you are actually interested in this, I suggest a reading of The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by Susan Korman. nableezy - 04:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No one said Belligerent occupation or attempted to draw a distinction. All that was said was: "it was in the Ottoman Empire because they ruled it" and you extrapolated a distinction between types of conquest (by right or by belligerence) automatically to isolate Israel's "belligerence", when Jerusalem was for all intents and purposes occupied by the Ottoman Empire. The terms don't change the reality. This is the concern I've raised about every dispute with you being dragged into this area when it's not relevant to specific issues. BTW, The Ottoman conquest would have been considered belligerent had it occurred after WW1. The only reason for inventing the distinction was to diminish from the severity of Arab conquest of another Arab country. Hardly a good case for the distinction you make. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about now? I said that it was in the Ottoman Empire too, but there isnt an equivalence between being in the Ottoman Empire and being in Israel, because sources say that Palestine was in the Ottoman Empire. And the Turks arent exactly Arab, so your rather silly attempt at inventing a reason for this distinction fails. The occupation has a specific meaning, dont blame me if you dont understand that. It doesnt apply to the Ottomans, sorry to burst your bubble. nableezy - 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy do you like your pizza with olives or with mushrooms?-- Someone35  06:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? nableezy - 06:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Map options

Does anybody object to this map and if so why? The base for that map is the CIA World Factbook map of Israel. I made some modifications, namely removing a number of cities, modifying the color of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and added Nablus and Hebron. I also changed the color of the dot for Jerusalem from black to red. nableezy - 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems like giving Israel a white color and the West Bank more of a color similar to Jordan and Egypt seems to imply it is a map of Israel. I think Israel and the PTs should be more of a similar color that differs from that of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. -asad (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What colors did you have in mind? Personally I think this scheme is pretty good, it shows Israel as one, the oPt as another, and the surrounding states as another, with that one being duller. nableezy - 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If Israel is white, I think it might be better if the PTs are a greyish color, therefore to associate the lighter colors with content at hand (the location of Jerusalem), and the yellowish colors being foreign countries. -asad (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with this one is that you erased Tel Aviv and kept Ashkelon on the map, yet Tel Aviv is a much bigger and more important city than Ashkelon so if you can replace Ashkelon's location with Tel Aviv's location that'll be good, but I still prefer this one because it shows Jerusalem's location near important places such as Ben Gurion airport and the expansion of the settlements in the west bank and the route of the separation barrier which can be useful for readers-- Someone35  17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please dont modify your comment after it has been responded to. As far as what you wrote here, most of that is not relevant to this article. We dont need to include all the settlements, or the wall, or most anything else. nableezy - 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, Ill do that. nableezy - 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Gaza City would be good to add as well, considering how big it is. -asad (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this map is fine. I liked that the other map had a blowup of the city and nearby area though. Tel Aviv rather than Ashkelon makes sense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I uploaded a new version of the map. Tel Aviv has replaced Ashkelon, I also remove Eilat and added Gaza. I also lightened the color for the Palestinian territories to give it more of a contrast with the other countries on the map. Objections to the new one? For reference, the first version is this and the new one (for now this link will work) this nableezy - 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The urge to nitpick is strong, but frankly I don't care enough. Looks fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The latest one looks great. Thanks for doing that Nableezy. No objections here. -asad (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel now looks like other countries, maybe you can highlight it as well? I mean make it in light blue or something so there will be contrast between it and the west bank-- Someone35  07:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean, the color of Israel did not change in the new map. nableezy - 17:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean that it now looks like the west bank is highlighted and Israel looks more like the countries around it, so if you painted the west bank with yellow and you want to make a contrast between the two maps then paint Israel with the opposite color which is blue-- Someone35  18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so. The difference between Israel and the surronding countries is about the same as the difference between Palestinian territories and the surrounding countries. Making Israel a shade of blue will look bad in my opinion. nableezy - 18:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with Nableezy's latest map version. --Dailycare (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to this map:

• This is not a location map for Jerusalem. It's a map of Israel and vicinity, which is an overkill for what's needed here.
• Its a vertical map which means it will take up a major portion of the infobox and push important information further down. Horizontal location maps, such as the one that was there before Nableezy removed it, are devised to solve this problem on these infoboxes.
• The map is loaded with political innuendo. It's alright to use a map like this to clarify a territorial political dispute but general location maps are not meant to serve such a purpose. The map does not represent the reality on the ground in the region relative to continuous administrative areas. The coloring of the Golan Heights makes it appear there is a border between them and Israel (the small text explaining "Israeli occupation" is lost in the first impression it makes). There is no representation of all of Jerusalem being currently in one administrative area.

It's not proper to use this map to push a political statement. It is meant to be a location map for a municipality and it should serve that purpose alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is general agreement that this map is fine. You are now edit-warring over the map. If you continue doing so I will ask that you be restricted from continuing your disruptive actions. As there is an apparent consensus for this new map I am replacing the one in the article with this one. As far as your last comment, the map you reverted to in the article is pushing a political statement, namely that the Golan and that EJ is in Israel. They arent, and your repeated attempts to push this fringe POV as fact in the article violates several policies, most notably WP:NPOV. nableezy - 20:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This location map should not be the biggest object on the info box. There is no reason for such a large map of Israel to show Jerusalem's location, which disrupts the information in the box. That's why horizontal maps were made. This is not an issue of consensus, it's a matter of encyclopedic style. If anyone is being disruptive here it's yourself, who's trying to push a political statement into the map and disrupting the information. These location maps are used extensively in Wikipedia. They do not make a political statement but rather denote administrative areas on the ground, which are not fringe POVs. Your map belongs somewhere else, maybe. Like in a section about land disputes. But it is not a location map and it's unsuitable for use in the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is one unsupported assertion after another. You are in fact trying to push a political statement into the infobox, the problem with that is that the political statement you wish to push in is a fringe minority one. But to satisfy the one concern of your that might have some merit, I have uploaded a new version of the map. This map is cropped to alleviate your concern about the map being to large. The new one is this (the old one this). A byproduct of this is that the cities of Nazareth and Haifa no longer appear, nor do the Golan Heights or the border with Lebanon. I think that should do it. Unless of course you want to continue arguing that claiming occupied Palestinian or Syrian territory is Israeli territory is not a political statement. But you are not the final arbiter of what map should be used. There is general agreement that the map should show Jerusalem straddling the Green Line, and there is general agreement that this map is fine for the infobox. You can continue arguing to your hearts content, but you cannot filibuster any progress and you cannot continue edit-warring over the map. nableezy - 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A few editors agreement over the weekend cannot override a misrepresentation of the location of Jerusalem as an administrative municipality. Your map is wrong because it gives the impression that a border cuts through Jerusalem and that E Jerusalem is under West Bank administration. This is not the case and there are no reliable sources to support it. It is also still too large for the infobox and carries too much irrelevant information. It introduces an irrelevant a political statement that is already covered in the text and should be stated elsewhere, not in a location map. This map remains the best map for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense. There is no misrepresentation, Jerusalem is in fact cut in half by a boundary, and that boundary is what separates Israel and the Palestinian territories. Thousands of reliable sources support that, and you cannot continue claiming that your fringe POV that Jerusalem is "in Israel" override those sources. And yes, consensus does override your fringe POV. Yjere is no irrelevant information in the map, none at all. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, what's the problem with this map? IMO it is the best map possible. Also notice that the current map looks like Jerusalem is in the West Bank (yellow is more prominent than white) and it's not. -- Someone35  14:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A number of people agree that this map has too much unnecessary detail. The map you removed did not show that Jerusalem is in the West Bank, it showed it split, right down the middle in both the dot and the word Jerusalem, between Israel and the West Bank by the Green Line. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That map is a little better as far as clarifying the municipal administrative location, but it's too large and carries too much unnecessary information for what this infobox needs. This map remains the best map for this use. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on what is best remains unsupported. nableezy - 17:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 5 people that have agreed that this map should be used in the infobox. Two apparently disagree, with one of those making absurd claims that a map that shows Jerusalem and the Golan as being in Israel is not a political statement and the other claiming that the map shows Jerusalem as being in the West Bank, which it does not do. Can somebody explain to me why two editors are allowed to disregard that there is in fact a general agreement on using this map in the infobox? nableezy - 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone35, that map has three major issues that I can see at a glance, namely: first, it presents bits of the WB with the same colour as Israel, which creates an impression those areas would be Israeli. Second, it presents the apartheid wall as a border-line entity, and finally it contains too much detail overall. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Then what the problem with Michael's map? It doesn't have any of the problems you mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 4 December 2011‎ (UTC)

No, it has many more problems, problems that have been discussed rather extensively above. nableezy - 06:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I object. There are several problems with that map. For one, it places a border between Israel and Gaza and between Israel and Jordan, but no border between Israel and Syria (red is a border in that map) and instead places a border between Syria and the Golan. It also separates Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.

— nableezy - 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC) copied by AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC), for clarity

Comment: The main problem with Nableezy's map as I see it is that it doesn't actually show Jerusalem's location, and the location chosen for the dot is arbitrary. In other words, the map is not accurate. In addition, it does not include the borders of Jerusalem which are included in our location maps, and are especially relevant for the city of Jerusalem. The fact that it's a vertical map also doesn't help. Since I made the alternative map being proposed (more or less), if Nableezy can list a series of issues in points, I will try to address them. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand, the position of the dot is arbitrary? It is the same position used in the CIA World Fact Book map. Most pushpin maps used do not include city borders, so I dont see how that is a valid complaint. If you want a list of problems with the maps you made, sure. 1. The Green Line is much less prominent than other boundaries such as the barrier route. 2. There is an international border drawn within Syrian territory but not one between Israel and Syria. 3. Gaza and the West Bank are different colors. 4. An international border is placed between Israel and Gaza but not between Israel and the West Bank. 5. The Golan and the West Bank are the same color where their status is different. 6. The difference in color between Israel and the West Bank is too small. 7. There are areas east of the Green Line with the same color as Israel, presumably because they are west of the barrier route. nableezy - 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been saying this all along. The map maybe represents a political territorial dispute but not the location of the municipality of Jerusalem, nor does it reflect the continuous administrative area it covers. There is no border dividing Jerusalem between two districts as the map shows. It's also painfully large for use in the infobx and has too many unnecessary details. But notice after countless efforts to explain this, Nableezy responds as if nothing of substance was said and continues with his territorial political arguments. There's a serious problem of attitude here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You actually have not been saying that at all. You still have not said what unnecessary details are in the map, besides the rather funny belief that including the fact that EJ is in the Palestinian territories is an unnecessary detail. nableezy - 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not been reading attentively nor listening, and you're still being evasive and disruptive. I've said exactly that throughout the discussion. In file:Jerusalem1map.png, East Jerusalem is marked in Palestinian territory by the line running through the city, your sarcasm about it being funny is more of your evasive and disruptive attitude. Your map shows unnecessary details such as the entire West Bank, Jordan, and other towns which make it a map of central Israel and not a location map of Jerusalem. It is also a map about the territorial political dispute and belongs somewhere else. Not in a map showing the location of a municipality. Until you become a little more collaborative and show that you consider what's being said, so as to make speaking with you worthwhile, I'll not be wasting my time explaining myself again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you really should reconsider your proclivity for making things up. You, nor anybody else, has, prior to Yn's comment, said that the location of the Jerusalem as shown on that map is inaccurate. That is the lone issue that Yn raises that has any validity, and I will be asking others to see if they agree with him. nableezy - 15:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

So far number of maps were considered:

• Where is Jerusalem?
• 
  Dead Sea terrain location map
• 
  Ashdod Israel map
• 
  West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements)
• 
  Central-IL WB Gaza map
• 
  Jerusalem map Green Line
• 
  An improved version of that map
• 
  Jerusalem1map
• 
  Jerusalem terrain location map
• 
  Jerusalem location with amended border and color issues
• 
  Jerusalem location monotone1
• 
  Jerusalem location monotone2
• 
  Jerusalem location monotone3
• 
  Jerusalem location new color

It appears that the hell refuses to freeze over and no new common ground was found. Consensus is not synonymous with unanimous decision and we could start banning editors who disagree, but in meanwhile, I'm going to implement WP:BRD guideline and revert to long standing version. And to avoid a pepper spray contamination I suggest establishing consensus first - editing later approach. And for people interested in infobox image discussions, see Talk:Pregnancy#RfC:_Which_photo_should_we_use_in_the_lead.3F recently closed by User:Jimbo Wales... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You didnt revert a bold edit, you reverted an edit that had consensus. Considering your past I would have hoped you would not do that anymore. nableezy - 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view the root of the problem was that editing started before consensus was established, with several bold changes, each change objected by some of discussing editors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats so nice for your view. What I see is that you reverted an edit that have 5 people supporting and 2 opposing. nableezy - 15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're starting from scratch, my unreserved vote goes to File:Jerusalem1map.png. The only map from the gallery that serves the purpose of this infobox appropriately and correctly. The longstanding map is fine for another use but it does not show the location of Jerusalem, which this map should. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, Nicosia. It's easy. The complexity isn't in the infobox. Detailed maps can go in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia is a barren map with only Nicosia in it. It's also a horizontal thin map suitable for the infobox. It much more resembles File:Jerusalem1map.png than Nableezy's more detailed map that can go in the article, as you suggest. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you not realize how flawed your map is even you want to consider the "reality of the situation?" All the Area "A"'s in the West Bank are administered by the Palestinian Security, both in civil and security affairs. So we ought to draw a line around those areas in the map you are proposing to reflect the "reality" of the situation, right? -asad (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It only looks flawed in the eyes of someone trying to add extraneous political/territorial details that the map doesn't need for a location of Jerusalem's administrative municipality. Look at Nicosia Cyprus location map again. It doesn't even distinguish color between Greek and Turkish administrations. When someone tried such a map here it was refused because it doesn't show territorial disputes. This map is not intended to be about WB administration that it needs all that detail. There are other places to make such a statement. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Asad, then let's use this map, which shows the areas owned by the Palestinian authority... Although Michael's map is the best option if you want a simple map that shows the accurate location of Jerusalem in Israel and the West Bank... I don't get why you oppose to that map-- Someone35  16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you dont get that you simply are not paying attention. The reasons Michael's favored map is unacceptable have been repeated several times. Wikipedia is not in the business of accepting expansionist propaganda as fact in its articles. nableezy - 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to make things more complicated with such a map. The arguments for all that detail are not relevant to what the infobox needs. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you are either being disingenuous or dishonest, I cant figure which, when you claim that your favored map doesn't show territorial disputes. On the contrary, your map takes a position, a minority position at that, in the territorial dispute, claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel. Your repeated posturing over others supposed political motives when you are the user who is attempting to force a fringe political viewpoint into the article as though it were fact is more than a bit hypocritical and not at all endearing. nableezy - 16:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're distorting what I say about administrative area again and turning it into an issue of territorial claim. These are two distinct issues and you apparently do not understand the difference between them. I've tried to be more than endearing to you in the face of your repeated antagonism, lording it over everyone and personal insults here (hypocritical), while pushing a political issue into a location map. If you'd like to understand my endearment, then please start showing some of it yourself, and you'll see that I've been very patient and nice with you considering your hostility. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, it must be my self-destructive and violent Arab nature that keeps getting in the way. You, again, miss the point. By claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel you are pushing a political POV, an extreme minority one. It doesnt magically disappear because you say so, and your repeated attempts to claim all those who reject your blatant POV push are in fact the ones politicizing the issue is, again, incredibly hypocritical. nableezy - 16:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said that about you so don't try to distort my words with inflammatory accusations. No one claimed "Palestinian territory as being in Israel". Jerusalem is administered by Israel which is what a location map of the Jerusalem municipality should convey. But even so, the proper map shows the line dividing the territories, which is apparently not enough for you. I'm not keeping track of your personal insults but try to be more careful because someone else might be. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please have a look at File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg for a reality check, both in terms of the detailed map and the small overview map in the lower right. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sean, please don't insinuate that I need a reality check. And I'm not sure what you're saying anymore. First you said everything was simple with the Nicosia map. Now you're introducing a much more complicated map. I don't know why you've changed your position so you might want to help me understand. I've said repeatedly that there's a place for such a map but it doesn't belong in this infobox. Go ahead and insert the CIA map into the article where it talks about the current territorial issues. That's where such a map belongs. This dispute is about what's proper for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the tiny map in the right hand corner of the CIA map as an example. -asad (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what Sean was talking about. But my answer remains that the CIA map is not a location map of the Jerusalem municipality. It's a territorial dispute map. Period. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

reality check in wiki-world=how RS do it, what are the features they regard as important enough to include. Michael, I don't insinuate. If I want to tell you something I will tell you straight and I know you won't cry about it. Let's try to stick to the matter at hand. And yes, I mostly meant the tiny map (because above all else we need a map that shows where the city is) but also to illustrate that of course RS include the green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would hesitate to equate reality with RS and I'd like to see where any WP policy makes such "wiki-world" assertion. Even WP:RS doesn't make such a broad claim. Such a map as in the small CIA version denotes Jerusalem's position relative to the territorial dispute. It is not an applicable RS for showing the administrative area of a municipality in its infobox. But the municipal administration map in File:Jerusalem1map.png already shows the green line. Why that's not enough for you is beyond me. So I'm left with feeling that some editors are arguing for removing the appropriate municipality's administrative area in favor of asserting a territorial issue that belongs elsewhere. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I'm sure you don't really think that drawing the "separation fence" as some kind of border between Israel and the WB wouldn't be an extreme claim with regard to a territorial dispute? Not even the Israeli government claims that those areas are in Israel. The Israeli government does claim that the Golan Heights would be in Israel, but that's a minority viewpoint internationally, so again pushing it is an extreme claim with regard to a territorial dispute. Likewise File:Jerusalem1map.png shows no red line between Israel and the WB, and the left-hand side gives the impression that Jerusalem would fall entirely within Israel. Now since I don't believe you think so, why are you pushing this? Do you know that filibustering on a talkpage can get you banned? --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are again speaking about a territorial dispute. Do I have to repeat myself every time about what a municipal administrative area map for an infobox is? If you're going to threaten me with getting banned then I suggest you report me or don't say anything about it altogether. I'm not impressed with hot air. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I see an example of someone getting banned for "filibustering on a talkpage"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, if you want a borderless map that is simple then why did you refuse to this map?-- Someone35  12:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, according to Template:Infobox settlement the pushpin map in this infobox (which is what we're discussing) is a "location map", not a "municipal administrative map". NMMNG, WP:IDHT is included in WP:DE. The latter begins by saying: "This page in a nutshell: Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare, I'm going to explain this one more time because you seem to have not read the discussions here, or you haven't paid attention. A location map of Jerusalem is a location map of a municipality. A municipality is defined by its administrative area which in this case is one continuous area on the ground in reality. Which means that using a map that only shows Jerusalem straddling the green line is incorrect and misleading because it gives the impression that there is a border dividing Jerusalem's municipality into two administrations, which is not the case. The border of the green line can be there but it should not override the fact that Jerusalem is located in one continuous administrative area. The other thing you didn't pay attention to or read is WP:IDHT and WP:DE, because if you had read it or paid attention then you would have realized that it talks about disruptive editing on the article page itself and not discussions in the talk page. Pleas read it again before making inflammatory threats and accusations about banning people you disagree with, which is highly frowned upon in WP. This talk page is intended exactly for this type of discussion and no one is "filibustering". We are trying to clarify the disagreement and come to some consensus on how to solve the problem of the map. That's what this talk page is for. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a few points: 1) the location is that of Jerusalem, not a "municipality". Israel's definitions of what's in Jerusalem's "municipality", you will recall, are null and void and have no legal effect. 2) There is very much an administrative border that runs right through Jerusalem, namely the Green Line, and this is present also on the ground. This can be seen in the level of funding to schools, garbage collection, building permits, etc. etc. 3) No-one gives a damn what Israel thinks is it's "administration" of Jerusalem since no-one accepts Israel has any jurisdiction there. Therefore arguing based on it concerning what we draw on maps in the real world doesn't make sense, IMHO. 4) I cite from WP:DE: "Disruptive editors sometimes attempt to evade disciplinary action (...) Their edits are largely confined to talk-pages". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean we should be putting borders around neighborhoods that have complaints to the municipality or neighborhoods that are less affluent than others? I don't think you'll find a reliable source that says "no one" agrees with Israel's position, or that "no one" cares, nor any source that says E Jerusalem is in a separate administrative area from the rest of the city. About WP:DE, if you read the entire sentence it continues: "such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article." If anything, I seem to be the one trying hardest to help get an agreement here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I suggest you re-read the post you're replying to here. The aim on talkpages isn't to produce a maximal amount of text, it's to agree on content for the related article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone35, In what way is that map borderless (as there are several borders in it)? For the record, I'm also OK with the "Dead Sea terrain location map", if this is furnished with a red dot at roughly the right place. --Dailycare (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made and uploaded a new map and placed it in the gallery of this section that Agada compiled, File:Jerusalem2map.jpg. It's a borderless terrain map in the style of the small horizontal location maps that are more suitable for these infoboxes, and the Nicosia map that Sean suggested. If there are no objections, we can replace the present map and consider the problem solved. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I object to that map because it is effectively whitewashing the the POV of the overwhelming majority because a minority POV can't seem to get its way. -asad (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Objecting on the basis of not assuming good faith, when this proposal is neutral and eliminates POV, might not qualify as a reasonable objection. Our prerogative is to try to compromise and collaborate for the benefit of the encyclopedia. If you have a specific problem with the map then please say so, otherwise the objection is questionable. BTW, there's already a map of Jerusalem in the article which represents the territorial issue and EJ. This map is not for that purpose. Unless there's a specific objection, we should use it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you need specifics, the map is a NPOV violation because it is being used to please those with a particular POV as it is giving a map of a random geographic point in the world with no names of countries or boundaries or anything to help a reader determine where the hell Jerusalem is. -asad (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume why it's being used because you're wrong. All the information on Jerusalem's administrative area and border issues is already covered extensively in the article and maps within it. Anyone can see the information you ask for by clicking through the coordinates link. Every attempt at specifying this information in the map is met with objections. This version is not meant to appease one POV over the other, as you mistakenly say, but rather to neutralize POV completely so the location of Jerusalem can be shown in its vicinity. You're not even agreeing to this neutrality because now you seem to be saying it's either your way or no way. That's no way to work collaboratively. Let's wait and see if there are any more objections. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing to use a geographical relief map of the area to show where Jerusalem is because you don't accept the most commonly shown map of Israel and the oPTs (with Jerusalem straddling the green line) because it doesn't show the boundaries of annexed East Jerusalem (a move not recognized by anyone outside of a country the size of New Jersey). Did I get that right? -asad (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I've been saying. I already suggested a map File:Jerusalem1map.png that showed the boundry of the green line running through the city. The problem is with doing it in a way that implies two separate administration areas. But look below or in the gallery for another suggestion.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I likewise oppose a map that has no borders or names of countries or territories as being essentially useless. nableezy - 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy and asad, you wanted a neutral map, so here it is. Stop objecting to every map Michael proposes, this map is borderless and NPOV, if you really care about the neutrality of the map then you should have no problem with this map... If you want people to know where it is then change its name to "Israel and the West Bank/Palestinian authority/Palestine".-- Someone35  19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you dont decide what is neutral and what is POV. Your personal views dont concern me much. A number of maps have been proposed, and one has gotten a ranhe of people approving with you and Michael being the lone holdouts. So far we have had to accept your basesless objections. And now you demand that we accede to your favored map? Sorry, but no. nableezy - 19:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded one more revision to try to satisfy everyone based on previous objections, File:Jerusalem3map.jpg, also in the gallery above. There's no more red border on the small section, the Golan is more distinct as not in the white area, and no more border separating EJ from WB. We could use a caption "Jerusalem in Israel and West Bank". Let me know, Nableezy and Asad. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That still has several problems from the original. Off the top of my head, I still see issues with territory east of the Green Line but west of the barrier being the same color as Israel, the Gaza Strip is a different color than the West Bank, and now there is no border between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria, Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon or Syria and Lebanon. Also, the closeup side shows Israeli district borders but not Palestinian governate borders, and includes Beit Shemesh but not Palestinian cities (for example Bethlehem). nableezy - 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need all that detail on the small part of the map? It seems enough to let us know where everything is that the map refers to. Look at Nicosia that Sean suggested. The color of Gaza is different because it's not in the same administration as WB but I can make them the same if you'd like. Would that be enough or do you insist on everything else? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like the borders with the surrounding counties to remain. I also would like the Palestinian territories to be a uniform color. And I would insist on any territory east of the Green Line to be shown as Palestinian territory, not as part of Israel. Not even Israel claims that the area east of the Green Line but west of the barrier is in Israel. If you would rather not include other Palestinian cities and the boundaries of the governates fine, but in that case remove the Israeli district borders and Beit Shemesh. nableezy - 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess User:Dailycare is correct in Template:Infobox settlement interpretation, this image should be about "location". I'm still on the fence but would not object Jerusalem terrain location map. Are those coordinates correct? Mediterranean and Dead seas provide decent orientations points and match in body text location description. Thinking on improvement, maybe we could add also "World location", in left-top corner, see Location Falkland Islands, right-bottom, corner, for example. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The placement of the red dot on File:Jerusalem2map.jpg is correct. I also think it's a good map but there are too many objections against it. Let's see if the new one below is alright. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this new version would have no objections based on Nab's last comment. File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg, also in the gallery. It's small enough in the info box so the monotone color isn't boringly big, and avoids unnecessary color issues. Are you alright with this Nableezy? Asad? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to assume then that there are no current objections to File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg in the infobox? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I dislike having all the territory be a single color as that also distorts the status, for the same reason that Someone's initial use of the Mandatory Palestine map was inappropriate. The land from the river to the sea is not one state, and representations that it is are inappropriate. nableezy - 17:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The map is monochrome, so all of it is the same color. I do not think it appears as if Egypt , Gaza, WB, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan are the same country. WB status appear exactly as its neighbors color and boundary styling wise. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand what monochrome is, thank you very much. nableezy - 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably was not clear, I'll try to clarify. Of cause you understand what monochrome means. Nab you have said: " ... all the territory be a single color as that also distorts the status... The land from the river to the sea is not one state, and representations that it is are inappropriate." If we follow that line of thought, since the map is monochrome, it might appear that the map represents all of the land we see as one state, which includes territories of Egypt, Gaza, WB, Israel, Jordan an so on. I don't understand how The land from the river to the sea follows form the specific representation of File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg map? How that map could be fixed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel and the West Bank areas are given a title with the same size and weight, signifying that they are distinct areas. The monochrome does not denote it is all one state because a border runs through the area and they're labeled, in the same way a line map would also have the same background color and be appropriate. A matter of personal dislike should not override the efforts put into this issue to resolve it with due considerations for all the objections stated until now. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple boundaries (not borders) that are shown between Israel and the West Bank, including the rather irrelevant barrier route, and by keeping everything the same color and not signifying what boundary separates each entity you make, essentially, a useless map. The File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png map still has the most support here, and it should be restored to the article. Given Agada's earlier recommendation to you that your non-consensus map need not be reverted, his revert of what did have consensus appears to be rather self-serving and hypocritical. nableezy - 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand, Nableezy. Is there anything else you're concerned about in this map, File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, stop complaining about any map that Michael makes, we both know that if one of your friends would have made exactly the same map then you would support it so stop complaining. That map has no neutrality issues and contains only the details it should. What else do you want Michael to put in that map?-- Someone35  19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We both know? Really? Let's turn this around to see if you cant notice the issue with your repeated directives to others. Stop complaining about every map I offer. We both know that if one of your friends had made exactly this map you would support it so stop complaining. That map has no neutrality issues and contains only the details it should. What else you you want me to put in the map? nableezy - 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, let's try to agree on something... For my part, I'm OK with, in this order of preference, firstly this, secondly this (but modified so that the line between the Golan and the rest of Syria isn't there, and lastly this if we can't agree on anything else. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already stated concerns about your first choice. Your second choice is the closest one that everyone can agree on. It can be revised to solve outstanding objections, so let's wait for Nableezy's response about whether there's anything else aside from what he's already said. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. I take it that aside from Nableezy's concern for 1) barrier route boundary, and 2) uniform color of Israel and West Bank, there are no other objections to File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg. If there is anything else, please let me know before making a revised version that can have everyone's agreement. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, regarding point (1) I see no "barrier route boundary" on File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg. See Latrun: In the 1949 ceasefire agreement, the fort remained a salient under Jordanian control, which was in turn surrounded by a perimeter of no man's land. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the no man's land is a civilian administration area, while the CIA places it within WB, yet retains the buffer zone border. I've used that source for the tone separations between IL and WB on this version, File:JerusalemWBIL1.jpg, that I'd think addresses all voiced concerns. If everyone's agreed, we can change the map soon. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you addressed the issue with the right side of the map but not the left. Make Israel one color, the Palestinian territories another, and the surrounding countries another. I dont know why this is so hard. nableezy - 14:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The left side is not a map in that sense of the word. It's only there to show the relative place of the cutout for the right side. It's the way many location maps are done and it's not reasonable to demand more detail there. It's clear enough because there are borders for everything. Getting into detailed separations there is unnecessary, distracting, and brings into play disputable issues that are not relevant to Jerusalem's location in the region. There are other places to show such details, this need not be one. All details relative to Jerusalem are designated on the right side. I've done everything possible to answer all your issues but what you're asking for now has no bearing on the needs of this map, nor is it necessary in this case. Let's not overextend its function beyond the specific need here. Please. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cmon now, of course it is a map. I have also done everything I can to satisfy the objections to this map and it includes all details relative to Jerusalem and yet you insist it is unusable. It in fact is not clear the Gaza and the West Bank are both Palestinian territory in your map. And it is not clear because Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Israel are all one color in that map. If you dont want to correct that fine, but as it stands the map that still has garnered the most support, from multiple "sides" is File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png. Barring an acceptable alternative that map should be restored to the article. nableezy - 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, didn't you ask before for a uniform color for Israel and the West Bank?-- Someone35  17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I did not. nableezy - 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then that means you think there should be a contrast between Israel, the West Bank and other countries. I helped you doing that with my last edit to the map, hope you like it since it helps improving the contrast between Israel and the West Bank.-- Someone35  17:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. nableezy - 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You took it upon yourself to write over another person's work on commons. Kindly dont do that. If you want to upload a different map you are free to do so. But dont overwrite one created by somebody else (me). nableezy - 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It still seems to be true that Nableezy's map has most support. Concerning Michael's map, there is also the concern of mine that there is an extra line between the Golan and the rest of Syria. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an extra line at all, Dailycare. It shows the area under the evil Israeli occupation and oppression. Surely you support showing that, instead of no border which would place it under the benevolent and merciful administration of Syria that's all over the headlines these days. BTW, You're on record for supporting an earlier version of this map which had a similar color demarcation for the area. Also see below that Nableezy's map does not have a majority as he and you seem to believe. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the show of support for maps proposed here and whether this map has majority support as Nab said. After tallying the discussion, here's a list of all the maps offered and support voiced for them. Some editors supported more than one map and the votes reflect it. Also, some maps went through slight variations to try to gain consensus, like Nab's and mine, so they're listed together. They are litsed in the order the first version appeared.

• Template:Location map Israel - MN (Michael Netzer), AU (Agada Urbanit) - 2 votes.
• File:Palestine location map.svg - NAB (Nableezy) 1 vote.
• File:Ashdod Israel Map.png - AS (Assad) 1 vote.
• File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png - NAB, SO (Someone35), - 2 votes.
• File:Israel and occupied territories map.png - NAB, 1vote.
• File:Central-IL WB Gaza map.png (with one revision below) - MN, AS, SO, - 3 votes.

File:Central-IL WB Gaza map 3.png

• File:Israel outline jerusalem.png (with 4 revisions below) - MN, NMMNG, AU, YnHockey, DC (Dailycare) - 5 votes.

File:Jerusalem1map.png

File:Jerusalem3map.jpg

File:JerusalemWBIL.jpg

File:JerusalemWBIL1.jpg

• File:Jerusalem map Green Line.png (revised on same file) - NAB, NMMNG, SeanHolyland, AS, DC - 5 votes
• File:Jerusalem2map.jpg - MN, DC, AU - 3 votes

The result, according to my tally, is that there is no majority consensus yet and that we are deadlocked at 5 votes each for two proposals. Everyone's welcome to double check.

But in an effort to try to solve outstanding issues, here's a new map that addresses Nab's concern about the left side. File:JerusalemWBIL2.jpg, also in the gallery. Based on the concerns raised so far, and Nab's last comment about this, no more objections are expected, but I should know better than to say that. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, I never said I supported using File:Palestine location map.svg, or File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png, or File:Israel and occupied territories map.png. But to the point, youre very close to what I would like to see, but there is still one problem. The Golan is shown in what looks like a shade closer to Israel than Syria. There are two solutions here, 1. make the Golan so that it is the same color as Syria but retain the ceasefire boundary, or alternatively you could avoid the issue by cropping that section out. Either way is fine with me, though if we have gotten to the point were we agree on that Israel should be one color, the Palestinian territories another, the surrounding countries another, why cant we agree on making the sea blue, and everything else something other than a shade of grey? If we have to fine, but right now I dont see the point. nableezy - 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing about cropping out the Golan and re-instating some color (hell's gonna catch pneumonia after freezing over twice in this thread). I'll make changes and post it soon. I appreciate your agreement and happy to have good collaboration. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO we should start another voting, since the voters for most maps haven't seen all the maps and since they voted there were new maps to vote for. Also, here's the map I made, Nableezy, tell me, what is wrong with it? That's exactly what you asked for-- Someone35  06:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that things work that way here, Someone35. Consensus is based on people who are interested in the article and are likely watching it. Everyone interested has had ample time to respond. If they're not watching or responding, then it's not our job to round people up for a voting. Issues with your map have been discussed here. The latest monochrome version was achieved after narrowing down and addressing everyone's concerns, and we're almost there. I've made a new color version of it with the last changes Nableezy suggested: File:Jerusalem WBIL.jpg. I think that should do it but let's wait a bit and see. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what will be Nableezy's excuse this time...-- Someone35  09:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Abode of Peace

in the lead is, unfortunately, a late folk etymology and thus has no place in the article. Unfortunately we shall probably never know what it meant originally, in the dawn of the 2nd millenium. Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No takers? Look 'Abode of peace' translates Arabic dār al-salām, for goodness' sake. I'm devastated that no one can see the irony in this gloss on the putative Hebrew meaning.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'Abode of peace' is a meaning of the Hebrew name. It long preceded Arabic, which is a linguistic latecomer to the name Yerushalaym. So what it translates to in Arabic is not relevant to the Hebrew meaning that preceded it. If this is devastating to you, then please register a complaint with Sunni politics that glossed the more ancient Hebrew, without any backing in the Qur'an or Hadith. I do hope you feel better and recover from the devastation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's drop the devastating incomprehension of playful collegial irony here. No native Hebrew speaker could every justify the idea that he or she hears 'Yerushalayim' as 'abode of peace'. or think that shalom has anything to do with the arcane plural shalayim. That is a rather wild folk etymology, repeatedly rejected in relevant technical sources, as you may see from the sketch in the etymology section. There are several folk etymologies regarding Jerusalem, and someone has selected this one. Why not, if we are indifferent to modern scholarly imput, edit Philo’s who interpreted it as ‘vision of peace.’ (connecting it with rā’āh’, re'ut shalom = visio pacis, or Josephus's etymology that it was connected with solyma meaning 'security') Frederick Fyvie Bruce The Epistle to the Hebrews Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990 p.159 n.16, or ther equally misguided 'city of peace'. Adam Gregerman, ‘Jerusalem,’ in Judith R. Baskin (ed.) The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, Cambridge University Press 2011 p.319: ‘although Jerusalem sounds like ir-shalom, Hebrew for “city of peace,” this appealing association has no etymological basis.’ Not to speak of Midrashic etymologies and things like 'Yerusha la'am', a legacy to the people. To privilege just one of a dozen is to privilege a POV.

'Abode of peace' is just one of many examples of folklore. Wikipedia does not pass off arbitrary historically late folklore etymologies as state of the art etymologies. The most commonly accepted etymology is foundation of (the god) Shalem.'

• Shemaryahu Talmon, ‘Jerusalem,’ in Arthur A.Cohen, Paul Mendes-Flohr (eds.) 20th Century Jewish Religious Thought: Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs, Jewish Publishing Society 2009 pp.405-504, p.495 and overpage.(‘This popular etymology, which, indeed, has clearly discernible roots already in Hebrew Scriptures cannot be considered to have either a philological or a historical basis.’ etc. I'd prefer someone to correct this before I return in January to article editing. Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier incarnations already appear in the Etymology section. The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation. Ancient Hebrew spelling was 'Yeru-shalem', not 'Yerushalaym', which apparently reflected a transition from the earlier names covered in Etymology. It's been translated from Hebrew to mean 'Abode of Peace' for several millennia. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by 'earlier incarnations'? That is meaningless. This is a technical issue, and there is no such thing as the 'Hebrew meaning' of a pre-Hebraic toponym, for God's sake. If you can come up with a policy that allows us to give folk etymologies instead of scientific etymologies, fine, but there are several folk etymologies in Hebrew, not just one. If 'abode of peace', then 'sacred security' (Josephus), 'vision of peace' (Philo), 'city of peace' etc.etc., all vie for entry by the same criterion. This, Michael, is obvious. Please reread the links. This is not a matter of fishing for the Hebrew angle, or politics. It is a matter of supplying encyclopedic knowledge to wikipedia, using RS.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant the earlier incarnations that you cited. The early scientific etymology is already there in its own section. This particular etymology appears in many more sources than others, and is the most widely known. It is not a Hebrew meaning of a "pre-Hebraic toponym" as you say. Honestly, Nishidani, I find your tone unpleasant and combative, as is your visible contempt for Hebrew associations in many discussions. Please find someone else to fight with if you must, I'll not be responding to you anymore. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote:

there is no such thing as the 'Hebrew meaning' of a pre-Hebraic toponym

You reply

It is not a Hebrew meaning of a "pre-Hebraic toponym" as you say.

I.e. you are not reading what you reply to. I nowhere said that (abode of peace) 'is a Hebrew meaning of a "pre-Hebraic toponym". I said that is what your statement implies. You are correct that arguing is pointless if an interlocutor is too busy writing about what he thinks to actually parse what the other (please read Buber) says.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, except once more, for your habit of personalizing disagreements and slapping negative stereotypes on editors you disagree with ('I find your tone unpleasant and combative, as is your visible contempt for Hebrew associations'). I am not fighting anyone. Please note that I have provided up-to-date scholarship on a technical question. You provided your personal opinions about the subject in response. The former must prevail in an encyclopedia, neither your opinion nor my own have any weight in the selection of data. Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani:

• First it was a problem of "late folk etymology and thus has no place in the article". That's seems like a problematic start already because even if it was late folk etymology (and it's not so "late" really, and neither only "folk", but I understand it's all relative}, it does have a place in the article if enough reliable sources support it, which are abundant in this case. Other sources may dispute it and indeed it's disputed in the Etymology section, but it has a relevant place in here due to long standing notablity and being widely known as such. This is not an opinion and one only has to do a quick search to see it everywhere.

You've repeated your opinions. I provided scholarly citations, which you don't address. Does semitic philology accept 'city of peace'? No. It remarks that this is a folk etymology, like a dozen others. If I have a plumbing problem I don't call the grocer. If I have an issue of etymology, I go to scholars of semitic languages, and not to popular, or old books which support my personal fondness for one of several folk etymology.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Next it was a problem of "Abode of peace translates Arabic dār al-salām, for goodness' sake." Moved by your exasperation, I tried to politely point out that the Hebrew 'Abode of Peace' preceded the Arabic gloss. I still don't understand your exasperation at the Hebrew translation relative to the Arabic.

Okay, if you refuse to see the fun of that irony, and see only exasperation, I'll leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Then things went downhill and you seemed to become more exasperated by what I said and moved on to another objection about Shalom not being derived from "Yerushalaym" and brought other derivations that are all true and well sourced in the Etymology section that you suggest could replace the "late folk" version in the lead, asserting that "To privilege just one of a dozen is to privilege a POV." But look again. The Hebrew is not "privileged" alone where it appears. It sits alongside the Arabic name in the lead, and seeing how these are the two prevalent cultures of the city in modern times, a fact that no reliable source disputes, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to be in the lead while the other etymologies grace the relevant section itself. I responded that the "earlier incarnations" meaning the earlier incarnations of the name (whether the pre-Hebrew, or early Hebrew appearances) and their etymologies, were covered in the relevant section and pointed out that "Yerushalaym" appeared as "Yerushalem" in the early Hebrew sources, denoting the transition or evolution of the name, and that 'Abode of Peace', even if some scholars dispute its validity, can be cited back to several millennia (at least two}, and more resembles the root of "Shalom" which is "Shalem".
• Then you seemed to lose all patience and objected to my choice of words "What on earth do you mean by 'earlier incarnations'? That is meaningless.". Though I really appreciate your courtesy and perception, I couldn't understand the reason for it unless you maybe didn't understand me. If you'd considered what I said, it's not such a bad choice of words. It might not be as scholarly as some of your exquisite vocabulary but I'm just a simple man trying to express myself in the clearest way possible. There didn't seem to be a good reason for you to misunderstand it, though I can understand if you did.

The Arab name does not pretend to be a gloss on the Hebrew term. Arguing that the root of 'shalom' (peace') is 'shalem' (dusk) is meaningless for these purposes. The simple solution is to write: 'foundation of Shalem/popularly 'city or abode of peace', that satisfies philological science (only a bit) and Hebrew tradition. You cannot privilege one of many Hebrew traditions over the others, or those traditions over linguistic realities, without showing a POV leg under your editorial skirt. One cannot gloss 'Lisbon' as '(city of)Ulysses' and ignore Phoenician 'safe harbour'). One cannot say 'Rome' means 'teat' or 'strength' in the lead of that article, though these are popular folk etymologies anyone raised in classical languages encounters regularly. One cannot gloss 'London' as 'city in the grove', or 'land of the tribe of Dan'; or Berlin as 'bear town'; or Moscow as 'bear river'; or Paris from 'boat'; why on earth people get fidgety when the same principle is applied to an article like this is beyond me.

• Then you said: "This is a technical issue, and there is no such thing as the 'Hebrew meaning' of a pre-Hebraic toponym, for God's sake." Now, seeing that I never said or intended to imply such a thing, I answered to clarify, to which you responded that it's implied in what I said. But you didn't say you thought it was implied in what I said the first time. How am I to know that's what you thought, especially if I know better than to imply such a thing?. And really looking back, I don't understand from where you derive that implication.
• So, really, Nish, and with all due respect, it's easy to find scholarly sources that dispute most anything in this encyclopedia. It seems that our encounters, and other discussions I see around, revolve around your dispute of Hebrew associations, whether it's J&S, City of David or Abode of Peace, it's mostly in the same direction and you always have sources to justify it. I'm not criticizing that anymore, just noting that's how it seems. It makes it hard to discuss things when, like in the other interactions, you seem to jump at every word and often assert I meant something that I didn't. Maybe you and I don't speak the same English or maybe it's something else, but I've not had this type of issue before and most people seem to understand me quite well. So, seeing your passion for this specific area, and our inability to understand each other, I wanted to explain it as nicely as possible and suggest why it might be better that we don't interact much anymore, and hopefully avoid the needless turbulence, so as not to leave things on a sour note. That's all, and best wishes to you. --

MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But editors should exercise some restraint in commenting on technical issues they do not understand. You do not understand the simplest issues of historical linguistics is shown by your remark 'the root of shalom . . is shalem'. One smiles, mentally correcting: 'both 'shalom' and 'shalem' have the same consonantal root, s-l-m.' In linguistics, of two words having a common root, one is not said to derive from the other: both are reflexes of a shared etymon. You do not understand the issues, which have nothing to do with political leverage in the I/P world of POV warriordom, as all too many interlocutors tend mechanically to think. My obligation is the same as everyone else's, to argue a case for an edit, on the best RS, as strongly as I can, when I see what appears to be an error, or oversight, or a partisan slant. This should not be taken as hostility, to the contrary. If Poliocertes comes up with the required quote, I don't fuss. I immediately adopt it, even if I might not share the view. That is what wiki editing is all about. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

While it's true that roots are consonants, it's common (at least where Hebrew is spoken) to identify them by the sound that the consonants make as a word. So when I said the root of 'Shalom' is 'Shalem', I didn't mean the word 'Shalem' which means 'whole', but rather the three consonants (sh-l-m) that together make the sound 'Shalem'. Sometimes it's said in the past tense verb 'Shilem' but the form I used is acceptable everywhere, even among scholarly circles in common speak. I can't recall ever hearing anyone being corrected for identifying a root in this way. But then again, seeing how you've established, and publicly announced, that I "don't understand the simplest thing about historical linguistics", I can only assume that you're either right about that, or that you maybe weren't feeling too well when you made the unfortunate remark. Which is also understandable. No hard feelings. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was one of the disciplines I was trained in, Michael. This does not mean that you ought to defer to my opinion or judgement. It means however that when trying to edit on an area you know little about, you ought simply to defer to the consensus of academic RS, which is not the case here, where I hear only confusion and a misplaced, defensive personal or folksy POV. I personally keep out of many arguments because I am simply not competent to judge before my peers on both sides of the editorial border. I am more than happy to take a rap over the knuckles from anyone who picks up an error I made, and calls me to order. I was told as a boy, 'never take your pride into an argument: it carries a weight that will bend your shoulders, and leave no strength for the facts you have to support.' I still feel inadequate to that advice. Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My two cents - there is a clear academic debate as to whether the word is cognate to Shalim or Shalom. My personal view is that it is cognate to both, because they both have the same root (linguistics) and have a connection in meaning (dusk and peace bear relation to each other). Since no-one will ever know the answer, we should either consistently refer to both, or to neither. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a rough academic consensus (a) that 'foundation of (the god) Shalem' is the strongest contender as an etymology (compare Jeru-el, perhaps 'founded by El' in 2 Chronicles). Semitic scholars who are not convinced of this (b) have other suggestions, but neither group (a) nor group (b) regard 'Abode of Peace' and the many other folk etymologies as relevant to the strict question of the meaning of the city's name. I have, as a compromise, suggested the strongest academic etymology be given, followed by the folk etymology 'abode of peace'. Whatever we agree to, 'abode of peace' cannot stand there on its own, as it has no claim to be an etymology 'stricto sensu', thus false, and against the relevant linguistic RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "shalem" part of the name of Jerusalem predated the Hebrew language by more than half a millennium, so looking to Hebrew for its original meaning is a bit silly. The overwhelming opinion of experts in this subject prefer the name of the god Shalim as the original meaning. Incidentally, for ages there has been "Shalem gives instruction" as an option on this page but I don't think there was ever a source given. If there is still no source we should retire it. Zero^talk 14:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In short, a second principle (I alluded to this obove). You cannot derive an etymology from a word which is attested several centuries earlier than the language from which it is putatively derived. It's a bit like Moses and the tablets of the law, bringing a written text down from the mountain half a millenium before before the invention of the Hebrew script.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The pre-Hebrew etymology is covered well and extensively in the Etymology section. The appearance of Hebrew and Arabic names in the lead is not an etymology. They appear there because of their notability in that they pertain to the prevailing cultures presiding over the city it in modern times. The meanings of both Hebrew and Arabic are furnished in such a context. The Etymology sections covers everything else. Academic RS on etymology apply for the section on etymology but other considerations of notability apply for the lead. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't keep repeating your opinion on a technical issue you are totally unfamiliar with. The Arab word is not etymologized, the Hebrew one is wrongly etymologized. Editing becomes impossible if we indulge in expressing our points of view, instead of adhering strictly to what RS tell us. Thanks, Michael.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than familiar with this issue, thank you. Personal remarks, assessments and insults about my familiarity with it, will only reflect on yourself, Nishidani. If you have no patience to discuss an issue courteously with someone who disagrees with you then you should perhaps find somewhere else to pick fights and lord it over people. Can you explain in what way the appearance of the Hebrew differs from the Arabic in the lead, that you say one is etymologized and the other not? They seem to be appear in the same context and form. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

Michael, if you want to have the last word, reply to this. It is not insulting to note you have made several remarks which, one by one, have been shown to indicate your comprehensive lack of understanding of what is a simple issue in historical linguistics. Just back off from insisting on having your say on a topic you can bring no authoritative technical sources to. It's good manners. Hand it over to any acquaintance who has a degree in linguistics, and shares your worldview. He or she will be able to separate POV from purely formal considerations of linguistics, which is all that interests me here. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a courteous first comment and then asked you a simple question about how the Arabic differs from the Hebrew. That's all that was required for you to respond to. You are not required to assess me, something no one made you an authority over. If you can't answer the question, then kindly keep everything else out of it. Try to follow your own advice on good manners before preaching to others. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you are very artful in asking questions, and protesting when you think they are not unanswered. You haven't throughout this thread replied to any of my substantial points. You have simply wikilawyered around them, and talked past them. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile: Neither you nor anyone else responded to the content of the objection to removing it. There is no consensus on this until someone makes a good case to my response. Nishidani's characterizations did not address the issue I stated. Please wait until the discussion is finished. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, i must have misinterpreted how the discussion had gone. Would you mind summarising your core argument again? In the face of the evidence above, how can you justify showing only "Abode of Peace" without referring to either the scolarly debate or the alternatives? The cleanest way must be to remove it from the lede, and then add more of this debate into the etymology section. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No apologies needed, I certainly don't like reverting someone else's edits either. I've explained this throughout the discussion above. The evidence you cite is misleading because the use in the lead is not an etymology. In the case of the lead, the term "Abode of Peace" is a translation of the name Yerushalaym, also known as Yerushalem, into English. As such, it is balanced by the Arabic name of the city and its translation into English. The reason they both appear in the lead has nothing to do with etymology. If it did, then there would be no justification for the Arabic name to be there because it has no etymology to the original name of the city. They are there due to their notability as the two names by which the city is currently known because the Hebrew and Arabic cultures are the predominant ones presiding over it today. The notion that this translation of the name also references ancient Hebrew, is only natural because it's an ancient language, but it cannot exclude its use as a translation for the purpose of notability in the lead. If we remove the Hebrew translation, one could make a case for removing the Arabic also as having no place unless the pre-Hebrew ones are also mentioned. The Arabic translation is also used as an etymology of the Arabic name but no one is suggesting it needs to be balanced by other etymologies because the mentions in the lead are based on notability of the names, not on etymology.

The concerns raised here about a proper representation of the pre-Hebrew and other etymologies, are all already covered extensively in the Etymology section of the article. Please look at it and see that it covers most everything. The Shalim source you cited, and all the others, precede the Hebrew sources, and everything there looks balanced. So there doesn't seem to be a need to expand on that unless someone produces new sources for etymologies that aren't yet mentioned. This discussion regarding the etymology is being mistakenly applied to the mention in the lead, which is based on notability alone.

The argument made for removing it, is not sound nor relevant to the reason it's there.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for "Jerusalem" meaning "Abode of Peace" in Hebrew? I don't see any in the article. Why don't standard encyclopedias like The Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica (both old and new editions) mention this "translation"? Zero^talk 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning is found abundantly in scholarly and reliable sources. Here's a quick first look at a Google Books search for Jerusalem Abode of Peace. A few of the examples there: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. The Arabic Al-Quds also doesn't have a source in the article, but it's well enough known, as is the Hebrew. As to the Jewish Encyclopedia, we'd have to ask them. But there's no lack of other sources. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, a few points:

(1) Unless i've missed it, none of these sources support your core point - the evolution and change in meaning from 'Yeru-shalem' to 'Yerushalaym'.

(2) Without support for point 1 above, none of the sources you have linked to are relevant because we have sources earlier in this discussion which established that Abode of Peace is a popular folk etymology and it is therefore assumed that some writers who are not experts in this area will use this incorrectly.

(3) If you are able to support 1 above, then we should show both 'Yeru-shalem' and 'Yerushalaym' in the lede, showing the two different english translations, and explaining the subtlety of point 1 in the etymology section.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am in two minds as to how to call this strategy of providing putative links to support your POV. Is is throwing sand in editors' eyes?, or just scraping the googled barrel for anything that might vaguely support your systematic embracing of an erroneous idea. Or is it sheer wikilawyering attrition of editors' time to get your view over by exhaustion? Good grief, you don't even appear to read the sources you adduce. Had you, you surely would not have included Egypt's Sadat as RS for the etymology of Jerusalem, esp. when he uses an Arabic term to refer to the Middle East under the Camp David Accords, and never mentions the city. I'll be scrupulopus even if the intention here seems to be to waste people's time by fudging.

• Marie Joseph Geramb's Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai, Volume 1 (1840)

dated, provincial, amateurish and irrelevant.

• Thomas Inman's Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names, Part 1 (1868)

Inman was the house surgeon of the Liverpool Royal Infirmary. He gave an etymology which is false: iru+shlam ‘place of prosperity’.

• Abdus Sattar Ghawri, Ihsanur Rahman Ghauri The only son offered for sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael, Gyan Publishing House. You give me two Islamic writers who don’t know Hebrew for the etymology? That they are ignorant of Hebrew is shown by their gloss.Jeru-city or place, salem –peace.The publishing venue tells everyone but you it is not RS.

• Paul Foster Case's True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, Case is an obscure mystagogue, the founder of the equally obscure Builders of the Adytum (the BOTA)

• James Hastings's A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume II: (1898.1904) Volume 2 says the meaning of the name is ‘city of Salem’ or ‘city of peace’ the latter agreeing with Gesenius’s translation of ‘Abode of Peace’. Did you, if you read this, did you note that the writer dismisses the now accepted meaning of Shalem, as a theophoric name, as he basked in the a blissful unawareness of 20th century semtic philology?

• Charles Buck, Ebenezer Henderson A theological dictionary, (1833) relies again on Gesenius.

• Frank Thompson's Jimmy Carter. Oh come off it! Sadat’s speech to Carter and Sadat using the phrase ‘abode of peace’ with no explicit reference to Jerusalem, but to the Muddle East?

• David Austin Randall's The handwriting of God in Egypt, Sinai, and the Holy Land, Volumes 1-2, (1862) a Baptist travelogue, outdated, and amateurish trash

• Carl Schwartz (ed) The Scattered nation and Jewish Christian magazine', 1869, dated populist trash.

• Charles Knight's 'The English Cyclopaedia: Geography', 1867, dated populist trash.

• John Newton Brown was a Baptist teacher, whose immense erudition was garnered at Madison College by the age of 20. He wandered about the US preaching and compiled a derivative Encyclopaedia of religious knowledge 1844

• Francis Edward Harrison was a Latinist, and made a traditionalist gloss on Jerusalem in his Millennium: a Latin reader, to reflect medieval perspectives on the city.

• Matthias Henze's The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel: introduction, text, and commentary, is a translation of a Syriac version of Daniel which in Syriac contains the expression ‘abode of peace’ as one of the many epithets attached to the name of the city. ‘Abode of Peace’ and ‘Town of Peace’ (The throne of the Lord, the City of Righteousness, The Faithful City, the City of the Lored,’My Delight Is in Her’, ‘The Lord is there’)she will be called,’ does not mean that Yerushalayim in Hebrew means ’Abode of Peace’.

• Citing Clifford Edmund Bosworth's Historic cities of the Islamic world, is frankly impertinent. The page discusses Islamic names for the city one of which is ‘the safe abode’. He mentions ‘abode of peace’ (dār al-salām), as a possible calque on Hebrew īr hash shalōm. The last is not ‘Yerushalayim’.

• Courtesy consists in evaluating sources as adequate to RS before googling madly to dredge up the dregs of weirdo or fossiled tomes. You have not, again, shown any respect for wiki's fundamental protocols on sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Palestine by Hadrian

"Hadrian renamed the entire Iudaea Province Syria Palaestina, after the biblical Philistines, in an attempt to de-Judaize the country" There is no evidence that this took place. The source provided does not confirm that Iudaea province was renamed after the Philistines or to "de-Judaize" The view could be taken that this was an attempt to consolidate smaller provinces in one larger one. It wasn't just a simple "renaming". In fact Cassius Dio as the ultimate source for the Bar Kokhba revolt, not only does not mention why the renaming took place, but even that it took place in Hadrians time at all. Writers such as Philo of Alexandria (Jewish scholar) referred to Palestine before Hadrian was born.

This is an open question that came up a couple of months ago here Talk:Jerusalem/Archive_15#Hadrian_renaming_of_Judea. I agree there does not appear to be any evidence to support the supposed "motive". It is difficult to prove a negative though, particularly one which is repeated often by those who have a point to prove. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is no evidence for the imputed motive, then the phrase 'in an attempt to de-Judaize the country' can be removed. One doesn't have to prove a negative. One should write with a source at hand or in mind, and if one cannot justify edits of this kind, anyone should feel free to remove such material as WP:OR. It is, in any case, not historical. Hadrian technically restored an ancient name for the province, since Herodotus uses 'Syria Palaestrina'. Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources that say Hadrian did it as an anti-Jewish act. The only OR here is disputing sources by academics on the basis of the claim that contemporary sources don't mention it. I'll add a source shortly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a disputed theory, appropriate wording has been added to caveat it. Most sources do not mention the supposed motive. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those weasel words are appropriate only if you show that there is an academic dispute, not a dispute on a wikipedia talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy. Actually, my position isn't that far from yours, only I think 'de-Judaize', 'anti-Jewish act' are words that tend to insinuate this was motivated by anti-semitism, and not by (a) Hadrian's attempt to destroy Judean messiah nationalism as part of his geopolitical reorganizing of the area (b) his Hellenic restoration ideology, as evinced by the way he repopulated Jerusalem and reintroduced the old Greek term for the area. He no doubt thought Jewish religious practices were both barbaric and politically insidious for Rome's imperialism. But he banned Jews from Jerusalem, except for one day, not from Palestine. History articles just need to ensure we don't reread the past in terms of the pathologies and obsessions of the modern world.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-Jewish act" is not something I came up with. It's what the source says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Once you get into history, esp.ancient history, you get into conflicts of interpretation on almost anything and every datum is surrounded by a can of worms. You'll find excellent sources using 'anti-Jewish', you'll find sources that stress that Hadrian developed an eirenic policy towards the various ethnoi of the Roman empire. So, to avoid a sentence expanding into a survey of disagreements among historians on any issue, one choses the phrasing all would probably underwrite. A fundamental of encyclopedic writing lies precisely in the exercise of discretion, the choice of language, that reduces to a minimum challenges from all parties. 'Abode of peace' can be well sourced for 'Jerusalem': it happens to be a well-established error based on the widespread diffusion as a fact of what were folk etymologies. Anyone with a mission can justify it. But it happens not to be true, as a large number of RS tell us. What do you do? You avoid using tendentious sources, even if they are good, and find a solution that does not mislead the reader.

The word 'anti-Jewish' misleads the reader for the simple fact that a notable part of 'anti-Jewish persecution' involved massacres of Christians, something which 'anti-Jewish' tends to blur for contemporary browsers not familiar with the subject, etc. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that the disagreement over the 'Abode of Peace' is discussed in the references themselves. You've yet to prove that a genuine scholarly debate exists over Hadrian's motives, to provide references that deny anti-Jewish hostility played a part in his decisions. You'll notice I'm not claiming exclusivity, he undoubtedly had more than mere hatred in mind, but you do have to show that there are scholars that dismiss the notion that Hadrian's act was anti-Jewish. Also, where does the mention of the "massacres of Christians" come from? You speak of 'persecution', yet fail to provide specifics. This is a discussion of the history of Hadrian and Jerusalem, not the persecution of Jews and Christians in late antiquity. Dismissal of the "Anti-Jewish" label because it might obscure anti-christian motives as well requires more substance. Poliocretes (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're asking for arguments over the obvious. Good grief, the literature on this is huge and full of dispute, see Schaefer's edited book in one of the links below. I presume people actually are familiar with the general scholarship, and didn't provide specifics for that reason. Get back to me after reading these (reading each time the whole section), and if they are not sufficient I'll supply another dozen, on controversies, differences of interpretation, Christian-Jewish confusions etc. here here here here here here here here here etc.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all your sources don't support your claim. Most of them don't even mention the issue, and those that do seem to support what Poliocretes and I have been saying (see for example this from your 6th example). Second, you have now removed sourced material from the article, while discussion was ongoing. Third, you violated 1RR. I strongly suggest you self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't make a claim. I made several commonplace remarks. ::Actually, I didn't make a claim. I made several commonplace remarks. I'm quite aware that some passages in those numerous diffs support what you and Poliocretes maintain (see diff 4 p.ix, for another example). If you read everything, esp the 4th diff you will see that Schaefer for one, on the critical issue re Hadrian and the war, which is the context for determining if he was 'anti-Jewish' (an ontological habit of mind, like antisemitism), cites a number of scholars who disagree on how to evaluate the evidence. I have absolutely no watertight personal view on any issue in ancient history, since I was trained to think anything we might say is provisory, and all interpretations to be bracketed as just-so stories or probabilities, nothing more. If I was POVing this I wouldn't have supplied diffs which support your views. I gave them, alongside others which contradict them. I've left a lot out. Go read the Egyptian-Jewish author of Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles, and the secondary literature on that curious work, and it's hard to see how read Hadrian down to 132, 15 years into his reign, as animated by anti-Jewish bias.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you're having a discussion with someone else since I was talking about a specific anti-Jewish act, and you keep going back to whether he was only anti-Jewish or anti other people as well, or if he had a general anti-Jewish bias from the before the revolt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly revert if I violated IR. All I know is, I added two RS after discussing a few points on the talk page, and they were reverted automatically, as if the opinion of scholars were my POV. I made one revert, or is age getting to me? Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You removed the text referring to the renaming of the province. Twice. Since this material was edited a few hours before you changed it, it's considered a revert. The fact that it was sourced and you have yet to provide a source disputing it (your list of sources not actually discussing the renaming of the province notwithstanding) just makes it worse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So, in these oversights, which cannot be intentional, because there is absolutely no point or POV advantage in eliding an obvious historical truism, (how could I dispute an historical fact I mention above in noting Herodotus uses the term Syria Palaistina?) you want me to revert and remove the material I added? I'd have no problem in reverting, if what you say is correct. Bewilders me that I did that. But, do you think I should remove the useful RS and material I added as well? To cut things short (sincerely), whatever damage I may have done to the text, feel free to fix, if I may delegate to you (without it counting as your revert, of course) the edit. (Context, 6 metres of chimney collapsed in my house, and I have a huge amount of movement and noise about me today).Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should remove the material you added, I think you should restore the sourced material you removed, including the sourced claim that renaming the province was an anti-Jewish act. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That was done immediately on your notifying me yesterday evening, unless I've missed something.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

City of David+Zion

I deleted 'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David.[37] "Zion", ' because it is nonsensical for several reasons. The ref used for this must support that sentence, not 'City of David'. The sentence said that tradition called 'the city of David Zion'. The identical sentence has been restored with a page ref to a text which no where supports this statement, but simply mentions City of David. Apart from the weirdness of calling an original settlement a 'neighbourhood' (neighbouring what, if it was the first settlement? This is an overflow from recent usage re Jerusalem settlements and very unfortunate).Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David.[37] "Zion". See the dot before the ref num? The first sentence indicates the oldest settled parts were called the "City of David". The part beginning with "Zion" is a new and unrelated sentence. Poliocretes (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the dot, old man's eyes, but if thus, then (a) the comma after 'the old settled neighbourhood' misled me, since I find it unnecessary.

(b) Tradition at first sight would require 'Biblical' or 'Jewish'. But that too is problematical since even in the Bible, Jewish tradition, as opposed to modern scholarship, also retains 'Jebus/Jebusite' (1 Chr.11,4;Josh.15:8 etc.) as the name for, let us say, 'the oldest settled site in Jerusalem'.

(c) The source cited does not have on that page anything justifying Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David'.

(d) 'Zion' which is not to be identified with the City of David, follows as though it were a synonym. Sorry to niggle, but I always think one should write paraphrasing sources, saying neither more not less.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The name "City of David" appears in both the books of the Maccabees and the works of Josephus, all extra-biblical and written hundreds of years appart. I think 'tradition' is a farely safe word to use. 'Jebus' is problematic since all we've got is the Bible, but if you can think of a way to put it in there, I wouldn't mind. same goes for the Zion bit. Poliocretes (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you provided a ref for a dubious statement. I've asked twice where on that reference page is the statement supported. One writes to sources. Please explain the relevance of that source to the statement.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I presumed "people actually are familiar with the general scholarship". You'll notice pages 445-447 of my ref discuss the name "city of david" at length, and quite clearly place it on Jerusalem's south-eastern hill. Sources indicating that the the southeastern hill is the original site of Jerusalem abound, you don't need me to find them. As for the tradition part; I quote from page 447: "It is hard to imagine that, like Josephus, the author of I Maccabees used the term 'City of David' improperly ... he was certainly well aware of the topographical denotation of the name ... Its location on the eastern hill is clearly indicated in numerous biblical verses ... That hill continued to be popularly known as City of David in Nehemiah time ... The actual and formal use of the name at the time of the Hasmonaean Revolt is indeed shown in an official document of Simeon's era..." Read the whole thing, there's more, and Josephus postdates the Hasmonaeans by a further 250 years. I understand that all this doesn't explicitly say T-R-A-D-I-T-I-O-N, but that's just nitpicking. If you insist, allow me to suggest the following:

• Decoster, Koen (1989). "Flavius Josephus and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem". ZDPV. Weisbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 105: 70–84. ISSN 0012-1169.
• Dequeker, Luc (1985). "The City of David and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem" in Yigael Yadin; Chaïm Perelman; Edward Lipinski (eds.). The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilizations. Louvain, Belgium: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. ISBN 90-6831-031-3.
• Y. Tsafrir, The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem, Revue Biblique, tome LXXXII, n° 4, october 1975, pp. 501-521.

I.e., without an adequate citation to back that statement, the sentence is an egregious example of WP:OR. To repeat, I read the pages I cite, and there is nothing there which would permit an editor to make the synthesis you have made, or the silly use of the word 'neighbourhood' for the first settled site on the hill. By the way there are two points on the hill which can claim early settlement, one is the City of David. Whether that is the same place as the pre-Israelitic 'Zion' is very much moot. And that is why saying that 'Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem' is dubious. Archeologists cannot excavate under all areas, perhaps once inhabited, contiguous to the City of David. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've provided you with four different refs, yet you accuse me of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here's Ronny Reich, an authority on the archaeology of Jerusalem, saying the exact same thing. That's scholarship. Removing a name that was in use for hundreds of years is not. You do what you have to do, Nishidani, I won't revert. I don't edit war and wikiwarriors bore me. Poliocretes (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, your first reference says nothing related to Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem, the City of David.'

Of the other three references, no specific page is given for two, and the third lacks any pagination whatsoever. It is standard in wikipedia for controversial statements, that editors ask those who support the statement and its phrasing to cite the specific wording used in sources. This is not editwarring. I am not a wikiwarrior. What I ask of you, has been asked of me repeatedly in the past, and I responded by typing out the sentences in my references which justified my edit. It is called courtesy, apart from considerations of ensuring absolute conformity of the text to what RS say.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The ref I provided is quite clear about the traditional use of the name. It clearly states the name was in use during the composition of the bible, after the babylonian exile, during the Hasmonaean period and then at the time of Josephus. That's at least 600 years (and I'm being generous with dating the bible). Now I've also provided you with an archaeological authority, linking said name to the oldest inhabited parts of Jerusalem. There is absolutely nothing controversial about the recognition of the City of David with the south-eastern hill. It's accepted, well established and practically indisputable archaeological fact. I would also point out that when quoting academic articles (as opposed to books), one is not obliged to provide neither exact pages nor quotations. It's a courtesy, yes, but not an obligation.

Nevertheless, here's a quotation from Mazar, Eilat (2002). The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations. Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication. p. 1 ISBN 9659029918:

"For the first two thousand years the city was located on the southern part of the hill referred to as the Eastern Hill. The hill has an elongated shape divided into three topographical components: the northern component is Mount Moriah, the central is the Ophel, and the southern is where the most ancient settlement was, subsequently called the City of David".

So what is this debate about, the use of the word "neighborhood"? As I said earlier, if it's a matter of wording, feel free to suggest alternatives. Otherwise, I've been quite forthcoming with the references. If you have any issues with them, provide your own. Poliocretes (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by this. "Tradition" or not, how can the oldest part of the city be the "City of David", when the city was in existence at least 1,000 years before David even existed (if he ever existed)? Whatever we leave in there, this needs to be clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No one - neither I, nor the bible, nor any other ancient source, nor the references I provided - is claiming it was called the City of David from the start; merely that the name "City of David" denotes the oldest section of the city. To put it another way, the original site of Jerusalem is to be found in the section of the city known as the "City of David". Poliocretes (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but that is not clear in the text, and an average reader would likely be mislead to jumping to that conclusion without clarification. On a separate point, do you have any sources which suggest that it was locally known as the City of David in Ottoman times? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(ed conflict)

"For the first two thousand years the city was located on the southern part of the hill referred to as the Eastern Hill. The hill has an elongated shape divided into three topographical components: the northern component is Mount Moriah, the central is the Ophel, and the southern is where the most ancient settlement was, subsequently called the City of David".

That is precisely the kind of quote I asked for. You seem to think I don't believe in the high antiquity of City of David. That was never in dispute. I dispute, as a native speaker of English, the phrasing employed. The quote from Eilat Mazar, despite her often criticized biblical fideistic approach to archeological interpretation, is fine by me.

I would suggest that the best way to translate your quote is along these lines:-'the most ancient settlement came to be/was subsequently/ known in Biblical tradition as the City of David.'

The ugly POV and meaningless anachronism, 'settled neighbourhood' is avoided. Tradition is not the subject, which is impossible, and being indefinite, occludes clarity that the tradition is biblical. But you will have your own version no doubt.

I don't know why this laborious interchange was necessary. In English, at a glance, Tradition named the oldest settled neighborhood of Jerusalem/(,) the City of David was patently question-beginning. I may be a nut for nuance. But the restoration of the sentence I elided because it had a 'citation needed' tag for 13 months, with a citation that did not bear out anything about some 'tradition' naming the oldest settlement the City of David, was improper in my view. I don't edit-war, or niggle to make people uncomfortable). My principles are: write closely paraphrasing quality sources, and write to avoid either question-begging vagaries or ambiguities, with a strict eye on NPOV. Thanks, therefore, for the cite, and I look forward to seeing Mazar replacing the old source, along the lines sketched above.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I amended the sentence, though I opted for "antiquity" rather than "Biblical tradition" as that could be construed to imply a far shorter time span than the references provide. Accordingly, I added Mazar but did not replace the old source, I don't think there's actually anything wrong with it. For that matter, why is "settled neighborhood" an "ugly POV"? Idiosyncratic perhaps, but where's the POV? just interested ... Poliocretes (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It just drags over, here and at City of David, into a section on ancient Jerusalem a term that is current for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem east of the Green Line. There is also the fact, quaint to my ear, of using the word 'neighbourhood' which implies in English vicinity to another inhabited site (neighbour) to denote the first settled area. When the first settled area was established, there were no neighbours or neighbourhoods which neighboured on the settlement. In correct English usage, one cannot have a 'neighbourhood' of one. It is a solecism, imprecise, conjuring up a misleading and self-contradictory image therefore, and anachronistic. Thanks in the meantime for the edit. I don't agree with retaining the older ref., as it contains nothing other than remarks on the City of David. I contested the phrasing of the sentence, not the existence of City of David. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)