This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Discussion relating to Jerusalem's status as capital to Talk:Jerusalem/capital
AV: You deleted this, but do you have any evidence or argument that it is false?
Maybe someone can answer this question which seems to be critical for some biased parts of the article: Does a Palestinian living in Westbank have free access to Jerusalem? Yes or no? According to my sources (which are a few years old - situation may have changed) a Palestinian from Westbank had to ask for special Israeli permission and was not allowed to stay over night in the city.
"The Israeli government argues it has a generous policy" is a bit vague for an argument. If the facts of access policy were accurately described, I think, we could leave this to the readers jugdement.
"Under Israel, members of all religions were largely granted access to their holy sites" would be misleading if my informations are correct and Muslim from the surrounding villages can't go to Jerusalem whenever they want. -- Elian 22:54 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
I was under the impression that at least some Arab states have now recognised the state of Israel, though for a long time they refused to do so.
This appears to duplicate the paragraph immediately after it.
This might make sense to diplomats, but it's completely unclear to me
This prediction may or may not come true.
What exactly is "the Arab occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem"? Are we referring to the years before the formation of Israel, or a specific period between one of the many wars fought over the territory between Israel and neighbouring countries? Under both interpretations I'm skeptical of its truth, but I'd like to get clarification first...
Second millenium: Jacobites in 1173? Wiki references point to the Stuart kings and the French revolution. Should be fixed! Who were these jacobites, anyway? -- Cema 15:54 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
For the record:
-- zero 14:05, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
To whoever keeps editing this page: please don't repeat edits when they have been undone by other people without investigating the talk page to find out why they were undone, or looking at the edit log. In this case there are a couple of reasons why your edit was not a good idea:
1) You need to qualify statements like 'holiest place'. Explain why it is holy. Maybe 'Sacred to three religions' would be better. 2) Check your facts. King David did not found Jerusalem, even according to biblical accounts. See Joshua 10:1, or 1 Samuel 17:54 for example. 3) Please check your spelling. Anyone can mistype, but to make the same mistake twice shows you are not checking.
DJ Clayworth 15:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Had been unaware "City of Peace" was considered a religious term for Jerusalem. My mistake. I had been taught that the name was derived from the hebrew words "Eer Shel Shalom", which taking into account Old Hebrew and gradual corruption of the name would create the term "Yerushalayim".
-Leumi
The Jerusalem page note that the city is highly contested, but does not (sufficiently?) indicate why the three religions and serveral population groups assign a special status to the city. Some history is provided but it is devoid of explanation for the attachment. One section entitled, Arab view of the status of Jerusalem, seems particularly mislabeled as the section notes the dates of construction of the two mosques and an earthquake? (is there significance to the earthquake of 1016?)
I would like to add a section on the significance of Jerusalem to Jews. I am not qualified to do the same for Christianity and Islam, and wish someone will take on this task.
Your thoughts, please, before the text is added. OneVoice 14:23, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Concerning a recent claim: there is no justification whatever for claiming that "Wailing Wall" is derogatory. It was never regarded as derogatory in the past and countless books and articles written by Jews used it freely. Even today, when "Western Wall" has become much more commonplace, the alternative "Wailing Wall" appears even on Israeli government web pages. -- Zero 10:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We all agree that Wailing Wall is in widespread use even by Jews and the Israeli Govenment. I know of no citation of the Jews ever using the term "Wailing Wall" till after it appeared in non-Jewish publications around 1917. The structure was always referred to as the "Kotel HaMaravi", the "Western Wall". Western Jews have the western term, perhaps to ease communication with non-Jews by using a term well-known to them. "Wailing" fits very well with the Christian doctrine of "survive but not thrive"....the Jews should be wailing and here is the wall where they wail.
This is also true of the term "Jew". It occurs nowhere in Tanach, Mishnah or Talmud. Jews have referred to themselves as "Bnei Yisrael", the Children of Israel, Israel being the name given to the Patriarch Jacob after the struggle with the angel. OneVoice 13:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The precise phrase "Wailing Wall" was probably not used even in English until the 20th century, but phrases like "the place of wailing" and "Wailing Place" occur earlier. There's a story that the name has a Talmudic origin: "The Talmud teaches that when the Temple was destroyed all the Gates of Heaven were closed - except for one, the Gate of Tears. that is how the Western Wall became known as the Wailing Wall." I have no idea if that has some truth to it or is a modern invention. Still, to go back to the original question, I see no reason to call the phrase derogatory and you didn't offer any. -- Zero 13:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why didn't "BV" mention in summary, that he/she added demographics of Jerusalem 12:05, 23 Aug 2003, especially doing so from an obscure source? 62.157.25.229 23:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The 1922 and 1931 figures were indeed nonsense. I'll put in the British census figures in a day or two. -- Zero 12:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Discussion relating to Jerusalem's status as capital to Talk:Jerusalem/capital
AV: You deleted this, but do you have any evidence or argument that it is false?
Maybe someone can answer this question which seems to be critical for some biased parts of the article: Does a Palestinian living in Westbank have free access to Jerusalem? Yes or no? According to my sources (which are a few years old - situation may have changed) a Palestinian from Westbank had to ask for special Israeli permission and was not allowed to stay over night in the city.
"The Israeli government argues it has a generous policy" is a bit vague for an argument. If the facts of access policy were accurately described, I think, we could leave this to the readers jugdement.
"Under Israel, members of all religions were largely granted access to their holy sites" would be misleading if my informations are correct and Muslim from the surrounding villages can't go to Jerusalem whenever they want. -- Elian 22:54 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
I was under the impression that at least some Arab states have now recognised the state of Israel, though for a long time they refused to do so.
This appears to duplicate the paragraph immediately after it.
This might make sense to diplomats, but it's completely unclear to me
This prediction may or may not come true.
What exactly is "the Arab occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem"? Are we referring to the years before the formation of Israel, or a specific period between one of the many wars fought over the territory between Israel and neighbouring countries? Under both interpretations I'm skeptical of its truth, but I'd like to get clarification first...
Second millenium: Jacobites in 1173? Wiki references point to the Stuart kings and the French revolution. Should be fixed! Who were these jacobites, anyway? -- Cema 15:54 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
For the record:
-- zero 14:05, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
To whoever keeps editing this page: please don't repeat edits when they have been undone by other people without investigating the talk page to find out why they were undone, or looking at the edit log. In this case there are a couple of reasons why your edit was not a good idea:
1) You need to qualify statements like 'holiest place'. Explain why it is holy. Maybe 'Sacred to three religions' would be better. 2) Check your facts. King David did not found Jerusalem, even according to biblical accounts. See Joshua 10:1, or 1 Samuel 17:54 for example. 3) Please check your spelling. Anyone can mistype, but to make the same mistake twice shows you are not checking.
DJ Clayworth 15:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Had been unaware "City of Peace" was considered a religious term for Jerusalem. My mistake. I had been taught that the name was derived from the hebrew words "Eer Shel Shalom", which taking into account Old Hebrew and gradual corruption of the name would create the term "Yerushalayim".
-Leumi
The Jerusalem page note that the city is highly contested, but does not (sufficiently?) indicate why the three religions and serveral population groups assign a special status to the city. Some history is provided but it is devoid of explanation for the attachment. One section entitled, Arab view of the status of Jerusalem, seems particularly mislabeled as the section notes the dates of construction of the two mosques and an earthquake? (is there significance to the earthquake of 1016?)
I would like to add a section on the significance of Jerusalem to Jews. I am not qualified to do the same for Christianity and Islam, and wish someone will take on this task.
Your thoughts, please, before the text is added. OneVoice 14:23, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Concerning a recent claim: there is no justification whatever for claiming that "Wailing Wall" is derogatory. It was never regarded as derogatory in the past and countless books and articles written by Jews used it freely. Even today, when "Western Wall" has become much more commonplace, the alternative "Wailing Wall" appears even on Israeli government web pages. -- Zero 10:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We all agree that Wailing Wall is in widespread use even by Jews and the Israeli Govenment. I know of no citation of the Jews ever using the term "Wailing Wall" till after it appeared in non-Jewish publications around 1917. The structure was always referred to as the "Kotel HaMaravi", the "Western Wall". Western Jews have the western term, perhaps to ease communication with non-Jews by using a term well-known to them. "Wailing" fits very well with the Christian doctrine of "survive but not thrive"....the Jews should be wailing and here is the wall where they wail.
This is also true of the term "Jew". It occurs nowhere in Tanach, Mishnah or Talmud. Jews have referred to themselves as "Bnei Yisrael", the Children of Israel, Israel being the name given to the Patriarch Jacob after the struggle with the angel. OneVoice 13:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The precise phrase "Wailing Wall" was probably not used even in English until the 20th century, but phrases like "the place of wailing" and "Wailing Place" occur earlier. There's a story that the name has a Talmudic origin: "The Talmud teaches that when the Temple was destroyed all the Gates of Heaven were closed - except for one, the Gate of Tears. that is how the Western Wall became known as the Wailing Wall." I have no idea if that has some truth to it or is a modern invention. Still, to go back to the original question, I see no reason to call the phrase derogatory and you didn't offer any. -- Zero 13:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why didn't "BV" mention in summary, that he/she added demographics of Jerusalem 12:05, 23 Aug 2003, especially doing so from an obscure source? 62.157.25.229 23:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The 1922 and 1931 figures were indeed nonsense. I'll put in the British census figures in a day or two. -- Zero 12:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)